[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Issue]
[Pages 18331-18605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 18331]]
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.
September 19, 2000
September 19, 2000
SENATE--Tuesday, September 19, 2000
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Dear God, we praise You for Your availability to us. You are Jehovah-
Shammah, who promises to be with us, whenever and wherever we need You
throughout this day. You have assured us that You will never leave or
forsake us. You remind us of Your love when we are insecure, Your
strength when we are stretched beyond our resources, Your guidance when
we must make decisions, Your hope when we are tempted to be
discouraged, Your patience when difficult people distress us, Your joy
when we get grim.
In response, we offer our availability to You. We open our minds to
receive Your divine intelligence, our responsibilities to glorify You
in our work, our relationships to express Your amazing affirmation, our
faces to radiate Your care and concern. As You will be here for us
today, we pledge ourselves to do the work of government to Your glory.
We are ready to receive what we will need each hour--each challenge,
each opportunity. This day is a gift, and we accept it gratefully. You
are our Lord and Savior. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Mike DeWine, a Senator from the State of Ohio, led the
Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin
the final 3 hours of debate on H.R. 4444, the China PNTR legislation.
Under the previous order, the Senate will recess from 12:30 until
2:15 p.m. for the weekly party conferences to meet. When the Senate
reconvenes at 2:15, the Senate will have two back-to-back votes. The
first vote is on the final passage of the PNTR bill, and the second
vote is on the cloture motion to proceed to the H-1B visa legislation.
Following the votes, it is expected that the Senate will begin debate
on the H-1B visa bill, with the water resources development bill, or
any appropriations conference report available for action.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, leadership time is
reserved.
____________________
TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT TO THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 90
minutes of debate under the control of each leader.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Daschle, I yield 5
minutes to Senator Lautenberg and 5 minutes to Senator Murray when
Senator DeWine completes his remarks.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, I yield
myself 30 minutes. I candidly don't expect to take 30 minutes. For
those Senators who wish to speak after me, it will probably be a
shorter period of time than 30 minutes.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the legislation before us--
H.R. 4444, the legislation extending Permanent Normal Trading Relations
to the People's Republic of China or PNTR. As we approach's today's
final vote, I want to make it clear that I believe strongly in free and
fair trade. And, I support efforts aimed at increasing free and fair
trade with China. However, as we approach the vote, I think we must
take a few minutes and try to put the current debate into its proper
perspective. That is what I intend to do.
Passing PNTR will result in lower trade barriers and more U.S. sales
to China. We know that. But, the extent of our increased sales will
depend on factors beyond our control. Our ability to send more exports
to China depends largely on China's continued economic growth, its
compliance with the bilateral agreement, and its development of a
middle-class.
While increasing trade with China certainly is important, we must put
this current debate into its proper context. We need to view this
debate as it relates to both our worldwide trade policy and to our
foreign policy and national security interests. With this broader
perspective in mind, it becomes very clear that passing the PNTR
legislation is just one part of our overall relationship with China and
one part of our overall global trade policy. There remain other
pressing foreign policy issues and other trade issues that await our
next President, the next Congress, and the American people. Let me
explain.
The fact is, as we all know, the United States is a leader in the
area of free trade. If we fail to pass the PNTR legislation, we would
be sending a signal to the world that the United States wants to
isolate China. That's a signal we don't want to send. Both by word and
deed, the United States must be the world's leader in promoting free
trade. At the same time, though, we also don't want to send China--and
the world--a signal that we will tolerate the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction--a practice China engages in openly.
In terms of our overall trade policy, we also cannot send a signal to
our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere that says we are only
interested in concentrating on the Chinese market. Since so much time
and energy and resources has been directed to liberalizing trade in
China, it may be a surprise to some that China represents only two
percent of our foreign sales.
To keep it in proper perspective, there was no one who estimates that
percentage will go beyond 2\1/2\ or 3 percent in the immediate future.
Two percent of our total foreign markets is only $13 billion in U.S.
sales to China.
Now, compare that to markets closer to home. Last year, Canada was
our number one export destination, with $167 billion in U.S. sales,
while Mexico was our second largest export market with $87 billion in
sales. Further, our exports to Brazil ($13.2 billion) last year
exceeded our sales to China. And what's more, forty-four percent of our
exports remained right here in our own hemisphere.
Those $13 billion in sales to China pale in comparison to trade
within our hemisphere. Yet, the Administration and the business
community have made granting PNTR to China their single-minded trade
focus. This narrow agenda has not come without cost.
Because the Administration has not emphasized expanding free trade in
our hemisphere, other nations are taking the lead in seizing the
economic opportunities that are right in our backyard. Our inaction in
this hemisphere has essentially made it easier for Europe, Asia, and
Canada to significantly expand their exports throughout Latin
[[Page 18332]]
America. The European Union (EU), for example, is now Brazil's largest
trading partner. The EU's exports to Brazil have grown 255 percent from
1990 to 1998.
Additionally, during that same period, Asia experienced an incredible
1664 percent increase in its growth of exports to Argentina.
The next administration and the business community need to pay
attention to our own hemisphere. That means that the next
administration and the next Congress need to pass fast-track trading
authority and move toward a hemispheric free trade area. It is
imperative that we do this. That means that we will need to expand the
North American Free Trade Agreement, which, over this last decade, has
advanced economic cooperation and growth between the United States and
Mexico, increasing U.S. exports to Mexico by 207 percent. And, that
means that we must abandon this very narrow focus with which the
current administration has viewed trade policy and start widening the
lens to be more inclusive of the markets right here in our own
backyard. This is significant unfinished business that our next
President and our next Congress and the American people will have to
address.
But, even more significant in terms of our unfinished business are
the considerable national security issues at stake regarding our
overall relationship with China. I say that because this is China we
are talking about. China is different. China, as my colleagues all
know, is unlike any other country in the world. China is a major
power--a nuclear power--and China is the world's major proliferator of
weapons of mass destruction.
Sadly, this administration has failed to stop the Chinese
government's weapons proliferation. Sadly, this administration has not
demonstrated the kind of leadership necessary to prevent China from
manufacturing and selling weapons technology worldwide.
Like the United States, China is a co-signator of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, yet over the last decade, its government has
violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty willingly, openly, and
egregiously. Their actions are well documented. For example, Washington
Times National Security reporter, Bill Gertz, writes in his recent
book:
[f]or at least a decade, China has routinely carried out
covert weapons and technology sales to the Middle East and
South Asia, despite hollow promises to the contrary.
The PRC has shown no remorse for its past actions--and certainly no
inclination to change them. Rather, China has flaunted--openly--its
violations.
At the beginning of the last decade, Pakistan was believed to possess
a very modest nuclear weapons program--one that was inferior to India's
program. Our own laws effectively banned U.S. government assistance to
Pakistan because of its decision to go nuclear, and our sanctions laws
contained tough penalties for any nation attempting to feed Pakistan's
nuclear hunger.
That was then. Today, China has single-handedly worked to change the
balance of power in South Asia and, in turn, has made the region far
more different and far more dangerous.
Today, according to news reports, Pakistan possesses more weapons
than India and has a better capability to deliver them. President
Clinton stated earlier this year that South Asia has now become the
most dangerous place in the world. We have China to thank for that.
The significant change in the balance of power between Pakistan and
India was engineered by China, which provided Pakistan with critical
technology to enrich and mold uranium, M-11 missile equipment and
technology, and expertise and equipment to enable Pakistan to have its
own missile production capability.
What has this Administration done to change this behavior?
Essentially nothing. Time after time, as reporters, like Bill Gertz,
uncovered extraordinary information on proliferation activities, this
Administration failed to impose even the mildest sanctions against
China as required by law. For example, in 1995, at the same time this
Administration was aware of China's transfer of sensitive nuclear
technology to Pakistan, the Administration was seeking to weaken our
non-proliferation laws against Pakistan. And, rather than aggressively
use the sanctions laws on the books to try to bring about a change in
China's behavior, this Administration sought to find ways to show it
had reached a common understanding with China to prohibit these
activities and thus avoid sanctions.
However, according to the Central Intelligence Agency's unclassified
bi-annual report to Congress on the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, China remained a ``key supplier'' last year of weapons and
missile assistance to Pakistan.
In the Middle East, it's the same story. News reports have documented
China's contributions to Iran's nuclear development and ballistic and
cruise missile programs, including anti-ship missiles that are a threat
to our naval presence and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf.
Further, the CIA's bi-annual report also confirmed that Chinese
government multi-nationals are assisting the Libyan government in
building a more advanced missile program.
As it stands, international rules of conduct and pledges to our
government to forego its proliferation activity have not deterred
China's arms-building practices. Further, this administration has not
enforced U.S. non-proliferation laws adequately nor effectively. The
Chinese government certainly does not take our government seriously on
the question of weapons proliferation--and frankly, why should they?
The current Administration hasn't been a leader in encouraging nations
to honor international non-proliferation agreements. Consequently,
weapons of mass destruction are in more questionable hands than ever
before.
Last year, a bipartisan commission headed by former CIA Director,
John Deutch, concluded that our Federal Government is not equipped to
fight nuclear proliferation. What does that say about our international
credibility? What does that say about our ability to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? What it says is that our
diminished credibility may oblige other countries who are adversaries
of Pakistan, Iran, and Libya to build their own weapons capabilities to
counter these emerging threats.
In simple terms, the current administration has not led on these
proliferation issues. That is why we should have passed Senator
Thompson's amendment last week.
The Thompson amendment was important because it would have given us
the ability to hold the People's Republic of China, and any nation,
accountable for proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the means
to deliver them. The bottom line is that if we are going to sacrifice
our annual review of normal trade relations with China, then our next
President and the next Congress will need new tools to pursue our
national security objectives. Candidly, the next President will also
have to use the tools that we have now given him.
So, where are we? When we put this whole debate in perspective--when
we put the debate into its proper economic and national security
contexts--where does this leave us? Realistically, approval of PNTR
does not change the disagreements we have with China on weapons
proliferation. It certainly will not change China's behavior. China
will continue to proliferate. China will continue to pursue policies
that will destabilize two critical regions of the world, placing our
soldiers and our allies in serious danger.
Now that we are about to pass this legislation--now that we are about
to advance our free trade policy--what do we intend to do to advance
our non-proliferation policy and our own national security? Does this
Administration have an answer? No, I do not think they do. Quite
candidly, they never have.
We need an answer. And, from the vantage point of our national
security strategy, I believe that if we fail to show vigilance in the
enforcement of non-proliferation policy, we will place this nation at a
terrible disadvantage. If we fail to show vigilance, we will
effectively continue a de facto policy
[[Page 18333]]
that has worked to undermine our national non-proliferation policy and
is working to make our world a more dangerous place.
Had this administration pursued a non-proliferation policy with the
same amount of intensity, creativity, and vigor it showed in advancing
our commercial relationship with China, this would have been a far
easier vote to cast.
Had the Senate done the right thing and adopted the Thompson
amendment, that too would have made today's vote easier to cast.
I fear if we do not act soon to change the current course of our
weapons proliferation policy--if we do not revisit the Thompson
amendment, and we will revisit the Thompson amendment--we will be
sending a signal to China and to the world that says our trade
interests are more important than the security of our Nation, more
important than the security of our children and grandchildren.
I intend to vote for the PNTR legislation before us because I believe
strongly in the power of fair and free trade.
The United States has been the world's most outspoken advocate for
free trade. We are the world's free trade leader. We believe free trade
is a cornerstone of a free society and a free people. We believe it can
be a step toward helping closed nations become open and democratic. No
one here can say with certainty that it will work in China, but as the
world's leader in free trade, I believe we have to try.
With this vote today, we are keeping our word as that leader, and we
are moving forward. To do otherwise, to go back on the agreement this
country negotiated last November, would send the wrong message to the
world. It would say that the United States cannot be counted on to
practice what we preach, and the implications of that message will
extend far beyond our ability to negotiate trade agreements with China.
A message such as that will affect our credibility worldwide.
Further, I have concluded that a ``no'' vote will do nothing to wean
China from its weapons-building addiction. But that is why we must not
stop here with today's vote. We should move forward and show clear
leadership and clear direction in regard to our nonproliferation
policy.
With this vote, I pledge to work with our next President to change
the current state of affairs and to work toward maintaining our place
as the world's model for free and fair trade. I will continue to push
for free trade opportunities, both within and beyond our hemisphere.
Much more important, I also pledge to work toward making our world a
safer and more secure place for our children, our grandchildren, and
our great grandchildren. I will continue to insist that China and other
weapons-proliferating nations abide by international agreements, and I
will continue to insist again, again, and again that our Nation take
the lead in this area.
This is not the last time I will be on this floor talking about the
problems with China. This Senate will regret if we do not return to
this issue. The Thompson amendment will come back, and we will insist
that it be voted on. This country has to stand strong and firm against
China and their proliferation policies. Their proliferation policies
threaten the security of our children and our grandchildren, and we
will ignore their actions at our peril.
I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for
up to 5 minutes.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my Senate colleagues
on both sides of the aisle to grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations
status to China. This is about moving China in the right direction, and
in the process allowing America's workers to benefit from the massive
trade concessions we have won at the negotiating table.
This is a critical vote. China is home to one out of every five
people on the planet, and our relationship with China is important.
This vote can also have a positive impact on regional relationships
throughout Asia. That is because Taiwan and Asian nations like Japan
support China's accession to the World Trade Organization. They know
that China's engagement will be a positive development. If Congress
fails to grant PNTR to China, we will hinder our broader relationship
with that country, make it harder for us to promote change there, and
damage America's workers and industries as they compete with other
countries for a place in China's market. The Chinese have agreed to
radically open their market to U.S. goods and services. Chinese trade
concessions will benefit the United States across all economic sectors
in virtually every region of our country. And, the changes China has
committed itself to--in order to join the WTO--will further open China
to Western ideas.
I have come to the floor today to illustrate the ways that PNTR for
China will help our families, our industries, and our economy.
Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in our Union. The
people of my state--from aerospace workers to wheat farmers to
longshoremen--have urged me to make sure we take advantage of the
concessions we have won from the Chinese. If we do not, good-paying
family jobs will be lost, and our industries will be set back for
years.
Before I elaborate on the ways PNTR for China will help America's
workers, I must address many of the concerns we have about China. Over
the years, I, like my colleagues, have been frustrated by the actions
of the Chinese government on issues like human rights, religious
freedom and weapons proliferation. As I have listened to the debate it
is clear that we all want the same things: We want the people of China
to have more freedom and more opportunities, and we want to bring China
into the community of nations as a responsible partner. We all want the
same results. The question is: What is the best way to get there? It is
not to politicize our trade agreements. It is not to turn a trade vote
into a referendum on how we feel about China. That is why I oppose the
amendments that my colleagues have offered. These amendments will not
solve the problems they highlight.
Instead, they will kill the bill for this Congress and perhaps longer
and that will have a negative impact on our country. Killing this bill
will do serious harm to our efforts to impact change in China on many
issues. Killing this bill now will forever handicap U.S. exporters to
China. It will punish U.S. workers, and it will give our competitors
from Europe and Asia a massive head start as China opens its market to
the world.
As I have thought about our relationship with China, I think one of
the things that really frustrates us is that we are accustomed to quick
fixes. In our political culture, we expect to be able to fix problems
overnight. China, on the other hand, has a far different culture.
Throughout its 4000 year history, China has resisted outside
influences. As much as we would like to, we can't change China
overnight. But we can change China over time. PNTR gives us the vehicle
to help China move into the community of nations and to benefit
America's families, industries and economy in the process.
Now that I have addressed the expectations and context surrounding
our relationship with China, I want to return to the question I posed a
moment ago: What is the best way to help China enter the community of
nations? The answer is to engage with China. In fact, our own history
has shown this to be true. Since 1980, when the United States
normalized relations with China, our engagement has helped to change
China for the better. I think it is useful to recall the history of how
different China is today, than it was just 20 years ago. Before we
normalized our relations, the Chinese people lived under the iron fist
of their government. They enjoyed virtually no personal freedoms. Their
jobs were predetermined. Their housing was assigned to them. Education,
medical care, and travel were all dictated by a government-controlled
system that rewarded blind loyalty to the state and harshly punished
all dissent. Externally, China was closed to the outside world.
Internally, China was hemorrhaging from the impact of the Cultural
Revolution
[[Page 18334]]
and other political conflicts. U.S. engagement with China has had a
positive impact on that country. Certainly, we all want to see more
progress and more changes in Chinese government behavior. I respect the
concerns of my colleagues, but I recognize that we are making progress
by engaging with China. We should not let our specific concerns
override the many advantages that will flow to America's workers by
supporting PNTR for China.
After considering the cultural and historic issues that have factored
into this debate, I would like to focus on what this vote is about. The
question before the Senate is really quite simple. The United States
negotiated a trade deal with China. The agreement radically opens
China's market to American workers, forces China to end its unfair
practices, and gives the United States tough mechanisms to hold China
accountable. The question before the Senate is: do we want to take this
deal?
On behalf of my constituents and the American people, I will vote to
put these Chinese concessions--literally thousands of market-opening
concessions--to work for the benefit of our country. The Chinese
concessions are far reaching and will impact every sector of our
nation's economy and every region of our country. This agreement
radically slashes tariffs. In fact, for some of our most important
industries, it eliminates tariffs altogether. It preserves and in some
cases strengthens our trade laws on issues like dumping, export
controls, and the use of prison labor. China will no longer be able to
require firms to transfer technologies and jobs to China in exchange
for business. If China violates its commitments, it will have the 135
member countries of the WTO to contend with--rather than just the
United States. This is an opportunity to build a strong presence in the
world's largest emerging market just as it opens its doors to the
world.
The people of Washington State have a unique perspective on what this
trade agreement will mean for our families, our industries and our
economy. One of my predecessors, Senator Warren Magnusson, was one of
the first Senators to call for closer U.S.-China ties in the 1970s. For
more than 20 years, the entire period of China's most recent opening to
the outside world, no other state has been as engaged with China and
the Chinese people as extensively as my state has. Washington State is
the most trade dependent state in the country. Soon, one in three jobs
will rely on international trade. Our ports, rail yards, and airports
serve as gateways to and from the Pacific Rim for millions of products.
My entire state stands to gain a great deal from China's accession to
the WTO.
I would like to share with my colleagues how increased trade with
China will affect three important Washington industries: aerospace,
agriculture, and technology. Let me begin by talking about our
aerospace industry because Washington state produces the finest
commercial airplanes in the world. We are home to the Boeing Company,
and thousands of Washington families work for Boeing. As my colleagues
know, Boeing competes with Airbus, its European rival. But the playing
field isn't level. Airbus is subsidized by European states, and it gets
additional financing assistance, allowing Airbus customers to finance
aircraft on favorable terms. China is a huge new market for airplanes.
Aviation experts predict China will purchase 1,600 new commercial
airplanes worth $120 billion in the next 20 years. These sales will be
hotly contested. We know that Airbus is a very aggressive competitor in
the China market. Passing PNTR will give the workers in my state the
chance to compete in that marketplace. Thousands of Washington state
jobs--good family jobs, good union jobs--hang in the balance as Boeing
and Airbus fight for the China market. That is why organized labor at
Boeing, Local 751 of the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, has publicly endorsed PNTR. The Boeing Machinists
know that if we do not compete for aircraft sales in China, we will
have ceded the largest marketplace in the world for commercial aircraft
outside of the United States. Such an outcome would be disastrous for
the future of our aerospace industry, and we're not just talking about
one company or one industry. Thousands of small businesses in
Washington state subcontract with Boeing. In addition, Boeing
subcontracts in every state in the union--creating the jobs that
working families rely on. Passage of PNTR will give Boeing and so many
other American companies the opportunity to compete freely and fairly
in China. I have every confidence that Boeing and the thousands of
Americans whose jobs are tied to aerospace will succeed in this new
environment. Mr. President, let me turn to another important industry
in my state.
Washington State is home to some of our country's finest agricultural
products from wheat to apples to a host of specialty crops. But we've
had trouble opening China's market to our exports. For more than 25
years, Washington wheat has been kept out of China by an unfair trade
barrier. This year, as China neared membership in the World Trade
Organization, it dropped its unfair trade barrier against wheat from
the Pacific Northwest. As a result, this year, Washington's first wheat
sale to China in 28 years recently sailed from the Port of Portland.
Thanks to PNTR and WTO accession, my constituents will have new
opportunities to feed China's population, which equals 20 percent of
the world's population. The opportunities are also great for another
major crop, Washington state apples. With this agreement, China's
market could open to an estimated $75 million a year in business for
Washington's apple growers. Overall, agriculture stands to see one-
third of its export growth tied to new sales to China. Washington
growers and producers will see new opportunities across the board from
pork, potatoes and barley to specialty crops like raspberries, hops and
asparagus. It is easy to see why the agriculture community has been
such a strong voice for this U.S.-China agreement and PNTR. Agriculture
has done a great job working to ensure members understand that this
agreement, and PNTR is vitally important to American agriculture.
Finally I want to turn to America's high-tech industries. I am proud
that Washington State is home to Microsoft and other technology
companies including Nintendo, Real Networks, and Amazon.com. These
companies will benefit from new protections for U.S. intellectual
property. They will benefit from the elimination of high tech tariffs,
from anti-dumping protections, and from the right to import and
distribute goods free from government regulation and interference. The
Internet is taking hold in China. It holds immense potential for
changing China's society. Thanks to this agreement, Washington State
Internet companies will be aggressive competitors in this new market.
In addition, America's telecommunications companies will benefit as
well, including AT&T Wireless and VoiceStream Wireless, which are both
based in Washington State.
As I have shown, opening China's markets will help the thousands of
people in my state who work in the aerospace, agriculture and
technology industries. We should make sure America's workers have
access to the many benefits of China's marketplace. After 20 years of
normalized relations between the U.S. and China, now is the time to
pass PNTR. After 13 years of tough negotiations between the United
States and China, now is the time to pass PNTR. And after more than 10
years of congressional consideration of China's trade status, now is
the time to pass PNTR. The Senate has just spent two weeks debating
PNTR, China's accession to the World Trade Organization, and many other
China issues. The heart of the question before us is: Do we want
American workers to benefit from the enormous trade concessions we have
won from the Chinese? I want America to benefit, and I will vote for
PNTR. At the same time, this is not our final China vote. Congress has
a very legitimate role to play in helping shape our relationship with
China and addressing our concerns. I look forward to those debates and
those opportunities to advance our ideals in China. I
[[Page 18335]]
encourage my colleagues to vote for PNTR, and I urge my colleagues to
continue to closely follow the important U.S.-China relationship.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield from Senator Daschle's time 10
minutes to Senator Hollings when Senator Lautenberg completes his 8
minutes. Senator Daschle has given Senator Lautenberg 3 minutes to his
5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we have had an invigorating debate on a
very important and complex issue--whether to grant permanent normal
trade relations, PNTR, status to China. There are many aspects to this
debate: expansion and regulation of the international trading system;
realignment of the US position within that system; review of China's
internal policies--in particular its human rights record; assessment of
the prospect for constructive and systemic change in China; and the
effect of PNTR upon U.S. businesses and consumers.
As many of my colleagues may remember, 2 months ago in the Finance
Committee I cast the sole vote in opposition to granting PNTR to China.
Although I believe in engagement with China, not isolating China, I
felt strongly that I could not in good conscience vote to make this
status permanent at that time. I told my colleagues about Ngawang
Choephel, a Fulbright student from Middlebury College in Vermont, who
was arrested by Chinese authorities while filming traditional song and
dance in Tibet in 1995. Intent only on preserving traditional Tibetan
music, Ngawang was charged with espionage and sentenced to 18 years in
prison. I strongly protested his arrest and incarceration, together
with the other Members of the Vermont delegation, the administration,
and human rights supporters all over the world.
For 5 years, we received virtually no information on Ngawang's
whereabouts and his condition. In spite of a Chinese law guaranteeing
every prisoner the right to receive regular visits from next of kin,
Chinese officials ignored the repeated pleas from Ngawang's mother,
Sonam Dekyi, to visit him. During Finance Committee discussion of the
PNTR legislation, I made clear my anger over the Chinese Government's
unconscionable refusal to adhere to its own laws. I am pleased to
report that a couple weeks later, the Chinese Ambassador to the United
States called to inform me that Sonam Dekyi would be granted permission
to visit her son. I thank my many colleagues who raised this case with
the Chinese, and I particularly thank the Chinese Ambassador for his
efforts on Sonam Dekyi's behalf.
Last month, Sonam Dekyi and her brother traveled to China to see
Ngawang Choephel. They were treated very well and were allowed two
visits with Ngawang. In addition, they had a meeting with the doctors
at a nearby hospital who recently have treated Ngawang for several very
serious illnesses. While Sonam Dekyi was very appreciative of the
chance to see her son, she was disappointed to be granted only two
visits and quite saddened to be denied her request just to touch her
son after all these years. Most alarmingly, she found her son to be in
very poor health. Despite receiving medical attention, he is very gaunt
and reported ongoing pains in his chest and stomach. His mother fears
for his life.
I fervently hope that in the wake of his mother's visit, greater
attention will be paid to Ngawang's health, and that every effort will
be made by Chinese medical personnel to treat his illnesses. However, I
believe that the only solution to his health condition is medical
parole. Ngawang needs extensive treatment and considerable
rehabilitation. This cannot be accomplished under the harsh conditions
of prison, especially a Chinese prison.
On humanitarian grounds, I appeal to the Chinese authorities to
release Ngawang Choephel. This is the right thing to do, the decent
thing to do, the human thing to do. Until Ngawang Choephel is released,
I cannot in good conscience vote for PNTR. I urge the Chinese
authorities to recognize the length of time Ngawang has already spent
in prison and to move now before his 18 year sentence becomes a death
sentence. I urge the immediate release of Ngawang Choephel.
I have not come to this position of opposition to PNTR easily. For
the past 10 years, I have supported engagement with China and renewal
of most favored nation status. The benefits of international trade for
the Vermont economy are very clear, and Vermont businesses have proved
very resourceful at developing high paying and desirable jobs for
Vermonters. In 1989, in the wake of the Tiananmen Square uprising, this
was a particularly tough position. It was difficult to know how to
channel my profound outrage over Chinese behavior and how to bring
about the greatest degree of change in the shortest period of time.
After considerable research and much discussion with people holding
many points of view, I concluded that change in China would be most
rapid if the channels of communication were open to the rest of the
world. Engagement with China on all fronts, including economic
engagement, is going to be necessary to produce the long-term, systemic
change required for expression of personal freedom and personal
initiative.
The past decade has proven that change is slow and difficult. But
there is progress, nonetheless. The reformers in the Chinese hierarchy
are now pushing for membership in the World Trade Organization, WTO.
They wish to be part of the global trading system and to open their
country and their economy to international investment and influences.
While there are some significant problems with the WTO system that need
to be addressed, I am convinced that we must be a part of that system
and we must exert a strong influence on its development. Our national
interests are best served if all major economies are a part of this
system, agree to play by the same rules, and are subject to the same
enforcement mechanisms if they do not.
We have a very strong interest in encouraging diversification and
decentralization in the Chinese economy and greater freedom of
expression for Chinese citizens. The less citizens are dependent
directly on the government for their jobs and housing, the more likely
they are to get involved in local issues, to advocate for causes that
concern them, to develop advocacy and democracy at the grass roots. In
the long run, I believe this is also the best way to improve the human
rights situation. It will take time. It will be incremental. Chinese
society will never look just like American society, but hopefully it
will be reconfigured more to the advantage of the average Chinese
citizen.
Today, my overwhelming concern is for a young man who committed his
life to the preservation of his own musical heritage. He found shelter
in the green mountains of Vermont, even though his heart always lay in
the rugged mountains of his homeland. Ngawang touched many Vermonters
with his quiet manner and intensity of purpose. Vermont will not forget
Ngawang Choephel. I have not forgotten Ngawang Choephel. I will not
vote for PNTR until he is free.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield for a moment?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in the
proper order of speakers, after Senator Lautenberg and Senator Hollings
and a Republican Senator are recognized to speak, I then be recognized
to speak for 10 minutes of my leader's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the United States is now considering a
bill authorizing the President to grant Permanent Normal Trade
Relations to the People's Republic of China when that country joins the
World Trade Organization. This can radically improve our relationship
with the world's most populous country.
[[Page 18336]]
There is so much at stake, in my view. That is why I traveled last
month to China to meet with China's leadership and some of its people,
to see for myself what is happening in China, and to ensure that I make
a well-informed decision on this day.
Some of what I saw, quite frankly, disturbed me. But I also saw and
heard encouraging things that gave me hope about China's future. And I
have concluded that the best way to promote positive change in China is
to grant China permanent normal trade relations status.
Many Americans, including environmental activists and members of
organized labor and human rights groups, believe this vote is about far
more than trade. And I agree. We cannot consider trade policy without
understanding the implications for the economy, our society, and the
environment in America and the world.
Moreover, the granting of PNTR would eliminate the annual debate over
granting normal trade relations, which we used to call MFN, to China.
That annual debate allowed us to review all aspects of our relationship
with China and developments in that country. Successive administrations
and Congresses achieved progress on issues of importance to Americans
by raising them in the context of that annual review.
This time, however, we are not merely considering whether China has
made sufficient progress in economic, social, environmental and human
rights reforms to merit extending the opening of our market--China's
largest export market--for another year. Rather, we are considering
whether China is on a firm enough course of progress that we can
justify an act of faith and open our market permanently as China joins
the WTO and substantially opens its markets to American goods and
services.
That is why I traveled to China a few weeks ago, joined by my good
friend the Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin.
I went so I could better understand China and raise my concerns with
China's leaders about human rights, labor conditions, national security
and the environment. I went to see for myself the condition of China's
cities and rural areas, to compare the wealthy coast and the
underdeveloped interior, to talk to garment workers and farmers, to
assess the extent of freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to
measure progress on human rights protection and environmental
protection, and to look into the proliferation of weapons and the
intimidation of Taiwan, to consider the abuse of power and the rule of
law.
China presented a very mixed picture. The patriotic Catholic Bishop
in Shanghai, Bishop Jin, expressed it well when he said, ``China is
very complicated.''
One thing was obvious: China is undergoing a tremendous
transformation as a result of Deng Xiaoping's 1978 decision to open
China to the world. The past two decades have seen the rise of free
enterprise and international trade, and many of the Chinese people have
experienced a dramatic improvement in their standard of living. China's
GDP growth, while surely lower than official estimates, has averaged
more than 6 percent over the past two decades and remains strong
despite the impact of the Asian financial crisis. China's economic
development is amazing, particularly in the modern city of Shanghai.
I would like to speak briefly about some of the issues I raised with
China's leaders and that will need to be addressed as we proceed in our
strengthened relationship with China.
We have to consider the national security aspects of the U.S.-China
relationship. The United States and China are not natural or historic
enemies. But serious problems and tensions exist.
One key issue is China's proliferation of technologies and materials
for missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Earlier this year, the
CIA reported on China's continuing missile-related aid to Pakistan,
Iran, North Korea and Libya, as well as nuclear cooperation with Iran
and contributions to Iran's chemical weapons program. These
relationships are not in China's interest and directly threaten U.S.
interests.
When I raised this issue, Vice Premier Qian Qichen acknowledged that
China provided missile assistance to Pakistan in the past but insisted
it had not done so in recent years. Premier Zhu Rongji dismissed my
concerns and demanded evidence of China's proliferation activities. Of
course, China has not accepted the key Annex to the Missile Technology
Control Regime. I hope China will acknowledge its past mistakes and
fully commit itself to international non-proliferation efforts.
U.S. officials have made progress in addressing Chinese proliferation
over the years. For example, they secured China's commitment not to
help Iran develop new nuclear projects. But we must do more.
The United States and China have a common interest in ending the
destabilizing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the
missiles to deliver them. We have to improve cooperation toward that
critical goal.
A second national security issue concerns Taiwan. Wang Daohan, the
Chinese official who conducts the Cross-Straits Dialogue for the
Mainland and influences China's policy toward Taiwan, stressed to us
that Beijing is willing to give Taiwan considerable autonomy if Taipei
accepts the ``One China'' policy and supports reunification. I am not
convinced that making Taipei's acceptance of the ``One China'' policy a
pre-condition for talks is a constructive approach.
I hope that China will withdraw its missiles that are only directed
at Taiwan, because these threaten an arms race over Taiwan. As I told
Mr. Wang, if you're extending a hand of peace it cannot be clenched
into an iron fist.
We also need to consider protection for human rights and the rule of
law in China. Fortunately, the House addressed these issues
constructively in the bill before us by providing for an annual review
of human rights in China. The bill before us also rightly authorizes
U.S. assistance for rule of law programs in China. I know that the Ford
Foundation and other private groups are supporting rule of law efforts
in China. We should be prepared to put some of our resources toward
achieving this worthy, if long-term, goal.
On the whole, we have to acknowledge that China has made some
progress on human rights, though it still has a long way to go.
The limited ability of the Chinese people to have freedom of religion
is a very real concern. The Chinese people, many of whom recognize the
vacuousness of Marxist and Maoist rhetoric, are unsatisfied with their
daily lives and seek a higher moral purpose, a spiritual side to life.
We saw some Chinese practicing recognized religions in permitted
places, but others are not so fortunate. Buddhists pray and burn
incense at a temple near the Great Buddha in Leshan. Catholics attend
Mass at patriotic Catholic Churches or in private homes used by the
underground Catholic Church. Muslims pray at the mosque in Xian. But
Muslims in Northwest China, who are not ethnically Chinese, cannot
worship freely.
Judaism is not a recognized religion, so it is illegal. Practitioners
of Falun Gong are arrested virtually every day when they do their
exercises on Tiananmen Square or in other public places. And no member
of any religion is allowed to proselytize freely, even though spreading
the word is a key element of many faiths.
While Senator Harkin and I did not have the opportunity to visit
Tibet, I remain concerned about efforts to suppress Tibetan culture and
religion. I hope the Chinese government will enter into dialogue with
the Dalai Lama--without preconditions--with the aim of allowing him to
return to Tibet as a spiritual leader.
So is there freedom of religion in China? I think a typical Chinese
answer might be ``Yes, within limits.''
Freedom of speech is similarly limited. Pre-publication censorship
through approved publishing houses ensures that the Chinese government
can review and approve the content of any published work. Some books
have been banned, recalled and destroyed after publication because a
senior party member or official found them offensive.
[[Page 18337]]
During my visit to Beijing, I was pleased to hear Premier Zhu Rongji
commit to continued progress on human rights. However, much work still
needs to be done.
One of China's most egregious laws, under which people could be
jailed as ``counter-revolutionary,'' was repealed in 1997. But hundreds
or perhaps thousands of people sentenced under that statute remain
locked up.
Perhaps the worst element of China's totalitarian state and arbitrary
rule is the system of ``re-education through labor.'' Under this
system, people can be deprived of their freedom for up to three years
by the decision of a local police board--without ever being charged
with a crime, much less having a fair trial. While indications suggest
a change in the ``re-education'' system may be in the works, I hope
China will eliminate it entirely.
Further, I was disturbed by the Chinese government's efforts to
suppress dissenting voices. Our Chinese hosts refused to pursue our
request to meet with Bao Tong, a former government official imprisoned
for warning Tiananmen Square demonstrators of the impending crackdown,
saying it was ``too sensitive.''
We will not forget the crackdown on democracy protesters in Tiananmen
Square, nor will we sweep current human rights problems under the rug.
That is not the mission. I am hopeful that a renewed United States-
China relationship will yield better respect for human rights in China.
China's environmental policies are another serious concern. During
the discussions in Kyoto about the world's climate, China insisted that
only the U.S. and other developed countries should have to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. But China is the fourth largest and the most
populous country in the world, so addressing global climate change will
demand China's participation.
I raised these concerns with China's senior leaders and later with
China's Environment Minister, Xie Zhenhua, at the State Environmental
Protection Administration. The reaction I got was decidedly mixed.
Minister Xie described China's concerted efforts to address
environmental problems. For example, China has reduced annual soft coal
production, and thus consumption, from 1.3 to 1.2 billion tons, with a
goal of a further reduction to 1 billion tons, to reduce sulfur dioxide
and particulate emissions and improve air quality. China is also
increasing use of natural gas and has taken steps to remove the worst-
polluting vehicles from the country's roads. However, Minister Xie then
launched into a diatribe, saying that the U.S. bears principal
responsibility for the degradation of the Earth's environment and that
China has a right to pollute so it can develop economically.
I certainly hope recognition of the importance of environmental
protection in China and global climate change will overcome the stale
rhetoric of the old North-South economic discussions, so the U.S.,
China and other countries can join together to address common concerns.
And I am hopeful that increased trade will foster more cooperation on
that issue, including sales of environmentally sound American
technology.
Many Americans are also rightly concerned about the working
conditions and the rights of Chinese workers, particularly since
American firms that follow American labor laws have to compete with
Chinese producers.
Certainly, migrant workers in southeastern China--including underage
workers--are exploited. And workers in China cannot meaningfully
organize to protect their interests. China has strong labor laws, but
enforcement is clearly lacking.
I visited a state-owned factory in Leshan, in Sichuan province, which
produces equipment for power generation. Workers using large machine
tools and working with large metal components had no protection for
their eyes or ears, no hard hats and no steel-toed boots, as would be
required in the U.S. Their work was clearly hard and dangerous, the
hours long and the pay meager.
I also visited a garment factory in Shenzhen, the Special Economic
Zone established 20 years ago near the border with Hong Kong. The
factory manager told me workers are usually on the job for 40 hours a
week, occasionally putting in overtime when the factory is busy.
Workers themselves meekly said they probably work about 12 hours a day.
But my staff looked through the rack of time cards near the door and
discovered that virtually all of these textile workers arrive before 8
a.m., take a short lunch break and clock out after 10 p.m.--working
nearly 14 hours a day, 7 days a week. And that earns them wages of 80
or 90 U.S. dollars per month, a bunk in a dormitory and meals.
The presence of American and other foreign investors and buyers can
make a huge difference.
Senator Harkin and I visited a factory near Shanghai that produces
clothing for Liz Claiborne. The company appeared to be making a real
effort to enforce fair labor association standards. We could see the
results in working conditions. For example, the factory was well-lit
and well-ventilated, even air-conditioned. Liz Claiborne's
interventions led to the construction of a fire escape, and the
workers' rights were clearly posted near the entrance. A Liz Claiborne
representative on site not only ensures the quality of the product but
also monitors compliance with China's labor laws limiting overtime
hours.
Unfortunately, not all American and other foreign firms are as
responsible. When I was in Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post had
a front-page story about child labor in a factory in Guandong Province
producing toys for McDonald's Happy Meals. Indeed, the toy industry is
probably the most notorious for looking the other way as its Chinese
suppliers exploit their workers. The bottom line is that trade with the
United States and U.S. investment does not automatically lead to better
working conditions and fairer treatment for Chinese workers. American
and other foreign companies need to make fair labor standards a real
condition of their business relationships.
So these are some of the problems I observed and concerns I raised in
China.
I come to the key question: Can we as a nation best make progress on
these issues by granting PNTR or by denying it?
Our annual reviews of Most Favored Nation treatment of China have
provided important leverage with Beijing. Congress reviewed issues of
importance to us, and members of the House and Senate and
Administration officials raised these concerns with Chinese officials.
Many times, China took significant steps to show progress, and arguably
future-oriented leaders used the opportunity to promote reforms. Under
H.R. 4444, a commission will still look at China's human rights record
and other concerns each year, but without the implicit leverage of a
vote on MFN.
Some have suggested we vote down PNTR to maintain our annual vote and
the associated leverage. After all, China will still be interested in
selling goods in the U.S. market, though we would not have access to
WTO rules and dispute settlement mechanisms.
However, voting down PNTR would not simply maintain the status quo.
Chinese leaders--and many Chinese citizens--see this debate on PNTR
legislation as a referendum on the U.S.-China relationship. Rejecting
PNTR means rejecting any hope of a cooperative relationship with China
in the near-term. And cooperation, too, has yielded important progress.
On the national security front, the U.S. and China have cooperated to
promote peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula. And the WTO
contains a national security exception that will allow us to maintain
technological controls and other national security restrictions on
trade. On the human rights front, China has signed the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, though the National People's
Congress has yet to ratify it. The presence of American firms willing
to forego some of their profits to treat workers decently has helped
raise standards of working conditions.
China is going to have access to the U.S. market regardless of how we
vote. If we grant PNTR to China, however, we will gain the benefit of
WTO dispute
[[Page 18338]]
settlement mechanisms to better ensure China's commitment to free
trade. By granting PNTR, we do give up the right to review China's
trade status annually, but we can advance our agenda on non-economic
issues through increased dialogue, by bringing China into multilateral
agreements and institutions, and through stronger bilateral
cooperation.
Economically, I believe the world and the American and Chinese people
have a lot to gain by granting PNTR.
As I discussed earlier, China's economic growth over the past two
decades has been staggering, as a result of its opening to the world
some 20 years ago. China has risen to become the world's ninth largest
exporter and the eleventh largest importer.
In November 1999, we completed a landmark Bilateral Trade Agreement
with China, which is contingent on our approving PNTR. In that
agreement, China pledged to reduce tariffs on a number of imports. For
example, all tariffs on information technology products such as
semiconductors, telecommunications equipment, computers and computer
equipment are to be eliminated by 2005. Tariffs on industrial products
would decline from a simple average of 24.6 percent to 9.4 percent.
The agreement also opens China's markets in a wide range of services,
including banking, insurance, telecommunications, distribution,
professional services and other business services. China is expected to
join the WTO's Basic Telecommunications Agreement and end geographic
restrictions on wireless services and its ban on foreign investment in
telecommunication. Such changes are good not only for China but for
America.
But establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations is something we can
do only once. Some economists have raised serious questions about
whether we have gained enough access to China's markets for goods and
services. Did USTR's negotiators get a good deal? I think that's a
difficult question to answer now. Our annual trade deficit with China
stands at a shocking $56.9 billion.
One key factor which will determine how good a deal we got is
compliance. How well will China fulfill its obligations? Through
China's WTO accession and the establishment of PNTR, we will be able to
hold China accountable for its trade commitments through the WTO's
transparent, rules-based dispute settlement mechanisms. If China
arbitrarily increases a tariff on an American product or engages in
retaliatory actions against the U.S., we could seek redress under WTO
regulations.
How effectively will we monitor compliance and use these mechanisms
and our trade laws to bring China's laws and practices into line? This
is a very serious question. China is a large country--nearly the size
of the United States--and the application of national laws is grossly
inconsistent across the country. Moreover, U.S. firms doing business
there seem to understand their immense reliance on the goodwill of
China's government and Communist Party. Will these firms be willing to
risk a deal in Guangzhou by asking USTR to pursue action against
arbitrary and discriminatory treatment in Inner Mongolia? Or will
American firms continue to emphasize cooperation with Chinese
authorities?
This bill rightly stresses the need for the U.S. government to
monitor China's compliance with its trade obligations and use the WTO's
dispute settlement mechanisms. But if we fail to grant PNTR for China,
WTO dispute mechanisms will not be available to us.
Mr. President, China is already America's fourth largest trading
partner. According to administration statistics, American exports to
China and Hong Kong support an estimated 400,000 well-paying U.S. jobs.
China's WTO accession and the 1999 bilateral agreement will further
open China's markets to American goods and services and protects
American intellectual property rights. I believe will prove to be a
good deal for America's working families.
New Jersey undoubtedly stands to benefit from China's accession to
the WTO and improved market access. At the end of 1998, China ranked as
New Jersey's ninth largest export destination, with merchandise exports
worth $668 million. Important New Jersey firms, such as Lucent
Technologies and Chubb Insurance, are already active in China and will
have more opportunities as a result of China's market opening under the
1999 bilateral trade deal.
Mr. President, there are some potential risks in granting permanent
normal trade relations to China now. While I have concerns about
China's record in the areas I have outlined, I believe that China is
undergoing momentous change. The best way to promote continued progress
on issues of concern and help our economy is to grant China permanent
normal trade relations status.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, one would think from the comments made
by my distinguished friend from New Jersey and others that the issue
was the welfare and benefit of the People's Republic of China. I have
no particular gripe at this moment about China. I think, as the Senator
from New Jersey pointed out, it is working. China has a very
competitive trade policy. They are making improvements industrially,
economically, even environmentally, and perhaps with labor standards.
That is not the issue.
The issue is the viable, competitive trade policy of the United
States of America. You would think that we had the finest, most
wonderfully competitive trade policy there could be. The fact is, we
have a $350 billion trade deficit that we know of, and this year, 2000,
it is going to approximate $400 billion.
Last month, the Department of Commerce announced we had lost 69,000
manufacturing jobs. The fact is, we have gone from the end of World War
II, with some 42 percent of our workforce in manufacturing, down to 12
percent.
As the head of Sony--the Japanese just beat us in softball last
night, and they are beating us in trade--as the head of Sony, Akio
Morita, said, that world power that loses its manufacturing capacity
will cease to be a world power.
We hear high tech, high tech. They are running around here as if they
have discovered something. Senator, you don't understand global
competition, they say. We have high tech. We want to get away from the
smokestack jobs to the high-tech jobs.
Let me say a word about that. I know something about both. I have
both. I would much rather have BMW than Oracle or Microsoft. Why do I
say that? BMW is paying $21 an hour. A third of Microsoft's workers are
paid $10 an hour, part time, temporary workers, Silicon Valley. Forty-
two percent of the workers in Silicon Valley are part-time, temporary
workers. I am not looking for temporary jobs. I am looking for hardcore
middle America jobs.
That is the competition. The competition in global competition is
market share and jobs. We treat foreign trade as foreign aid. Free
trade, free trade. They say: You don't understand high tech. The truth
is, we have a deficit in the balance of trade in advanced technology
products with the People's Republic of China. Last year, it was $3.2
billion. It will approximate $5 billion this year.
But Senator, agriculture. Agriculture? There is a glut of agriculture
in the People's Republic. Once they solve their transportation and
distribution problems, they are not only going to feed the 1.3 billion,
but the rest of the world. Come now, the 800 million farmers they have
at the moment can certainly outproduce the 3.5 million farmers we have
in America.
We had a deficit in the balance of trade of $218 million last year
with the People's Republic of China. People don't understand where we
are. I have a deficit in the balance of trade of cotton. I am importing
cotton from the People's Republic of China.
They say: Wait a minute, what about the airplanes? Well, yes, they
have orders for 1,600, we just heard a minute ago. We will cut that in
half. That is really 800, because 50 percent, according to Bill Greider
of the 777 Boeing plane, is going to be made in downtown
[[Page 18339]]
Shanghai. The MD 3010, 70 percent of that aircraft is made in the
People's Republic of China. So what are we doing? Are we transferring
all of the wonderful middle-class American jobs to China? And we are
running all over the country hollering, ``I am for the working
families, I am for the working families,'' when, since NAFTA, they have
eliminated 30,700 working families in my little State of South
Carolina. We lost over 500,000 over the Nation. So we are eliminating
working families, and we say, ``But China is going to really start
enforcing and adhering and be made accountable.'' Not at all.
Japan is not. Incidentally, Japan has been in the WTO for 5 years and
it hasn't opened up yet. I don't know where they get the idea that once
we get this particular agreement and China in the WTO, it is going to
open its market. That doesn't open markets. Otherwise accountable? The
People's Republic see what happened with the United States and Japan
and with the United States and the United Kingdom. The President was up
in New York the week before last with Prime Minister Blair, and the
Prime Minister is fighting for a thousand jobs, and the President of
the United States is exporting them like gang busters and fighting for
bananas that we don't even produce. Fighting for bananas. Come on. When
are we going to sober up and get a competitive trade policy?
For a second, I don't have the idea that we ought to cut off trade;
that is ridiculous because it is impossible. We are going to trade with
China. I just want to cut the word ``permanent'' out and have a look-
see and try to get organized a trade policy whereby we can correlate 20
different departments and agencies, our Department of Commerce and
Trade, and start really competing in a controlled global economy.
The fight there, of course, as I see it, is for market share. The
fight is for jobs. We are not doing it. I guess my time is pretty well
limited.
Alexander Hamilton enunciated the competitive trade policy of the
People's Republic of China in 1789. The first was for the Seal of the
United States. The second bill that passed this Congress in July 1789
was a 50-percent tariff on 60 articles. Protectionism. We learn how to
build up. The Brits suggested to us that we trade with them what we
produce best and they trade back what they produce best. Free trade,
free trade. Hamilton, in his writing ``Report on Manufacturers,'' told
the Brits: Bug off, we are not going to remain your colony, exporting
our raw materials, our agriculture, our timber, our iron ore, and
importing your manufactured products. And therein is the policy of the
People's Republic of China. I welcome it. I welcome the competition.
But you can't find it here in the Congress. You can't find it in the
Presidential race.
You would think we had a good policy of some kind. Nothing on the
floor. People are coming up here, like myself, reciting their little
positions, with no debate. Somebody said ``invigorating debate.'' They
couldn't care less. This vote has been fixed. This thing has been fixed
since midsummer. You know it and I know it. They will give you time.
There is nobody seated on the other side. Let the Record show that.
Absolutely nobody is in a chair on the Republican side of the Senate as
I speak.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague--I have 10 minutes reserved--if my
colleague from Illinois needs to speak----
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I make the following unanimous consent
request. I understand 6 minutes is left of the Democratic leader's
time. Senator Wellstone asked for 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent
to follow Senator Wellstone and to speak for 6 minutes on the
Democratic leader's time, unless a Republican Member comes to the
floor, at which point I will yield to them to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Hollings
from South Carolina, for his remarks. Let me say to my colleague from
South Carolina, I can't imagine the Senate without Senator Hollings--
the color, the power of the oratory and, frankly, being willing to
stand by the courage of his convictions. He is a great Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator is too kind. I thank the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to include this in the Record
today.
I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2000]
Catholic `Criminals' in China
The Communist regime in China has identified and rooted out
another enemy of the state: 81-year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng
Jingmu. The Cardinal Kung Foundation, a U.S.-based advocate
for the Roman Catholic Church and its estimated 10 million
followers in China, reports that Bishop Zeng was nabbed last
Thursday. An embassy spokesman here said he could't comment.
This wouldn't be a first for this apparently dangerous
cleric. He was imprisoned for a quarter-century beginning in
1958. In 1983, the Communists let him out--for one month. The
they jailed him for another eight years, until 1991. In
1996--at the age of 76--he was sentenced to three years of
forced labor and reeducation. When he was released with six
months still to run on that sentence, in 1998, the Clinton
administration trumpted the news as ``further evidence that
the president's policy of engagement works.'' The fatuousness
of that statement must be especially clear to the bishop from
his current jail cell.
Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all along: He
is a Catholic believer. He refuses to submit to Communist
atheism or to the control of the Catholic Patriotic
Association, an alternative ``church'' created by the regime
that does not recognize the primacy of the pope. China's
government is willing to tolerate some religious expression
as long as it is dictated by the government. Anyone who will
not submit--whether spiritual movements such as Falun Gong,
evangelical Protestant churches, Tibetan monasteries or the
real Catholic Church--is subject to ``repression and abuse,''
the State Department said in its recent report on
international religious freedom. The admirably straighforward
report noted that respect for religious freedom
``deteriorated markedly'' in China during the past year.
``Some places of worship were destroyed,'' it said. ``Leaders
of unauthorized groups are often the targets of harassment,
interrogations, detention and physical abuse.''
Bishop Zeng is a man of uncommon courage, but his fate in
China is sadly common. Three days before his arrest, Father
Ye Gong Feng, 82 was arrested and ``tortured to
unconsciousness,'' the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports. It
took 70 policemen to perform that operation. Father Lin
Rengui of Fujian province ``was beaten so savagely that he
vomited blood.'' Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have
been arrested during the past year; the State Department
cites ``credible reports'' that at least 24 have died while
in police custody.
Last month the Chinese government launched a public
relations mission to the United States, dispatching exhibits,
performers and lecturers--on the subject of religious
freedom, among others--on a three-week charm offensive.
``American voters should get to know us,'' said the Chinese
functionary in charge. The U.S. ambassador to China, Joseph
Prueher, appeared at a joint news conference announcing the
mission, and a number of U.S. business executives--from
Boeing. Time Warner and elsewhere--happily sponsored it. We
have nothing against goodwill cultural exchanges, but Chinese
and American officials should not delude themselves that U.S.
suspicions are caused chiefly by prejudice or lack of
understanding. On the contrary, Americans understand just
fine what kind of government throws 81-year-old clerics into
jail.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is all so timely. In this
Washington Post article, the lead editorial is: ``Catholic `Criminals'
in China.''
The first sentence reads:
The Communist regime in China has identified and rooted out
another enemy of the state: 81-year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng
Jingmu.
. . . Bishop Zeng was nabbed last Thursday.
He spent a good many years in prison.
. . . Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all
along: He is a Catholic believer.
Bishop Zeng was picked up last week and is now imprisoned again. I
quote again from the editorial:
. . . Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all
along: He is a Catholic believer.
[[Page 18340]]
Mr. President, every Senator should read this editorial today before
they vote. I came to the floor of the Senate with an amendment. It
merits a report from a commission we had established, to report back to
us, a Commission on Religious Freedom, chaired by David Sapperstein.
The commission looked at the situation in China and it made a
recommendation to us. The commission's recommendation was, right now in
China, as evidenced by what happened to this Catholic bishop, an 81-
year-old bishop imprisoned for being a Catholic, that it is a brutal
atmosphere and we in the Senate and the House of Representatives ought
to at least reserve for ourselves the right to annually review trade
relations with China so we can have some leverage to speak out on human
rights. That amendment lost.
I brought another amendment to the floor. I said based upon China's
agreement with the United States in 1991, a memorandum of
understanding, and then another agreement in 1993, which the President
used as evidence that we would delink human rights with trade policy
with China, we should call on China to live up to its agreement that it
would not export to this country products made by prison labor. Many of
these people are in prison because they have spoken out for democracy
and human rights. That amendment lost.
I brought another amendment to the floor of the Senate, which was an
amendment that said men and women in China should have the right to
organize and bargain collectively; they should be able to form an
independent union. I cited as evidence Kathy Lee and Wal-Mart paying 8
cents an hour from 8 in the morning until 10 at night--mainly to young
women. They get 1 day off a month. I said shouldn't we at least say we
want to extend the right to annually review trade relations until China
lives up to this standard? That amendment lost.
Then I offered an amendment with Senator Helms from North Carolina, a
broad human rights amendment, citing one human rights report after
another saying that China needed to live up to the basic standard of
decency when it comes to respecting the human rights of its people.
That is a sacred issue to me--anywhere in the world. That amendment
lost.
I want to conclude my remarks on the floor of the Senate in three
ways. First, I hope I am wrong, but I believe we will deeply regret the
stampede to pass this legislation and the way in which we have taken
all the human rights, religious freedom, right to organize, all of
those concerns, and we have put them in parentheses and in brackets as
if they don't exist and are not important. I think we will regret that.
I think we will regret that because if we truly understand the
implications of living in an international economy, it means this.
It means that if we care about human rights, we have to care about
human rights in every country. If we care about the environment--not
just in our country--if we care about the right to organize--not just
in our country--if we care about deplorable child labor conditions, we
have to be concerned about that in every country. When we as the Senate
and as Senators do not speak out on human rights, we are all
diminished. When we have not spoken out on human rights in China, I
think our silence is a betrayal.
I will make two other final points.
I have heard my colleagues argue ``exports, exports.'' I have spoken
plenty about this legislation, and I will not repeat everything I said
but just to say I think the evidence is pretty clear. Not more exports
but more investment--there is a difference.
I think what will happen is China will become the largest export
platform with low-wage labor under deplorable working conditions
exporting products abroad, including to our country, and our workers
will lose their jobs. Frankly, we will be talking about not raising the
living standard of working people but lowering the living standard.
On agriculture, I think there was a piece in the New York Times on
Sunday. Every day there is an article in the newspaper about China. It
is not a pretty picture. It is as if many of my colleagues want to turn
their gaze away from the glut in production--about the protests, about
people being arrested for the protests.
Frankly, as to the argument that we are going to have many more
exports to China and that is going to be the salvation of family
farmers--the President of the United States came out to Minnesota and
basically made that argument--we can have different views about human
rights and whether or not there will be more respect for human rights
as we have more economic trade relations in China, but so far that is
not the evidence. I can understand how people honestly disagree. I
don't believe that most-favored-nation status or normal trade relations
with China is the salvation of family farmers for this country.
I want my words in this debate to be heard. I want to stick by these
words, and I want to be held accountable. I want every other colleague
who has made such a claim, that this will be the salvation for our
family farmers in this country, to also be held accountable.
Finally, I say to Senators that I believe we will lose this. And
people in good conscience have different viewpoints. I can't help
speaking with some strong feeling at the end of this debate to say
this: I will look at this debate and vote with a sense of history. One-
hundred years ago, our economy was changing. We were moving to a
national economy--industrialized national economy. You had farmers,
laborers, religious communities, populists, and women. And they made a
set of standards. They wanted an 8-hour day. They wanted to abolish
some of the worst child labor conditions--antitrust action; women
wanted the right to vote; direct election of U.S. Senators. They wanted
the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Pinkertons were
killing labor organizers. The media were hostile. Money dominated
politics. But many of those demands became the law of the land over the
years and made our country better. So it is today. This is the new
economy. It is an emerging global economy.
What we were saying is we want to civilize the global economy and
make it work--not just the large conglomerates. We want this new global
economy to work for the environment; to work for family farmers and
producers; to work for human rights; to work for religious freedom; to
work for workers. That is what this debate has been about.
I think this will become where you stand in relation to this new
global economy. I think it can become some kind of axis of American
politics over the next 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 years to come.
I am proud to stand for human rights. I am proud to stand for
religious freedom. I am proud to stand for the right of people to
organize. I am proud to stand for an international economy but an
international economy that is based upon some standard of decency and
fairness.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, Senator Daschle, I
yield 30 minutes to Senator Byrd, 5 minutes to Senator Baucus, and 15
minutes to Senator Moynihan. I say to my Democratic colleagues, that is
all the time we have. Senators shouldn't ask for an extension of time
because there is no more time on the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I asked for 6 minutes. Was that calculated?
Mr. REID. Yes. I understood that had also been granted. If not, I
grant 6 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of Permanent Normal Trade
Relations with China. Today the United States Senate will vote to grant
PNTR to China and its 1.2 billion people. We will decide whether or not
to allow American farmers, manufacturers, businessmen and women to
trade their products, their ideas, their goods with one-fifth of the
world's population.
[[Page 18341]]
Last November, after more than a decade of negotiations, the Clinton
Administration signed a bilateral agreement that will drastically
reduce barriers on American products and services going to China. The
agreement is clearly in the best interests of our nation's farmers,
manufacturers, and workers. Supporting China's entry into the WTO is
clearly in the best interests of our economy, national security and
foreign policy.
Trade is the future. Make no mistake about it: trade can open up the
exchange of ideas--ideas like democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to
worship, and freedom of association. China stands on the brink of
becoming the most important trading partner the U.S. has ever seen and
the U.S. Senate will go on record in support of this important step in
international trade and foreign policy.
When China concludes similar agreements with other countries, it will
join the WTO. For us to benefit though, we must grant China PNTR
status--the same status we have given other countries in the WTO. And,
Mr. President, that's what this debate is about. Do we give China the
same status as the other countries already in the WTO? Do we put them
in an environment where they will have to follow the rules and be held
accountable if they break them?
Many of my colleagues have come to the floor of the United States
Senate over the last several weeks to offer amendments to this
legislation. They've all been defeated, with my help, despite the fact
that I agree with the intention of almost everyone of them. I voted
against every amendment offered because I know and the American people
watching this debate know that amending H.R. 4444, at this point in the
process is a death knell.
We defeated goodfaith amendments like Senator Thompson's non-
proliferation amendment, Senator Wellstone's religious freedom and
right to organize amendments, and Senator Helms' amendment regarding
forced abortions. I agree with the intent of my colleagues. China
should not engage in the proliferation of nuclear technology. China
should not prevent workers from organizing. China should not force
women to adhere to any type of ``one family, one child'' policy.
But, the bill we're debating is a trade bill. And if it's changed in
any way, shape, or form, it will go back to the House of
Representatives and die.
My friend in the House of Representatives, Rep. Sander Levin,
successfully added language to the House-passed legislation that, I
believe, holds China accountable. The Levin/Bereuter language
establishes a formal Congressional-Executive Commission on China to
institutionalize mechanisms for maintaining pressure on China to
improve its human rights record, increase compliance with basic labor
standards, and abide by current and future commitments. This commission
would review and report on China's progress in these areas and make
recommendations to the Administration and Congress. My friends who
offered amendments regarding human rights on the floor of the Senate
will be able in the future to review China's record in this important
area.
The Levin proposal would also push for more transparency at the WTO,
including urging prompt public release of all litigation-related
documents and the opening of secret meetings of the dispute settlement
panels. The United States pays dues to the WTO and we have a right to
know what goes on in those meetings. I've heard over and over again
about the secrecy of the WTO. It's time for the WTO to shed some light
on what really happens in these meetings that affect real American
workers, so that workers will be able to see that we can rely on their
rules-based trading system for relief when and if it's needed.
The Levin-Bereuter proposal empowers the Congress by seeking special
congressional review of U.S. participation in the WTO two years after
China's accession, to assess China's implementation of WTO commitments.
We'll have the power to see just how well China is abiding by its
commitments.
And finally, the legislation expresses congressional support for
Taiwan's accession to the WTO immediately after China's accession.
While the Chinese aren't happy about this provision, I believe that
it's important to allow Taiwan the same trading rights as mainland
China.
America began as an agrarian nation, then transformed itself into an
industrial power, and now over 200 years later, we're the leading
economy in the world due, in part, to our ability to recognize that
competition can force a country or a company to excel or fail. America
has never feared competition.
And it's a reality that global competition is here and it's here to
stay. Opponents argue that we must stop globalization, that we must
punish the Chinese for all their human rights abuses, for prison labor
abuses, for Tiananmen Square. Every year, we vote on whether or not to
grant NTR status to China. Throughout my time in the House and Senate,
I've voted both for and against NTR. Every year, we take a look at how
China treats its citizens, wondering whether or not our annual review
of their trade status would change their behavior.
Many say that the Congress shouldn't give up that right to annual
review--that if we annually examine how the Chinese treat their people,
and based upon that, deny or give them preferred trading status,
somehow they will clean up their act and guarantee every Chinese
citizen basic human rights. It's time we changed our approach. It's
time to bring democracy to China via the Internet, via U.S./Chinese
commerce relationships, via other U.S. products. It's time to bring
social progress to China, not with messages from Congress but messages
from across America, from businesses, labor traders, educators with new
access to a society too often closed to diverse opinion.
President Clinton noted recently that ``In the new century, liberty
will spread by cell phone and cable modem.'' Take a look at America
with access to the Internet and now think back to the days when access
to world knowledge was only through the printed media. America is a
different nation because of this progress and China has the potential
to change too.
Think for a moment about what would happen if we denied PNTR to
China. I believe that if we sent that signal to the Chinese people, the
walls of isolation would be strengthened. The hardline Communists would
be emboldened more so than before. If we vote against PNTR, Beijing
won't free a single prisoner. They will turn inward and the limited
freedoms the Chinese people currently enjoy could well disappear.
And this argument ignores our experience with the Soviet Union during
the height of the Cold War. We spent trillions of dollars to oppose a
regime that was rife with human rights abuses, yet we still sold them,
in the words of the late Hubert Humphrey, ``just about anything they
could not shoot at us.''
China will enter the WTO, with or without our support. The questions
is: will America benefit from it or will the Chinese buy products and
services from the Europeans or the Canadians or the Mexicans? To me,
it's a clear choice: Americans will benefit from free and fair trade
with China. And China will change for the better as it opens its doors
to the world.
What about Illinoisans? How will farmers from Peoria and Cairo
benefit from this action? How will major Illinois-based U.S.
corporations like Motorola and Caterpillar and Bank of America and the
thousands of Americans they employ benefit from this agreement?
The average tariff for agriculture products will be 17.5 percent and,
for U.S. priority products, 14 percent, down from 31 percent. Farmers
in downstate Illinois, will benefit from this; there's no doubt about
it. At present, China severely restricts trading rights and the ability
to own and operate distribution networks. For the first time, Illinois
exporters will have the right to distribute products without going
through a State Owned Enterprise. Illinois is already a significant
exporter of farm and industrial goods. In 1999, Illinois exported $9.3
billion worth of industrial/agriculture
[[Page 18342]]
machinery. We shipped just over $6 billion in electric equipment as
well. Illinois farmers exported roughly $3 billion in commodities to
other countries. Illinois exports in 1999 totaled over $33 billion. Of
that, $850 million was sold to China.
Companies like Motorola (with over 25,000 employees in Illinois)
which pays tariffs of 20 percent on pagers and 12 percent for phones,
will see those tariffs slashed. The Illinois soybean farmer will see
the tariff-rate quotas completely eliminated.
Banks will be able to conduct business in China within the first two
years of accession. They will have the same rights as Chinese banks.
Geographic and customer restrictions will be lifted in five years,
thereby allowing them to open a branch anywhere in China, just like
they can here. U.S. automakers, like the Chrysler plant in Belvedere,
Illinois, will see tariffs on their products slashed from 100 percent
to 25 percent.
Pike County, Illinois pork producers will be able, for the first
time, to export pork to China. Under the current scheme, China's import
barriers have effectively denied access to American pork products.
We're talking tariffs in the range of 20 percent that will drop to 12
percent by 2004.
What about Illinois steelworkers, still reeling from the 1998 steel
crisis? China will reduce its tariffs on steel and steel products from
the current average of 10.3 percent to 6 percent. They've agreed that
any entity, like Acme Steel with facilities in Riverdale and Chicago or
Northwestern Wire and Rod in Sterling, will be able to export into any
part of China, phased in over 3 years.
Peoria-based Caterpillar, with almost 30,000 Illinois employees, has
recently invested in several new facilities in China. They've also
recently announced the sale of 18 new trucks to the Shanghai Coal
Company, trucks that will be made in Decatur, Illinois, and shipped
halfway around the world. This is the type of investment by Caterpillar
that maintains local jobs throughout towns and cities across Illinois.
Of course, many of these are big corporations. What about small
businesses? How will they benefit from this agreement?
In 1997, 82 percent of all U.S. exporters were small businesses,
generating over 35 percent of total merchandise exported to the East.
Paperwork burdens for America's small businesses will be reduced
drastically as customs and licensing procedures will be simplified.
America's small businesses don't export jobs to China. They export
ideas and products to a people who need and want their products and
services.
No one expects this trade agreement and our future relationship with
China to be easy. Already, Beijing officials have begun backtracking on
several of their commitments made last November. I understand that at
the most recent session of the WTO Working Party on China's accession,
China objected to having its implementation of trade obligations
reviewed every other year. A Chinese proposal dated July 14th strikes
language in the protocol referring to bi-annual reviews and replaces it
with language providing for reviews every four years. Their rationale
is that they're a ``developing'' country.
This is absolutely unacceptable. The fact is, China is not a
typically developing country and it shouldn't be allowed to cloak
itself in that status. It's a uniquely large country and economy, where
the essential elements of a market economy are taking root. Four years
is far too long a time between reviews of China's implementation. If
this proposal were adopted, it would make WTO dispute settlement the
only formal channel by which we could ensure China's fulfillment of its
trade obligations. Just one example: if China automatically received
developing country status, it would receive special treatment like
allowable export subsidies that wouldn't be treated as subsidies. If
the Chinese flooded the U.S. market with steel (as is the case now),
the U.S. steel industry wouldn't be able to use U.S. countervailing
duty trade laws because that law doesn't apply to subsidization for
developing countries. There are other areas where the Chinese would
like to backpedal. But, Mr. President, we must hold them to the
November agreement and discourage future backtracking of that agreement
by Chinese trade officials. Any unwillingness by the Chinese to abide
by this agreement at this point should be roundly condemned by this
Administration and other foreign nations, who just might find the
Chinese backtracking with them as well.
Trade with foreign countries means nothing if it's not carried out
under a rules-based system. Trade commitments require full enforcement
to have meaning. With China's WTO membership, we will gain a number of
advantages in enforcement we do not currently enjoy.
First, there is the WTO dispute mechanism itself. Remember that China
has never agreed to subject its decisions to impartial review,
judgment, and possible sanctions if necessary. That will now happen.
Second, we will continue to have the right to use the full range of
American trade laws, including Section 301 and our Anti-dumping/
Countervailing Duty laws. It's important, though, to have an
administration that will use these trade laws effectively. It's my hope
that the next President will not hesitate to bring cases against China
and other countries if they break our trade laws.
And finally, we strengthen our enforcement capabilities through the
multilateral nature of the WTO. In effect, China will be subject to
enforcement by all 135 WTO member nations, thus limiting their ability
to play its trading partners against one another. The U.S. won't be
alone if China breaks the rules.
Opponents of PNTR argue that it's NAFTA all over again. You'll
remember Ross Perot's soundbite: ``That great sucking sound.'' You'll
remember that some said the American economy would go down the tubes,
that hundreds of thousands of American workers would lose their jobs to
cheap labor in Mexico if NAFTA were enacted.
Here's Illinois' story. Gross jobs added in export industries from
1993-1998 totaled over 60,000. Net jobs totaled almost 40,000. There
was no great sucking sound. US unemployment is still low. There are
more people employed in Illinois right now than at any time in its
history. The Illinois Department of Commerce estimates that nearly half
a million jobs are supported by exports and that there's been a 51.6
percent increase in Illinois jobs sustained by exports since enactment
of NAFTA.
Yes, some folks have lost their jobs due to trade. The Department of
Labor certified 50 Trade Adjustment Assistance cases in Illinois from
1994-1999, totaling 5,718 jobs lost. Frankly, losing 5,718 jobs is
still too many. When workers lose their jobs, we should do more than
just provide TAA. We should find ways to train our workers in emerging
fields and industries so they get new jobs that are at least as good as
the ones they lost. That's the responsibility of the American business
community, educators, and federal, state, and local governments. This
is the best opportunity we've had in years to export American ideals
and products. We should also ensure we don't export American jobs.
Worker re-training is one of the most important debates that this
Congress should focus on. Today, we voted on a cloture motion on H1B
visas. I have almost 6,000 Illinoisans who've lost their jobs due to
trade, yet we have to import workers from foreign countries because we
have industries begging for skilled workers to show up for that 9-5
job. Yet, our way of solving the skills shortage in the U.S. seems to
be through the importation of highly-skilled foreign workers--a Band-
Aid approach that doesn't solve the underlying problem. America, as a
nation that gains from trade, has an obligation to use a portion of
those gains to support and re-train those who've been ill-affected. We
must do more to help American workers train for and get jobs that will
move them up the economic ladder.
In 1998, we passed the Workforce Investment Act. One important
component of the WIA is the funding stream for dislocated workers.
Grants to
[[Page 18343]]
states and local communities provide core, intensive training and
support services to laid off workers. Under President Clinton,
dislocated worker funding has tripled from $517 million in 1993 to
$1.589 billion for FY2000. This is an important program, like Trade
Adjustment Assistance, that helps American families deal with an
economy that's transforming itself as ours is today.
But is it enough? Is it enough to train workers after they lose their
jobs or do we need to start before it's too late? With public/private
partnerships, we can train America's workforce for the jobs of the 21st
Century, the hi-tech jobs, the nursing jobs, the educator jobs. It's
our responsibility to encourage companies like Caterpillar and Motorola
and Cargill and others to let local, state, and federal officials know
what types of workers they must have to meet their needs for the
future. We should encourage more Americans to pursue higher education
and skills training. I'm working for measures like college tuition tax
incentives that would provide tax deductions or credits for America's
working families to give their children the opportunity to prepare for
the jobs of this new economy. We also need assistance to help workers
with skills training and lifelong learning.
Some would argue as Lenin did that a capitalist will sell you the
rope you will use to hang him, but I think such trade serves a greater
purpose than profit. Information technology, now a key element in the
future of business, also is a key element in undermining government
control of thought and appetite. If you can flood a nation with modems
people use to learn and trade, no government can bridle the expansion
of thought and diversity that will follow.
Chinese leaders, recognizing the transformative nature of the free
flow of ideas, have tried recently to clamp down on Internet usage by
its citizens. This will never work as the authorities in Beijing will
learn. China must either give up its desire to build a modern, high-
tech economy or allow the free exchange of information that a modern
economy requires. I accept the American premise that if you give people
a little freedom and enough information, the desire for freedom,
democracy and the chance to work hard and succeed will prevail.
You can station Chinese tanks on Tiananmen Square on a full-time
basis, but if you let the open exchange of ideas and business
transactions flow through those glowing modems, China will change for
the better.
Let's grant PNTR to China and begin a new chapter in the book of
U.S.-China relations. Bringing down trade barriers; Opening up new
markets; Giving American workers a chance to compete; And giving
America's customers a chance to enjoy the best our country can produce:
It's a formula for success. It's a challenge America has never shirked.
Our workers, our farmers and businesses are counting on us to trust
their ability to rise to the challenge in this new century. We cannot
fail them.
Mr. President, I listened carefully to the debate and statement made
by my colleague, Senator Wellstone, as well as Senator Hollings of
South Carolina. These two Senators and many others have spoken from the
heart during the course of this debate. The Senate of the United States
and the Nation are well served by the element they bring to this
debate, their deep-felt convictions, feelings, and values that have
been exhibited not only in their floor statements but in the amendments
they have offered over the last several weeks.
Though I may disagree in my conclusion on this treaty, I can tell you
I have the greatest respect and admiration for their leadership and for
standing up on these issues of human rights.
I would like to put this in perspective. If we believe the vote we
take this afternoon will give China some new benefit, then one could
argue that we should ask for something in return. One could argue that
if we are going to give China something, we should ask them to make
changes in China in their human rights policy, which is reprehensible--
the way they treat the press, the way they treat religions in that
country, their forced family planning policies, the coercive attitude
they have towards families and their future in China, the terrible
things which we have heard about, proliferation--all of these should be
on the table and part of the agenda as we negotiate, if the agreement
we are voting on is, in fact, a benefit given to China. But let me
suggest to you it is not. We are receiving the benefit from this
agreement. Let me explain.
The World Trade Organization is a group of over 130 nations which
have come together and said we are going to do away with the old school
of thinking where every country would put up tariffs and barriers to
trade with other countries. We are going to try a new approach. We are
going to try to drop those tariffs and barriers and see what free trade
will do. Let each country make a product and a service the best and
sell it around the world. That is what the World Trade Organization is
about. Over 130 nations have agreed that those are the rules by which
we will play.
Today in the Senate this will be a historic vote to decide whether or
not we bring China into the World Trade Organization and compete with
U.S. trade policy--in other words, the relationship between the United
States and China. China, in order to be part of this World Trade
Organization, has said they will agree to drop our tariffs and barriers
substantially so that American companies and farmers and others can
export to China. In other words, this is a win-win situation for
America's economy. It is China that is making all the decisions to drop
the tariffs and drop the barriers and give us a chance to compete--give
us a chance to sell to 1.2 billion people; give us a chance to sell to
one-fifth of the world's population. We win; they drop the barriers;
America gets a chance to sell overseas. That is what is at stake here.
If this benefit comes to the U.S. economy to be able to finally get
into this market and compete, then it is kind of hard to argue that we
ought to be holding off and conditioning this benefit on all sorts of
changes in China.
I have seen the amendments that have been offered by many of my
colleagues on the floor over the last several weeks. Many of these are
good faith amendments. Many of these I agree with totally in principle.
I voted against every single one of them. How can that be? Because,
frankly, they don't belong on this bill. This is a trade bill. Let us
address the issues of human rights, workers, environmental concerns,
and proliferation by China through a variety of other approaches. But
to use this trade bill is a mistake.
This trade bill gives us a chance to say to workers across America
that we are going to give them a new market; we are going to give them
a new chance. If my colleagues believe as I do that globalization and
global competition really are the future of this country, we in America
need markets in which to sell. That is what this is about.
I have a lot of confidence that American workers and businesses and
farmers, given a chance to compete by fair rules, can succeed. If you
believe that, you have to vote for this bill; you have to open this
market. You have to give us a chance to sell in what is one of the
largest markets in the world. That is what it comes down to.
There is also a provision that was added to the House bill which I
support completely. It is known as the Levin/Bereuter amendment. It is
a bipartisan amendment by Sandy Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, and Doug
Bereuter, Republican of Nebraska. They come together and say China has
to play by the rules. And we will watch them carefully with an
executive commission to make sure they are not only playing by the
trade rules but treating their people fairly.
I think that is the right way to proceed. I think it covers many of
the issues raised during the course of this debate. But, frankly, we
cannot hold up the expansion of trade opportunities waiting for China
to become a democratic nation. In fact, I think expanding trade in
exchange will lead China
[[Page 18344]]
into democracy, into freedom, closer to what we value as principles in
this country. Why do I believe that? I saw Tiananmen Square on
television. I saw these tanks that were mowing down common citizens
standing up for freedom. It was reprehensible. It was disgusting. But
we saw it on television. There was a time not that long ago we would
have never seen it. We would have heard about it months later. The
world is opening up. We are seeing things in real time from around the
world, in China and other nations, and as a result the court of world
judgment says it is wrong and you have to change it, and the pressure
starts building.
Think about expanded economic exchange with China, expanded trade,
more foreign visitors, American businesses, American farmers, and
educators going into China, becoming part of their economy. Think about
this information technology as the Internet opens up China to new
thinking and ideas around the world.
Do you know what we believe in this country? We believe if people are
given the opportunity to hear diverse opinions, if they are given the
opportunity to see what the rest of the world looks like, they will
move closer to our model, closer to democracy, closer to freedom,
closer to open markets. I believe that, too. I do not believe the
Chinese leadership, even their hidebound old thinking, can turn that
tide. This bill opens those markets, opens this exchange of ideas and
goods, and gives us a chance to not only provide for workers and
farmers and businesses in America the chance to succeed in a new market
but a chance to change China for the better.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
it not be charged against the Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the debate before the United States Senate
on our granting China permanent normal trade relations status has been
a tremendous debate for the country. We have heard strong arguments for
and against enhancing our engagement and expanding trade with China.
This debate has implications for our economy, national security, and
for the future of China.
This vote has enormous implications for every American and people
around the world. I am pleased that the Senate is proceeding toward a
vote on final passage. It will be an honor to support legislation that
has such important implications for the people of my state and for our
country.
Let me say, that is not only desirable from a U.S. standpoint to have
China as a full member of the WTO, I think it is essential. China
entering the WTO will create unprecedented opportunities for American
businesses and farmers, it will encourage the new entrepreneurial
forces pushing china toward more liberal political, economic and social
policies and it will certainly contribute, if not ultimately lead, to
the further stabilization of Asia and the world.
From the standpoint of economic growth, increasing our economic
relationship with China is imperative. Increased trade has played an
indispensable role in the economic growth this country has experienced
in recent decades. The leadership and the growth of American companies
has been fueled by American companies winning access to new markets. As
many U.S. markets continue to mature, market access will play a more
important role for the expansion of our businesses.
At this time, the U.S. has very limited access to a market
representing the largest number of consumers in the world. China is a
nation of 1.2 billion people, one-fifth of the world's consumers. Over
the next 5 years, it is projected that 200 million of those Chinese
will enter the middle class. On a massive scale, these are people who
will be acquiring for the first time products that we in the United
States take for granted. We owe it to our workers and investors to give
our companies an equal opportunity to fight for those sales.
Increasing our relationship with a country of this size is also
important for maintaining our world leadership in the science,
aerospace, advanced technology, and medicine, and most important in all
those areas, the well-paying, advanced jobs of the future.
Trade is part of the process by which capital, resources and manpower
flow to the areas in which we perform best. Reducing restrictions on
capital flows has allowed American entrepreneurs to pursue opportunity,
create the best, most advanced products in the world, and in these
areas, lead the world.
Our world leadership in the industries of tomorrow did not happen by
accident. In addition to the spirit and ingenuity of the American
people, enough policy makers in this country have had the foresight to
create an atmosphere where this genius and industry can thrive.
Expanding our economic relationship and breaking down barriers to trade
with the largest block of consumers in the world is another huge step
in that process.
To continue to promote that environment where Americans can thrive on
a large scale, we need to pass this legislation.
But for me, the best reason to support this relationship is that it
is good for my state. Whether it is Missouri's farmers, our workers, or
our businesses, Missourians will benefit if China is a member of the
WTO.
Reviewing the numbers for American farmers alone gives a picture as
to the staggering opportunities in this market. China is currently our
fourth largest agricultural market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
estimates that this market will account for 37 percent of the future
growth of agricultural exports. And the Chinese have agreed to slash
tariffs and eliminate the quotas on several products important to
economy of my state--soybeans, corn, cotton, beef, and pork.
As China eliminates their legal requirements for self-sufficiency in
agricultural products, if they remain only 95 percent self-sufficient
in corn and wheat, they will instantly become the second biggest
importer of those products in the world, second only to Japan. Missouri
farmers are ready to compete for those markets.
This is a tremendous opportunity to help our pork producers and
cattlemen, both areas in which China has agreed to cut tariffs. Unlike
the Europeans, the Chinese are ready for their people to enjoy American
beef. They are prepared to eat American beef openly and enjoy it in
public. In Europe, only the diplomats who come to the U.S. get to enjoy
a good piece of U.S. steak.
The Chinese are going to learn quickly what we know and the European
diplomats know, American beef is the best. As those 200 million Chinese
enter the middle class, I am confident they will enjoy American beef
and want more of it.
The projected increase for demand of pork in China is simply
staggering. Rather than go into the numbers, the pork producers
estimate that $5 will be added to the price of a hog when we expand our
trade relationship with China. That would be the difference between
success and failure for small pork producers.
On another issue of great importance to my state and to my farmers,
the Chinese have agreed to settle sanitary and phyto-sanitary disputes
based on science. What a novel idea. This is essential to avoiding non-
tariff trade barriers as our farmers continue to employ biotechnology
and advanced agricultural practices.
The benefits are not limited to agriculture, despite what has been
argued, benefits do extend to manufacturing and other sectors.
For example, one company in my state, Copeland, a division of Emerson
Electric, manufactures air conditioner compressors in the wonderful
town of Ava, MO. Those compressors are sent to China where they are
incorporated
[[Page 18345]]
in units sold all over Asia. As the market for air conditioners in Asia
has expanded, the number of manufacturing jobs in Ava have grown. Those
jobs will not go to China and if this agreement is passed the
manufacturing jobs in the Ava facility are expected to double.
This agreement opens competitive opportunities for businesses of all
sizes. Under the market opening agreement, the Chinese will eliminate
significant market barriers to entry blocking the competitiveness of
American companies.
For instance, currently, if a product can even be imported into the
country, the Chinese control every aspect of movement, right down to
who can handle and repair an item. Those requirements will be
eliminated as will the state-controlled trading companies. Quotas and
tariffs must be published.
These are major steps in the direction of a market-based economy. The
elimination of these wide-spread and draconian barriers will give
American entrepreneurs and small businesses that want to take on the
Chinese market a real chance to penetrate and compete. For the first
time, American businesses, large and small, will have the chance to
compete on a level playing field.
It is also worth nothing, that without the benefit of the WTO, to
ensure adherence to our trade agreements, we must rely on our federal
agencies to oversee and enforce agreements. Frustration with the
Chinese regarding their respect for and adherence to past agreements
has been expressed. We will receive the benefit of a rules-based
trading regime and the weight of enforcement on a multi-lateral basis
once China is a member of the body.
Some of the opponents argue that this measure is a ``blank check''
for China and that it ``rewards'' China despite the past abuses of its
people. The complaints of the human rights activists against China are
legitimate. The abuses and repression of religion are deplorable and
their gestures toward a free Taiwan are totally unacceptable.
I reemphasize that point. We should not tolerate their abuses and
their threats toward a free Taiwan.
The arguments that we are giving them a pass despite these abuses
misses the point and the argument that profits are taking precedence
over American values is wrong. This vote is of significant importance
in promoting free enterprise in China and creating a increasingly
prosperous and reform-minded middle class.
For all the backwardness of China on the issue of religious freedom
and human rights, positive changes are underway on the economic front--
we should recognize that the changes are a direct threat to the
communist establishment in China. As the Chinese people become more
aware of the opportunities that exist for improving one's life that are
inherent in a free society, they will demand more rights from their
government and will demand that the government become more responsive
to the will of the people.
I have seen that on my visits to China. I am convinced the people of
China, as they see these opportunities, will increase their demand for
and their insistence on the basic principles that have made our country
strong.
Senators have come to the floor this week to tell troubling stories
about life in China and made arguments as to why it would be a mistake
at this time to grant China PNTR. By not supporting their amendments,
they have argued, we are betraying our values as a people and we are
abandoning support for the principles that make ours a great country.
For all their good arguments, passing PNTR and enhancing our economic
engagement with China is a concrete opportunity to promote change in
many of the areas raised. It is important to discuss these issues and
reiterate time and again in the strongest possible terms that we
condemn the practices of the Chinese. However, it does not follow that
defeating PNTR is the way to force the Chinese to change their
behavior. The exact opposite is true. Exposing China to more freedom
and opportunities is the way to bring about change.
One of the early amendments was in the area of the environment. The
argument has been made that we cannot grant the Chinese PNTR because
they have been poor stewards of their environment.
I remind my colleagues that with every extremely poor country in the
world, the struggle to employ their people and raise the standard of
living of its citizens is preeminent. People under such circumstances
must struggle to feed their families. They are not watching NOVA
environmental specials or reading National Geographic. They simply do
not have the luxury to worry about the environment.
The same applies to the government, creating economic growth to
employ the poor citizens is its goal. What China needs is wealth
creation, jobs, and enterprise apart from the state. When the
desperation and the poverty begin to subside the government is likely
to be far more open and responsive to managing the environment. But
calling for the denial based on their environmental policies while
withholding the best means for the country to raise their standard of
living does not offer a solution.
The same applies to labor practices. My support for PNTR does not
mean that I condone labor conditions in China. In fact I think they are
terrible. But is defeating PNTR in order to make a statement about
labor practices in China going to improve worker's rights. Absolutely
not.
The way to improve workers rights in China is allow foreign
enterprises into the country, create more private sector jobs and more
opportunity. The world buying from the Chinese will create private
sector employment and reduce dependence on the government. It creates
more choice and opportunity.
I share the concerns of my colleagues about Chinese crackdown on
religious practices. It is an appalling and unacceptable government
practice that we must continue to speak out against.
But forcing loyalty to the state and the crushing of all beliefs and
values that compete with loyalty to the state is a practice that is
common among communist dictatorships. This is the way that leaders in
communist countries avoid having the people's loyalty to the state and
the question of their purpose in life cluttered by outside influences.
Again, will supporting PNTR empower the reform movement? Can
promoting free enterprise in China undermine the grip of the
government? I think it can.
By joining the WTO and pursuing economic engagement and integration
with the world, the Chinese communist leadership are taking a risk.
They are taking the risk that foreign entities can enter the country
and form relationships with Chinese people but the people will still
maintain their loyalty to the state.
They are taking the risk that their citizens are going to be exposed
to the outside world and the freedoms those in American and other
countries enjoy but that the Chinese people will not want a piece of
that freedom for themselves.
They are taking the risk that Chinese people can go to work for
private enterprises, with the freedom to pursue better opportunities
and with the freedom to innovate, make their own decisions and enrich
themselves, but at the end of the day, still maintain the belief that
the communist lifestyle, with its per capita income of $790 a year and
blind loyalty to the omnipotence of the state is the superior way of
life.
The Chinese are taking a risk that their people will bear witness to
entrepreneurship, capitalism, an improved standard of living, middle
class lifestyle and freedom of association, and not recognize that
freedom is the better and more rewarding way of life.
That is an enormous risk for the Chinese communist leadership to
take--I think it is a bet they will lose.
Some of my colleagues do not possess this belief. They chose to
maintain the most dire outlook on the circumstances. I believe in the
virtue and the power of freedom.
Some of my colleagues have chosen to shout at the Chinese leaders
about freedom, but to most of the Chinese leaders freedom means a loss
of power. Much of this rhetoric, as part of a
[[Page 18346]]
quest for meaningful change, will not do much to advance the ball. The
Chinese leadership is not interested in hearing it.
Change in China, for the reasons I stated, is not going to come from
the top down, at least until there are a lot of high-class funerals in
that state, from the actuarial numbers that are about to apply. It is
going to come from the bottom up. We must seize any opportunities
available to make meaningful change happen.
The path to take is the one we are taking and that is to encourage
the infiltration of free enterprise, freedom of thought and freedom of
association into the current society. It may not happen over night, it
may never happen and if it does, it is likely to be messy. But there
are signs of movement in a positive direction--we have an opportunity
to grease the skids. We would be missing a historic opportunity if we
did not seize this chance. My colleagues that oppose this bill are
wrong to think otherwise.
Not supporting this bill will also hurt the effort to promote the
rule of law. There is a reason why a number of dissidents have come out
in support of this legislation. The WTO is a rules-based organization
that cannot exist if members do not adhere to the rule of law. As a
member, China will have both rights and obligations and will have to
deal with other nations as equals. Indeed, as a member of a growing
number of international organizations, China will continually be
subject to the rule of law and continually confronted with the
challenge of accepting international norms and, hopefully, standards of
freedom.
Finally, admission to the WTO is not a substitute for a strong,
consistent foreign policy toward China. Certainly one reason why this
debate has been difficult is because the administration has lack of a
clear foreign policy toward China and the resolve to act on important
issues as they arise. In my observation of this administration, it
appears to me that they place much hope that admission to the WTO will
erase their abysmal record in dealing firmly with China on important
issues.
We as a nation must reiterate our support for the security of a
democratic Taiwan and stand by that country as they negotiate the terms
of their relationship with Taiwan. We must support the entry of Taiwan
into the WTO and not let China dictate the terms by which this valuable
friend and trading partner is admitted to the world trade body. We must
provide Taiwan the means by which they can provide for their own
security.
We must speak out for the freedom of the Chinese people to practice
religion. We must speak in favor of increased freedom for the Chinese
people.
China must be told that we will not tolerate their continued export
of weapons technology that can lead to the destabilization of several
regions around the world. We must push the Chinese to improve the
export controls and we must be forceful when we discover violations in
international antiproliferation agreements.
These are not objectives that will be accomplished by defeating PNTR.
These are challenges that the current administration has failed to
meet. We have not had the adult supervision we need in foreign affairs,
in military affairs, and in relations with a critical, large member of
the world organizations, and that is China. We have to have an
administration which understands foreign policy, which speaks with a
clear voice, annunciates our principles, and stands up for them.
Defeating PNTR will not give us a strong foreign policy. That will
depend upon the next administration. I fervently hope and pray that we
will get some decent leadership in foreign affairs beginning next year.
We have lacked it. We have been sorrowfully observant of the failures
and shortcomings throughout the last 7\1/2\ years. Defeating PNTR will
not help the next administration in their foreign policy towards China.
Approving PNTR will. We must be firm in charting our course in the
defense of national security.
This is an important step to take for the strength of our economy and
for our workers and farmers. It is also an important step to take to
move China toward a freer society. We must cast this vote with open
eyes. It does not answer the questions surrounding China that have been
raised during this debate. That is for the foreign policy of the next
administration. By adopting PNTR and voting favorably, we can take the
first step in giving the next administration the tools to develop a
strong foreign policy with respect to China.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting permanent normal
trade relations with China. I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe that the Senate is about to make a
grave mistake. It is hard for me to believe that after a year which has
seen the Chinese Government rattling sabers at Taiwan, continuing to
brutally repress religion, and, generally, behaving like the ``Bobby
Knight'' of the international community--after a year like that--the
Senate is still determined to hand the Chinese a huge early Christmas
present called permanent normal trade relations. We are running a $70
billion deficit with China. China's string of broken promises on trade
and nonproliferation matters is longer than the Great Wall of China.
Yet, a majority in this Senate has agreed to put all of its eggs into
one basket and rush to pass PNTR. ``Don't worry. Be happy,'' says the
administration. We have the bilateral trade and investment pact to
protect us.
The bilateral trade and investment pact negotiated between the U.S.
Trade Representative and China is one of a series of agreements which
China is negotiating with members of WTO in order to join the body. The
agreement has been used to assuage the many concerns of some Members of
this body about granting PNTR to China. But I believe that PNTR and the
new U.S.-China trade pact, that panacea of all good things, will
encourage mainly one phenomenon--one phenomenon; namely, more U.S.
corporations will move operations to China to capitalize on low-wage
production for export back here to the United States.
Now if Senators don't believe it, just look at recent history. Look
at NAFTA. Clear evidence is right there--NAFTA, the Holy Grail of
NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to right
every wrong, cure every evil, and make us all healthy, wealthy and
wise. NAFTA's proponents convinced Congress in 1993 that NAFTA meant
large net benefits to the U.S. economy, and nothing more. There were no
down sides. The line went that the U.S. could only gain from expanded
trade with Mexico because Mexico was reducing its trade barriers more
than the United States. Moreover--and this will sound very familiar--
proponents were positive that reducing trade barriers with Mexico would
encourage ``reform'' politicians in Mexico to privatize the economy.
Now, where have we heard that before?
A new, vast middle-class would emerge, creating a new, vast middle
class market in Mexico, just waiting with baited breath to gobble up
American-made goods. The Clinton administration confidently predicted a
giant boom in U.S.-made autos sold to Mexico.
Well, my fellow Senators, what happened when we found the Holy Grail
called NAFTA? Exactly the opposite happened, that's what. A 180-degree
turn happened. NAFTA encouraged large U.S. investors to move production
and capital and jobs south of the border to exploit cheap labor and lax
environmental standards. These new factories then exported their
products back to the United States. By 1999, the United States was
running a trade deficit with Mexico of $23 billion.
Automobiles were major contributors to the deficit. So were auto
parts, computers, televisions, and telecommunications equipment. What
happened to the large new Mexican middle class, salivating to buy
American goods, which NAFTA was supposed to create? Instead of raising
living standards in Mexico, NAFTA reinforced ``reform'' government
policies in Mexico that reduced real wages for workers by 25 percent
and increased to 38 percent the
[[Page 18347]]
share of the Mexican population subsisting on $2.80 a day.
Does all this sound familiar, I ask my colleagues? It should. It
certainly should. Once again the administration is playing that same
old tune to Congress and to the American people. The administration
argues that U.S. exports to China will rise because tariffs will be
lowered on goods like automobiles and auto parts. Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?
Additionally, unlike the Japanese yen or the Euro, or the Mexican
peso, the exchange value of the Chinese currency does not float in the
international market. It is largely determined by the Chinese
Government, itself. In 1994, the Chinese devalued their currency in
order to expand their exports and reduce their imports. Nothing in the
bilateral agreement we have negotiated with China prevents the Chinese
from such manipulation again.
In 1992, the Chinese and U.S. Governments signed a memorandum of
understanding in which China agreed to provide access to U.S. goods in
its markets, and to enforce U.S. intellectual property rights.
President George Bush hailed this agreement as a breakthrough. The USTR
under President Bush claimed that the 1992 agreement would provide
``American businesses, farmers, and workers with unprecedented access
to a rapidly growing Chinese market with 1.2 billion people.'' Well,
since that much-touted 1992 agreement, U.S. exports to China have risen
by about $7 billion. But look at this. Imports from China to the United
States have risen by $56 billion. Now, who won that round?
Yet, the Clinton administration continues to claim that this new
agreement will ensure the political triumph of democracy-loving, U.S.-
friendly, free-market leaders in China, who can be trusted to live up
to their end of the bargain. Someone downtown must be popping
``gullible'' pills. That claim gives new meaning to the word ``naive''.
China's successful growth and modernization absolutely depend upon
its ability to export to foreign markets in order to earn the hard
currency needed to import new technology. China is currently running a
$70 billion annual trade surplus with Uncle Sam, with the United
States. But China is running a trade deficit with the other major hard
currency blocs--the European Monetary Union and Japan--a trend that
will continue into the foreseeable future. In order to pursue its own
self-interests, China has to exploit the U.S. market to the maximum.
Given this agenda, in a totalitarian state, one can be sure that the
full force of the power of that state will be focused on protecting its
manufacturing, technological, and agricultural markets. No faction of
Chinese leaders can possibly deliver a more open economy to the United
States or to the WTO. It is fool's gold to make that claim--fool's
gold. It is the economic and political reality of the Chinese situation
and agenda that makes it all but certain that China will violate any
trade agreement, if it serves the national interests of China to do so.
We have not yet in this Senate or in this Nation or in this
administration come to grips with that fundamental reality. It will not
be different this time. It will not be any different this time. The
Chinese behave the way they do in matters of trade because they have
to, to survive. They cannot and will not change. The Chinese Government
is not some eager puppy, like my little dog Billy Byrd, panting to
please the United States or anybody else. The Chinese are committed to
their own goals and their own interests and they will do whatever it
takes to further their agenda.
The Clinton administration claims that China has agreed in the
bilateral trade agreement to eliminate health-related barriers to U.S.
meat imports that were not based on scientific evidence. But, let's
listen to the words of Chinese trade negotiator, Long Yongtu. Let's
hear what he said:
Diplomatic negotiations involve finding new expressions. If
you find a new expression, this means you have achieved a
diplomatic result. In terms of meat imports, we have not
actually made any material concessions.
And there is even more interesting commentary from China's chief
negotiator, Long Yongtu, in an article he authored on the impacts of
WTO entry, as reported by the BBC. On the issue of a Chinese compromise
with the United States on the import of U.S. meat products he said, ``.
. . in the United States people there think that China has opened its
door wide for the import of meat. In fact, this is only a theoretical
market opportunity. During diplomatic negotiations, it is imperative to
use beautiful words--for this will lead to success.''
We need to take note of the words of these Chinese officials. We need
to listen more carefully. Beautiful words do not mean promises kept.
Sometimes when we in the United States hear ``yes'' the Chinese are
only saying ``maybe.''
The USTR asserts that ``China will establish large and increasing
tariff-rate quotas for wheat--with a substantial share reserved for
private trade.'' Yet again, Chinese negotiator Long Yongtu sees it
differently. He has publicly stated that, although Beijing had agreed,
on paper, to allow 7.3 million tons of wheat from the United States to
be exported to the China mainland each year, it is a ``complete
misunderstanding'' to expect this grain to actually enter the country.
The Chinese negotiator said that in its agreement with the United
States, Beijing only conceded ``a theoretical opportunity for the
export of grain from the United States.'' We are suckers.
And yet, in the face of all of this contradiction by the Chinese, the
Clinton Administration actually expects us all to believe that the
bilateral agreement, PNTR and the WTO will magically force the Chinese
government to shred its own national agenda, disregard its own needs
and interests, even risk its own viability, in order to live up to an
agreement with the United States. How naive can we be?
If anyone actually believes that, then let me introduce you to the
tooth fairy; Tinkerbell; Mr. Ed, the talking horse; Snow White; the
seven dwarfs; and Harvey, the invisible six foot rabbit.
This Senate and the administration--by all means, this
administration--should pay a little more attention to history.
Let us look again for a moment at the history of NAFTA. From the time
of the North America Free Trade Agreement took effect in 1994 through
1998, the net export deficit with Mexico and Canada has grown. Over
440,000 American jobs have been destroyed as a result of this growth.
Although gross U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada have shown a
dramatic increase--with real growth of 92.1 percent with Mexico and
56.9 percent to Canada, that is only half the picture. Let us turn the
corner. It is like knowing only one team's score or looking at only one
side of the coin. We have to look at the other side of the coin to know
who is winning; namely, what are we importing from Mexico?
The increases in U.S. exports have been overwhelmed by what we import
from Mexico. Those imports have shot up 139.3 percent from Mexico and
58.8 percent from Canada. In 1993, before NAFTA was in effect, we had a
net export deficit with our NAFTA partners of $18.2 billion. From 1993
to 1998 that same net deficit increased by 160 percent to $47.3
billion, resulting in job losses to American workers The first year
NAFTA took effect, foreign direct investment in Mexico increased by 150
percent. Foreign direct investment in Canada has more than doubled
since 1993.
Those are American workers' jobs that are flying like geese--we have
heard the wild geese flit across the sky on their way south--across the
borders. Factories move over the border to take advantage of cheap
labor costs, and they take good-paying American jobs with them.
But, Senator Byrd, you may say, unemployment in the United States is
at 4.1 percent. Our people have jobs. Our unemployment is very low. The
answer to that question lies in a closer scrutiny of the composition of
U.S. employment. Good paying jobs with good benefits, largely in the
manufacturing sector, are leaving our shores and being
[[Page 18348]]
replaced by low skill, low wage jobs in the services sector. There is a
hidden agenda that becomes apparent if one remembers the lessons of
NAFTA and then ponders PNTR with China. You heard them say at the
convention: You ain't seen nothing yet? Well, you ain't see nothing
yet. Against that backdrop, it becomes more than clear where we are
headed. We have been here before.
The objective for U.S. business is not access to the Chinese domestic
consumer market. Forget it. They cannot afford our goods. The objective
is the business-friendly, pollution-friendly climate in China, which is
advantageous for moving production off U.S. shores and then selling
goods, now made in China, back to the United States--selling goods made
by American manufacturers that move overseas back to the United States.
Are we really going to expect anything different from a deal with the
Chinese? Our trade deficit reached $340 billion in 1999. China accounts
for 20 percent of the total U.S. trade deficit. A U.S. International
Trade Commission report stresses that China's WTO entry would
significantly increase investment by U.S. multinationals inside China.
Additionally, the composition of Chinese imports has changed over the
last 10 years. In 1989, only 30 percent of what we imported from China
competed with our high-wage, high-skilled industries here in the U.S.
By 1999, that percentage had risen to 50 percent.
The unvarnished, unmitigated, ungussied up truth is that American
companies are eagerly eyeing China as an important production base for
high-tech products. And these made-in-China goods are displacing goods
made in the good ole USA, Additionally, most U.S. manufacturing in
China is produced in conjunction with Chinese government agencies and
state-owned companies. So much for the claim that U.S. corporate
activity in China benefits Chinese entrepreneurs, and will lead to
privatization and, lo and behold, the emergence of a democratic China.
Get it? The emergence of a democratic China.
If all this were not enough, a Senate report, made public last week,
charged the Chinese government with consistently failing ``to adhere to
its nonproliferation commitments.'' In addition to outlining numerous
instances of Chinese weapons sales to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, the
report states, ``In many instances, Beijing merely mouths promises as a
means of evading sanctions.''
Yet Senator Thompson only got 32 votes in favor of his amendment,
which would have given the Congress a role in monitoring China's
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Senators, I could go on and on and on, but I believe there is more
than ample evidence that to grant PNTR to China at this time is very
unwise. The signal we send by granting PNTR now is a signal of abject
weakness. It is a signal of greed. It is a signal of ambivalence on the
issue of nonproliferation. It is a signal of total disregard for the
overwhelming evidence that the Chinese Government will not keep its
word.
I fear that the benefits claimed to be derived from PNTR are really
only PR from the White House. They are selling us soap and we are
lathering up. We are risking a lot on the unfulfilled promises
contained in the so-called bilateral trade agreement with China. Of
course, the price for that deal was the administration's commitment to
China that they could get PNTR through the Congress this year. It is a
package deal--a nice little wagonload of a Chinese signature on the
bilateral trade agreement and an unencumbered PNTR present from the
Congress. The only problem is that the wagon might be riding on
Firestone tires. Shouldn't we Senators use a little caution and put off
climbing in that wagon? I am not getting on that wagon. Wouldn't it be
more prudent to stay off that wagon? Wouldn't that be the right choice
for our Nation's people, the right thing for our national security?
This legislation--PNTR--can wait and it ought to wait. As far as this
Senator's vote is concerned, it will wait.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I sat here and listened to my good friend
from West Virginia on trade. I believe I should speak from a position
of representing a State that has benefited immensely from the trade
agreements that we have passed recently--the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.
Exports from the State of Colorado, which I represent, have increased
dramatically. In fact, we have experienced the greatest growth in
exports of any State in the Nation on a percentage basis. The economy
of the State of Colorado is based greatly on agriculture. My friend
from West Virginia talked about agriculture to a certain degree. We
grow a lot of wheat. We raise a lot of livestock, and we do make an
attempt to expand our markets to the Pacific rim countries, which
includes China.
We have a very modern economic base in the State. We work a lot on
exporting high tech. Many high-tech companies do business in the State
of Colorado. On a concentration basis, we have the highest
concentration of high-tech employees of any State in the country. So we
benefit from exporting goods, and the North American Free Trade
Agreement has helped the State of Colorado, and GATT has also.
I happen to think that an agreement with China for normal trade
relations will help agriculture, and it will help States such as
Colorado because these are markets where we can compete and have been
competing.
My colleague from West Virginia talked a considerable amount about
the trade deficits we are experiencing in this country. I come at the
trade deficit issue from a different perspective than my colleague from
West Virginia. I have looked at what happened historically with trade
deficits. If we look at the time of the Great Depression in this
country, the trade deficits were low. If we look at the time when we
were suffering, when we had the misery index--and this is at the latter
part of the 1970s, during the Carter administration--the trade deficit
was low. We had high double-digit unemployment. We had high double-
digit inflation, and we had high double-digit unemployment. But our
trade deficit was low. I happen to believe when we look at the trade
deficit, it is more of a reflection of what is happening economically
in this country. Our country has experienced high trade deficits when
our economy has been doing well, just like during the period of time we
are in today.
So the figures he presents to you on trade deficits, in reality, they
do happen. What is the significance to the economy? I happen to believe
it has the opposite impact. Many times, when people are evaluating the
impact of the trade deficit, they look at it only from the perspective
of one industry. If you look at the total economy, the total growth of
jobs within this country, we benefit, in many cases, by importing
products.
How does that work? Let's take an automobile, for example. Some State
may have a company--maybe in Michigan, for example--that could be
impacted by trade policies. But does that have a net impact on jobs in
the United States? Many times, when you take it into total
consideration, there is a net gain because there are jobs--union jobs--
created when you have to unload those cars at our ports. There are jobs
created when you have to clean up the cars when they come into the
country. There are jobs created when you have to transport those cars
across the country to get them to a point of sale. Somebody has to sell
the cars. Jobs are created there. Somebody has to buy the cars. There
is insurance sold in relation to the purchase of the car. Goods and
services relating to that go into the marketplace. Those cars have to
be maintained and operated and fixed. Many times, they go into a resale
market at some point in their lifetime.
These are all jobs that are created as a result of having imported
that product. So I am convinced that our best policy is to work in a
free market environment, and the problem we have
[[Page 18349]]
right now is not that we don't place a lot of the tariffs and
restrictions on Chinese goods coming into this country, but China is
the one that is placing restrictions on our goods going into their
country--particularly agricultural products and goods related to the
high-tech industry. That is why I think this particular effort to
create normal trade relations is beneficial. Isolationism doesn't work.
Isolating a country and saying that is going to help human rights--I
don't think that works. That is one reason why Taiwan, for example,
supports our efforts to try to establish permanent normal trade
relations with China.
So I think that in order to prevent human abuse, to protect human
rights, we need to open up China. When our business people go into
China, they expect a certain standard. They just won't do business with
Chinese companies without those standards. They will have to abide by
their contracts. If somebody doesn't honor the contract, there has to
be a court system of some type that will help enforce those contracts.
And these all carry with them democratic principles.
When Chinese businessmen interact with American businessmen, they
will understand how the free enterprise system works, how democracy
works. I think we export democracy when we enter into a free market
agreement where we take down trade barriers and increase the
interaction between countries--particularly when we are talking about a
democratic county as opposed to a Communist one. They see there is a
different way of doing things and prospering that yields benefits far
and above what they have been told in a country where the leaders
restrict information and restrict freedoms.
I think it is important we pass this piece of legislation that says
we will have permanent normal trade relations with China.
I see my colleague from North Carolina.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLARD. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from West
Virginia. But I also know that I have a colleague from North Carolina
who would like to be recognized for some comments. I yield to my
colleague from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator mentioned my name. That is why I am asking him
to yield.
I appreciate the fact that he has given us his viewpoint. My remarks
were largely based on research that has been done by the Economic
Policy Institute. It is dated November 1999. I am reading from a paper
issued by the institute. It is headed with these words:
NAFTA's pain deepens. Job destruction accelerates from 1999
with losses in every State.
It shows Colorado as having a net NAFTA job loss of 3,625 jobs. It
doesn't show as much for West Virginia as Colorado. West Virginia has a
net NAFTA loss of 1,183 jobs.
Let me say this to the Senator. I have been in Congress now 48 years.
I have seen Democratic administrations, and I have seen Republican
administrations. The kind of talk we just heard from this Senator--I
respect him as a colleague, but I have to say this--is the same kind of
talk I have been hearing from these administrations for 48 years. That
is State Department talk. It is the same old State Department talk.
I will say to this Senator, we are going to get taken to the
cleaners. We have been taken to the cleaners all these 48 years by
other countries. In these ventured agreements, our negotiators for some
reason or other always come out second. We have been taken to the
cleaners. We will be taken again.
The Senator stated his opinion. That is this Senator's opinion, and
it is based on 48 years of hearing this same line that emanates from--
--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. I ask the Senator to let me reclaim my time. I appreciate
his comments. We have a Senator from North Carolina who would like to
have an opportunity to speak. I think we are working under some time
guidelines.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled.
Mr. ALLARD. I would like to briefly respond. I am speaking from the
experience of a Senator who represents a State that has benefited from
free trade policy. It is not State Department talk, it is what we have
seen economically. I wanted to respond, and I would like to yield my
time to the Senator from North Carolina to be recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time did I use on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 22 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator from North Carolina need? I
will yield him half of my time. I ask that time that has been absorbed
in this colloquy come out of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Do I have any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 25 minutes of his 30
minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I reserve my 5 minutes.
We will be taken to the cleaners again. Mark my word.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print a chart prepared by
the Economic Policy Institute on ``NAFTA job loss by State, 1993-98.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TABLE 3.--NAFTA JOB LOSS BY STATE, 1993-98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net NAFTA
job loss.--
State No. of jobs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................... -11,594
Alaska..................................................... -395
Arizona.................................................... -3,296
Arkansas................................................... -6,663
California................................................. -44,132
Colorado................................................... -3,625
Connecticut................................................ -4,616
Delaware................................................... -866
District of Columbia....................................... -798
Florida.................................................... -13,841
Georgia.................................................... -15,784
Hawaii..................................................... -907
Idaho...................................................... -1,397
Illinois................................................... -16,980
Indiana.................................................... -21,063
Iowa....................................................... -4,850
Kansas..................................................... -3,452
Kentucky................................................... -8,917
Louisiana.................................................. -3,245
Maine...................................................... -1,877
Maryland................................................... -3,981
Massachusetts.............................................. -8,362
Michigan................................................... -31,851
Minnesota.................................................. -6,345
Mississippi................................................ -8,245
Missouri................................................... -10,758
Montana.................................................... -1,139
Nebraska................................................... -1,751
Nevada..................................................... -2,342
New Hampshire.............................................. -1,265
New Jersey................................................. -11,045
New Mexico................................................. -1,268
New York................................................... -27,844
North Carolina............................................. -24,118
North Dakota............................................... -732
Ohio....................................................... -19,098
Oklahoma................................................... -3,018
Oregon..................................................... -5,359
Pennsylvania............................................... -20,918
Rhode Island............................................... -4,234
South Carolina............................................. -7,305
South Dakota............................................... -1,217
Tennessee.................................................. -18,332
Texas...................................................... -18,752
Utah....................................................... -2,973
Vermont.................................................... -597
Virginia................................................... -9,797
Washington................................................. -8,331
West Virginia.............................................. -1,183
Wisconsin.................................................. -9,314
Wyoming.................................................... -402
U.S. total............................................. -440,172
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excluding effects on wholesale and retail trade and advertising.
\2\ Source: EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census
Bureau data.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Who yields time?
Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. In a moment, I hope
the Chair will allow me the privilege of making my remarks seated at my
desk. But I want to say that Senator Byrd says he has been here 38
years.
Mr. BYRD. Forty-eight years.
Mr. HELMS. Forty-eight years. I have only been here 28 years, and I
have the same opinion the Senator does about the State Department. I
have said many times how proud I am that the distinguished Senator from
West Virginia is a native of North Carolina because he was born there.
He moved at a very early age to West Virginia, a State which he has
represented ably. But I admire the Senator for many reasons. We don't
always agree. But I will tell you one thing. This Senator is dedicated.
When I say ``this Senator,'' I mean Senator Robert C. Byrd of West
Virginia. He is dedicated to the proposition that this Senate shall
operate in an orderly way. He made some remarks today about the unusual
character of the way the voting time on this measure was arranged, and
I objected to it as he did. I think it ill becomes the Senate. I hope
it never happens again.
[[Page 18350]]
Mr. President, if I may take my seat.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to know who yields time.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, today the Senate----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will suspend for a moment, the
Chair needs to know whose time this time is coming from.
Mr. BYRD. I yield my 5 remaining minutes to the Senator from North
Carolina. I don't have control of the time other than that.
Mr. HELMS. I thought I had gained the floor in my own right. But I
appreciate that very much. I will not take long in any case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time comes from Senator Lott's
time.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will reach the
end of the debate on H.R. 4444, a bill to legislate permanent normal
trade relations to and with the People's Republic of China.
The debate, yes, will end this afternoon. But I can assure you that
just now beginning is a debate about the future of United States and
China relations.
The outcome of today's vote was well known long before the first
syllable of debate resulted. I recall the objection stated by Senator
Byrd, and I objected to the procedure as well because it was a pro
forma action about how the consideration of H.R. 4444 was going to be
conducted and the concluding result was to be final passage without
even one amendment to be added.
I don't think that is becoming of the Senate, but I shall not refer
to the Senate's posture as a conspiracy, but it is a first cousin to
one, and I remain exceedingly troubled by what has transpired. I
fervently hope it never happens to the Senate again.
The outcome of this debate was decided before any Senator even sought
to be recognized by the Presiding Officer to make his or her case for
or against PNTR. But all that aside, the Senate will shortly vote, and
I trust that all Senators' votes will be cast with the courage of their
real convictions and not convictions determined by others for them.
I commend my friend, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, and the
Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, for their defense of ``their''
bill. Both Bill Roth and Pat Moynihan have been exceedingly
accommodating to me and to other Senators.
But there was a stacked deck that guaranteed approval of H.R. 4444.
It was evident from the start. I shall always be grateful to Senators
who endeavored to ensure a serious debate, and for their courage and
resolve.
I express my admiration to, among others, Senator Byrd and Senator
Thompson, Senators Bob Smith, John Kyl, Paul Wellstone. These Senators
were Churchillian in their efforts. Sir Winston Churchill demonstrated
seven or eight decades ago that there would be no stacked deck when he
courageously called for a principled confrontation against the
despotism of Nazi Germany.
In the course of the Senate's debate, we did succeed in making an
indisputable record concerning the deplorable state of human rights in
China. And we did succeed in exposing the heinous practice of forced
abortion. And we did succeed in focusing the attention of our Nation,
and I think of the world, on the peril of China's proliferation.
If I may again mention Mr. Churchill, the press paid him scant
attention when he cast his warnings about the trip of the Prime
Minister of Great Britain to Munich where he met with Adolph Hitler,
and then came back to London for a big press conference proclaiming
``Peace in our time.'' Mr. Chamberlain proclaimed that that fellow
Hitler was someone the British people could live with.
Mr. President, I sincerely fear that this bill will have serious
consequences because of its profound implications for the future of
U.S.-China relations, relations totally unlike the happy ones described
by the bill's advocates.
The interests of various American businesses will, no doubt, be
served, but to those of us who have worked in the Senate Chamber during
this debate, it is highly questionable whether the national interests
of either the United States or the interests of the people of China--
the people of China--will be served.
As I mention ever so often, when I was a little boy I was interested
in the Chinese people and their culture. That interst grew as the years
went by. During my 28 years as a U.S. Senator, I have met with and
worked with hundreds of Chinese students, delightful young people,
bright and without exception having expressed profound hopes and
prayers that their homeland can one day enjoy the freedom that the
American people have by inheritance.
So clearly and without a trace of equivocation, I have the deepest
admiration for the Chinese people--I repeat that for emphasis--and it
is my fervent hope and my prayer that one day they will be freed from
the brutal dictatorship that now controls their lives.
I sincerely believe that the majority of the American people share
that feeling. I have had people stop me in the corridors. Just a few
moments ago, I had the Commander of the American Legion from my State
stopped me to say that he agreed with my position. I hear it over and
over--in the mail we receive, in the e-mail, the faxes and letters.
Mr. President, there is unquestionably an enormous potential for a
deep and lasting relationship of respect between the people of our
country and the people of China. I have long been convinced that what
separates us is not animosity between our peoples.
It is the Communist dictatorship in Beijing which neither speaks for,
nor rules by, the consent of the Chinese people.
Today in China, millions of courageous people struggle for democracy
and for religious freedom and for basic human rights. Because when they
dare to do so, they are beaten and they are jailed; they are tortured
and often murdered. It is for these freedom-seeking Chinese that I
stand here today.
Their interests, not the interests of corporate America, are my
priority. And that is why I have not been able to support H.R. 4444.
Mr. President, there are many bureaucratic contacts and exchanges
between the U.S. and the Chinese Government. Some of my good friends,
and friends of many of us in this Senate, have traveled to China time
and time again, exchanged toasts with Chinese Communist leaders,
clinked glasses of wine; but the attitude of the Communist Government
has never changed.
It still throws decent Chinese citizens in jail. It still denies the
Chinese people the most basic political liberties. So giving permanent
normal trade relations to the Government of China will indeed destroy
an important lever that we now have, and have had, to influence Chinese
behavior. We are tossing it aside.
The advocates of PNTR have repeatedly declared that this enactment
will help the cause of democracy and human rights in China. Those
declarations will now be put to the test and the ball will be in the
court of Beijing. With today's vote, the Chinese Government is being
given an historic opportunity to change the course of U.S.-Chinese
relations for the good.
The Chinese Government has not confronted such a challenge since
Beijing's tragic decision--remember--in Tiananmen Square, when a tank
crushed a peaceful student protest, crushed that young man into paste.
That was 11 years ago and nothing has changed since.
To seize upon this moment and make me be proven wrong, China must act
quickly, not merely to open its markets as required under the agreement
with the United States but open its society as well, to demonstrate a
commitment to humane treatment of its people at home, and a more benign
and peaceful approach to its relationship with its neighboring
countries. The Chinese Government must cease the suppression of
religious liberties.
Even the Washington Post commented on that this morning in a well-
written, well-thought-out editorial.
[[Page 18351]]
The Chinese Government must put an end to the abhorrent practice of
forced abortion. And with regard to the democratic Government of
Taiwan, China must demonstrate that it is committed to peaceful dialog
as being the only option for resolving differences between Taiwan and
the Communist mainland.
Mr. President, I would be less than honest if I did not confess my
great apprehension that there will be little if any real change by the
Chinese Government as a result of our passing this measure. But if real
change is to take place, the United States must more aggressively
support the aspirations of the hundreds of millions of Chinese people
who want their homeland to become a nation that is both great and good.
We must reach out to those people who are struggling for a freer,
more open and more democratic China, and make clear to them that the
American people stand with them. We must make clear to the Chinese
Government that it will not be in their interests to continue their
oppression of their own people, that in the long run totalitarian
dictatorship cannot be tolerated.
So if the advocates of PNTR prove to be wrong, and if nothing changes
in China in the wake of the Senate's final approval of PNTR this
afternoon, I will devote whatever strength and influence I may possess
to limit any and all conceivable benefits that this legislation may
hold for the Chinese Communist Government.
I am nearly through, but I want to emphasize that, like many others
in the Senate, I am a father and a grandfather. I am a grandfather who
yearns for a peaceful world for my family and for all Americans.
Better relations with China are an important hope of a peaceful
world, but not better relations at any price. Too often in history,
some of the world's great democracies have sought to coexist with, even
to appease, dangerous and tyrannical regimes.
I mentioned at the outset Winston Churchill, who took his stand
against his country's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who had
visited with Adolf Hitler in Munich, then returning to London
proclaiming there would be ``peace in our time'' and that Britain need
not fear Nazi Germany.
There was that one man who stood up and said no, Winston Churchill,
who was to lead the free world into combat in one of the worst
tyrannies history has ever known.
We must not repeat the mistake of Britain's Prime Minister seven
decades ago. I have absolutely nothing against American business men
and women making a profit. I want them to make a profit. I believe in
the free enterprise system. I believe I have demonstrated that in all
of my career.
But the safety and security of the American people must come first
through the principles of this country which were laid down by our
Founding Fathers. That safety and security will be assured ultimately
not by appeasement, not by the hope of trade at any cost, but by
dealing with Communist China without selling out the very moral and
spiritual principles that made America great in the first place.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are about to complete
the debate on PNTR and are about to take the final vote. It has been a
good debate. It has been a time when the American people have had an
opportunity to learn more about what PNTR for China actually will be.
There are good arguments on all sides, but I am quite happy, frankly,
that now we are at the end of this long process, finally the United
States will grant permanent normal trade relations to China. We are
finally putting that issue to bed, and some side issues, too, have been
put off to the side, as important as they are.
Many of the issues raised on the Senate floor not directly relevant
to PNTR have been very good ones. Proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, human rights, religion freedom, environment, prison labor,
Taiwan-PRC relationship are very important matters that, in some cases,
go to the heart of American policy. They are clearly issues that need
to be debated and resolved. The United States has a very important
stake in all of them.
Some of the amendments that have been proposed to PNTR in these last
few weeks have been good ones; others, not so good. Fortunately, a
majority of my colleagues opposed all amendments to the PNTR bill, even
when we agreed with the underlying concerns. Why? Basically because any
amendment that would be part of PNTR would be killer amendments due to
the very short number of remaining days in this session. Because of
Presidential politics, which is engulfing us to some degree, it is much
more prudent not to adopt amendments at this time. In the next
Congress, we will have an opportunity to deal with these issues. I hope
we can deal with them, particularly based on the merits.
I want to take a moment to discuss what will happen after the PNTR
vote. It is more to remind ourselves that despite the successful
conclusion of the debate, when the votes are counted later today, they
will not create a single job. Our votes will not sell a single bushel
of wheat. Rather, PNTR is an enabler. It is a vital enabler. It enables
American businesses and American people to do much more than they can
now do.
The immediate next step of completion of PNTR is completion of
negotiations in Geneva on the Protocol of Accession and the Working
Party Report to the WTO General Council. Once China formally accedes--
that is, becomes a member of WTO--we Americans will remove China from
the restrictions of the Jackson-Vanik legislation. That is when it
happens. At that point, the American private sector has to take
advantage of the immense new opportunities afforded by China's
membership in the WTO.
Passage of PNTR will be one for the history books with profound
implications for the United States. Once it passes, we Americans have
to put our shoulders to the wheel. We have to follow up. American
industry has to follow up. The American Government has to follow up in
a way that we enable ourselves to maximize potential benefits to our
service providers and to our manufacturers. We have to take matters in
our own hands. We have to take advantage of this. The same is true for
the U.S. Government at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the executive
branch as well as the legislative branch. We need to watch China and
monitor China's compliance to make sure this agreement is implemented.
I am reminded of another agreement we had earlier with China --that
is the intellectual property rights agreement--because some Chinese
firms were pirating America's films, CDs, cassettes, and other
intellectual property created in the United States. We finally urged
China to pass a law making the pirating of intellectual property
illegal in China. China passed the law. The problem is they did not
implement it. We had to go back and encourage implementation. We may
face the same problems here. I hope not. It is possible.
As we move ahead, we must never forget how multifaceted our
relationship with China is. That means we must aggressively address the
many important issues raised in the PNTR debate. As important as those
issues are, they should not be on the bill, but they still indicate the
multifaceted nature of our relationship with China.
One major area is focusing on our strategic architecture in Asia.
Assuring stability in the region, helping maintain peace and
prosperity, and a presence of American troops are vital factors, as are
other major strategic questions. They are extremely important. All
parts of our relationship with China and passage of PNTR raise the
probability we will be more successful in that area.
We must also take measures to help incorporate China positively into
the region, and we must encourage China into the role of a responsible
actor, both in the Asian region and globally.
The growth in commercial and economic activity now developing between
us and China should form a pillar on which we can build a stable
relationship. There are no guarantees. There
[[Page 18352]]
never are guarantees in life. One has to do the best with what one has,
with the resources one has available. Passage of PNTR gives us more
resources. It is an enabler to help us increase the probability of a
stronger commercial and economic relationship to help form that pillar.
Again, there is no guarantee.
We must also try to avoid the constant ups and downs that have
characterized the bilateral relationship over the past 30 years.
I am not going to stand here and chronicle the volatility of the ups
and downs, but I do think it is important for us to lop off the peaks
and the valleys in this somewhat volatile relationship with China as
best we can, recognizing that we are only one side of the equation and
China, of course, is the other.
But the more we try and the more we engage them at lots of different
levels--whether it is trade, artistic exchanges, cultural exchanges, or
military exchanges--the more likely it is we will not have to be so
involved in this volatile activity. That means a stronger economic
relationship between our two countries, which I think will be a major
consequence of the passage of this bill.
I thank all my colleagues. This is going to be a good, solid vote. It
is going to indicate that the United States is a player in the world
community, that the United States is not retrenching itself, but moving
forward, and that the United States is living up to its
responsibilities as the leader, frankly, of the world in a way that is
positive, constructive, and exercising its constructive roles. I am
very proud of the action the Senate is about to take.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am prepared to support PNTR for China,
but I still have reservations about China's willingness to fulfill its
previous trade commitments particularly as it pertains to insurance.
First, I want to express my appreciation to President Clinton and
Ambassador Barshevsky who have been forceful advocates in ensuring that
China keeps its end of the bargain and fully implements the 1999
bilateral agreement between our two nations. Last week, President
Clinton and President Jiang Zemin held a frank and detailed discussion
about China keeping its commitment to allow U.S. insurers to expand in
China under the grandfathered right to operate through their current
branch structure.
In response, President Jiang pledged that China will ``honor its
commitments to further opening its domestic market'' to grandfathered
insurance companies. This is a positive, but still ambiguous statement
which I hope the Chinese president will clarify. And in clarifying his
position, I hope President Jiang understands that should U.S. insurers
be denied the grandfathered rights to branch in China, it would result
in a serious degradation of the ``terms and conditions'' for insurance
that were negotiated by USTR last November.
The problem extends beyond insurance to the heart of the PNTR
agreement. Should PNTR become law, the President must certify:
. . . that the terms and conditions for the accession of
the People's Republic of China to the World Trade
Organization are at least equivalent to those agreed between
the United States and People's Republic of China on November
15, 1999.
Anything less than full compliance in honoring China's commitment to
grandfather U.S. insurers' branching rights will inhibit the
President's ability to certify that the equivalent requirement has been
met.
Every business that trades with China is looking to see how this
matter is resolved because they need to know that trade agreements will
truly be followed. If China wants to engage in the free market, its
leaders must know that trade agreements are not arbitrary documents but
ironclad commitments.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in expressing
support for passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
This is the right thing to do for the country, and it is the right
thing to do for my state of North Dakota.
I think it is important at the outset to make it clear what this vote
is about--and what it is not about. This vote is about making sure that
U.S. farmers, businesses, and workers receive the benefits of China's
accession to the World Trade Organization. The agreement on China's
accession is a clear win for the United States. China has made
concession after concession, lowering tariffs and removing other
barriers to U.S. exports. The U.S. has made no such concessions. But if
we fail to pass Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, we will not be
able to take full advantage of these opportunities but will instead
cede them to our competitors.
There has been a lot of misleading talk and innuendo about what PNTR
really means. PNTR is not a special privilege, and it does not signify
our approval of China's domestic or foreign policies. In fact, we
continue to have many differences with China that we can and should
work vigorously to resolve. PNTR would simply grant China the same
trading status that the United States has with more than 130 other
countries around the world: nothing more, nothing less. And it would
grant China the same status going forward that it has had continuously
for the last twenty years. The only change is that the Congress no
longer would hold an annual vote on China's trade status, a vote that
has never denied China Normal Trade Relations but that has set back our
efforts to engage China on human rights and other issues.
The PNTR debate is primarily about trade, so let me start by talking
about the trade benefits for our country. As my colleagues know, this
vote is not about whether China should be part of the WTO. There is no
question that China will join the WTO. The only question is whether the
United States will reap the benefits of the many concessions China has
made, or whether our farmers, businesses and workers will be left out.
That would be a profound mistake.
China has the world's largest population: 1.3 billion potential
customers for American products. For years, our market has been open to
Chinese imports, but China's market has largely been closed to our
products. This agreement will open China's market to our exports. And
this is a market that has terrific growth potential. China's economy is
the fastest growing in the world, and China's expanding middle class
will demand more and more imports of American consumer goods.
The agreement reached last November allows us unprecedented access to
this huge and growing market. On manufactured goods, tariffs will fall
from a current average of nearly 25 percent to less than ten percent.
On services, China has agreed to phase out a broad array of laws
regulations and policies that have blocked U.S. firms from competing in
this growing market.
But I am especially pleased at the prospects for increased
agricultural exports. Around the world, average tariffs on U.S.
agricultural exports are more than 40 percent. China is slashing its
tariffs to far below this average: 17.5 percent. And on U.S. priority
products--the products that we produce for export--the average Chinese
tariff will fall to just 14 percent. For bulk commodities the agreement
establishes generous tariff rate quotas. For example, on wheat, a major
export product for North Dakota, China will allow imports of 7.3
million metric tons initially (growing to 9.6 million tons by 2004)
subject to a tariff of just 1 percent. In addition, China has agreed to
changes in its administration of tariff rate quotas that will prevent
state trading monopolies from blocking imports if there is private
sector demand for wheat.
For my State of North Dakota, the agreement provides new export
opportunities for wheat, for oilseeds, including canola, and for beef
and pork products. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has estimated
that this agreement could add $1.6 billion annually to U.S. exports of
grains, oilseeds and cotton in just five years. Additional growth
opportunities for North Dakota
[[Page 18353]]
agricultural exports will come as China reduces its tariffs on beef
(from 45 percent today to 12 percent by 2004) and pork (from 20 percent
to 12 percent). Finally, the China agreement provides additional
leverage for U.S. goals in the ongoing WTO negotiations on agriculture.
China has agreed to eliminate export subsidies, to cap and reduce
domestic subsidies, and to provide the right to import and distribute
products without going through state trading enterprises.
There can be no question that this agreement will create expanded
export opportunities for American workers, farmers and businesses. But
the key word here is ``opportunities.'' This agreement creates
wonderful opportunities for North Dakota agriculture, but it is not a
silver bullet. This agreement will not solve all of our trade problems
with China. Nor will the results come overnight. We will need to work
aggressively year after year to take advantage of these opportunities
and turn them into results. And we will need to closely monitor China's
implementation of its commitments.
In that vein, I am very pleased that the legislation we are
considering includes provisions I strongly supported to ensure that the
Federal government monitors and enforces China's WTO accession
agreement. And I am hopeful that the WTO's multilateral dispute
resolution system will be more successful than our past unilateral
efforts to hold China to its commitments. The simple fact is that the
current system has not worked well. There has been no neutral
arbitrator to resolve disputes. As a result, U.S. firms have been very
reluctant for the U.S. to take action against China because of Chinese
threats to retaliate against American business. With China in the WTO,
we will have the advantage of a neutral dispute resolution system and
rules to guard against Chinese retaliation.
In my view, the trade benefits alone are enough to conclude that we
should support PNTR for China. But this debate is about more than just
trade. It is about human rights and national security as well. I
believe bringing China into the WTO and passing PNTR is the best way to
improve human rights in China. Clearly, our current annual debate over
Normal Trade Relations has had little effect on human rights in China.
Bringing China into the WTO, though, will increase the openness of
Chinese society. It will increase the presence of American and other
Western firms in China. It will open China to the InterNet and other
advanced telecommunications technologies that, over time, will expose
average Chinese to our thoughts, values, and ideals on human rights,
workers' rights and democracy.
This is not just my view. It is a view shared by numerous prominent
Chinese dissidents and religious and democratic leaders. They believe
that rejecting PNTR will only strengthen the iron hand of the hard-
liners in the Chinese leadership. For example, Bao Tong, a prominent
dissident, was quoted in the Washington Post saying that attempts to
use trade sanctions on human rights simply do not work: ``I appreciate
the efforts of friends and colleagues to help our human rights
situation, but it doesn't make sense to use trade as a lever. It just
doesn't work,'' Mr. Bao said. Similarly, Dai Qing, a leading Chinese
environmentalist, argues that passing PNTR ``would put enormous
pressure on both the government and the general public to meet the
international standard not only on trade, but on other issues including
human rights and environmental protection.'' Finally, the Dalai Lama
has said that ``joining the World Trade Organization, I think, is one
way to change in the right direction. . . . In the long run, certainly
it will be positive for Tibet. Forces of democracy in China get more
encouragement through that way.''
Finally, I believe that passing PNTR will promote our national
security interests. History teaches us that conflicts among trading
partners are less likely than conflicts between countries that do not
have strong economic ties. In contrast, rejecting PNTR could send a
strong signal to China that the U.S. wants to isolate China. A hostile
China is not in our national interest. A China integrated into the
international system, obeying international rules and norms, is.
In conclusion, Mr. President, the arguments in favor of PNTR for
China are very strong. Passing PNTR advances America's interests in
Asia and the world. It is good for our national economy, and it is
particularly good for my state's agricultural economy. I hope my
colleagues will join me in sending a strong bipartisan message of
support for China's accession to the WTO.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this has been a very difficult debate for
all of us in the Senate who care about labor rights, about human
rights, and about the environment in China.
These issues are important, and we can't ignore them. I especially
commend the many leaders throughout the country on labor issues, human
rights issues, and environmental issues for stating their case and
their concerns on these challenges so eloquently and effectively. It's
clear that we must do more than this agreement does to make sure that
free trade is also fair--that it improves the quality of life of people
everywhere, and creates good jobs here at home.
The demonstrations at last year's WTO negotiations in Seattle and in
other cities since then show that we must pay much greater attention to
these concerns. Too often the current system of trade enriches multi-
national corporations at the expense of working families, leaving
workers without jobs and without voices in the new global economy. Too
many companies export high-wage, full-benefit jobs from our country and
replace them with lower-paying jobs in the third world countries with
few, if any, benefits.
For too many families across America, globalization has become a
``race to the bottom'' in wages, benefits, and living standards. In
recent years, corporate stock prices have often increased in almost
direct proportion to employee layoffs, benefit reductions, and job
exports. This growing inequality threatens our own economic growth and
prosperity, and we must do all we can to end it.
I am also very concerned about a trade deficit that continues to grow
at an alarming pace. In this historic time of economic prosperity, the
trade deficit remains one of the most stubborn challenges we face.
While the current trade deficit is clearly a sign that the U.S. economy
is the strongest economy in the world, we cannot sustain this enormous
negative balance of trade for the long term. We risk losing even more
of our industrial and manufacturing base to foreign countries with
lower labor standards.
Similarly, all of us who care about human rights and environmental
rights must find more effective ways to address these concerns. The
flagrant violations of human rights that continue to take place in
China are unacceptable. And so is the callous disregard of the
environment by that nation as its economy advances.
The answer to these festering problems is to give these fundamental
issues a fair place at international bargaining tables. Clearly, we do
not do enough for labor rights, human rights, and the environment when
we negotiate trade agreements.
I intend to vote for this agreement, however--as flawed as it is--
because I am concerned that the alternative would be even less
satisfactory. But I welcome the Administration's commitment to give
these other issues higher priority in future trade negotiations, and I
look forward to working to achieve these essential goals.
The global marketplace is a reality, and the United States stands to
gain much more by participating in it than by rejecting it. I'm hopeful
that we will be able to work together in the future on these basic
issues in ways that bring us together, not divide us.
It is especially significant that all of the economic concessions
made in this agreement are made by China. It will not change our own
market access policies at all. The concessions that China has made are
substantial, and President Clinton and his Administration deserve
credit for this success. In particular, U.S. Trade Representative
[[Page 18354]]
Charlene Barshefsky did a excellent job negotiating this agreement for
the United States.
By approving PNTR, Congress is not deciding to accept China into the
World Trade Organization. China will join the WTO regardless of our
vote in Congress. What Congress is deciding is whether to accept or
reject the extraordinary economic concessions that China has offered to
the United States. If we reject PNTR, we reject the bulk of the
concessions that China reluctantly made. We would be allowing China to
keep its barriers up--and we might well be inviting the WTO to impose
sanctions against us for not playing by the rules we agreed to.
Within five years, under this agreement, China will completely end
its tariffs on information technology. It will eliminate its
geographical limitations on the sale of financial services and
insurance. It will do away with quotas on products such as fiber-optic
cable. And it will end the requirement to hire a Chinese government
``middle-man'' to sell and distribute products and services in China.
These are major concessions that no one could have predicted even two
years ago.
China has also agreed to eliminate export subsidies. The inefficient,
state-owned industries in China will no longer be able to rely on
government support to stay afloat. They will be required to compete on
a level playing field. China has agreed that its state-owned industries
will make decisions on purely commercial terms, and will allow US
companies to operate on the same terms.
The agreement also contains strong provisions against unfair trade
and import surges. We will have at our disposal effective measures to
prevent the dumping of subsidized products into American markets for
years to come. The agreement contains strong and immediate protections
for intellectual property rights, which will benefit important US
industries such as software, medical technology, and publishing. Strong
protections are also included against forced technology transfer from
private companies to the Chinese government--a provision that has
benefits for both commercial enterprises and national security.
All of these protections and concessions will be lost if Congress
fails to pass PNTR. Rejection of this agreement would put American
businesses and workers at a major disadvantage with our competitors in
Europe and in many other nations in securing access to the largest
market in the world.
One out of every ten jobs in Massachusetts is dependent upon exports,
and that number is increasing. If we accept the concessions that China
has given us, companies in cities and towns across the state will be
more competitive. More exports will be stimulated, and more jobs will
be created here at home.
It is clear that many of our businesses will reap significant
benefits from this trade agreement. But it is also clear that some
businesses and workers will be hurt by it as well. It is our
responsibility to do everything we can to reduce the harm that free
trade creates. We must strengthen trade adjustment assistance and
worker training programs. As we open our doors wider to the global
economy, we must do much more to ensure that American workers are ready
to compete. We must make the education and training of our workforce a
higher priority as we ask our citizens to compete with workers across
the globe. Importing skilled foreign labor is no substitute for fully
developing the potential of our domestic workforce. The growth in the
global marketplace makes education and training more important than
ever.
We need to create high-tech training opportunities on a much larger
scale for American workers who currently hold relatively low-paying
jobs and wish to obtain new skills to enhance their employability and
improve their earning potential. As the economy becomes more global and
more competitive, it would be irresponsible to open the doors to new
foreign competition, without giving our own workers the skills they
need to compete and excel. I'm very hopeful that passage of this
agreement will provide a strong new incentive for more effective action
by Congress on all these important issues.
The issue of PNTR also involves major foreign policy and national
security considerations. When China joins the World Trade Organization,
it will be required to abide by the rules and regulations of the
international community. The Chinese government will be obligated to
publish laws and regulations and to submit important decisions to
international review. By integrating China into this global, rules-
based system, the international community will have procedures never
available in the past to hold the government of China accountable for
its actions, and to promote the development of the rule of law in
China.
The WTO agreement will encourage China to continue its market reforms
and support new economic freedoms. Already, 30 percent of the Chinese
economy is privatized. Hard-line Chinese leaders fear that as China
becomes more exposed to Western ideas, their grip on power will be
weakened, along with their control over individual citizens.
As the economic situation improves, China will be able to carry out
broader and deeper reforms. While economic reforms are unlikely to
result immediately and directly in political reforms, they are likely
to produce conditions that will be more conducive to democracy in China
in the years ahead.
All of us deplore China's abysmal record on human rights and labor
rights and the environment, and we have watched with dismay as these
abuses have continued. It is unlikely that approving PNTR will lead to
an immediate and dramatic improvement in China's record on these
fundamental issues. But after many years of debate, the pressure
created by the annual vote on China's trade status has not solved those
problems either.
Approving PNTR leaves much to be desired on all of these essential
issues. But on balance, I believe that it can be a realistic step
toward achieving the long-sought freedoms that will benefit all the
people of China. The last thing we need is a new Cold War with China.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the legislation
pending before the Senate on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with
China. I support this bill not only because it is in the best interest
of American farmers, businesses, and consumers; but also because
passage of PNTR is the best way for America to have a positive
influence on China's domestic policies, including policies affecting
basic human rights.
I believe that this bill has been characterized by many of my
esteemed colleagues as something that it is not--a reward to China
despite its poor human rights record. Surely, we do not agree with the
treatment of China's citizens, just as surely as we do not agree with
so many other practices of the Chinese government. However, it is
important to remember that China will become a member of the WTO no
matter how we vote. If the Congress were to vote against Permanent
Normal Trade Relations, many of our trading partners will receive the
myriad benefits of trading with China, while our farmers, our
businesses, . . . our citizens would be excluded.
Furthermore, the interest we have in promoting human rights
protection in China is not defeated with the passing of this bill. The
Congress has used its annual review of Normal Trade Relations to push
China to become more democratic, to treat its citizens with basic
decency, and to discourage Chinese participation in the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction. We now have the opportunity to assist
our allies in bringing China into the world trading community. And by
bringing China further into the global community, the real
beneficiaries of PNTR, and eventual membership in the WTO, will be the
Chinese people. The Chinese people will benefit from the new economic
opportunities created by increased trade. The Chinese people will
benefit from the spread of the rule of law, from increased governmental
transparency, and from the economic freedom which will come as a
consequence of China's membership in the WTO. Finally, passage of PNTR
will make it much more likely that the Chinese people will have the
opportunity to do what so many Chinese-
[[Page 18355]]
Americans have done in the United States. By harnessing the power of
individual innovation and by starting businesses, the Chinese people
will be able to generate new wealth and new opportunities for
themselves and their children.
While the rewards of membership are evident, let us not overlook the
responsibilities that come with membership in that community--
particularly the responsibilities that come with membership in the WTO.
What better way to promote democracy in China, a nation that has long
lacked a strong rule of law, than to encourage its participation in
institutions, like the WTO, with strong dispute resolution mechanisms.
Membership in the WTO will cause China to reexamine its legal
infrastructure. Violating WTO agreements brings real consequences--the
imposition of trade sanctions.
This is a historic opportunity. We will soon be voting on one of the
most important bills ever debated in this body. I will support
Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China and I hope that my
colleagues will recognize this bill's importance, and give it their
support.
Let me remind my colleagues that granting PNTR is not a reward for
China, it is a reward for US farmers, businesses, and consumers.
Passage of PNTR would allow the US to take advantage of the concessions
agreed to by China in the bilateral agreement during its accession
process. Tariffs for US goods will be drastically reduced.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4444, the
U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000. This long-overdue legislation is an
essential prerequisite to the advancement of U.S. interests in the Asia
Pacific region, and I urge its prompt passage.
The preceding two weeks have witnessed considerable debate on the
floor of the Senate with respect to U.S.-China relations and the wisdom
of granting permanent Normal Trade Relations status to the government
in Beijing. Clearly, there are extraordinarily serious issues dividing
the United States and China. Issues central to our national security
and moral values continue to preclude the development of the kind of
relationship many of us would have liked to have enjoyed with the
world's most populous country. As long as China continues to engage in
such abhorrent practices as forced abortions, the harvesting of human
organs, repressive measures against people of faith and pro-democracy
movements, and the proliferation of ballistic missiles and technology,
there will continue to be considerable tension in our relationship.
No one should attempt to minimize the significance of these
activities. Their termination must be among our highest foreign policy
priorities. Opponents of extending permanent normal trade relations
status to China, however, are wrong to suggest that such a policy
weakens our ability to address important issues that insult our values
as a nation and impose tremendous suffering on many Chinese citizens.
On the contrary, the economic relationship between the United States
and China is a powerful tool for moving China in the direction we
desire.
There is considerable room for improvement in the human rights
situation in China, and efforts at ending Chinese transfers of
ballistic missile technology to other countries have been frustratingly
ineffective. Denying permanent normal trade status for China, however,
is not the answer. China does in fact represent a case for economic
engagement as a mechanism for affecting political change. China's
history, which cannot be divorced from discussions of contemporary
Chinese developments, is quite illuminating in this respect. One of the
world's oldest and proudest civilizations, China has nevertheless never
known true democracy. Go back 3,000 years and trace its history to the
present. It is only in the last quarter-century that the window has
truly opened for those aspiring to a freer China.
The economic reforms initiated by the late Premier Deng Xiao-ping
began a process that has benefited millions of ordinary Chinese and has
held out the greatest hope for prosperity and, ultimately, political
freedom that country has ever known. The Chinese government, in fact,
is struggling with the dichotomy between economic liberalization and
political repression and is discovering to its dismay that it has
irreconcilable interests. The United States, by maximizing its presence
in China through commercial investment and trade, can be of
immeasurable assistance to the Chinese population in ensuring that that
conflict between economic growth and political repression is resolved
in the direction of liberalization.
Objective analysis strongly supports this assertion. Since the
beginning of economic reform in 1979, China's economy has emerged as
one of the fastest growing in the world. The World Bank calculates that
as many as 200 million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty as a
result of the government's economic reforms. A recent Congressional
Research Service study noted that China will have more than 230 million
middle-income consumers by 2005. Clearly, economic reform, fueled in
large part by trade, is benefitting the average Chinese citizen. It is
important that we enable American businesses to develop a presence in
these markets now, so that they can both take advantage of future
developments and so that American values and practices can better take
hold and flourish.
We should not be ashamed of the fact that our economy benefits by
trade with China. China's accession to the World Trade Organization, an
inevitability given its importance as a market, will allow American
companies to sell to Chinese consumers without the current arbitrary
regulations. China will be forced to take steps to open its markets to
U.S. goods and services that it has been reluctant to take in the past.
These steps include major reductions in industrial tariffs from an
average of 24 percent to an average of 9.4 percent; reductions in the
tariffs on agricultural goods from an average of 31 percent to 14
percent, as well as elimination of non-tariff barriers in agricultural
imports; major openings in industries where China has been extremely
reluctant to permit foreign investment, including telecommunications
and financial services; and unprecedented levels of protection for
intellectual property rights. In addition, the United States will be
able to use the dispute resolution mechanism of the WTO to force China
to meet its obligations and open its markets to American goods.
Opponents of engaging China in trade should be aware that membership
in the World Trade Organization carries with it responsibilities that
are at variance with Communist Party practice. That is why Martin Lee,
chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong, noted that China's
participation in the WTO would ``bolster those in China who understand
that the country must embrace the rule of law.'' Similarly, Wang Shan,
a liberal political scientist, stated that ``undoubtedly [the China WTO
agreement] will push political reform.'' And the former editor of the
democratic journal Fangfa has written that ``if economic monopolies can
be broken, controls in other areas can have breakthroughs as well . . .
In the minds of ordinary people, it will show that breakthroughs that
were impossible in the past are indeed possible.''
Yes, we have serious concerns with Chinese behavior in a number of
areas. As General Brent Scowcroft stated in a hearing before the
Commerce Committee last April, however, the essential point is what is
gained by denying China permanent normal trade relations status. We
would not accomplish our foreign policy objectives in the Asia Pacific
region, or within the realm of missile proliferation, by impeding trade
with China. I supported the measure offered by Senator Thompson
intended to address the issue of Chinese missile proliferation because
of that issue's importance to our national security, but also because
it was not intended as an anti-trade measure, as is the case with the
other amendments offered to this bill.
It is past time that the Senate passes permanent normal trade
relations status for China. It is in America's interest, and in the
interest of hundreds of
[[Page 18356]]
millions of Chinese citizens. It is the right thing to do.
I thank the President for this opportunity to address the Senate, and
urge passage of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate is debating an important
question with tremendous ramifications for our relationship with China
and the American economy: whether to extend Permanent Normal Trade
Relations status to China (PNTR).
The opponents of PNTR argue that China is not worthy of receiving
PNTR. They offer a laundry list of reasons. Its track record on human
rights has not only not improved but has gotten worse. It continues to
ignore commitments made in the nonproliferation area, particularly with
respect to the spread of missile technology. Its intimidation of Taiwan
continues, with little indication that Chinese leaders are prepared to
avail themselves of Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's offers to
begin negotiations. Its compliance with existing agreements leave a lot
to be desired. They speak passionately about those concerns. And these
issues should never be overlooked in any thoughtful analysis of our
relationship with China. They must productively be incorporated into a
policy of engagement; but make no mistake: we must have a policy of
engagement.
I support PNTR and I intend to vote for it. I will admit to you that
when I read recent press accounts of yet another crackdown on religious
practitioners in China--this time members of a Christian sect called
the China Fang-Cheng Church--and of the deaths of three Falung Gong
members who have been imprisoned--I understood once more the temptation
to reverse my position and vote against PNTR. But I am not going to do
that Mr. President, because PNTR is not an effective tool for changing
China's behavior at home or abroad--and as much as we detest the
behavior in China with regard to religious freedom, it is not symbolic
protest that will bring about change, but thoughtful approaches and a
new and different kind of engagement--economic as well as diplomatic--
that will leverage real change in China in the years ahead .
So let me say once more, there is no question that the issues raised
by the opponents of PNTR are serious and real. We are all outraged by
the repression of Chinese citizens who simply want to practice their
spiritual beliefs or exercise political rights. But denying China PNTR
will not force the Chinese leadership to cease its crackdown on
religious believers or political dissidents. It will not force China to
abide by the principles of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)
or slow down its nuclear or military modernization, or reverse its
position on Taiwan. Denying PNTR will NOT keep China out of the WTO.
But I am certain that denying China PNTR will set back the broad range
of U.S. interests at stake in our relationship with China and undermine
our ability to promote those interests through engagement.
China has the capacity to hinder or help us to advance our interests
on a broad range of issues, including: nonproliferation, open markets
and free trade, environmental protection, the promotion of human rights
and democratic freedoms, counter-terrorism, counter-narcotics, Asian
economic recovery, peace on the Korean peninsula and ultimately peace
and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. It is only by engaging with
China on all of these issues that we will make positive progress on any
and thereby advance those interests and our security. Engagement does
not guarantee that China will be a friend. But by integrating China
into the international community through engagement, we minimize the
possibility of China becoming an enemy.
Over the last three decades, U.S. engagement with China, and China's
growing desire to reap the benefits of membership in the global
community have already produced real--if limited--progress on issues of
deep concern to Americans, including the question of change in China.
There are two faces of life in China today:
The first face is the disturbing crackdown on the Falon Gong and the
China Fang-Cheng Church, the increase of repressive, destructive
activities in Tibet, the restraints placed on key democracy advocates
and the harassment of the underground churches. The second face is that
of the average citizen who has more economic mobility and freedom of
employment than ever before and a better standard of living.
More information is coming in to China than ever before via the
Internet, cable TV, satellite dishes, and western publications.
Academics and government officials openly debate politically sensitive
issues such as political reform and democratization. Efforts have begun
to reform the judicial system, to expand citizen participation and
increase choices at the grass roots level.
While China's leaders remain intent on controlling political
activity, undeniably there are indications that the limits of the
system are slowly fading, encouraging political activists to take
previously unimaginable steps including the formation of an alternative
Democracy Party. On the whole, Chinese society is more open and most
Chinese citizens have more personal freedom than ever before. Of
course, we must press for further change, but we should not ignore the
remarkable changes that have taken place.
China's track record on weapons proliferation is another issue of
serious concern. Senator Thompson has introduced sanctions legislation
targeted at China's proliferation policies, and I understand he will be
offering that as an amendment to PNTR. With this legislation, Senator
Thompson has done the Senate and this Nation a great service, by
forcing us to take a hard look at the reality of China's commitment to
international proliferation norms. And that reality, particularly over
the last eighteen months, is disturbing. But I do not believe that a
China-specific sanctions bill is an effective response to the challenge
of weapons proliferation. And we should not scuttle PNTR just to make a
point--however valid--about China's continuing export of missile-
related technology.
Our concern about recent Chinese activities related to the transfer
of missile technology should not lead us to overlook the totality of
China's performance in the arms control area. The fact is China has
taken steps, particularly in the last decade, to bring its
nonproliferation and arms export control policies more in line with
international norms. China acceded to the Biological Weapons Convention
in 1984. In 1992, China acceded to the Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT.
China signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, CTBT, and the
next year promulgated new nuclear export controls identical to the
dual-use list used by the Nuclear Suppliers Group. In 1997 China joined
the Zangger Committee, which coordinates nuclear export policies among
NPT members. The same year it ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention
and began to enforce export controls on dual-use chemical technology.
In 1998 China published detail export control regulations for dual-use
nuclear items. These developments have also been accompanied by various
pledges, for example not to export complete missile systems falling
within MTCR payload and range and not to provide assistance to Iran's
nuclear energy program. China's commitment to these pledges has been
spotty but the fact is, China's record today is dramatically different
from what it was in the 1980s or the three decades before. Then we were
faced with a China exporting a broad range of military technology to an
array of would-be nuclear states including Libya, Syria, Iran, Iraq,
Pakistan and North Korea. Today, our principal concern is Chinese
exports in the area of missile-related technology--not complete missile
systems--and to two countries: Pakistan and Iran. That, it seems to me,
is progress, and progress made during a period of growing engagement
between China and the international community.
Some in this body, frustrated that our current engagement with China
has born little fruit, are offering amendments in an attempt to use the
presumed leverage in PNTR as a means
[[Page 18357]]
of changing China's policies. I believe that engagement offers the best
prospects for promoting our interests with China but I understand and
share their frustration over the way in which the current
administration has engaged China. The next administration must engage
with greater clarity of message, consistency of policy, pragmatism
about what can be achieved and over what time frame, and determination
to hold China accountable when it misbehaves or ignores commitments
made.
However, we should not let our frustration with the benefits of
engagement lead us to undermine that policy by delaying or denying PNTR
in a vain quest to change China overnight. PNTR is not a ``reward'', as
the opponents of PNTR suggest. It is a key element in our economic
engagement with China and an affirmation of our intention to have a
normal trading relationship with China, as we do with the overwhelming
majority of our other trading partners. Many of China's most outspoken
critics including Martin Lee, the head of Hong Kong's Democratic Party,
Bao Tong, one of China's most prominent dissidents; and Dai Qing, an
engaging writer and environmental activist who was jailed in the wake
of Tiananmen Square for her pro-democracy activities and writings, want
us to give PNTR to China. They want it because they know that drawing
China deeper into the international community's institutions and norms
will promote more change in China over time. As Dai Qing told U.S. when
she testified before the Foreign Relations Committee in July:
``Firstly, PNTR will help to reduce governmental control over economy
and society; secondly, PNTR will help to promote the rule of law; and
thirdly, PNTR will help to nourish independent political and social
forces in China.''
The opponents of PNTR have argued that we are giving up leverage over
China because we are abandoning our annual review of U.S.-China
relations. This argument ignores two critical points: first, there has
been little leverage in the MFN review because China can simply do
business with others; and second, Congress has never revoked the status
in the last 12 years. So how meaningful is this review in reality?
There is nothing in the action we are contemplating here that prevents
Congress from acting in the future, if it so desires. In fact, the
pending legislation sets up a commission to review China's performance
on key issues including human rights and labor rights and trade
compliance so that if Congress wants to act, we will be better informed
at the outset.
This vote on extending PNTR is not a referendum on the China of
today. It is a vote on how best to pursue all of our interests with
China including our economic interests. Extending PNTR will allow the
United States to enjoy economic benefits stemming from the bilateral
agreement negotiated between the United States and China. I am
concerned that critical labor, human rights and environmental
protections were left out of the agreement. However, I believe the
agreement undeniably forces China to open its doors to more trade, and
if we fail to vote in favor of PNTR, we risk forfeiting increased trade
with the largest emerging market in the world to other countries in
Europe and Asia.
This would be no small loss for the United States. Just consider the
facts which underscore the importance of trade with China. By granting
PNTR status to China, the U.S. will be able to avail itself to China--
to make American goods and services available to one-fifth of the
world's population. China is the world's second largest economy in
terms of domestic purchasing power. It is the world's seventh largest
economy in terms of Gross Domestic Product and is one of the fastest
growing economies in the world. Simply put, China's economy is simply
too large to ignore.
It is of course true that there has been sharp growth in the U.S.
trade deficit with China, which surged from $6.2 billion in 1989 to
more than $68 billion in 1999. But it is also true that the deficit is
in large part due to the fact that China has closed its doors to U.S.
products.
I believe that only by granting PNTR to China will U.S. businesses be
able to open those doors and export goods and services to China, so
that our economy can continue to grow and our workers be fully
employed. U.S. exports to China and Hong Kong now support 400,000
American jobs. Trade with China is of increasing importance in my home
state. China is Massachusetts' eighth largest export market. The
Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research at the
University of Massachusetts calculated that in 1999, Massachusetts
exported goods worth a total of nearly $366 million to China. That
represents an increase in total exports to China of more than 15
percent from the previous year and translates into more jobs and a
stronger economy in my state.
The bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and China will give
businesses in every state the chance to increase their exports to
China, ultimately leading to more growth here at home. Under the
agreement, China is committed to reducing tariffs and removing non-
tariff barriers in many sectors important to the U.S. economy. China
has agreed, for instance, to cut overall agricultural tariffs for U.S.
priority products--beef, grapes, wine, cheese, poultry, and pork--from
31.5 percent to 14.5 percent by 2004. Overall industrial tariffs will
fall from an average of 24.6 percent to 9.4 percent by 2005. Tariffs on
information technology products--which have been driving the tremendous
economic prosperity our country is currently enjoying--would be reduced
from an average level of 13.3 percent to zero by the year 2005. China
must also phase out quotas within five years. The U.S. market, on the
other hand, is already open to Chinese products. We have conceded
nothing to China in terms of market access, while China must now open
its doors to increased exports. This is a one-way trade agreement
favoring the United States of America.
China has made other concessions that are likely to be extremely
beneficial to the U.S. economy. It has agreed to open service sectors,
such as distribution, telecommunications, insurance, banking,
securities, and professional services to foreign firms. China has
agreed to reduce restrictions on auto trade. Tariffs on autos will fall
from 80-100 percent to 25 percent by 2006, and auto quotas will be
eliminated by 2005. Perhaps most importantly, the agreement and this
legislation provide that China must accept the use by the United States
of safeguard, countervailing, and antidumping provisions to respond to
surges in U.S. imports from China that might harm a U.S. industry.
A favorable vote on PNTR will also benefit the agriculture industry.
China is already the United States' sixth largest agricultural export
market, and that market is expected to grow tremendously in the 21st
century. China is a major purchaser of U.S. grain, meat, chicken, pork,
cotton and soybeans. In the next century, USDA projects China will
account for almost 40 percent of the growth in U.S. farm exports.
We must recognize that the U.S. will not be able to sell its wheat,
provide its financial services, or market its computer software in
China unless we grant China PNTR status. Let there be no mistake, China
will become a member of the WTO whether or not we pass PNTR. Under the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, the United States can
and does extend Normal Trade Relations treatment to China annually. If
Congress fails to amend its laws to provide permanent, rather than
annual, normal trade relations, we will not be able to satisfy the
requirement that normal trade relations be unconditional. The U.S.-
China agreements could therefore not be enforced and the U.S. would not
be able to avail itself to the dispute resolution procedures of the
WTO.
The benefits of the WTO agreement extend beyond more open Chinese
markets to the application of a rules-based system to China, a country
that has historically acted outside the world's regulations and norms.
Under the terms of this agreement, the Chinese government is obliged to
publish laws and regulations subjecting some of China's most important
decisions to the
[[Page 18358]]
review of an international body for the first time. WTO membership will
force China to accelerate market-oriented economic reforms. This will
be a difficult and challenging task for China, but an important one
that will result in freer and fairer trade with China.
Despite the likely benefits that the United States will reap if it
grants PNTR to China, we must pay attention to the concerns expressed
by those in the labor, environmental and human rights communities about
the impact of this vote. We must hear their voices and heed their
warnings so that we are on alert in our dealings with China. In China,
workers cannot form or join unions and strikes are prohibited. There
are no meaningful environmental standards and the prevalent use of
forced labor make production in China extremely inexpensive. Because
they cannot bargain collectively, Chinese workers are paid extremely
low wages and are subject to unsafe working conditions.
No one on either side of the aisle, not even the most ardent
supporter of PNTR, supports these most undemocratic, morally
reprehensible conditions in China, and we have a duty and a
responsibility to pay attention to the conditions there. It is my hope
and belief that as U.S. firms move into China, they will bring with
internationally-accepted business practices that may actually raise
labor and environmental standards in China. I also hope that they will
provide opportunities for Chinese workers to move from state-owned to
privately-owned companies, or from one private company to another,
where the conditions are better. These steps are small, but important.
Nevertheless, the international community in general and the United
States in particular must remain vigilant in order to ensure that
standards are rising in China and it is simply not the case where the
only benefit to come from freer trade with China is that the corporate
coffers of large companies are being lined with money saved on the
backs of Chinese laborers.
We must also be vigilant in ensuring that once China becomes a member
of the WTO, it complies with the rules of the WTO and lives up to its
commitments under trade agreements. There are many critics of PNTR with
China who rightly point out that China has an extremely poor record of
compliance with current trade agreements with the U.S., and that it
``can't be trusted'' to live up to commitments once it is in the WTO.
China's trading partners worldwide must cooperate to police China so as
to ensure its adherence to the trade concessions it has made.
The environment is another area in which we must be vigilant in our
efforts to encourage the Chinese government to begin to promulgate and
enforce environmental standards. Right now, levels of air pollution
from energy and industrial production in Shanghai and Shenyang are the
highest in the world. Water pollution in regions such as Huai River
Valley is also among the worst in the world. In 1995, more than one
half of the 88 Chinese cities monitored for sulfur dioxide were above
the World Health Organization guidelines. It is estimated that nearly
178,000 deaths in urban areas could be prevented each year by cleaner
air. We simply cannot allow this complete degradation of the
environment in China to continue unabated.
Denying PNTR to China won't stop its unfair labor practices or its
environmental devastation. So while I would have liked to see these
issues addressed in this legislation or in the bilateral agreement, I
believe that, on balance, the risk of not engaging China at this time
far outweighs any value we would gain by signaling to China that we
still do not approve of its practices and policies. That symbolic
signal would only strip U.S. of the leverage that WTO membership brings
with it to hold China accountable and effect real progress. If the U.S.
fails to support PNTR, and thus fails to take advantage of the benefits
of China's inevitable membership in the WTO, U.S. companies stand to
lose market share and U.S. workers may lose jobs to European and Asian
companies that gain a strong foothold in China. We would also lose the
opportunity to engage China and advance our positions on all of our
interests including human rights and security. And that would be far
too high a price to pay in this new global economy for the short term
rewards of merely sending a message with far more negative consequences
for U.S. than for China.
Engagement, is the course we must pursue--intelligently, with
strength and a commitment to accountability. Engagement is a course
best pursued by granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations and
bringing it into the WTO. It is in the best interests of our economy
and it is in the best interests of our foreign policy, and I hope we
can all join together in moving the United States Senate and our Nation
in that direction.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the amendments
that have been voted on in relation to H.R. 4444, a bill that
authorizes permanent normal trade relations with China. Over the last
two weeks or so, several of my colleagues have introduced very
thoughtful legislation specifically designed to address problems that
exist at this time in China. Taken alone and at face value, many of
these amendments--from human and labor rights to technology transfer to
religious freedom to weapons proliferation to clean energy--have been
worthy and deserving of my support. At any other time, I would have in
fact voted for many of these amendments. I personally am of the view
that Chinese officials must continue to make significant and tangible
efforts in the future to transform their country's policies to coincide
with international rules and norms. Although China is indeed making a
very difficult and gradual transition to a more democratic society and
a market-based economy, much remains to be done. Chinese officials must
reinvigorate their commitment to change, and they will inevitably be
open to criticism from both the United States and the international
community until they do so.
But this said, it is clear that any amendment attached to H.R. 4444
at this time will force the bill into conference, and at this late
stage in the session, that means that the bill would effectively be
dead. In my mind, this bill is far too important to have this outcome.
I believe that H.R. 4444 is one of the most important pieces of
legislation we will consider this year, for two reasons.
First, it creates new opportunities for American workers, farmers,
and businesses in the Chinese market. This bill is not about Chinese
access to the U.S. market as this already exists. The bill is about
U.S. access to the Chinese market, because if this bill is passed we
will see a significant change in the way China has to conduct business.
As a result of this bill, we will over time see a reduction in tariff
and non-tariff barriers, liberalization in domestic regulatory regimes,
and protections against import surges, unfair pricing, and illegal
investment practices. If we do not take action on this bill this year,
we will be at a tremendous competitive disadvantage in the Chinese
market relative to companies from other countries.
We cannot let this happen to American workers. In my state of New
Mexico alone we have seen dramatic results from increased trade with
China. Our exports to China totaled $147 million in 1998, up from
$366,000 in 1993. China was New Mexico's 35th largest export
destination in 1993, but now it ranks fourth in this regard. In 1993
only six product groups from New Mexico were heading to China as
exports, but in 1998 there were sixteen product groups flowing in that
direction, from electrical equipment and components to chemicals to
agriculture to furniture. In short, increased trade opportunities with
China translates directly to increased economic welfare for New Mexico,
and all of the United States.
A second reason this legislation is so important relates to U.S.
national security. From where I stand, China is playing an increasingly
active role in Asia and the world, and it is in our national interest
to engage them in discussions concerning these activities on an ongoing
and intensive basis. There is simply no benefit to be gained from
[[Page 18359]]
attempting to isolate or ignore China at this time. It has not worked
in the past, and it will not work in the future. I am convinced that
our failure to pass this bill will limit our country's ability to
influence the direction and quality of change in China. I have visited
China, and I can tell you that the China of today looks dramatically
different than the China of five years ago. This change is at least in
part a direct result of our interaction with the Chinese people. As the
PNTR debate moves forward, Congress must decide how it would like China
to look five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now. Do we want China to
be a competitor, or an enemy? In my view, PNTR will place us in a
particularly strong position to promote positive change in China and
increase our capacity to pursue our long-term national interest.
Although I am certainly sympathetic to the objectives of many of the
amendments offered by my colleagues, I feel the issue of trade with
China deserves to be debated on its own merits. For this reason, I have
chosen to vote against the amendments offered by my colleagues. But I
would like to emphasize at this time that I look forward to the
opportunity to address them in the future.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, several months ago, the House of
Representatives voted 237 to 197 to grant Permanent Normal Trade
Relations to China. Before passing that legislation, however, the House
added provisions that will require this and future Administrations to
step up efforts to enforce China's compliance with its trade agreements
and with internationally-recognized human rights norms.
Today the Senate will vote on whether we too will approve granting
PNTR to China. That vote is on the limited question of whether to make
permanent the favorable trade treatment that the United States has
afforded to China one year at a time for the past 20 years--just that,
and only that. The only difference in this upcoming vote and past votes
on normal trade relations for China is: Shall normal trade relations be
permanent, as they are with virtually every one of our other trading
partners?
I have voted for normal trade relations in the past because China is
a country of 1.3 billion people that is certain to play an important
role in our future. The question is, will that role be a positive or
negative one?
I happen to think that involvement with China is preferable to non-
involvement. And I think on balance that the movement of China towards
more freedom for its citizens and a market-based economy is much more
likely to occur through normal trade relations than through
estrangement.
While it is a close call, I have concluded that it is in our best
interests to accord China Permanent Normal Trade Relations, because the
legislation also establishes a commission to monitor human rights and
labor issues in China and includes provisions that will ensure better
enforcement of our trade agreements.
I would like to explain my reasoning.
I am mindful that there are some actions by China that give us pause.
Threats directed at Taiwan, the transfer of missile technology to rogue
states, and the abuse of human rights inside China are all reasons for
concern. But I have seen almost no evidence that there has been any
connection between Chinese behavior and Congress' annual review of
China's trade status. On the other hand, there is evidence that the
engagement with China by Western democracies has led to some
improvement in a number of areas. It is my hope that those improvements
will continue and be enhanced with Permanent Normal Trade Relations and
China's accession to the WTO.
I am under no illusion that granting PNTR to China and allowing it to
join the WTO will lead China inexorably toward democratization, better
human rights and economic liberalization. However, I find it notable
that China's security services, and conservative members of the
military and Communist Party feel threatened by those developments.
They are leading the opposition to President Zhang Zhemin and Premier
Zhu Rongji's efforts to restructure China's economy and join the WTO
precisely because they fear it will weaken the Communist Party's
absolute hold on power.
The Dalai Lama and many of China's leading democracy and human rights
advocates support Permanent Normal Trade Relations. They believe that
the closer the economic relationship between the U.S. and China, the
better the U.S. will be able to monitor human rights conditions in
China and the more effectively the U.S. will be able to push for
political reforms. However, other human rights advocates, including
Harry Wu, believe granting China PNTR will weaken America's ability to
influence China's human rights. That is why it is so important that the
PNTR legislation establish a commission to monitor the human rights and
labor situation in China and suggest ways we can intensify human-rights
pressure on Beijing.
Most of the farm groups and business groups from my state believe
PNTR and the implementation of the U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement
will result in a significant rise in U.S. exports to China. I hope that
is true. But I fear they will be disappointed. Most impartial studies
have concluded that the gains are likely to be modest. Furthermore, I
am concerned by comments which were made by China's lead trade
negotiator that China has conceded only a ``theoretical'' opportunity
for the U.S. to export grain or meat to China. This makes me wonder
whether China has any real intention of opening its markets as
contemplated in the bilateral agreement. That is why it is so important
that the PNTR bill includes provisions that will require the
administration to step up its efforts to ensure that China complies
with its trade agreements.
The systemic trade problems we are experiencing with China and many
other countries, including Japan, Europe, and Canada, have little to do
with this debate about Normal Trade Relations and a lot to do with our
willingness to give concessional trade advantages to shrewd, tough,
international competitors at the expense of American producers.
Frankly, I am tired of it.
The recent U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement was hailed as a giant
step forward. In fact, it comes up far short of what our producers
ought to be expecting in such agreements. If we were given a vote on
that agreement, I would likely vote no, and tell our negotiators to go
back and try again.
Our negotiators should have done better. It is outrageous that they
signed an agreement that allows China, which already has a $70 billion
merchandise trade surplus with the United States, to protect its
producers with tariffs on American goods that are two to ten times
higher than the tariffs we charge on Chinese goods. There is no excuse
for that. But that circumstance is not unique to China. It exists in
our trade relations with Japan, with the European Union, with Canada,
and others. We now have a mushrooming merchandise trade deficit that is
running at an annual $400 billion-plus level. It is unsustainable and
dangerous for our country.
We must begin to negotiate trade agreements with our trading partners
that are tough, no nonsense agreements. We should develop rules of fair
trade that give American workers and American businesses a fair
opportunity to compete.
Regrettably most of our trade policies reward those corporations that
want to produce where it's cheap and sell back into our marketplace.
That is a recipe for weakening our economy and it must stop.
So, I voted for Normal Trade Relations with China previously, and I
intend to vote to make it permanent, provided that we also require this
and future Administrations to dramatically step up efforts to enforce
China's compliance with its trade agreements and with internationally-
recognized human rights norms.
However, I want it to be clear that, if we accord Permanent Normal
Trade Relations to China and we discover that they are not in fact
complying with the terms of the bilateral agreement we negotiated with
them or that
[[Page 18360]]
they are retreating rather than progressing on the issue of human
rights for Chinese citizens, then I believe we must reserve the right
to revoke China's Normal Trade Relations status.
Mr. LUGAR. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the
Finance Committee, Senator Roth, a brief question. Mr. Chairman, there
are a number of important initiatives and oversight capabilities
created in this legislation on PNTR. Not only do we make permanent our
trading relationship with China, but we have included monitoring
capabilities to ensure that the commitments agreed to in the WTO
accession agreements are, in fact, lived up to by the Chinese
government.
Mr. ROTH. The Senator from Indiana is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. I would like to then clarify that the bill before us
should not only provide means to review WTO trade compliance, but also
past agreements affecting trade between our countries, whether they are
treaties or memorandum of agreements between the United States and
China. Is this correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. ROTH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like then to state here
that it is the intent of the bill that there be a review of the
implementation of the 1992 Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States and China on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. As
you know, this agreement was reached so that American pharmaceutical
compound patents issued between 1986 and 1993 would enjoy protection in
China. As a number of disputes have arisen from this agreement, I think
it is important that we have an independent and objective look at this
agreement and then we can determine if additional efforts in this area
are warranted.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator. It is my intent, as his, that the 1992
MOU shall also be reviewed.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the distinguished Chairman.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the bill to
extend permanent normal trade relations to China. I have taken a great
deal of time to study both the positive and negative aspects of
granting PNTR to China. I was undecided on which way to vote for quite
some time. I met with and talked to those on both sides of the issue.
Although I had several concerns, my biggest were about the reports of
religious persecution and other human rights violations that continue
to occur in China. It certainly is not fair that anyone--let alone 20
percent of the world's population--live under this kind of injustice.
We in America, a great land of freedom and liberty, find these abuses
intolerable and inexcusable. Although human rights have improved over
the past 20 years since China has opened up its market to the world, it
has a great deal of progress to make.
I care deeply about many of the issues that have been raised
throughout this debate. And I pledge to continue working to ensure that
these issues are not forgotten. The evils that the communist government
of China perpetuates, such as forced abortion, organ harvesting,
religious persecution, weapons proliferation, and the like, should
still be addressed. We must do everything we can to not only bring
China into the world trading system, but also into the system of
international norms, which recognizes the value of human life and
rights.
After carefully weighing the issues I decided to support passage of
this bill. I also decided it was such an important bill for American
and Chinese citizens that it should be passed this year.
This caused me to be in the position of voting against several
amendments that in any other situation I would have supported. I know
several of my other good friends and colleagues did the same.
Now I want to explain some of the conclusions I have reached.
First, the recently signed U.S.-China trade agreement does not
require the U.S. to make any concessions. It does not lower tariffs or
other trade barriers for Chinese products coming into America. Instead,
it forces China to open its market to U.S. goods and services provided
the Congress extends PNTR to China. Passage or failure of this bill
does not determine whether or not China becomes a member of the WTO.
However, since the WTO requires that members treat each other in a non-
discriminatory manner, each member country must grant other members
permanent normal trade relations. Therefore, if China is not granted
PNTR, it is not obligated to live by its WTO trade and market-opening
commitments made to the United States.
As I mentioned earlier, China's regime has a poor track record when
it comes to the human rights of its more than 1 billion citizens. It
still has a long way to go to become acceptable. But the United States
should not isolate the people of China from the exchange of information
and products. We should not impede the efforts of Chinese citizens to
trade and exchange property, which is an essential aspect of a free
society.
The gradual opening of the Chinese market in recent years has been
accompanied by very slow, yet positive advancements for religious
freedoms in China. For example, consider the comments of Nelson Graham,
son of the Reverend Billy Graham and President of East Gates
International, a Christian non-profit organization. In his testimony at
the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year he said, ``I believe
that granting China PNTR will not only benefit U.S. businesses and
U.S.-based religious organizations but will be one step further toward
bettering the relationship between our countries.''
He went on to add that the impact of China's increased trade
relations with the West has already caused a ``proliferation of
information exchange [that] has allowed us to be much more effective in
developing and organizing our work in the [People's Republic of
China].''
These and similar comments by other religious leaders have led me to
believe that increased trade will help the work of these religious
organizations and help promote greater freedoms in China. Prior to the
gradual market opening of China, religious organizations like Nelson
Graham's East Gates International, had little or no way of reaching the
spiritually-starved Chinese people.
I also want to emphasize that this bill in no way ignores the
importance of religious and human rights. It sets up a permanent
Commission to monitor human and religious rights and the development of
rule of law and democracy-building in China. This Commission will have
similar responsibilities as the existing Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe established in 1976, which has proven effective
in monitoring and encouraging respect for human rights in Eastern
Europe.
Mr. President, at the conclusion of my remarks I will ask unanimous
consent that four letters and one op-ed piece I have be inserted into
the Record. Three of the letters are written by the Reverend Billy
Graham, Joe Volk of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and
Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network. The other letter
is from thirty-two religious leaders representing a broad range of
religious organizations. the op-ed was written by Randy Tate, former
Executive Direction of the Christian Coalition, and was published in
the Washington Times last year. Each communication makes the point that
PNTR will benefit U.S. religious organizations with operations in
China.
I do not pretend that improvements in religious and human rights in
China will happen overnight. Progress in liberty will not be immediate
in a country where the government owns most of the property and has
strict limits on political and religious association. Not one of us in
this body would create a political regime such as that currently
operating in China if we were cutting from whole cloth. Unfortunately,
history rarely presents such ideal circumstances. Instead, we must
address the world as we find it with all its imperfections.
[[Page 18361]]
I believe the question each of us must ask ourselves is whether human
and religious rights will be improved by refusing China permanent
normal trade relations. I see no evidence this would be the case.
Rather, I believe that the increase in economic freedom that comes
through increased trade relations will, in turn, bring about greater
religious freedom and a better environment for human rights as well.
Randy Tate probably summed up this issue best. He said:
Our case for greater trade . . . is less about money and
more about morality. It is about ensuring that one-fifth of
the world's population is not shut off from businesses
spreading the message of freedom--and ministries spreading
the love of God . . . [I]s it any surprise that some of our
nation's most respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham
to Pat Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China
open?
I also want to briefly discuss another serious issue which was raised
during the PNTR debate--the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction by China. While I recognize the sometimes delinquent
behavior of China in this area, I believe the amendment which failed
used a flawed unilateral and inflexible approach. I want to see the
elimination of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. But
the President currently has ample authority to sanction foreign
entities for proliferation under numerous statutes. Therefore, the
problem we now have is a failure by this Administration to effectively
deal with the Chinese government to eliminate this proliferation. Some
very targeted sanctions were probably in order for some of the Chinese
proliferation activity.
But the amendment that was offered would have prescribed a very rigid
one-size-fits-all solution. And we must remember that the most
effective sanctions are those that are multilateral and those that have
general agreement among our allies. The amendment would have required
unilateral sanctions which history has shown to be ineffective tools in
achieving desired behavior.
I do not believe that trade will cure all of the problems we have
with China. Moreover, PNTR should not be considered a gift to China,
but rather a challenge for China. The U.S. market is already open to
countless Chinese goods. This will not change even if we were to refuse
PNTR to China. Instead, if Congress extends PNTR to China it must open
its market to the United States. At the same time China must play by
the rules of the international trading system, subjecting itself to the
WTO's dispute settlement process.
Without PNTR, China can remain closed to U.S. products yet increase
its exports to the U.S., further exacerbating our trade deficit with
China. This bill is about getting our products into China. By
cooperating with them, they will lower tariffs to get into the WTO and
then we have a court to adjudicate their violations. PNTR simply allows
fair treatment of U.S. products and services going to China once China
enters the WTO.
Change will not happen instantly. But I do believe increased trade
will help advance the cause of freedom in China. The policy of
engagement through trade must be backed up by strong U.S. leadership
that vigorously challenges China, on a bilateral basis and through
international organizations, about its human rights, weapons
proliferation and other obvious shortcomings. But a vote against PNTR
doesn't hurt the hard-line communists in China nor does it help the
cause of human rights in China. The best way to end these evils is to
transform China into a politically and socially free country. And that
transformation will begin with economic freedom. Approving PNTR for
China is the next and most important step toward a freer China and a
safer world.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have additional material
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Opening China's Economy
wto membership will benefit all
(By Randy Tate)
When trade ministers of World Trade Organization member
nations gather in Seattle this week, they will comprise the
largest gathering of trade officials on U.S. soil since the
Bretton Woods conference at the conclusion of World War II.
The world has dramatically changed in the intervening half-
century Astounding technological advances since then have
made us not only comfortable but nonchalant toward
international communication. But not so when it comes to
trade. Here some still see an insoluble dilemma; choosing
between American interests and American ideals. By this
argument, we must either engage in commerce with emerging
economic giants like China, or forsake trade in standing up
for democratic values and human rights.
Fortunately, many conservative and religious leaders are
rejecting this false choice and are now charting a third
course. They recognize that trade and cultural exchange does
not hinder but rather advances the value of free minds and
hearts.
All Americans of good faith can start from this point of
agreement. We must stand firm in our support of democracy and
the inalienable rights to liberty. We all condemn abhorrent
acts such as the bloody suppression of freedom in the
Tiananmen Square massacre. And there are many ways of
expressing that condemnation: tough diplomacy military
containment, and hard-headed realism are among them. But
isolation and protectionism would be misguided, and
ultimately counterproductive.
A fifth of the planet's population lives in China. It makes
no sense to isolate 1.3 billion people from the rest of us.
That will only encourage irresponsible commercial and
political behavior, at home and abroad. Our goals should be
to open Chinese markets to our products and services while
opening up Chinese society to freedom. That is the way to
give its citizens the real opportunity to breathe the
liberating air of faith and democracy.
It would be nice of course, if the Chinese leadership did
that on its own initiative. But that is a fantasy. An
isolated China will resist change at home and be likely to
behave more aggressively towards its regional neighbors. None
of that serves American interests. Admitting China into the
WTO may not cause it to shed dictatorship for democracy. But
it's the right step towards realizing that goal.
Nothing unites a nation and diverts the attention of the
people from abuses by its leader like a common enemy. Do we
slam the door on 1.3 billion people and let Chinese leaders
turn America into the villain? Economic adversaries too often
evolve into military enemies, as the origins of World War II
amply demonstrated. The hatred of 1.3 billion people is
surely something to incur with great caution.
The bottom line is that America needs to have a seat at the
negotiating table to push for further democratic and
religious reforms in countries such as China. Shutting our
doors and abandoning all that we've helped the Chinese people
accomplish would make us part of the problem. Moreover, we
have to recognize that even a U.S. embargo is not going put
the Chinese out of business. Bringing China into the WTO
makes them play by the same trade rules as the rest of the
world, and this policy decision makes up part of the
solution.
While moving forcefully to strengthen a trading partnership
with China, America needs to send a strong signal that it
will stand by historic allies and functioning democracies
like Taiwan. We have strong moral obligations to preserve
democracies. Admitting Taiwan to the WTO as well accomplishes
that. This leaves open political issues for the future, such
as finding ways to ensure that freedom and democracy survive
and prosper in Taiwan while forging a stable environment as
it works out its future relations with China.
Our case for greater trade, therefore, is less about money
and much more about morality. It is about ensuring that one-
fifth of the world's population is not shut off from
businesses spreading the message of freedom--and ministries
spreading the love of God.
Obviously our key commitment is to helping American working
families. That provides the most powerful argument for
strengthening commercial ties with China by admitting China
into the WTO. The agreement negotiated has its imperfections,
but there is no question that it makes dramatic improvements
in opening up domestic Chinese markets.
For example, China will now reduce subsidies on
agricultural products, which allows opportunities for
American-grown products such as wheat and apples to reach a
gargantuan market to a degree never considered possible
before. Especially in the framing communities of my home
state of Washington, the prospect of increased access to a
market of this magnitude has sparked new hope in households
struggling to make ends meet.
Working families dependent upon manufacturing jobs also
benefit. Thanks to last week's agreement China will be forced
to cut tariffs on American goods an average of 23 percent and
to protect, and to protect the excellence and innovation of
U.S. software manufacturers against technological piracy.
Is it any surprise that hundreds of working families will
gather next week in Seattle to
[[Page 18362]]
show their support for strengthening international trade? Not
at all. Nor is it any surprise that some of our nation's most
respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham to Pat
Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China open.
For when the Chinese trade with Americans, they are also
exposed to the values of freedom and the healing message of
the Gospel. And nothing is more important than that.
____
Statement by Religious Leaders in Support of Permanent Normal Trade
Relations with China
September 5, 2000.
Dear Senator, Soon you will be asked to vote on an issue
that will set the course for U.S.-China relations for years
to come: enacting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR)
with China. Your vote will also have an impact on how human
rights and religious freedom will advance for the people of
China in the years ahead. We are writing to urge you to vote
for PNTR for China because we believe that this is the best
way to advance these concerns over the long term.
We share your concern for advancing human rights and
religious freedom for the people of China. The findings of
the recent report from the U.S. International Religious
Freedom Committee are disturbing to us. Clearly, the Chinese
government still has a long way to go.
The question for us all is: What can the U.S. government do
that will best advance human rights and religious freedom for
the people of China? Are conditions more likely to improve
through isolation and containment or through opening trade,
investment, and exchange between peoples?
Let us look first at what has already occurred within China
over the past twenty years. The gradual opening of trade,
investment, travel, and exchange between China and the rest
of the world has led to significant, positive changes for
human rights and religious freedom in China. We observe the
following:
The number of international religious missions operating
openly in China has grown rapidly in recent years. Today
these groups provide educational, humanitarian, medical, and
development assistance in communities across China.
Despite continued, documented acts of government
oppression, people in China nonetheless can worship,
participate in communities of faith, and move about the
country much more freely today than was even imaginable
twenty years ago.
Today, people can communicate with each other and the
outside world much more easily and with much less
governmental interference through the tools of business and
trade: telephones, cell phones, faxes, and e-mail.
On balance, foreign investment has introduced positive new
labor practices into the Chinese workplace, stimulating
growing aspirations for labor and human rights among Chinese
workers.
These positive developments have come about gradually in
large part as a result of economic reforms by the Chinese
government and the accompanying normalization of trade,
investment, and exchange with the outside world. The
developing relationships between Chinese government
officials, business managers, workers, professors, students,
and people of faith and their foreign counterparts are
reflected in the development of new laws, government
policies, business and labor practices, personal freedom, and
spiritual seeking. Further, the Chinese government is much
more likely to develop the rule of law and observe
international norms of behavior if it is recognized by the
U.S. government as an equal, responsible partner within the
community of nations.
The U.S. government and governments around the world have a
continuing, important role to play in challenging one another
through international forums to fully observe standards for
human rights and religious freedom. However, we do not
believe that the annual debate in the U.S. Congress, linking
justifiable concern for human rights and religious freedom in
China to the threat of unilateral U.S. trade sanctions, has
been productive toward that end.
Change will not occur overnight in China. Nor can it be
imposed from outside. Rather, change will occur gradually,
and it will be inspired and shaped by the aspirations,
culture, and history of the Chinese people. We on the outside
can help advance religious freedom and human rights best
through policies of normal trade, exchange and engagement for
the mutual benefit of peoples of faith, scholars, workers,
and businesses. Enacting permanent normal trade relations
with China is the next, most important legislative step that
Congress can take to help in this process.
Sincerely,
Organizations listed for identification purposes only.
Dr. Donald Argue, (Former President, National Association
of Evangelicals, representing 27 million Christians in the
United States of America).
John A. Buehrens, (Unitarian Universalist Association).
Bruce Birchard, (Friends General Conference).
Myrrl Byler, (China Education Exchange, Mennonite Church).
Reverend Richard W. Cain, ((Emeritus) President, Claremont
School of Theology).
Ralph Covell, (Senior Professor of World Christianity,
Denver Seminary).
Charles A. Davis, PhD, (The Evangelical Alliance Missions).
Father Robert F. Drinan, (Professor, Georgetown University
Law Center; Member of Congress, 1971-1981).
Samuel E. Ericsson, (President, Advocates International, a
faith-based global network of lawyers, judges, clergy, and
national leaders reaching over 100 nations for justice,
reconciliation, and ethics with offices on five continents).
Nancy Finneran, (Sisters of Loretto Community).
Brent Fulton, (President, ChinaSource, a non-profit,
Christian Evangelical organization connecting knowledge and
leaders in service to China).
Dr. Richard L. Hamm, (Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ)).
Kevin M. Hardin, (University Language Services).
J. Daniel Harrison, (President, Leadership Development
International).
Bob Heimburger, (Professor (Ret.), Indiana University).
Rev. Earnest W. Hummer, (President, China Outreach
Ministries).
John Jamison, (Intercultural Exchange Network).
Rudolf Mak, Ph.D., (Director of Chinese Church
Mobilization, OMF International).
Jim Nickel, (ChinaSource, a non-profit, Christian
Evangelical organization connecting knowledge and leaders in
service to China).
Don Reeves, (General Secretary (Interim), American Friends
Service Committee).
Rabbi Arthur Schneier, D.D., (President, Appeal of
Conscience Foundation).
Phil Schwab, (ChinaTeam International Services, Ltd.).
Dr. Stephen Steele, (Dawn Ministries).
Rev. Daniel B. Su, (Special Assistant to the President,
China Outreach Ministries).
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, (The United Methodist Church).
Dr. James H. Taylor III, (President, MSI Professional
Services International).
Finn Torjesen, (Executive Director, Evergreen Family
Friendship Service, a Christian, non-profit, public benefit
organization working in China).
Joe Volk, (Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on
National Legislation).
Rev. Dr. Daniel E. Weiss, (American Baptist Churches, USA).
Dr. Hans M. Wilhelm, (China Partner, an organization
serving Church of China by training emerging young leaders).
Rev. Dr. Andrew Young, (President, National Council of
Churches, former ambassador to the United Nations and member
of Congress).
Danny Yu, (Christian Leadership Exchange).
____
Montreat, NC,
May 12, 2000.
Hon. David Dreier,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Dreier: Thank you for contacting me
concerning the People's Republic of China. I have great
respect for China's long and rich heritage, and I am grateful
for the opportunities I have had to visit that great country.
It has been a tremendous privilege to get to know many of its
leaders and also to become familiar with the actual situation
of religious believers in the P.R.C.
The current debate about establishing Permanent Normal
Trade Relations with China raises many complex and difficult
questions. I do not want to become involved in the political
aspects of this issue. However, I continue to be in favor of
strengthening our relationship with China. I believe it is
far better for us to thoughtfully strengthen positive aspects
of our relationship with China than to treat it as an
adversary. In my experience, nations can respond to
friendship just as much as people do.
While I will not be releasing a formal public statement on
the PNTR debate, please feel free to share my views with your
colleagues. May God give you and all of your colleagues His
wisdom as you debate this important issue.
Cordially yours,
Billy Graham.
____
The Christian
Broadcasting Network Inc.,
Virginia Beach, VA, May 10, 2000.
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts,
Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Pitts: My experience in dealing with
Mainland China goes back to my first visit to that nation in
1979. Since that time, I have learned on subsequent visits
that the progress of Mainland China in regard to economic
development and the amelioration of the civil rights of its
citizens has been dramatic.
I do not minimize the human rights abuses which take place
in the People's Republic of China, but I must say on first-
hand observation that significant progress in regard to
religious freedom and other civil freedoms has been made over
the past twenty-one years.
[[Page 18363]]
The population of China is the largest in the world. My
sources indicate that there are at least 80 million Chinese
who are Christian believes, and tens of millions of Chinese
are either practicing Buddhists or practicing Muslims.
Although the Chinese government may not comport itself in
the same fashion as we in America would desire, nevertheless,
I believe that the economic and structural reforms begun by
Chairman Deng Xiaoping are irreversible and that little by
little this vast land is moving toward a more prosperous
society and more individual freedom.
If the US refuses to grant normal trading relations with
the People's Republic of China, and if we significantly
curtail the broad-based economic, education, social, and
religious contacts that are being made between the US and
China, we will damage ourselves and set back the cause of
those in China who are struggling toward increased freedom
for their fellow citizens.
Therefore, I would urge the Congress to pass legislation
which would normalize the trading relations with the People's
Republic of China without, in any way, diminishing the desire
of the US to encourage the sanctity of human rights and the
rule of law in that nation.
With best wishes, I remain . . .
Sincerely,
Pat Robertson,
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer.
____
Friends Committee
on National Legislation,
Washington, DC, September 7, 2000.
Re Support permanent normal trade relations with China
without amendment
Dear Senator: Soon you will be asked to decide whether the
enact Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China. We
at the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL)
recommend that you vote for enacting PNTR with China (HR
4444) without amendment.
While we do not claim to represent all Friends (Quakers) on
this challenging and complex issue, the governing body of
FCNL is clear in its support for PNTR with china. This policy
is fully consistent with FCNL's historic advocacy in
opposition to Cold War policies of containment and in support
of policies that further interdependence, cooperation, and
the pacific resolution of disputes between countries through
diplomacy between governments, and free trade, travel and
exchange between peoples.
We share your concern for advancing human rights, religious
freedom, labor rights, and environmental protection for the
people of china. We are concerned about the impact of
economic globalization on the standard of living and quality
of life for workers both at home and abroad. We are also
concerned about future cooperation and progress with the
government of China in arms control, regional security,
negotiations concerning the future of Taiwan, and the pacific
settlement of disputes.
We believe that normalization of trade relations with china
is an important step toward advancing all of these basic
human security concerns over the long term. China experts
note that dramatic changes have already occurred within China
over the past two decades as a result of more open exchange
between China and the rest of the world. Interactions between
government officials businesses, universities, and
individuals have led to a growing harmonization between
Chinese institutions and their Western counterparts. This is
reflected in the development of new laws, government
policies, democratic institutions, business and labor
practices, standards of behavior, and popular expectations.
This engagement has also helped indirectly to nurture
movements for social change. The student movement behind the
Tiananmen Square demonstrations, the growing house church and
democracy movements, and the recent widespread nonviolent
demonstrations by the Falun Gong reflect growing movements
within Chinese society that are challenging the political
status quo and expressing popular aspirations for human
rights. These movements likely would not have developed or
spread as quickly were it not for the opening of Chinese
society to the outside world that has occurred over the past
twenty years. Despite the oppressive government responses, it
is unlikely that the Chinese government will be able to
repress popular movements such as these for long--especially
if china continues along the path of economic reform,
development, and integration into the global economy.
Such engagement has led to progress with the Chinese
government on several important international security
issues, as well. Over the same twenty years, the Chinese
government has signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It
signed and awaits U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty, and, since then, it has observed a nuclear
testing moratorium. It has participated in the Asian-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Forum in ways that have built confidence
and diminished regional tensions.
It is far more likely that the Chinese government will
cooperate in these areas in the future and observe
international norms of behavior if it is recognized by the
U.S. as an equal partner within the community of nations than
if it is isolated or excluded. Granting PNTR would encourage
continued progress and cooperation in all of these areas of
concern. Conversely, denying PNTR and further isolating China
would likely close many of these opportunities, lead to
increased oppression within China, and undermine regional and
international security.
Please vote to enact PNTR with China without amendment.
This is the next, most important legislative step that you
can take to further positive relations between the peoples
and governments of the U.S. and China.
Sincerely,
Joe Volk,
Executive Secretary.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for the past eight years, the
responsibility to extend annual trade status to the People's Republic
of China, PRC, has been shouldered entirely by the U.S. House of
Representatives. Even though the United States Senate has eluded the
duty of debating and deciding upon this significant issue, not one year
has gone by when the subject matter hasn't weighed heavily on my mind.
If one year ago you had questioned any number of business or trade
entities in Washington state my position on the prospect of extending
Permanent Normal Trade Relations, PNTR, to China, I can almost
guarantee you would have received a non-committal response. For years I
have questioned China's commitment to free trade with the United
States, and have been critical of the notion that the U.S. continue a
relationship of ``engagement'' with the PRC. Couple these concerns with
allegations of espionage, nuclear non-proliferation, questionable
campaign contributions and influence, human rights abuses, persecution
of religious freedom, and the treatment of the one true Chinese
democracy, Taiwan, and one might challenge the notion that China
receive such significant trading status from the United States. Mr.
President, these issues have played a significant role in my criticism
of our relationship with China, and therefore maintained an elevated
status as I reviewed the prospect of voting on PNTR.
When I made my final decision regarding China's trade status, the
mere simplicity of the issue suggested a rationale and consideration
based solely on trade ramifications and WTO accession procedures alone.
China's accession to the World Trade Organization is forthcoming, it's
a fact, it's a reality, and it will happen. If the United States does
not grant PNTR to China, the PRC will gain its ambitiously sought seat
in the WTO, and the United States will lose all the benefits of trade
with the more than 1.2 billion inhabitants of China. If Congress does
not pass PNTR, the U.S-China trade deal that was 14 years in the making
will be considered null and void, and every other member of the World
Trade Organization will have access to the world's third largest
economy. The potential loss of trade to the United States, and to the
State of Washington, is too significant to ignore.
If the simplicity of the PRC's accession to the WTO was not enough to
force me to reconsider my stance on trade with China, the details of
the bilateral U.S.-China trade agreement helped secure my final
decision to support PNTR. While I have long been critical of the
Clinton-Gore Administration's policy with respect to China, the
agreement brokered and finalized by U.S. Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky is uncomparable.
By granting PNTR to China, the U.S. stands to benefit from a wide
array of trade issues. While the United States retains our valuable
trading leverage in the bilateral agreement and will gain access to a
once heavily guarded market, China is forced to amend its market
strategy and alter its trading exercises in favor of practices that
embrace free market principles. When and if China alters its trading
practices, it's clear the U.S. has everything to gain.
When formulating my decision to support PNTR, it was necessary that I
review and concur with those terms stated in the bilateral agreement.
If the terms were ever called into question by U.S. industry,
manufacturers, agriculture, the service sector, or the
[[Page 18364]]
high tech industry, I would seriously reconsider my position.
However, not one of the aforementioned industries in the State of
Washington outlined an objection to trade with China. According to the
World Bank, China will have to expand infrastructure by $750 billion in
the next 10 years. Washington companies like Boeing, Paacar, and
Mircosoft are prepared to fill their needs. Service sector companies
like Eddie Bauer, Starbucks, and Nordstrom will step up to fill
consumer demands. Not to mention, agriculture can finally attempt to
penetrate the Chinese market that has for so long eluded our
commodities. From the lush orchards of Central Washington to the
rolling wheat fields of the Palouse, agriculture in Washington state is
prepared and stands ready to benefit from the access to the 1.2 billion
consumers in China.
While it was fascinating to me that so many varying industries and
retail companies support PNTR and trade with China, the mere numbers
and degree of tariff reduction contained in the bilateral agreement
persuaded me most.
For example, the U.S. agriculture products that once faced enormous
trade barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions, will
receive a reduction of tariffs on average from 31.5 percent to 14.5
percent. Access for bulk commodities will be expanded, and for the
first time ever China will permit agriculture trade between private
parties.
What does this mean for Washington state agriculture? For the first
time in over 20 years, China has finally agreed to lift the ominous and
ridiculous phytosanitary trade barrier Washington wheat growers have
learned to hate--TCK smut. As a result of this trade agreement, Chinese
officials traveled to Washington state this spring and secured a tender
for 50,000 metric tons of Pacific Northwest wheat. While this purchase
is nominal, and represents a figure that I will press to increase, the
elimination of export subsidies on wheat has already enhanced the
expansion of markets wheat growers desire.
For some of our most precious and high value commodities such as
apples and pears, tariffs will be reduced from 30 percent to 10
percent. Frozen hash browns, the pride of the Columbia Basin, will
receive tariff reductions from 25 percent to 13 percent. Tariffs on
cheese will plummet by 38 percent; grapes by 27 percent; cherries and
peaches by 20 percent; potato chips by 10 percent; and beef by 33
percent. All of these commodities represent a significant portion of
the Washington state agriculture industry, and at a time when new
markets are difficult to come by, news of China's tariff reduction
promises resulted in waves of support for PNTR by farmers.
Washington state agriculture is not the only sector to gain access to
China's market. As a matter of fact in 1998, direct exports from
Washington to China totaled $3.6 billion, more than double the exports
in 1996. Of that figure, 91 percent represented transportation
equipment, namely aircraft and aircraft parts.
The Boeing Company maintains 67 percent of China's market for
commercial aircraft. Boeing anticipates that over the next 20 years,
nearly one million jobs will be related to Boeing sales to China. Over
the next 10 years, China is expected to purchase 700 airplanes worth
$45 billion. Recognizing Boeing's significant contribution to the Puget
Sound region and the State of Washington, it's no wonder one of the
major labor unions that builds these airplanes supports PNTR.
So many people automatically equate transportation jobs directly with
Boeing, but the aerospace and commercial airline industry is also
supported by thousands of additional employees that contract and
subcontract with the nation's only airline supplier. These contractors
in Washington and all across the nation also stand to benefit from
trade with China.
While the agriculture and manufacturing industries in Washington
stand to gain, the high-tech, service sector and forest product
industries also will benefit from liberalized market access. China has
agreed to zero tariffs on computers and equipment, telecommunications
equipment, and information technology. Tariffs on wood will decrease 7
percent, and paper by 17 percent. In addition, fish products tariffs
will drop by 10 percent.
Washington's geographic proximity to China automatically benefits the
service sector, the ports, and transportation infrastructure. Banking,
securities, insurance, travel, tourism, and professional services such
as accounting, engineering, and medical needs will all gain access to
China's market. Knowing the ambitious and adventurous nature of many
Washingtonians in these fields, I can imagine many State of Washington
subsidiaries could find a home in China.
While all these tariff reductions and trade liberalization efforts
look good on paper, there are also several mechanisms built into the
bilateral agreement to address trade and import concerns. Two of the
most significant items negotiated by the United States were the import
surge mechanism and the anti-dumping provisions. Both these provisions
were considered ``deal breakers'' by American negotiators. Had they not
been included, the U.S. would have walked away from the negotiating
table.
The import surge mechanism will remain in place for 12 years
following China's accession to the WTO, and can be used in response to
potential import disruptions by China. The anti-dumping provision will
remain for 15 years and will be used by the U.S. should an influx of
Chinese products flood our market.
The efficacy of the anti-dumping mechanism is evidenced by the case
the U.S. apple industry filed and won against China. Citing an
excessive increase of apple juice concentrate, the U.S. industry filed
an anti-dumping case with the International Trade Commission, ITC, just
last year. After the U.S. Department of Commerce and the ITC agreed
that the U.S. industry had been harmed, the price for juice apples in
the U.S. increased from $10 per ton back to the normal $130 per ton.
This case was significant as it exemplified the United States' ability
to appropriately deal with Chinese dumping practices, and it concluded
that the U.S. has an appropriate and workable mechanism to address the
issue of import surges.
While the aforementioned specifics about the bilateral trade
agreement speak volumes to our trade dependent friends at home in
Washington, when all is said and done, when all the tariffs are reduced
and markets are liberalized, major questions will still remain. Will
China become the trading partner that the U.S. hopes and desires? Will
the PRC adhere to those details so cautiously and ambitiously sought?
Will the U.S. market benefit from the buying power of China's 1.2
billion consumers? While I might not remain as optimistic about trade
with China as some of my counterparts or those in the U.S. trade
industry, one fact will remain constant. With the passage of PNTR and
China's eventual accession to the World Trade Organization, leaders in
Beijing will have to begin complying by international trade rules and
restrictions or face the wrath of its new trading partners. These
partners will include the United States and all of our allies.
Of the other questions that still remain regarding human rights,
religious freedom, non-proliferation, allegations of espionage, and the
treatment of Taiwan, one can only hope that the eventual promises and
attractiveness of democracy and free market principles will be embraced
by those who encounter it for the first time. One hopes that
eventually, Falun Gong practitioners will be able to practice their
faith in public. One hopes that eventually the weight of
internationalism, globalization and trade will move Beijing away from
theories and military practices that could bring harm to their trading
partners. One hopes that eventually workers will perform in a less
oppressive regime. One hopes that China will one day accept Taiwan as
an independent nation. One hopes.
Because I have remained vigilant about my criticism of China, I
endure to continue my close watch over
[[Page 18365]]
United States interests and national security. Because I
unconditionally support Taiwan and that country's efforts to embrace
freedom and democracy, I will forevermore remain their champion. While
I believe that democracy will eventually reign true, I will continue to
raise concerns regarding human rights, religious freedom, and the
United States relationship with China on all fronts.
I will vote for PNTR not because I am comfortable with the thought
that China will adhere to all the details in the bilateral agreement,
or the prospect that they will become exceptional trading partners
overnight, but I support the men and women from the most trade
dependent state in the nation who have urged its successful passage.
Whatever the course of our relationship with China takes over the
coming years, I assure Washingtonians that I will be scrutinizing the
reactions of Beijing very closely. I will continue to engage in a
dialogue with all interested parties to ensure that Washington benefits
from these new trade practices. I will work to ensure that American
interests and national security weigh heavy on the minds of our
negotiators and the next Administration. Because this vote is
unmistakably one of the most significant trade votes the Senate has
cast in recent years, I assure my constituents that I will keep their
interests at heart.
Whatever it takes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have decided to vote in favor of China
PNTR because I believe this action will continue our policy of
engagement with the Chinese government and increase the likelihood that
our nation will have better relations with China in the years to come.
The other option was to act on the assumption that China will become
more hostile to the United States and that we must try to seal it off,
which will not work.
This decision is a further step down the road that was begun by
President Nixon in 1972 when he concluded it was better to have
relations with China than to shut it off. Since then there have been
many difficulties, but on the whole, I believe the relationship has
been better than it would have been otherwise.
We now maintain military superiority over China and it is critical
that it continue. I do not believe that it is inevitable that our
future will be shaped by hostile relations with China. If we are strong
and maintain our military, the chance of avoiding potential future
hostilities will be improved. Such a vision is what wise leadership is
all about.
I am not certain how best to improve the conditions of Christians and
other religious people in China. I do recall, however, that when Rome
changed from persecuting the early Christians to making Christianity
the official religion of the empire, the change came about because of a
change of heart and not as a result of a threat from an outside
military power.
I was very impressed with the testimony of Ned Graham, son of the
Rev. Billy Graham, who aids Christians in China and who has visited the
country over forty times and distributed over two million Bibles to
unlicensed Christians. He testified before the Senate Finance
Committee. In his summation he stated that a vote for PNTR would
encourage China's engagement with the world, increase the availability
of computer technology to its citizens, accelerate its development of a
rule of law, allow for increased contact between U.S. and Chinese
citizens, and ultimately lead to positive changes in its religious
policy. He concluded that most importantly ``this action will help
diminish the negative perceptions that exist between our two great
countries.'' While we, as humans, can never know the future, I am
persuaded by his remarks. Generosity of spirit and forbearance founded
on strength are the qualities of a great nation.
On the level of trade, I believe that my state of Alabama will be
able to sell more products in China because of the significant
reductions in the tariffs China has imposed on imported American goods.
This increased trade will benefit Alabama's farmers, timber industry
and much of our manufacturing. It can benefit our transportation
system, including the Port of Mobile.
While I think it will increase our exports, I cannot conclude that
this agreement is going to help our overall balance of trade deficit,
at least not in the short run. While China has a significant wage
advantage in its manufacturing, it has a shortage of many natural
resources, lacks technology, has a very poor infrastructure and is
burdened by corruption and a lack of a rule of law which protects
liberties and property interests. In addition, it continues to hold on
to the form of communism, an ideology of incalculable destructive
power. These problems will burden them for years to come and will take
many generations to eliminate.
The key to the success of this agreement will be vigorous, determined
and sustained leadership by the United States to ensure that China
complies with this agreement and the WTO rules. China's tendency has
been to cut corners and not live up to its obligations under
agreements. In my view, China must come to see that its interests and
those of its trading partners will be advanced by following these
trading rules. Unfortunately, China seems to be obsessed with exporting
and not importing. The truth is China and her people will benefit from
having the opportunity to buy quality food and products from around the
world. They must come to recognize that fact.
This issue is very complex and no one can see into the future with a
crystal ball, but my analysis and judgement tells me it is time to step
out in a positive way, and to take the lead in reducing some of the
suspicions and misperceptions that have grown in recent years between
our two nations.
Since I believe that increased economic activity between our two
countries is not likely to assist China in strengthening its military
in any substantial way, regardless of legislation, I see the positive
aspects of this legislation outweighing the negative. We must, however,
make clear to China that we intend to defend our just interests and
those of our allies around the world, and that we will not abandon our
ally and friend, the Democratically elected government of Taiwan. We
also need to remain especially vigilant to protect our military secrets
and technological advantage. I was therefore disappointed that the
amendment offered by Senator Fred Thompson did not pass. We must make
crystal clear to our business community that we will not tolerate
transfer of our military technology to China. While I favored a number
of the amendments that have been offered to this legislation, and was
disappointed they did not pass, I am appreciative of the quality of the
debate that has surrounded this issue.
China has 1.2 billion people, the most populous country on this
globe. Their people are talented and hardworking. Our vote today should
enhance our economic and political relationships.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President I rise today in support of H.R. 4444,
which would grant Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China. I do so
only after long and careful consideration of this proposal.
I believe that granting permanent normal trade relations with China
is the right thing to do. It will significantly alter our nation's
relations with China. Trade between U.S. companies and the Chinese will
likely explode in the coming years--generating jobs and revenues in
this country. It could easily be the keystone in the continuing
prosperity of this nation. And it could be the vital catalyst for
democracy and a free-market system in China.
During the last few months as I have traveled through North Carolina
and met with my constituents, I have heard from hundreds of men and
women who believe that their future prosperity and their jobs turn upon
this vote. Many of them eagerly support this legislation.
I believe that North Carolina workers can compete with anyone and
win. This bill opens a world of opportunity to North Carolina
businesses and workers. The farmer, the high- tech worker, the
furniture manufacturer, the factory worker, and the banker all will get
a real chance to capture a part of the Chinese market.
The farmer who is working so hard and struggling believes that
China's
[[Page 18366]]
agricultural market will be opened. For example, China already imports
12 percent of its poultry meat. If China joins the WTO, it will cut its
poultry tariffs in half and accept all poultry meat that is certified
wholesome by the USDA. A similar situation holds for pork and tobacco
products. China's agreement to lower its tariffs, to eliminate quotas,
and to defer to U.S. health standards provides North Carolina farmers
with real opportunity.
The high- tech worker who is producing software or fiber optics cable
will also benefit. China has agreed to eliminate its duties on these
products in the next few years and has agreed to eliminate many of its
purchase and distribution rules that inhibit sales of U.S. products.
Meanwhile, tariffs on furniture will be eliminated. Tariffs on heavy
machinery will be reduced by nearly one half. Banks and insurance
companies will be able to do business with the Chinese people without
arbitrary restrictions. The list goes on.
As U.S. goods and services flow into China and as our engagement
grows, the opportunity for real change in China grows. We are all aware
that China has a long way to go in improving its record on human
rights, religious liberty, environmental protection and labor rights.
The abuses in that nation are serious. And I am committed to continued
efforts to end those abuses. As American ideas, goods, and businesses
surge into China, I believe China's record will improve.
But I am mindful that globalization and this bill in particular may
have a real downside. As a Senator from North Carolina, I am well-
positioned to see both the enormous benefits and the large costs of
this measure.
Textile and apparel workers, many of whom live in North Carolina,
face real challenges as a result of this measure. While in almost every
respect the agreement with China benefits our country, textiles is the
major exception. As a result of joining WTO, quotas on Chinese textiles
and apparel will be eliminated in 2005. As a result, Chinese apparel
will flow into the United States. By and large, the Chinese imports
will likely displace imports from other countries. However, there is no
doubt that an additional burden will be placed on the textile industry.
To be sure, the industry can try to protect itself through the anti-
surge mechanism put in place by this legislation. Yet it does us no
good to pretend that these remedies are perfect and that people will
not be hurt. I know that textile workers will work their hearts out
competing with the Chinese. I know these people; I grew up with them.
When I was in college, I worked a summer job in a textile mill. My
father spent his life working in mills. The impact of PNTR on them is
personal to me. Dealing with the impact of this bill on them will
always be a top priority for me. And I will fight throughout my career
to protect them.
Mr. President, China's entry into the World Trade Organization and
its attainment of permanent normal trade relations with America is not
without its risks. No one can predict with certainty that China will
live up to its commitments. I vote for this bill because I believe that
we must turn our face toward the future. But we must be mindful of the
risks. So I warn that I will monitor China's compliance with its
agreements like a hawk. If they renege, I will lead the charge to force
them to live up to their obligations.
But to vote against this measure--to deny PNTR--not only fails to
accomplish anything productive but also denies us enormous
opportunities. We cannot hide our heads in the sand. China will join
the WTO. The Senate has no impact on that decision. The only question
we face is whether the U.S. will grant China permanent normal trade
relations or whether it will fall out of compliance with its WTO
obligations. If we fall out of compliance, the U.S. will be denied the
Chinese tariff reductions and rule changes, while every other country
in the world takes advantage of the Chinese concessions. We must decide
whether the U.S. will be able to compete with other countries--Germany,
France, Japan--as they enter the Chinese market. American companies and
workers deserve the right to enter those markets. On balance, I believe
that China's admission into the World Trade Organization and its
attainment of permanent normal trading relations is for the good.
And so I vote for this legislation, mindful of the risks, prepared to
watch the results carefully and optimistic about the future.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senate is completing a historic vote
on the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000, H.R. 4444, which grants
permanent normal trade relations, PNTR, status to the People's Republic
of China. Realizing that many Pennsylvanians have expressed very strong
feelings on both sides of this issue, I would like to take a moment to
discuss my reasons for supporting this measure.
First, it is important to understand what normal trade relations,
NTR, is. Since 1980, the United States has granted China NTR status
every year, subject to an annual review. ``Normal trade relations'',
NTR, is the tariff treatment the U.S. grants to its trading partners.
All but a select few countries receive this trade status. NTR simply
means that products from a foreign country receive the same relatively
lower tariff rates as our other trading partners enjoy. The lower
tariff rates result from years of negotiations and various trade
agreements in which the U.S. reduces its duties on imports, in exchange
for reduced rates on its own products. NTR lowers tariff rates, but
does not eliminate them altogether. In this way, NTR substantially
differs from a free trade agreement. Free trade agreements, such as
NAFTA, set dates by which all tariffs among the member countries will
be eliminated. I would also note that certain countries receive even
lower tariffs than NTR affords through ``preferential'' tariff status.
The U.S.-China Relations Act ends the annual renewal process for
China's trade status by extending permanent normal trade relations,
PNTR, to China. The Act becomes effective when China is officially
accepted as a member of the World Trade Organization, WTO. Upon China's
accession to the WTO, a trade agreement negotiated between the Clinton
Administration and China will also become effective. In exchange for
PNTR, China has agreed to unprecedented tariff reductions and market-
oriented reforms. The U.S. is not required to reduce our tariffs or to
make any commitments, other than extension of PNTR. We also preserve
the right to withdraw market access for China in a national security
emergency. China, however, has committed to specific trade concessions
by certain dates. Thus, the terms of this agreement are clear and
enforceable. If China violates its agreements, the U.S. will be able to
respond quickly and definitively.
I supported H.R. 4444 because without Congressional approval of PNTR
status for China, the U.S. would not benefit from the concessions China
agreed to in the bilateral trade deal. These concessions, which open
the Chinese market to American goods and services, will benefit
Pennsylvania's farmers, industries and workers. Likewise, I believe
that engagement in a rules-based system of trade will help foster
political and personal freedom, as well as economic opportunity, for
China's citizens.
Mr. President, China is now the third largest economy in the world.
The bilateral trade agreement pries open this historically closed
market for Pennsylvania's products and services, especially in the
agriculture, technology, banking, insurance, and manufacturing sectors.
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Pennsylvania exports a
wide range of products to China. Pennsylvania, as a major exporter of
beef, pork, poultry, feed grains, and dairy products, will see average
agriculture tariffs cut by more than half by January 2004. China must
also eliminate its agriculture export subsidies and reduce domestic
subsidies. Industrial tariffs on U.S. exports to China will be cut by
more than half by 2005. Furthermore, China must eliminate quotas.
Within three years, Pennsylvania companies and farmers will have full
trading rights to import, export, and distribute their products
[[Page 18367]]
directly to Chinese customers. Tariffs on chemical products,
automobiles, and steel exported to China will also be cut from their
present rates. And of course, it is important to note the strength of
Pennsylvania's workers in these industries. The bilateral agreement
takes the first steps in leveling the playing field for Pennsylvanians
to compete in an emerging international market.
I am also pleased to say that small and medium sized businesses will
benefit under the bilateral agreement. Most companies that are
currently exporting to China are small and medium sized enterprises,
SMEs. Nationally, 82 percent of all firms exporting to China were SMEs.
Of all Pennsylvania's companies exporting products to China, 63 percent
are SMEs.
Despite the benefits of our trade agreement, I am mindful of sincere
opposition to granting PNTR to China on the basis of its human rights
record. Under H.R. 4444, the United States will no longer condition
China's trade status upon an annual review of ``freedom of emigration''
practices. This does not mean that the U.S. will stop pressuring China
to allow its citizens to leave the country, if they choose to do so,
nor does it mean that the U.S. will stop monitoring the widespread
human rights violations in China. Rather, H.R. 4444 establishes a
special Congressional-Executive Commission to monitor human rights
abuses in China and to recommend appropriate remedies to the President
and Congress. I realize that the Commission, PNTR, and even eventual
WTO accession will not immediately bring about change in China;
however, I believe that further engagement and economic reforms will
lead to greater political and personal freedom for Chinese citizens.
Isolating China serves only to strengthen the hand of hard-line
communists who would continue to oppress the Chinese people. Many
religious leaders share this view, including some pastors of Chinese
house churches who have been jailed for their beliefs.
Another concern that I have taken very seriously is the potential
impact on American workers. I have studied both the bilateral trade
agreement and this legislation very carefully. Basically, the Chinese
receive the same NTR tariff rates they have received for the past 20
years. In return, we get lower tariffs for our exports to China, new
market access in distributing our products within China, and
elimination of trade barriers for U.S. goods and services in the
Chinese market. In other words, China essentially gets the status quo,
while we get new benefits and substantial concessions from the Chinese.
The U.S. fully preserves its anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws,
which protect our industries and workers against unfairly traded
Chinese imports. I would also note that H.R. 4444 provides even
stronger protection from harmful Chinese import surges than current
U.S. trade law allows. Furthermore, H.R. 4444 creates a government task
force to prevent products made from Chinese prison labor from being
imported into the U.S. With these protections in place and with
effective enforcement, I believe that American workers can compete
against anyone else in the world. American workers are, after all, the
world's most productive.
I would also like to address the difference between granting PNTR to
China and WTO accession. Congress has voted to extend PNTR to China;
however, Congress has no vote on China's accession to the WTO. WTO
accession is a four-step process. First, the applicant must present its
trade and economic policies to a Working Party of all interested WTO
countries. While these general multilateral negotiations take place,
separate negotiations take place between the applicant and individual
WTO countries, including the United States. These bilateral
negotiations establish specific market access commitments and tariff
rates. When both of these steps are completed, the Working Party drafts
the terms of membership. Finally, the complete package is presented to
the WTO Ministerial Conference for approval. The result of not
extending PNTR would have been to deny U.S. farmers, manufacturers,
banks, insurance firms, and their employees access to the Chinese
market as promised in the bilateral trade agreement. Also, the U.S.
would have been unable to avail itself of multilateral dispute
settlement procedures in the WTO if further trade disputes with China
arise.
Finally, I would like to assure Pennsylvanians that my vote on PNTR
does not lessen my resolve to fight for fair trade in any way. Even
after China joins the WTO, I will continue to monitor their adherence
to the bilateral trade agreement. H.R. 4444 requires the United States
Trade Representative, USTR, to issue a yearly report on China's
compliance with its WTO obligations. I will follow these reports
closely. In the meantime, I will continue to vigorously fight for
stronger trade laws to protect U.S. workers and producers from unfairly
traded foreign imports. For example, just last Friday, I testified at
the International Trade Commission to oppose revocation of the
antidumping and countervailing duty orders on various foreign steel
imports.
I hope this clarifies the reasons I am supporting the U.S.-China
Relations Act of 2000.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, many of us have struggled for months
to decide what is the right vote on China PNTR--the right vote for our
individual states, the right vote for the Nation. I certainly have, as
I have tried to grasp what effect PNTR with China might have on my
state of West Virginia.
Over the last few months I've taken some time to listen and to talk
with people in my state, to review where we are in West Virginia under
the current trading system. I've tried to assess if West Virginia will
be helped or disadvantaged if the Congress rejects PNTR. That is what I
care about more than anything.
It is well known that West Virginia is a long way from enjoying the
full benefits of the economic boom that we hear so much about.
Unemployment remains over 5 percent, stuck stubbornly far above the
national average. Our per capita income is $19,362, 49th among the
states. Far too many of our working poor require food stamps, and far
too many remain uninsured. And while I will fight every day to bring
more and better jobs to West Virginia, the fact remains that we are a
long way from providing the economic opportunities for the thousands of
West Virginians who want to improve their lives, or are just struggling
to survive from day to day.
There are many complex reasons that my state lags behind the nation
economically. But one significant reason-- which I believe with all of
my heart and which I cannot ignore--is the simple fact that our current
international trading system is simply not working for the people of
West Virginia. The status quo is not working for West Virginia, neither
for its workers nor for its industries.
We are just not being fairly treated under the current rules. Witness
the struggle we have faced to protect our critical steel industry.
Cheap and illegal imports began flooding the U.S. market in late 1997.
A full two years passed before the first trade cases were resolved and
the domestic industry got any relief and remedy. In those two years,
six steel producers went bankrupt. Thousands were laid off. The impact
on those companies, their employees, and the steel communities was
devastating. And that is why I introduced fair trade legislation that
would give our steel industry a fairer chance to prevent illegal steel
dumping in the future. The status quo, our current unfair trade laws,
were not working for West Virginia.
We in West Virginia are not being protected by the current trading
rules. They are causing us to lose ground, lose jobs, and lose
industries. I love my state too much to allow this to continue without
fighting in every way I know to make it better. I will not vote to
continue the current rules. I will not vote to maintain the status quo.
A vote in favor of PNTR for China will allow us to deal specifically
with China on steel. For example, under today's unfair trade laws, the
President must take uniform action against all countries that are
dumping their imports on our market. Under current law and the status
quo, the United States
[[Page 18368]]
cannot single out one country for a tough remedy. Under the bilateral's
antisurge provisions, we could address an influx of imports from China
specifically. That is just one example, there are a few other
provisions of the bilateral that could also work to, in essence,
strengthen our ability to guard against Chinese steel disrupting our
market.
West Virginia's chemical industry will benefit greatly from the
tariff reduction that will come from passing PNTR legislation. The
chemical industry is the largest industrial employer in West Virginia
with an average salary of $51,000. During this debate, I heard from all
of our chemical companies about the potential they have to increase
their exports to China once this agreement goes into effect. Companies
like DuPont who wrote me recently with the following: ``DuPont
currently exports to China almost $16 million of products from our
plants in West Virginia, and we see those exports increasing as the
Chinese economy grows. West Virginia is, in fact, the second leading
exporter to China, surpassed only by Texas, among DuPont operations
nationwide. West Virginia exports will drop to zero, however, if
Congress does not enact PNTR legislation--because China will keep its
tariffs high for U.S. exporters while lowering its tariffs for all
other members' nations of WTO. Enactment of this legislation is,
therefore, extremely important to DuPont and to our 3500 employees in
West Virginia.''
It also means that as a part of the international trading regime,
China will have to deal with 131 other trading partners who all will be
incredibly vigilant to ensure that China is playing by the rules. It
will not be a perfect system, but it will be a much better system.
So I say, Mr. President, when you have the opportunity to do trade
and business with 1.2 billion people, to engage them with the world as
we do today, to change the status quo that is not working for West
Virginia, then you must do what is right. It's even more important when
your state ranks 4th among all 50 states in percentage of products made
that are exported abroad. That is why I will vote today to approve
Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
To be clear, the vote we take today is not about China entering the
WTO. Others have said this, but it bears repeating over and over. The
American people must understand this: China will enter the WTO no
matter what the Congress does.
So, the sole question we must answer is, what will the impact be if
the Congress rejects PNTR? Has this annual review of our trading
relationship with China had the impact we had hoped it would, and what
will be the effect of rejecting PNTR on West Virginia and all the
United States?
First, as to the impact on China.
I do not accept, indeed, I abhor, the unfair and sometimes inhumane
conditions faced by the people of that largest of the world's
countries. I have spent a considerable amount of time in that part of
the world and I know conditions there are unacceptable. All people who
love freedom decry the violations of people's rights in China. As the
leader of the free world, America must acknowledge its responsibility
to do all in our power to better China's treatment of its people.
I also believe we should encourage nations like China, where fast-
growing economies will increase both energy demand and greenhouse gas
emissions, to use the cleanest technologies available. In fact, I view
PNTR as the best means of introducing these mostly-American
technologies, some of the most cutting-edge of which were developed in
West Virginia, to the Chinese energy sector.
At the same time, I cannot say that the Congress' annual review of
China has had any impact on China whatsoever--and we are just kidding
ourselves if we think denying China PNTR now will improve labor or
human rights. The annual PNTR review was supposed to provide us with
some leverage to improve the conditions in China. But in reality, it
has become mostly a feel-good, rubber stamp process here in the
Congress that has no impact. Neither wages nor working conditions nor
environmental safeguards have been advanced because we go through the
annual charade of PNTR. I wish this were not true; the world experience
says it is.
What will improve labor and human rights in China, in my view, is our
working to bring China into a world living under law, acting to bring
China into a fairer trading system without its restrictive tariffs and
other barriers, and fighting to force China to deal in the world of
nations under fairer rules, not just its own rules. Fighting to make
China play by the rules--that's a fight I'm willing to make!
So I turn then to my second question: Will our country and my state
be disadvantaged if we reject PNTR?
To that there is only one answer--I am convinced we, my state, my
country, will be harmed if PNTR is rejected. No one else.
Remember, China will enter the WTO no matter how the Congress votes
on PNTR. When that happens, and if we reject PNTR, all other WTO
nations will have the upper hand, and all of our trading partners will
benefit from lower tariffs and greater access to the world's largest
market. Other nations will have all of the advantages in doing business
there. Our workers, our industries, our farmers--all will have lost
this new opportunity to gain fairer access to the largest of the
world's untapped economies. Why would we want to squander that
opportunity?
Rejecting PNTR means we lose--America loses--the many important
concessions that were won last year in our government's negotiations
with China. All will be lost, including unprecedented concessions that
will give U.S. industries the upper hand in cases where the fairness of
China's trading practices is in question. The bilateral agreement
provides a twelve year product specific safeguard that ensures that the
U.S. can take action on China if imports from that country cause market
disruptions here in America. China has also agreed to grant U.S.
industries the right to apply non-market methodology in anti-dumping
cases for the next 15 years. This is a major boon for U.S. industries
suffering from injury caused by unfair and illegal imports. China makes
other concessions as well, which make it easier for businesses in this
country to prove countervailing duty cases against China.
These new provisions could be used to help companies, like Portec
Rail, in Huntington, West Virginia, who may have been harmed from
dumping of Chinese steel rail joints. It seems to me that companies
like Portec Rail might be early beneficiaries of these stronger import
surge provisions.
Let me be clear, these provisions improve the status quo. They are
stronger than our current unfair trade laws. Under the new agreement,
China will finally be required to greatly lower its barriers to our
trade there. China makes all the concessions. We have nothing to gain--
and everything to lose--by rejecting PNTR.
And lose we will. What would be the likelihood of Chinese retaliation
if we reject PNTR? There is little doubt in my mind that China would
retaliate against U.S. economic interests. On a purely political level,
it would bolster China's hardline forces of party control and state
enterprise. And this could destabilize an area of the world that I care
deeply about, the Taiwan Straits. I have spent a large part of my time
working on the cross Straits issue between China and Taiwan. I want to
see peace in that region. I want to see Taiwan join the WTO. But,
rejection of this deal could have real dangerous consequences for
Taiwan. China is simply too unpredictable, and could paralyze our
efforts to promote peace and economic stability in Asia and around the
globe.
Mr. President, of course we need to be vigilant and tough with China
as we take advantage of this new economic opportunity. I fully realize
that China has generally gone about its trading business however it saw
fit, doing whatever it wanted and barring most competition. That cannot
continue, and that is exactly why I believe we must bring China into
and under the scrutiny of the WTO. We must make China play by a fairer
set of rules, which means bringing them into a
[[Page 18369]]
trading system governed by rules that we have helped create. And rules
that we can enforce.
Mr. President, this is an opportunity for America that I am willing
to fight for.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has been able
to pass, after extended debate, H.R. 4444 which will make Normal Trade
Relations with China permanent. After over twenty years of yearly
extensions of Most Favored Nation trading status, we are now going to
stabilize our trading relations with the Chinese. This is a step
forward for the United States, China, and our citizens.
I believe in trade as a liberalizing force. A country cannot accept
our goods and services and not be exposed to our ideas and values. One
has only to look around the Pacific to see countries that have made the
move from dictatorship to democracy and see their focus on trade to
understand the connection. South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia have all
made steps toward greater democracy and all three have been engines for
economic growth in the region. As capitalism penetrates Chinese
society, the push for greater democracy will inexorably follow.
Increased trade and investment between our countries will separate
Chinese workers from dependence on state owned enterprises. Currently
Chinese workers depend on the state for almost everything including
their jobs and paychecks. Once workers have a choice between working
for the government and for private business, and can break their
dependency on the state, the push for greater democracy will only
increase.
Trade will also serve as a valuable tool for exchanges between our
countries as a more personal form of diplomacy. As business people
travel back and forth, as workers meet Americans, as the Chinese people
have more exposure to our country through the media and the internet,
the people of China will develop there own attitudes about Westerners,
capitalism, and democracy.
The World Trade Organization will bring China the prestige and
respect it craves, but at a price. As a member, China will be treated
like any other member of the international community, and not like an
outcast or rogue. The members of the WTO, however, will not let
themselves be taken advantage of in trade matters. During this debate I
have heard many members talk about the advantage of multilateral
sanctions over unilateral ones. The WTO offers members an excellent
mechanism to propound and enforce multilateral sanctions, forcing
China's compliance on trade issues.
While the agreement that the Administration negotiated in the fall of
1999 is not perfect, it significantly equalizes the terms of trade
between our countries. Not only did we convince the Chinese to
drastically reduce their tariffs on everything from auto parts to ice
cream, we also negotiated to keep our anti-dumping and import surge
laws. On our side, we gave up nothing in exchange. We did not allow any
additional access to our markets or lower our tariffs. It was a one way
deal--a deal that U.S. farmers and workers benefit from. People may be
concerned about Chinese imports into the United States, but this
agreement does not alter China's access to our markets one bit. On our
side of the Pacific, nothing will change.
Some of my colleagues were disappointed that workers' rights
provisions were not provided for in this agreement. I share their
concern that China does not share our belief in the importance of
respecting working people. I believe that Senator Helms had an
excellent proposal for raising the working conditions in China, while
protecting the reputations of U.S. businesses that operate in China.
His amendment to create a voluntary Code of Conduct for U.S. businesses
in China would go a long way in protecting Chinese workers. By agreeing
to respect certain rights to organize, to earn a decent wage, and to
work in a safe environment, Chinese workers would learn the benefits of
American style capitalism. This would also protect U.S. companies from
being accused of abusing foreign workers for economic gain. We all know
the public relations albatross around the neck of companies that moved
to third world countries and thought they did not have a responsibility
to meet Western standards of worker protection. We all know the names
of companies who have operations in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Central
America that have been brought under harsh scrutiny when the public
finds out what the conditions are in these factories. Senator Helms's
amendment provided an opportunity for companies to avoid this negative
publicity by agreeing openly that certain principals will always be
respected, regardless of whether the factory is in China or the United
States.
As we focus on expanding economic ties with China, we must consider
our decision to grant PNTR in the context of our broader foreign policy
relationship with China. I count myself among those who support PNTR in
the hope that expanded trade with China will result in a more open
Chinese society. To that end, we must be persistent in pressing the
Chinese to demonstrate respect for human rights. Since the May 1999
suspension of the bilateral dialogue on Chinese human rights we have
continued to convey our concerns to the Chinese about their repressive
policies. Their unwillingness to engage with us on these issues puts
more pressure on us to use the trade and economic contacts we have to
press them on human rights and other matters.
Although I chose not to support the Wellstone amendment which would
have conditioned PNTR on specific steps to improve religious freedom in
China because I do not believe we should be adding last minute
conditions to PNTR, I am deeply concerned about the most recent State
Department reports on human rights and religious freedom in China. The
Chinese government's respect for religious freedom and human rights has
deteriorated considerably in recent years. Reports of severe violations
continue unabated, including harsh crackdowns against religious and
minority groups, the imprisonment of religious and minority leaders,
including Catholic bishops, the complete repression of political
freedom, and violence against women, including forced abortions,
sterilizations, and prostitution.
There are those who say that we are losing our leverage with the
Chinese on human rights by giving up our annual review of their human
rights practices before we grant them normal trade relations status. In
practice, however, this review had become a formality. We have never
denied the Chinese normal trade relations status, even in recent years,
since the Tianneman Square uprising, when their human rights record has
been so egregious. I have believed that trade can be used as an
effective bargaining tool in pressuring governments to improve their
records on human rights. In the case of China, PNTR will not only
provide us with the opportunity to press the Chinese at the highest
levels, expanded trade will expose the Chinese people to the many
freedoms we hold so dear, creating pressure from within.
We will also not be losing our opportunity to monitor Chinese human
rights practices in a public way. The legislation before us creates a
Helsinki-style commission which is designed to keep human rights on the
front burner of US-Chinese relations. We must monitor Chinese behavior,
speak plainly to the Chinese, and take action when necessary to
communicate our objections to China's human rights record. And, we must
continue our support for U.S. government and non-government efforts to
effect change in China, including the development of the rule of law.
We must also use our growing access to China to do all we can to stem
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery
systems. The proliferation of these weapons and the ballistic missiles
designed to deliver them pose the greatest threat to our security in
the post-Cold War era. One of the consequences of the end of the Cold
War has been looser controls on the technology, materials, and
expertise to develop weapons of mass destruction. We must do all we can
to prevent terrorists or radical states from acquiring these weapons
and the
[[Page 18370]]
means to deliver them. To that end, we have been a leader in setting up
international regimes to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, and ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, there is
much evidence that the Chinese have been heavily involved in
proliferation activities.
Although some would argue that the Chinese have made progress in this
area, pointing to their 1992 promise to abide by the Missile Technology
Control Regime, MTCR, their accession to the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, NPT, their signing and subsequent ratification of the Chemical
Weapons Convention, CWC, and the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, there are still grave concerns about Chinese proliferation
activities. At the same time that China was making commitments to
adhere to international regimes to prevent the spread of nuclear and
chemical weapons and ballistic missiles, Chinese companies continued to
transfer sensitive technology to a number of countries. These
technologies were instrumental in the development of weapons programs.
Missile technology sales to Pakistan, nuclear technology sales to Iran,
chemical sales to Iran, and missile technology sales to North Korea
have all been attributed to the Chinese. China has played a major role
in Pakistan's nuclear program, selling Pakistan 5,000 ring magnets,
which can be used in gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, and other
equipment for their nuclear facilities. As recently as August 9, the
CIA reported that China is still a ``key supplier'' of weapons
technology, confirming for the first time missile technology sales to
Libya.
The few advances China has made, at least in its formal commitments,
can be attributed to U.S. pressure. The key to preventing the further
spread of sensitive weapons technology and know how is to continue to
press the Chinese to honor the spirit of these commitments. We must not
be afraid to be tough with them in this area and we must be willing to
use all tools--including sanctions--to bring this message home. Global
security is at risk if we allow rogue states to develop the capability
to build weapons of mass destruction. And, our own national security is
directly at stake if they develop delivery systems, that is long-range
ballistic missiles, to bring these weapons to our shores.
That is why I chose to support the Thompson-Torricelli amendment to
require annual reviews of Chinese proliferation activities. If the
review identifies persons or other entities engaging in these
activities then sanctions would be imposed. I have been a long-time
supporter of economic sanctions against companies and governments which
engage in proliferation activities. I recognize that sanctions may not
always be appropriate, and that is why Thompson-Torricelli had waiver
provisions. However, sanctions have not been imposed in many cases that
begged for a stronger response from our government. The reluctance to
use sanctions sends a signal to the Chinese and others involved in
proliferation activities that there are rarely consequences for bad
actions. We must have teeth in our non-proliferation policy or in the
end we will suffer the consequences.
I had no desire to delay PNTR in my support of the Thompson
amendment, and I can say the same for all the amendments which I chose
to support during our consideration of PNTR. Our trade ties can benefit
us in all our dealings with the Chinese, but we must not permit trade
to overshadow the broad range of interests which we have with them.
I have no illusions about the potential impact of what we have done.
PNTR will not change the balance of trade overnight. This agreement
will take time to have a liberalizing effect on the Chinese government.
China is thousands of years old, we will not change their minds in a
couple of years, regardless of whether we use carrots or sticks to
persuade them. We need to continue working to reduce subsidies below
their current levels, and continue to eliminate tariffs. The U.S. will
also need to continue to work on human rights as well. The bill
provides some of the tools for the work on human rights to carry on,
but we must be diligent and stay focused on the task ahead.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a significant
vote I will cast--a vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations
for China. It is significant, but difficult. Difficult because the
Chinese have shown--in everything from predatory trade practices, to
threatening our national security, to total disregard for religious
freedom and human rights--a disturbing lack of trustworthiness. And
furthermore, the current administration seems trapped in a cycle of
failed policy. I deeply regret that our President, on behalf of the
United States, has squandered multiple opportunities to protect U.S.
interests and to promote American values in trade matters.
The vote is significant because about one-fourth of the people in the
world live in China. When we talk of China, we need to remember that we
are talking about people, many of whom seek to embrace the same values
that made America great, such as religious freedom, freedom of
expression, and capitalism. They want to live free, while many of their
leaders want only to amass power and rule with a heavy hand.
I do not argue, as some do, that dropping the annual review of
China's trading status will usher in all of these freedoms. Nor will it
further protect U.S. security interests. That argument is tenuous, at
best.
The only thing that will usher in the freedom to express religious or
political beliefs, to organize, to obtain a fair trial, and to be free
from governmental intrusion, will be a transformation among China's
highest government officials. This will not happen in the absence of a
well-formulated policy underpinned by moral leadership on the part of
the U.S. Presidency. The leader of the free world must lead the world
toward freedom. For the sake of the Chinese people, it is my hope that
the next President of the United States will take the initiative in a
calculated and consistent manner to be a leader in this area, without
the need to be prodded by Congress at every turn.
Furthermore, the key to U.S. security interests lies in the hands of
the Commander in Chief. If China joins the World Trade Organization,
the United States does not alter its ability, or its responsibility, to
protect our interests at home and to promote security abroad. While the
WTO agreement has an explicit exception that states that WTO trade
obligations do not supercede national security decisions, the fact is
that the United States does not need the exception. The most
fundamental role of the U.S. government is to protect the security
interests of its people, period. We can count on other countries to
attempt to steal our national secrets and to violate our security
interests. It is the way of history, the conflict of powers. The
breakdown in U.S. security with the Chinese has occurred because this
Administration has not been vigilant to protect our interests. It did
not and does not have to be that way in the future.
Granting permanent normal trade relations to China does not alter the
President's responsibility to promote American values or to protect
U.S. security interests. However, granting PNTR to China does have a
substantial impact on our ability to enforce our trade agreements. I
would like to discuss this issue fully today because I believe it is
central to the ability of American farmers and companies to crack open
the Chinese market--on which Chinese officials, at times, appear to
have a death grip.
As we all know, China has been trying to accede to the WTO for over a
decade. In order for this process to be complete, China has to
negotiate the terms of the trade agreement that are satisfactory to the
United States and other WTO members and must receive a favorable vote
from the WTO members. Also, for the United States to benefit from those
new terms, Congress has to grant to China what is known as ``permanent
normal trade relations'' status. The Administration has concluded a
trade agreement with China, and the President, Vice President, and
[[Page 18371]]
entire Administration are now asking Congress to support PNTR.
A fair trade relationship with China has the potential to give
Missouri workers and farmers the ability to sell goods in a new market
of more than one billion people. However, a relationship is not built
on commitments alone. It must include accountability. In China's case,
we have a new and improved trade agreement, but we must also be able to
enforce those commitments.
On the first issue--a solid agreement--there has been substantial
progress made. China should open its market on equal terms to the
United States. The U.S. market has been fully open to China for years.
Although I would like to see complete reciprocity, I have reviewed the
proposed agreement for China's WTO accession, and I believe it is a
forward step toward opening China's market for U.S. products and
services. This is a good deal for American jobs and Missouri's long-
term economic growth.
On everything from automobiles to agriculture, Missourians are
prepared to embrace the opportunities the agreement could provide:
overall average tariffs will go from 24 percent to 9 percent by 2005;
agricultural tariffs will be cut nearly in half (31 percent to 17
percent); businesses will be able to bypass state-trading ``middle-
men''; import standards for U.S. food goods will be based on sound
science; competition will increase in all of the service sectors, like
telecom, insurance, banking; the Internet will be open to U.S.
investment; and the list goes on.
The Missouri economy at large is poised to benefit substantially from
further opening of the Chinese market. From the early to late 1990s,
Missouri's exports increased by about 120 percent, going from about $65
million in 1993, to about $145 million in 1998. Most recently, China
ranked in the top 10 countries for Missouri exports, up from the 16th
position in 1993.
Agriculture is the largest employer in my home state, and in fact,
Missouri ranks 2nd in the nation in its number of farms. As I've
traveled around the state, stopping in every county over the last few
months, Missouri farmers and ranchers have expressed to me the
importance of approving the agreement that has been reached on
agriculture. Those I met at the Missouri State Fair and at Delta Days
told me that trade is becoming the number one issue for farmers.
Soybean farmers, for instance, must export about half of what they
produce because there are simply not enough buyers in the United
States. As the nation's sixth largest soybean producer, Missouri's
soybean and soybean product exports were estimated at $586 million
worldwide in 1998. China is the world's largest growth market for
soybeans and soy products, and it has taken additional steps under the
WTO agreement to further open its market. Tariffs will be 3 percent on
soybeans and 5 percent on soybean meal, with no quota limits. For
soybean oil, tariffs will drop to 9 percent, and the quota will be
eliminated by 2006.
Examples of how Missouri agriculture stands to benefit are limitless.
Beef, for instance, could see huge gains. Currently, Missourians are
not in any real sense able to export beef to China because of trade
barriers. Under the WTO accession agreement, by 2004 China will lower
its tariff from 45 percent to 12 percent on frozen beef, from 20 to 12
percent on variety meats, and from 45 to 25 percent on chilled beef.
Also, China has agreed to accept all beef that is accompanied by a USDA
certificate of wholesomeness. These are opportunities Missouri
cattlemen want to embrace. Under the agreement, U.S. cattlemen gain
parity with those in other countries to compete for a beef market that
covers about a quarter of the world's consumers and is virtually wide-
open for growth. I know that if Missouri farmers and ranchers are given
the opportunity to compete on these fair terms, they will succeed.
The WTO agreement could also help Missouri's manufacturing industry.
Missouri's manufactured exports to China are broadly diversified, with
almost every major product category registering exports to the Chinese
market including processed foods, textiles, apparel, wood and paper
products, chemicals, rubber and plastics, metal products, industrial
machinery, computers, electronics, and transportation equipment.
Missouri's exports to China are from all across the state and include
a variety of small and mid-sized companies. Sales to China from St.
Louis totaled $93 million in 1998, a 92 percent increase since 1993.
Kansas City posted exports to China of $66 million in 1998, an increase
of 169 percent since 1993. The exports from the Springfield area grew
by 42 percent between these years. Clearly, however, these numbers
could increase much more if China's market becomes truly open--if China
keeps its promises outlined in the WTO agreement.
I certainly do not claim to know exactly how changes in trade policy,
such as China's WTO membership, will translate into real changes for
people on a day-to-day basis, so I have set up a Missouri Trade Council
to advise me on issues such as this. I would like to share a few of
their thoughts.
Gastineau Log Homes, in New Bloomfield, wants to see if it can tap
into China's demand for American-style homes, by providing U.S.
engineering expertise and the materials with which to make them.
In Ava, MO, the Copeland plant (a subsidiary of Emerson Electric)
explained how opening markets to one-fourth of the world's population
can create jobs and substantially impact local communities. The Ava
facility supplies the key components (scroll sets) for air-conditioning
compressors. This plant would receive the benefits of the November
agreement for these scroll sets by a reduction in industrial tariffs
from 25 percent to 10 percent. Also, trading and distribution rights
would be phased in over three years, so that Emerson Electric could
distribute its scroll sets and compressors broadly, not just to its
Suzhou plant, but to all distributors in China. And, Emerson Electric
will be given the opportunity to service their products and establish
service networks. The Copeland management has high expectations about
sending their products to China. Right now, 40 percent of the plant's
manufactured equipment goes to Asia, and the manager is expecting that
percentage to nearly double. By 2003, exports to Asia well could be
about 85 percent, and half of those exports are expected to go to
Suzhou. Currently, the Ava plant employs about 350 Missourians, and the
workforce is expected to double by 2003.
After reviewing China's WTO accession agreement and examining its
probable impact on Missouri businesses and farmers, I believe that
while the agreement does not give the United States complete
reciprocity, it does make substantial progress on China's commitment to
open its markets. However, the U.S.-China trade relationship must also
have accountability. On the second issue--the enforceability of the
agreement--I have more serious misgivings about the impact of granting
PNTR to China.
The United States government has a responsibility to see that trade
agreements we enter into are enforceable and enforced. My goal is to
ensure that workers, farmers, and ranchers in Missouri receive the
benefits promised to them through our international trade agreements.
Unfortunately, there is a combination of factors that I find
discouraging, and that I believe underscores the need to make changes
to broader U.S. trade policy. These included China's record of
noncompliance with its trade commitments, the United States' loss of
leverage in the WTO to get cases enforced, and China's propensity to be
a protectionist market like the EU which has repeatedly blocked imports
of American agriculture.
China's record of living up to its trade agreements has been dismal.
China has frequently opened a door to U.S. companies only to frustrate
their attempts to walk through it. For example, in the early 1990s,
China reduced the import tariff on U.S. apples from 40 to 15 percent.
However, by 1996, China had erected new backdoor barriers on apples and
other agricultural products that U.S. exporters say were
[[Page 18372]]
even more punitive than the original import tariffs.
Another example is the 1992 Market Access Agreement in which China
agreed to eliminate trade barriers to U.S. agriculture, manufactured
products, and automobiles. Not only did China fail to comply with this
agreement, the Chinese actually made negative changes that put U.S.
businesses in a worse position than they were in prior to the
agreement. For instance, the U.S. Trade Representative reported that on
176 items, import restrictions were abolished. However, the Chinese
replaced those 176 old restrictions with 400 new restrictions that
essentially make it harder for U.S. companies to export to China. The
1999 U.S. Trade Representative report said: ``By 1999, China had
removed over 1,000 quotas and licenses. . . . But there are indications
that China is erecting new barriers to restrict imports.'' Also, China
adopted a new auto policy only two years after signing the Market
Access Agreement that put auto manufacturers at a severe disadvantage
compared to Chinese auto workers.
I agree that China's record of noncompliance, considered alone,
should not be dispositive of determining how to vote on PNTR. In fact,
the Administration says that we have nothing to lose by allowing China
into the WTO because by doing so, China agrees to ``deeper and
broader'' commitments, and the United States gets the benefits of the
WTO dispute settlement system to enforce those commitments. However, I
believe the proponents of PNTR have left out an important aspect of
this ``deal''--when the United States approves PNTR, we give up our
ability to unilaterally retaliate against China if China doesn't live
up to its commitments, and must instead rely on the WTO dispute
resolution system. Unfortunately, the WTO dispute resolution procedures
have been inadequate to enforce our rights in past cases where the
United States has successfully challenged unfair trade practices of
other countries.
One of my constituents wrote the following:
Granting PNTR will . . . reduce our ability to use
unilateral tools to respond to continued Chinese failure to
live up to its commitments. Our ability to take unilateral
action is our only leverage against the Chinese government.
Proponents of PNTR admit that only by using unilateral
actions we were able to make even modest progress on
intellectual property rights. The Chinese government has not
lived up to the promises they made in every single trade
agreement signed with the U.S. in the past ten years.
This Missourian is absolutely correct. While the process for getting
a WTO Panel Decision issued has become more favorable to the United
States, the ability to enforce Panel Decisions has been diminished.
In 1994, when the United States negotiated the WTO, the United States
gave up the right to threaten higher levels of retaliation. The new
standard is much more limited. The pre-1994 standard allowed a
successful party (country) to impose a level of retaliation that was
``appropriate in the circumstances'' in relation to the violation
proved. However, now we are bound retaliation levels that the WTO
decides is ``equivalent to the nullification or impairment.'' This new
standard has impaired our ability to enforce successful decisions, such
as the one involving the export of U.S. beef to Europe.
The detrimental effect of this loss of leverage on our ability to
demand implementation of favorable WTO decisions is illustrated by the
U.S.-EU beef case. The WTO authorized retaliation of only $120 million
by the United States to address the EU's closed beef market. Compare
this figure with the $4.6 billion the United States threatened against
China when we were not bound by the WTO retaliation levels. I am not
suggesting that the United States should use retaliation levels that
are disproportionately harsh. I favor multilateral mechanisms to
determine noncompliance with trade agreements. But I believe that once
the United States has been successful in challenging another country's
trade barriers, retaliation should be authorized to ensure enforcement.
Denying the U.S. adequate tools to enforce a decision is similar to
denying a plaintiff a judgment in a case he won. ``Winning'' just for
the sake of being called the winner is not the objective when pursuing
a WTO enforcement decision. U.S. ranchers want to sell beef to the EU
not just be told by the WTO that the EU is violating its agreements.
And, if China fails to comply with its commitments in the future, we
will need to have the tools to enforce our rights.
We need a policy that ensures results, not just paper promises.
Missourians want some guarantee that inviting China into the WTO will
result in enhanced export opportunities, not just never-ending
litigation. To address the enforcement issue, I have taken a number of
steps including the following.
I worked directly with former Commerce Secretary Daley to set up a
``China Compliance and Enforcement Initiative'' within the Department
of Commerce. At a Commerce Committee hearing, I told Secretary Daley
that this would be my top priority. In response the Enforcement
Initiative was set up, which does the following:
Establishes a Deputy Assistant Secretary for China devoted to
monitoring and enforcement of China's trade agreements;
Sets up a rapid response team of 12 compliance trade specialists
based in Washington, D.C. and in China;
Provides U.S. businesses and others with detailed information about
China's accession commitments, contact names, and up-to-date
information on China's laws and regulations;
Implements an accelerated investigation procedure to encourage
China's compliance without having to initiate a WTO case (within 14
days of receiving a complaint about China's noncompliance, the rapid
response team will engage Chinese officials and try to come to a
resolution of the issue within 90 days);
Gives U.S. companies a head start in the Chinese market by launching
a trade promotion campaign, including missions, seminars, and trade
shows;
Closely monitors imports from China to ensure that our trade laws are
enforced.
Second, I am involved in an effort to get the Continued Dumping Act
(S. 61) passed so that China will be unable to continually flood U.S.
markets with unfair imports. This legislation provides for the
penalties to be given to the injured industry in the United States if
China continues to unfairly dump its products into the U.S. market
after a decision has been made and penalties have been imposed. This
bill would provide a powerful disincentive to foreign producers who
dump their products in our market because it would give a financial
benefit to U.S. manufacturers.
Third, I introduced the ``SHOW-ME'' Act (S. 2548), which says that
the United States should retain a more liberal standard of retaliation
in the WTO for China. This is a principle I support for the WTO in
general. If the United States has completed all of the required steps
by initiating, arguing, and winning a case in the WTO, we should first
give the other country some time to implement this WTO decision.
However, if the country continues to disregard a decision that has been
made by a neutral panel in the WTO, the United States should have
greater flexibility when setting levels of retaliation. I support a
policy that will give the United States more tools for enforcement, as
opposed to reducing the amount available, which is unfortunately where
recent trade negotiations have taken us.
Along these same lines, I introduced the WTO Enforcement Act (S.
1073), which would ensure that U.S. businesses and farm interests are
widely represented and heard during every stage of the WTO dispute
settlement process, especially when it is necessary to threaten
retaliation in order to enforce a WTO panel decision in their favor.
Fifth, I have worked with newly-appointed Commerce Secretary Mineta
to make trade enforcement a top priority during the remainder of this
Administration. Specifically, I have communicated with Secretary Mineta
my goal of attaining added flexibility for the United States in order
to enforce our
[[Page 18373]]
rights. Secretary Mineta ensured me in meetings and at a Commerce
Committee hearing that this would be a priority. I am pleased to quote
from his most recent statement about the issue:
As we have recently discussed, I share your concerns about
enforcement of dispute resolution cases under the WTO and the
available means of retaliation. . . . I will make one of my
top priorities enforcement of our trade laws and compliance
with our trade agreements, particularly the WTO. Our goal
must be to ensure that panel decisions are faithfully
implemented. Let me assure you that I will work closely with
you and members of the Administration to find effective means
of retaliation when decisions are not property implemented.
These are some of the initiatives I have recently undertaken to
address Missourians'--and my own--concerns with China's past
noncompliance record and our ability to enforce agreements in the
future. I believe the job of opening markets begins, not ends, with the
signing of agreements and the approval of PNTR for China. I know we
have a continuing and great responsibility to ensure that America's
farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses receive the full benefit of
the agreements that have been negotiated on their behalf. I embrace
this responsibility on behalf of the millions of Missourians who are
impacted by this vote and this issue. I am committed to monitor China's
compliance with our trade agreements and demand action if they fail to
keep their promises. In addition, I will continue to encourage this
Administration, and the next, to be vigilant about enforcing our
rights. Missourians deserve the opportunity to export their products
according to the terms promised in agreements.
In closing, Mr. President, I would like to reiterate the fact that
there is, quite frankly, a declining satisfaction in America's
heartland with our ability--or inability--to open foreign markets. The
only way we will rebuild confidence in trade agreements is by real
enforcement of existing agreements, not by entering into newer, more
unreliable ones.
It is time for U.S. trade policy to be fortified with a strong
foundation--that of real enforcement. It is time that our policies lead
to job creation in practice, not just in theory. It is simply
unacceptable for the Chinese to repeatedly repackage the same deal with
a new label and not live up to the commitments it makes.
I will continue to work with all parties to fashion fair trade
policies with China and all our trading partners to increase
Missourians' access to world markets, which will create more jobs and a
stronger economy. As a Senator from the Show Me State, I believe China,
and other WTO members, need to show us that they are serious about
living up to trade agreements. I will continue to work toward this
goal.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the issue we have
been debating here in the Senate for the past week--the matter of
permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) for China.
Mr. President, my concerns about China are longstanding. They are
based in no way on antipathy for the people of China, but rather
China's authoritarian government--a government with a human rights
track record that no one in good conscience could even defend. That is
why I opposed the annual renewal of normal trade relations for China
just last year.
At the same time, we are faced with another irrefutable fact--China
is becoming a member of the global trading community with or without
the concurrence of the United States. The fundamental question we are
faced with is whether the U.S. will be fully engaged with China during
this process.
A vote in favor of PNTR for China represents a recognition of
reality, a recognition that China currently has complete access to our
market while we have very limited access to theirs, a recognition that
China is about to burst on to the international trading scene as a full
fledged member of the World Trade Organization, a recognition that we
would be actively choosing to put ourselves at a distinct disadvantage
relative to our fellow WTO members should we fail to grant China PNTR.
A ``yes'' vote is a recognition that our success in the new century's
new global economy--which has arrived whether we care to admit it or
not--will only be as great as our willingness to be a part of it, a
recognition that we have, rightly or wrongly--and I would argue
wrongly--already de-linked our trade policy with China from our human
rights policy, and a recognition that the status quo has done little or
nothing to help improve the lot of the typical Chinese man or woman.
Mr. President, this is an imperfect bill we have before us.
Personally, I would have preferred to support a bill improved by a
number of amendments we have considered during our debate. Because I
believe we must do our utmost to impact human rights in china, to
protect against the potential impact of their massive cheap labor
market, to preserve our national security and to ensure compliance with
our trade agreements.
For instance, as my colleague, Senator Wellstone, stated on the floor
during the debate on his amendment conditioning PNTR on China's
compliance with previous U.S.-China prison labor agreements, the 1992
agreement allowed on-site inspections by U.S. Customs officials in
China to determine whether allegations that forced or prison labor were
manufacturing products were true.
Yet as soon as Taiwan's then-President Lee visited his alma mater,
Cornell University, In 1992, China demonstrated its displeasure with
the U.S. by among other things, suspending its agreement to allow U.S.
inspections. China still refuses to abide by the terms of this
agreement.
That's why I supported Senator Wellstone's amendment because I
believe it is time for China to start living up to the international
economic role it seeks. Even absent that amendment, under the WTO,
China is expected to abide by all trade agreements all the time--not
just when it is in its best interest. And I will be looking to the WTO
to hold them to that standard.
Indeed, as a WTO member, China would be subject to reams of trade
rules, and any of the organization's 138 members would demand that a
rule be enforced. I believe that this perhaps, more than anything else,
would spur the development of a market economy in china which is based
on full compliance with its trade agreements.
Moreover, it is encouraging that the Administration has put forth a
plan to monitor China's compliance with the establishment of a new
Commerce Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for China, who would be
devoted to monitoring and enforcing China's WTO trade agreements. I am
also encouraged by announcements that a ``rapid-response compliance''
team of 12 staff people working in the U.S. and China, and a China-
specific subsidy enforcement team, will be established to monitor
China's trade compliance.
Further, Mr. President, the legislation itself requires an annual
report from the USTR on Chinese compliance with WTO obligations and
instructs the USTR to work to create a multilateral mechanism at the
WTO to measure compliance. It also authorizes funding deemed necessary
for the U.S. to monitor China's compliance. This is a step in the right
direction and a necessary component of this bill.
Another issue of utmost importance as we have reviewed PNTR from the
perspective of what is in the best interests of the United States is
our ability to maintain our national security.
As my colleagues are well aware, one of a president's primary
responsibilities under the Constitution is to conduct foreign affairs,
and in doing so, Americans assume that a president is promoting our
national security and interests abroad. As trade among nations is
inexorably intertwined with political relations among nations, national
security cannot--and should not--be considered in isolation. Therefore,
it has been entirely appropriate that China's proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction have been part of this debate.
I have long been concerned about transfers of technology by China
that contribute to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or
missiles that could deliver them. Recent issues have involved China's
sales to Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, and Libya. On
[[Page 18374]]
August 9, the CIA reported that China remained a ``key supplier'' of
weapons technology and increased missile-related assistance to Pakistan
in the second half of 1999.
This is why I was a cosponsor of the Thompson-Torricelli bill and a
supporter of their amendment. It is vital that the U.S. demonstrates
that we will not turn a blind eye to China's proliferation and that we
will actively take steps to induce change.
The Thompson-Torricelli amendment did not address trade but, in fact,
was a crucial part of this debate as China continues to facilitate the
proliferation of missile technology and weapons of mass destruction, to
rogue countries. It would have provided an annual review mechanism,
mandatory penalties, and an escalating scale of responses to Chinese
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missile technologies, and
advanced conventional weapons.
Accordingly, I consider the passage and enactment of the Thompson-
Torricelli proposal in the future not simply to be good policy, but a
critical companion to PNTR, and I hope we will revisit this critical
issue in the 107th Congress.
Mr. President, in addition to an in concert with our national
security responsibilities, one of the most prominent national interests
of the U.S. is the promotion of human rights around the world. Indeed,
one of the ongoing and essential reasons I have voted against NTR
status for China in the past was due to its infamous human rights
abuses.
During the consideration by the House, provisions were added to the
PNTR legislation to monitor China's human rights by creating a
Congressional-Executive Commission. The Commission will submit to
Congress and the President an annual report of its findings, including
as appropriate WTO-consistent recommendations for legislative or
executive action.
I also recognize that any U.S. trade sanction taken against China
could be brought before the WTO for resolution by China. The WTO's
focus is international trade law, not human rights.
Accordingly, I supported Senator Helms' amendment that would require,
as a condition of China receiving PNTR, that the President certify that
China has taken actions regarding its human rights abuses and religious
persecution. Just as importantly, I also supported another Helms
amendment that called on U.S. businesses to conduct themselves in a
manner that reflects the basic American values of democracy, individual
liberty and justice--a voluntary code of conduct.
While both amendments were clearly defeated on grounds other than the
merits of the issue itself, I make a personal appeal to America's
businesses to conduct themselves in a manner that does credit to the
ideas we hold dear as a nation.
And I'm certain my colleagues agree that it is clearly in America's
best interest--not to mention in keeping with the principles on which
we were founded--to keep up the pressure on China to improve human
rights for its own people and it is my fervent hope that we will do so.
Mr. President, economically, U.S. companies have expressed to
Congress throughout this debate that our future competitiveness and,
ultimately, our economic success as a country will be hamstrung without
this agreement--but with it, all of America will be better off. Again,
while I would have preferred to vote on a bill strengthened by the
amendments I have just discussed, I find that I must concur.
For the past two decades, the U.S. has granted China low-tariff
access to our market. And what have we gotten in return? Any number of
different trade barriers which have severely limited U.S. access to
China's market. To me, Mr. President, this has been far from fair.
Under this lopsided arrangement where China maintains nearly complete
access to our market while we face stiff barriers, this has contributed
to the increased trade deficit with China. In 1992, our trade relations
with China produced $7.5 billion in U.S. exports and $25.7 billion in
U.S. imports from China. By last year, our exports rose to $13.1
billion while our imports from China reached an astonishing $81.8
billion--a $68.7 billion deficit.
Now, some have argued that by improving the business climate in
China, we're opening the floodgates for a massive outflow of U.S.
businesses that will wish to relocate to that country. And certainly,
China will be a more attractive place to do business should PNTR be
approved.
But we must keep in mind that, under our current trade arrangement
with China, many U.S. businesses have chosen to relocate a degree of
their operations to China because Chinese tariff and non-tariff
barriers make it very difficult to export products directly to that
country. In order to gain access to the market, many firms build plants
in China--however, this strategy has been by no means without is own
problems.
In fact, businesses currently face a variety of discriminatory
practices, including technology transfer, domestic content, and export
performance requirements--in other words, that firms must export a
certain share of their production. Once China becomes a member of the
WTO--which of course we know is inevitable regardless of how we vote on
PNTR--it will lower tariffs and eliminate a wide range of non-tariff
barriers.
What does this all mean for U.S. businesses? It means that many
firms--especially small and medium-sized firms, so we're not just
talking about large corporations here--might choose instead to export
products directly to China.
In other words, a greater investment in China under the provisions of
the agreement that has been negotiated could promote an increase in
U.S. exports to China. And that's not just me talking. According to the
well-respected firm of Goldman Sachs, passage of PNTR for China can be
expected to increase our exports to China by anywhere from $12.7 to
$13.9 billion per year by 2005.
In my home state of Maine, there are a variety of facets of our
economy that can expect to benefit. Already, Maine is significantly
engaged in trade with China--to the tune of $19 million in 1998. From
agriculture to civil aircraft parts to insurance to wood products to
high-tech industries and fish products, PNTR would allow these vital
sectors of our economy to continue to complete on an even footing with
our global competitors, and to do so under WTO enforced rules.
For example, there would be zero tariffs on all semiconductors,
telecommunications equipment, and other information technology products
by 2005. Tariffs on wood and paper would be reduced from between 12 to
25 percent to between 5 and 7.5 percent. And tariffs on fish products
would be reduced from 20.5 to 11.4 percent. These are significant
numbers for significant industries in Maine.
Now, some will argue that PNTR will adversely affect our textile
industries. Mr. President, as someone who has long been concerned about
our trade agreements because of the effect they will have on the
textile and apparel industry in the U.S. and in Maine, nobody is more
sensitive to this issue that I am. Since 1994, Maine has lost 26,500
textile and apparel jobs, so I have scrutinized every trade agreement
with this situation in mind.
This legislation, however, represents an improvement over past trade
agreements I have opposed. Again, the fact is, China will become part
of the WTO. And all WTO members must abide by the Agreement on Textiles
and Clothing, or ATC, that phases out existing quotas and improves
access to the markets of developing countries. In fact, all import
quotas on textiles and apparels are to cease to exist by January 1,
2005, and China will reduce its tariffs on U.S. textiles and apparels
from 25.4% to 11.7%.
In other words, under the ATC, the U.S. will be required to end
quotas as will China. I understand that the textile industry wanted a
10-year phase out period and that opponents have contended that this
will allow massive Chinese imports to the U.S., but the U.S. has
negotiated specific protections regarding textiles and the PNTR
legislation itself contains anti-surge safeguards.
[[Page 18375]]
Under the bilateral trade deal, the U.S. was able to retain the right
to impose safeguard measures through 2008 and the PNTR legislation
authorizes the president to take action if products from China are
being imported in such increased quantities or under such conditions as
to cause or threaten to cause market disruptions to the domestic
producers.
Mr. President, I understand that textiles and apparels are an
inviting industry for China to utilize its vast labor pool, but I
believe that what we have negotiated and are about to enact into law
addresses this issue while still allowing us to be full participants in
the future.
And that is what this is about, Mr. President--the future--for both
the United States and China.
The fact of the matter is, recent economic development has led to a
rising standard of living for the average Chinese. Does China have a
long way to go? Absolutely. Is this a hopeful beginning? I believe it
is.
We are not going to change China overnight, with or without PNTR. But
we must start somewhere. If we are not going to use the annual review
of NTR for China as leverage for greater human rights in that nation--
and clearly, as I noted at the beginning, we seem to have long since
conceded the point, despite my protestations--then it is time to bring
the American promise to China through the promise of increased economic
opportunity for the Chinese people.
Change will be incremental at best. The Chinese government has proven
itself a master of self-perpetuation. They still control the lion's
share of finance and the means of production, and they are still a
government not of the people or for the people.
But under this new trade agreement, and as a member of the WTO, the
Chinese government will have a little less control then they had
before. They will be subject to more rules--and rules made by those
outside of China. And they will know that if they want to be a part of
the tremendous promise of the 21st century, this is their only course.
Here at home, we have choices to make as well. Will we remain
globally competitive? Will we embrace the opportunity to engage
ourselves in a market of 1.3 billion people? Or will we tie oversees to
the status quo, where China has access to our market, we don't have
access to theirs, and the human rights issue gets no better than it has
over the past ten years?
The bottom line is that the U.S.-China trade agreement--which is
contingent on PNTR--represents an unprecedented, albeit imperfect,
opportunity for the U.S. to gain access to the China market, for the
U.S. to increase trade and thereby increase innovation and prosperity
for ourselves and the generations to come. For these reasons, I will
support PNTR for China.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there are weighty arguments that can be
made on both sides of the question regarding whether or not to grant
permanent normal trade relations status, PNTR, to China. But in the end
there are two compelling arguments for granting PNTR that, I believe
outweigh the arguments against it.
The first is that our current trade relationship with China is
unacceptable and the second is that the existing annual review of our
trade relationship has failed to improve either that relationship or
the human rights situation in China. Granting China PNTR will result in
concrete improvements in our trade relationship and offers the promise
of a significantly more effective tool for both monitoring and changing
the human rights conditions in that country.
When I say that our trade relationship with China is unacceptable, I
am referring to the $69 billion trade deficit with China we ran up last
year ($82 billion in imports versus $13 billion in exports). And as bad
as that deficit is, economists are predicting it will grow. These
levels are totally unacceptable. Today, access to China's highly
regulated and protected market is extremely difficult. China protects
its domestic market with high tariffs and non-tariff barriers that
limit access of foreign companies. There is also inadequate protection
of intellectual property and trade-distorting government subsidies.
There are clearly some advantages to this agreement in terms of
gaining greater access to Chinese markets. China's current trade
barriers, for instance, are especially high in the automotive sector.
Concessions made by China in the agreement with the United States to
open up their automotive sector to our exports are significant,
including tariff reductions. Before the agreement, China's auto tariffs
average 80-100 percent. China agreed to lower that to 25 percent by
2006. Before the agreement China's tariff on auto parts averages 20-35
percent. That is reduced to 10 percent by 2006 under the agreement.
There are significant tariff reductions in other areas than the auto
sector. Before the agreement, China's agricultural equipment tariffs
average about 11\1/2\ percent. China will reduce them to 5.7 percent by
2002. Before the agreement the Chinese tariff on apples, cherries and
pears is 70 percent. After the agreement, China will reduce that to 10
percent, by 2004. China's tariff on chemicals averages 14.75 percent
now, and in the agreement China has agreed to reduce it to 6.9 percent
by 2006. It also agreed to reduce its tariff on filing cabinets from 18
to 10.5 percent by 2003. Chinese tariffs on refrigerators would come
down from 25 percent to 20 percent by 2002. American farmers and
exporters have told me they believe they can export to and compete in
China with these lower tariffs.
China has also agreed to phase out its restrictive import licensing
requirements and import quotas for vehicles. China agreed to phase out
all restrictions on distribution services, such as auto maintenance and
repair industries, giving U.S. companies the right to control
distribution of their products, which is currently prohibited. In its
agreement with the European Union, which will apply to all WTO members
once China joins the WTO, China agreed to let foreign auto
manufacturers, not the Chinese government, as is currently the case,
decide what vehicles they wish to produce for the Chinese market. Also,
as a member of the WTO, China would be required to drop its local
content restrictions. Such changes are significant and long overdue.
If the status quo in our trade with China is unacceptable, so too is
our mechanism for impacting the human rights climate in that country. I
know that some have argued that Congress should not grant China PNTR
status because they are reluctant to abandon our annual human rights
review process and thus reduce our leverage with China on human rights
practices. But what real leverage has this annual review and
certification process given us when the United States has granted China
normal trade relations status every year for 21 years without
interruption? Even in 1989, after Tiananmen Square, China's normal
trade relations, NTR, status was renewed. If we can certify China even
after Tiananmen Square, what is this annual review pressure really
worth?
The human rights situation in China is miserable. That's the current
situation, the status quo before the agreement we are considering.
Describing the violations of human rights in China now doesn't answer
the question of whether we should grant China PNTR any more than
whether we should have granted PNTR to Saudi Arabia or other countries
where human rights are violated.
In other words, the current situation before this agreement is bad
regarding human rights as is true with many other countries with whom
we have PNTR. I don't see how we are worse off with this agreement in
terms of getting China to improve their human rights. In fact, the PNTR
bill we are voting on includes a specific mechanism to monitor and
report on China's human rights practices that was proposed by my
brother, Congressman Sander Levin. Through the establishment of a
congressional-executive commission on human rights, labor market issues
and the establishment of the rule of law in China we will be keeping
some public, visible and ongoing pressure on China to reform in these
areas.
[[Page 18376]]
Even the president of the AFL-CIO, John Sweeney, who was critical of
the House vote approving PNTR acknowledged that my brother's
provisions,
. . . marked an historic turning point: a trade bill cannot
be passed in Congress anymore unless it addresses human
rights and workers' rights.
In addition to the improved human rights enforcement we gain under
PNTR, I believe it is at least possible the opening of Chinese markets
to our products and involving them more and more in the world economy
will produce human rights results which the current approach hasn't
produced.
There may be some truth in the argument that the year-to-year
certification creates some uncertainty for American businesses thinking
of investing in China if they export some of their Chinese production
back here despite their stated intention not to. This uncertainty, it
is argued, results in lower levels of US investment in China, and lower
levels of job transfers which sometimes accompanies that investment,
than would be the case without the tariff uncertainty created by the
annual review. However, it's unrealistic to expect that investments
will not be made in China by companies from other countries even if not
made by our companies. European and Asian companies will presumably
fill any gap. And they could just as easily export their Chinese-made
products to the United States, in which case more US jobs would
probably be displaced as a result of those imports than would be
displaced if American companies were the investors.
Let's assume you have an American and a German refrigerator
manufacturer vying to make refrigerators in China. If both companies
were going to ship refrigerators back to the United States, the jobs of
people making refrigerators in the United States would seemingly be at
least as much jeopardized by the German made-in-China refrigerator as
the American made-in-China refrigerator. Actually, the job displacement
would probably be less with the American made-in-China refrigerators
being sold back here because the American company is more likely to use
some US made components, stimulating at least some US exports. And not
only will European and Asian businesses probably be less likely to use
American made components in items they assemble in China, they will
probably have fewer US stockholders gaining from their investments in
China than would be the case with an American company's investment.
For instance, even though General Motors started production of the
Buick Regal two years ago in Shanghai, no GM vehicles have come back to
the US and $250 million a year worth of American made auto parts were
used in that production. As a result of General Motors and other US
vehicle manufacturers' investment in China, in 1999 Chinese imports of
US automotive parts grew by 90 percent over the prior year.
Percentagewise, China's imports of US automotive parts are increasing
faster than China's exports of automotive parts to the United States.
We are seemingly better off with some US content in Chinese-made
products than with none.
It's clear to me that the status quo is failing to improve human
rights conditions in China and failing to improve our trade
relationship with that country. Given that I believe our trade
relationship with China is intolerable and China's human rights climate
is miserable, I do not vote for PNTR to reward China. Far from it. I
have no desire to reward China for creating unfair barriers to American
products and maintaining tariffs on our exports while Chinese imports
flood our marketplace. Nor do I want to reward China for its failure to
comply with earlier trade agreements. And I have no desire to reward
China for persecuting those who only seek to practice their religious
beliefs or to secure their rights as workers. But in the end PNTR is
not a reward to China, it is a tool our country should use and use
aggressively to open China's markets to our goods the way our market
has been open to China's goods and to exert meaningful pressure on
China to join that community of nations that respects basic human
rights. My vote for PNTR is a vote against a status quo that has failed
to advance either of those goals. It is a vote for a measure, however
imperfect, that can move us closer to a fair trading relationship with
China and to a day when the people of that country can enjoy their
fundamental human rights.
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the future of U.S.
trade relations with China and the impending vote on China's PNTR
status. The prosperity that this nation has enjoyed for the past 50
years has been a result of our commitment to free trade and opening
markets. Free trade benefits all--it enhances prosperity and develops
markets, essential elements to the spread of freedom, democracy, and
the rule of law. China's entry into the World Trade Organization will
also enhance American competitiveness, further our national interests,
and benefit our trading partners. But we must enter into this agreement
with our eyes open. China must comply with this agreement for it to
have meaning. The United States must vigilantly seek enforcement of all
agreements with China, including those addressing national security and
human rights.
I share the concern of my colleague, Senator Thompson, regarding
China's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On August 9th of
this year, the Director of Central Intelligence reported that China
remained a ``key supplier'' of weapons technology and increased-missile
related assistance to Pakistan as recently as the second half of 1999.
In the last year it has been reported that China transferred missile
technology to Libya and North Korea and may still be providing secret
technical assistance to Pakistan's nuclear program. U.S. Intelligence
has also provided evidence that the PRC has provided Iran with nuclear
technology, chemical weapons materials, and missile technology that
would violate China's commitment to observe the MTCR and U.S. laws. I
do not suggest that because of these violations we should cut off trade
with China, but we must address the fact that they are supplying rogue
nations with weapons of mass destruction. This threat to our national
security has made my decision on this vote a difficult one, and that
has been compounded by my concerns with China's repeated human rights
abuses.
I suspect that each of my colleagues has had some opportunity over
the years to hear about the human rights abuses taking place in China.
I think one of the more eloquent spokesmen for the struggle for freedom
has been Wei Jingsheng. He reminds us that those of us who live in the
luxury of freedom should not forget those who are still struggling for
liberty and freedom.
Mr. President, because of these very strong conflicting views, the
importance of open and free trade on the one hand, and the importance
of human dignity and the pursuit of freedom on the other, this has been
a difficult decision for me. But, after due consideration, I conclude
that moving toward open and free markets advances freedom in China, so
long as China is willing to abide by the rules of the WTO.
By exposing China to global competition and the benefits it has to
offer, Chinese leaders will be both obligated and empowered to more
quickly move their country toward full economic reform. And by virtue
of their business relationships, over time the Chinese people will be
exposed to information, ideas and debate from around the world. This in
turn will encourage them and their leadership to embrace the virtue and
promise of individual freedom. The reason I am willing to embrace it
has much has to do with the kinds of changes we have seen taking place
in China over the years. If they were still committed to the ideology
of the 1950's and 1960's, I do not think we would be here today. But,
they have clearly moved toward opening their economy, and we should
continue to push to open the country to freedom.
So I think it is time for us to respond to these changes by saying to
the Chinese people--we want to be engaged in free trade and competition
with you. I think, in the end, humanity will benefit. So I will cast a
vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
[[Page 18377]]
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate votes on whether to
establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.
This issue has been the subject of longstanding and emotional debate.
It is an issue which has divided the Congress, human rights groups and
policy experts from across the spectrum. There are strong arguments on
both sides--arguments I carefully weighed in deciding how to vote.
In the past, I have opposed extending annual Most Favored Nation
status to China because of concerns about China's egregious record on
human rights and labor rights. By many accounts, including the State
Department's, the situation there has deteriorated over the past year.
Repression of political dissent, restrictions on freedom of religion
and the persecution of ethnic minorities are realities of everyday
life. I witnessed with my own eyes the tragedy that has befallen the
people of Tibet, when I traveled there in 1988.
For Vermonters, the young Tibetan and former Middlebury College
student, Ngawang Choephel, and his mother, Sonam Dekyi, are the human
faces of the hardships and injustices endured under Chinese rule.
Ngawang was arrested more than four years ago by Chinese police when
he was in Tibet making a film about traditional Tibetan culture. He was
sentenced to 18 years in prison, despite the fact that the Chinese have
never produced a shred of evidence that he committed any crime.
President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have personally
sought his release, to no avail. In May 1999, the U.N. Commission on
Human Rights declared his detention to be arbitrary. I have taken
countless steps in seeking his release, year after year, and so have
Senator Jeffords and Congressman Sanders.
Since 1996, Ngawang's mother sought permission to visit him. Chinese
law permits family members to visit imprisoned relatives, but for four
years the Chinese Government ignored her pleas. Finally, last month,
the Chinese Government made it possible for her to see him. She found
that he is suffering from recurrent, serious health problems, far more
serious than those of us who have followed his case closely had been
led to believe.
Thirty-two years ago, Ms. Dekyi made the dangerous journey from Tibet
to India to escape Chinese repression. She lost a child along the way.
Her remaining son is now paying a terrible price for his brave attempts
to document Tibetan culture.
No one here would disagree that in so many ways the policies and
practices of the Chinese Government stand in direct opposition to the
democratic principles upon which our country is founded. Mr. Choephel's
case is just one of many examples.
The question, however, is not whether we approve or disapprove of
this reality. It exists. The question is what can we do about it? How
can we most effectively encourage China to become a more open, humane
and democratic society?
The unavoidable fact is that our current approach has not worked. Due
process is non-existent. Ngawang Choephel and many other political
prisoners remain in custody. Many of China's workers are exploited.
Anyone who publicly expresses support for democracy is silenced. If I
thought that we could solve these problems by preventing normal trade
relations with China, I would support it without hesitation, but I do
not believe that course would achieve our long-sought solutions to
these many problems.
Preventing normal trade with China would not advance the political
and humanitarian goals that the United States has long worked for in
China, nor will it advance the economic goals we have set for ourselves
here at home.
The fact is, with or without Congress' approval, China will join the
World Trade Organization.
It will join 135 other countries in an organization which regulates
global trade. It will be part of an international economic system
created by democratic nations and governed by the rule of law. It will
be required to further liberalize an economy which is already being
transformed by trade and technology, and which has contributed to slow
but steady reform.
So on the one hand, preventing normal trade relations with China
would not stop China from enjoying the benefits of WTO. It will join
WTO regardless. Nor, I believe, would blocking China PNTR result in
Ngawang Choephel's release. But on the other hand, by blocking PNTR we
would deny ourselves the significant economic benefits that will result
from China's agreement to reduce tariffs and open its markets to U.S.
exports in ways that it never has before. And, I believe, we would deny
ourselves the opportunity to build a better relationship with China.
Some have suggested that this debate is about what is right and what
is wrong with the WTO. From its history of negotiating trade agreements
in secret, to inadequate consideration of labor rights, human rights
and the environment, there are plenty of problems with the WTO. These
issues are important and they absolutely should be addressed. But they
are not what this debate is about.
I have long spoken out against the lack of basic freedoms in China. I
strongly supported the Administration's decision to sponsor a
resolution condemning China at the U.N. Human Rights Commission. I have
done everything I can think of to seek Ngawang Choephel's release, and
I will continue to do so until he is released. I fervently hope that
the Chinese Government will respond to the Congress' vote in favor of
PNTR by releasing Mr. Choephel, along with others who do not belong in
prison and who in no way threaten China's security.
Until the rule of law is respected and there is an independent
judiciary that protects people's rights, until Ngawang Choephel and the
other prisoners of conscience who languish in China's prisons are free,
China will never be able to fully join the global community.
I am encouraged that the legislation that has come from the House
would create a bipartisan Helsinki-type commission to monitor, promote
and issue annual reports on human rights and worker rights in China.
This bill requires hearings on the contents of these reports, including
the recommendations of the commission, and it establishes a task force
to strengthen our ability to prevent the import of goods made with
prison or forced labor.
In the past, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of
the yearly review of China's human rights record. However, I believe
that it is important to have an annual debate on this issue, and I feel
that the Helsinki-type commission and task force will provide useful,
albeit limited, mechanisms for the examination of China's record on
these issues
I have voted for every amendment to this legislation that was
consistent with PNTR, and which would have also strengthened human
rights. I deeply regret that they were not adopted. We can expand our
trade with China, we can build a better relationship with China, and we
can also stand up for human rights. The amendments offered by Senator
Feingold, Senator Wellstone, and others were reasonable and fully
consistent with our most cherished values.
Profound differences over human rights will continue to cast a shadow
on our relationship with China, and that is unfortunate. But it is also
important to recognize that life in China is significantly different
from what it was two decades ago or even two years ago.
For the first time, Chinese citizens are starting their own
businesses. More and more Chinese are employed by foreign-owned
companies, where they generally receive higher pay and enjoy better
working conditions. State-run industries are gradually being dismantled
and state-owned houses, health clinics, schools and stores are no
longer the rule--reducing the influence that the Chinese Communist
party has over its citizens everyday lives.
Technology has also weakened the government's ability to control
people's lives. In the past year, the number of Internet addresses in
China has risen dramatically. This year, the number is expected to
exceed 20 million. With the Internet comes the exchange
[[Page 18378]]
of information and ideas. And the government's best efforts to stifle
this exchange are little match for a phenomenon that has transformed
the lives of people around the world, from the most open to the most
closed societies. In addition, access to print and broadcast media has
expanded rapidly, along with nonprofit and civic organizations.
It is impossible to know what path Chinese authorities will
ultimately choose--whether WTO membership and the changes it requires
will indeed contribute to real democratic reform. But it would be a
mistake for us to err on the side of isolation when there is so much
that could be gained by engagement.
The President's arguments on this issue have been persuasive. So have
the arguments of three former Presidents, six former Secretaries of
State, and nine former Secretaries of the Treasury.
I also found persuasive the fact that many Chinese democracy and
human rights activists, who have suffered the most under Chinese rule
and have the most to gain from change, support PNTR.
And so I will vote for PNTR today.
Our archaic, counterproductive and ill-conceived approach toward Cuba
is a perfect model for what we should not do in China. Our isolationist
policy, which I have long argued against, has fallen hardest on
everyday Cubans. Nothing has done more to perpetuate Castro's grip on
power, and the denial of basic freedoms there, than our embargo.
Rejecting PNTR would strengthen the same element in China--the hard-
liners who are afraid that engagement with the outside world will
dilute their power and influence. These are the same hard-liners who
are refusing to negotiate with the Dalai Lama on Tibet and who would
settle differences with Taiwan by force.
Which brings me to the issue of national security. China is an
emerging military power, with a small but growing capability to deliver
nuclear arms. It has an increasing influence in Asia, which military
experts have identified as the most likely arena for future conflict.
Passage of PNTR and China's accession to the WTO offer important
opportunities to increase China's stake in global security and
stability and to help ensure that over the long term China becomes our
competitor and not our adversary.
Moreover, this legislation will not undermine U.S. efforts to use a
full range of policy tools--diplomatic, economic and military--to
address any potential Chinese noncompliance with American interests or
international norms.
In purely commercial terms, Congress concedes nothing to China by
approving PNTR. We do not open our country to more Chinese products.
Rather, we simply maintain the present access to our economy that China
already enjoys. In return, Chinese tariffs--from telecommunications to
automobiles to agriculture--will fall by half or more over just five
years, paving the way for the export of more American goods and
services to the largest market in the world.
It is important to remember that if Congress rejects PNTR, other
countries will continue to trade with China. They will reap the trade
benefits that we have rejected.
PNTR will benefit Vermont. In the past year, Vermont exports to China
have increased significantly--from $1 million in 1998 to $6.5 million
in 1999. While this represents only a small fraction of Vermont's total
exports, lower tariff barriers are likely to help Vermonters export
their products beyond the Green Mountains to a quarter of the world's
people. More Vermont exports mean more Vermont jobs.
I recognize the concerns of some in the labor community who believe
that approving PNTR may cause the loss of some jobs in the United
States. I know that many leaders of American labor organizations are
motivated by their concern about their workers, and I respect them for
that. Behind the statistics are real people with real families who
suffer real consequences.
Some American workers will be hurt by this agreement. It is likely
that some jobs will be lost as some businesses shift operations to
China. However, trade experts generally agree that granting China PNTR
will ultimately create a more favorable trade balance by increasing
exports to China. And more American exports means more American jobs at
a time when unemployment is at a historic low.
I support the strong anti-surge controls that have been included in
the legislation, which will help protect American industries from a
surge in Chinese imports that disrupt U.S. markets. The bill also
authorizes funding to monitor China's compliance with its WTO
commitments.
Mr. President, as with most trade bills that have come before
Congress in the last ten years, the debate over granting PNTR for China
has become clouded with simple slogans and half-truths.
Despite what we may hope for, history has proven time and again that
there is no quick fix for the problems facing the Chinese people. And
as it becomes harder for Chinese authorities to maintain control in the
face of outside influences, the temptation to crack down on dissent may
get worse before it gets better.
But we need to look beyond next month or next year. Freer trade will
not in and of itself improve civil and political rights in China. It
will not guarantee U.S. national security. It will not create thousands
of American jobs overnight. But China's civilization is thousands of
years old. It is changing faster today than ever before. With continued
engagement on all fronts, we can, I believe, advance each of those
important goals. For my part, I personally look forward to a much more
intensive and regular dialogue with Chinese officials on these and
other issues of importance to both our countries.
At the end of this debate, all of these many issues and arguments
must be distilled to answer this one question: Is a vote for permanent
normal trade relations with China in the best interests of the United
States? The answer to that question is clearly ``yes.''
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this proposal has engendered one of the
most serious and genuine debates we have had recently in the Senate. I
have listened carefully to the pros and cons of H.R. 4444 which have
been expressed over the last several months as well as here on the
Senate floor in the last several weeks.
I have not come to a decision lightly and have given a great deal of
consideration to all the arguments. There is no question that China is
today a communist police state. There is no question that it has an
abysmal human rights record.
But, the question is not the state of China today. It is what impact
PNTR will have in the future, both for the United States and for China.
On balance, Mr. President, I have concluded that permanent normal
trade relations with China and passage of H.R. 4444 will contribute to
America's commercial prospects, enhance the spread of free market
principles, and further strengthen the social and economic forces in
China that will eventually sweep the police state into the dustbin of
history.
Mr. President, Asia is the state of Utah's fourth largest market.
While the predominant consumer of Utah exports is Japan, which buys
nearly $500 million of Utah's products, as China's economy grows, so
will the demand for Utah's industrial machinery, processed foods,
nutritional and health food products, electronic software, and other
products demanded by maturing societies.
This trade development cannot occur without PNTR, which will allow
the U.S. to take China to court over unfair trading practices.
Up to now, Utah's 1,200 informational technology companies have been
at a disadvantage in the Chinese market. The Chinese steal and
counterfeit virtually all software, videos, and other intellectual
property media entering the country. As the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyrights and patents, I am
most concerned with enforcing intellectual property laws both at home
and abroad. China's WTO membership
[[Page 18379]]
will place major restraints on pirating, the most important of which is
our right to take China to the WTO dispute settlement panels.
It is worthwhile to note, Mr. President, that the U.S., whose economy
is the most dynamic in the world, and whose producers are the most law-
abiding, will be the beneficiary of the equal enforcement of the trade
rules of the WTO, which we played a large role in shaping. This is not
merely a prediction: To date, the U.S. has won over 90 percent of the
cases we have initiated before the WTO.
If the U.S denied China PNTR, we would lose the right to go to court
and would risk surrendering our market access potential in China to our
competitors.
Mr. President, job-creating Utah businesses want PNTR. Utah's
business community understands the prospective value of China's trade
as well as the benefits of WTO. In meetings with state agricultural
groups, community leaders, as well as virtually every other major job-
creating business sector with export markets or export-market potential
in the state, the demands have been consistent: ``Give us access to
China.''
While this position is strongly held in Utah, it would be unfair to
say it is unanimous. Utah's steel worker community, for example,
opposes PNTR for China. But, with WTO, I believe many of their fears
can be addressed, since China's current ability to dump steel products
in the U.S., and anywhere else, can now be met head-on with a WTO
dispute settlement judgment that would bring sanctions against the
Chinese, not just from the U.S., but from the entire world.
I have worked hard to assure the steel interests in Utah regarding
the passage of PNTR. We passed the Steel Trade Enforcement Act of 1999,
which requires the President to consult with steel companies suffering
from dumping and to get their consent as a condition for lifting
dumping-related sanctions.
Finally, a third advantage is afforded the steel industry in the
U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Agreement, which has a 12-year restriction
on exports from China that surge into the U.S. causing sudden, often
irreparable harm to this important sector of our economy.
The fact is, the American economy dominates, and has benefitted
enormously from, the global marketplace. That includes Utah. Today, 5.2
percent of Utah's gross state product comes from merchandise exports.
Utah sent $2.6 billion of exports into the global marketplace in 1999,
and we expect an increase of about five percent in export volume for
the year 2000.
Trade-related jobs in the state, especially in the manufacturing
sector, are more stable, pay better, and tend to demand higher skills.
International trade competition is good for Utah.
There have been, and will be, job losses, but Utah's economy has
absorbed them. But, Utah also provides an excellent system for
assisting workers make transitions to new positions, including
education and training trade-displaced persons for new skills in new
industries. I will continue to support these programs.
Utah has the right type of industrial base. We have an unmatched
business climate for export-oriented companies. My state's population
is sophisticated in terms of linguistic skills, cultural experience and
tolerance, foreign travel, overseas living experience. Our
infrastructure is in place: we have an international airport; our ports
of entry are modern and automated; our freight forwarding and customs
brokerage communities are highly efficient; our merchandise and
commercial banking, insurance and other financial institutional base is
competitive with any region in the world. We are poised for another
economic take-off, and passage of PNTR so that China and the U.S. can
actively participate in the WTO is essential.
Mr. President, the WTO enhances the free market principles that I
have been committed to since I came to the Senate in 1977. I remain a
conservative who believes that the lessons of the 20th century
regarding the relationship between the free market and individual
freedoms are incontrovertible.
I remain convinced of the theses presented by such great thinkers as
the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek and the American Nobel Laureate
Milton Friedman. Capitalism cannot exist without expanding individual
freedoms. And the growth of individual freedom is antithetical to
authoritarian control.
I believe that the opportunities of a free market which have so
essentially contributed to our own growth and development will also
benefit societies all over the world.
From this perspective, I have been a little disappointed by the way
some members have characterized aspects of this debate, particularly
when they used the term greed in opposition to national security
interests. I do not believe the promotion of capitalism is synonymous
with the promotion of greed. It is an excess of self-interest that can
lead to greed; but greed, of course, is not limited to capitalist
societies, and I wish to make clear that I believe that those who are
promoting PNTR for China are doing so for honorable reasons, and not
for greed.
Moreover, for individual corporations, PNTR is no guarantee of
success. Companies must still manufacture and market a good product.
They must still be competitive.
I have spoken at length about the commercial benefits of granting
PNTR for China for Utah, as numerous other speakers have discussed the
benefits to their states. But our duties here as Senators require that
we always consider the national interest as well as the local interest.
And, in this debate, we have revisited again, throughout the exchanges
we've had on numerous amendments, the broader question of the U.S.-Sino
bilateral relationship and American national security interests.
Let me be clear: I deplore the appalling human rights situation in
China today, including the repression of political expression and other
fundamental expressions of human conscience. I deplore the repugnant
practices in forced abortion and organ harvesting. All of this is
evidence of the continuing level of social backwardness and political
barbarism that remains in effect in many parts of China.
But there is a relationship between barbarism and economic autarky
that cannot be denied. The peak of modern China's human rights
atrocities--measured on a grotesque scale in human casualties--occured
during a period when China was in self-imposed economic and political
isolation from the rest of the world. During Mao's reign, through the
Cultural Revolution, and prior to the opening to the rest of the world
orchestrated by President Richard Nixon, over 40 million Chinese were
murdered or starved by their government. What a tragic reality that is,
Mr. President, but reality it is.
Capitalism corrodes communism, Mr. President. Opportunity crowds out
totalitarianism. We have certainly seen that occur since Deng Xiaoping
realized that the only way China could develop--could, in fact, recover
from nearly a quarter century of Mao's economic nihilism--was to open
to the world and to engage the free market.
One thing I'm not, Mr. President, is a pollyanna. As I've said, I am
aware of the political and human rights conditions in China today.
The fact is that many of the Chinese are also aware of the situation.
The abortion policies, for example, are not supported by the Chinese
people. Some Chinese are even becoming aware of a growing social
problem called by scholars here the ``surplus males phenomena.'' Dr.
Valerie Hudson of Brigham Young University has done excellent work in
this area.
Orwellian population practices in China have had the effect of
creating a growing demographic imbalance in Chinese society between men
and women. As the demographic bulge in men moves into young adulthood,
Chinese society will grapple with a surfeit of unmarried men. The
potential consequences for internal and external instability should be
of great concern to the Chinese authorities, as well as for us. These
are the consequences of the communist control over families for the
past two generations.
China has a huge population with a small percentage of arable land.
The
[[Page 18380]]
Maoist answer was to kill large segments of the population through
starvation and promote the most inhumane abortion policies in the
modern era. As China has opened up to the rest of the world, however,
the Chinese are starting to recognize that the answer to population
pressures is not a totalitarian abortion policy, but economic
development that can support families.
The best example for them is Hong Kong, which has a large population
on a piece of land that has virtually no natural resources, except a
harbor. Capitalism provided the economic development that launched Hong
Kong into the developed world, probably beating the PRC to that level
of economic development by at least a century, if current predictions
hold.
Mr. President, I support PNTR because I want to see an end to the
barbarisms, such as the abortion policies, of the Chinese police state.
Capitalism corrodes communism.
We have had a long debate on a number of amendments. Frankly, many of
these amendments, all of which have been defeated on this bill, would
pass the Senate as amendments to other legislative vehicles, or as
stand-alone bills. Certainly the debate over China's deplorable record
on proliferation, and the legislative proposal presented by the
Thompson-Torricelli amendment, are worthy of further discussion and
review.
While we will end the annual most-favored nation review of the PRC,
nothing of this PNTR debate proscribes the Senate from future
initiatives regarding the bilateral U.S.-Sino relationship.
Mr. President, sometime, I believe within my lifetime, there is going
to be a change in China. There will be a transition from the current
police state. I am quite certain of that.
I am somewhat less certain--as is any other analyst--about what the
change will be. The analysts have parsed out the possibilities for us,
including chaos and disintegration, a new Chinese fascism, or another
Chinese democratic state. I say ``another,'' because Taiwan has
demonstrated conclusively that there are no particular Asian values
that prevent the Chinese people from developing, nurturing and robustly
practicing democracy.
United States policy cannot guarantee the outcome of the transition
in mainland China--it would be naive to think otherwise. But we can
influence the evolution toward the most desirable outcome. That means
promoting economic development and the values of the free market in
China. We should plant these seeds, Mr. President.
A vote for PNTR is a vote for promoting economic markets for Utah and
other American companies, for promoting economic development in China,
and for promoting the rule of law in China. PNTR is a promising means
of accomplishing these goals, not just for the benefit of U.S.
commerce, but also for long-term U.S. strategic interests.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the issue before the Senate today is not a
mundane redefinition of China's status under our trade laws. Nor does
it mark a profound shift in our policy toward the most populous nation
on earth.
The question before us--neither mundane, nor profound--is nonetheless
of vital importance to the future or our relationship with China.
Granting China PNTR and bringing China into the global trading regime
continues a process of careful engagement designed to encourage China's
development as a productive, responsible member of the world community.
It is a process which has no guarantees, but which is far superior to
the alternatives available to us.
Our decision on normalizing trade with China is best understood in
its historical context. The search for a truly modern China is now more
than a 100 years old. It arguably began at the turn of the last century
with the collapse of the Qing Dynasty and the birth of the Republic of
China under Sun Yat-sen. The search has continued through Japanese
invasion, a bloody civil war, the unmitigated disaster of the Great
Leap Backwards), the social and political upheaval of the Cultural
Revolution, and now through two decades of economic opening to the
outside world.
Viewed in this context, a vote for permanent normal trade relations
says that we welcome the emergence of a prosperous, independent, China
on the world stage. It also says we want China to be subject to
stronger, multilateral rules of economic behavior--rules about
international trade that will influence the structure of their internal
social, economic, and political systems.
Granting permanent normal trade status to China is not a new
direction in our relationship with China, Mr. President, but it is an
important change in the means we choose to pursue it. We have the
opportunity to move some, but not all, of our dealings with China into
a new forum; the forum of established, enforceable international trade
rules. This will take our economic relationship to a new level; a level
commensurate with the importance of our two economies to the world.
As important as this legislation is to our overall relationship with
China and to our aspirations for China, we must keep our expectations
in check. The reality is that extending permanent normal trade
relations to China will not magically cause China's leaders to protect
religious freedom, respect labor rights, or adhere to the terms of
every international nonproliferation regime.
No single piece of legislation could accomplish those objectives:
indeed, these changes ultimately must come from within China, with such
encouragement as we can provide from outside.
Some of our colleagues disagree on this point. They would have
preferred that the China trade bill be turned into an omnibus China
Policy Act. I understand their objectives and their frustration with
the slow pace of reform in China. But amendments offered by Senator
Smith of New Hampshire--covering such diverse issues as POW/MIA
cooperation, forced labor, organ harvesting, etc.--and Senator
Wellstone of Minnesota--conditioning PNTR on substantial progress
toward the release of all political prisoners in China--pile too much
onto this legislation. Moreover, those amendments would effectively
hold the trade legislation hostage to changes in China which passing
the trade bill would promote. This seems backwards to me.
Other colleagues have such a deep reservations about trading with
China that they proposed amendments which would essentially have taken
the ``Permanent'' and the ``normal'' out of permanent normal trade
relations. Amendments offered by the junior Senator from South
Carolina, Senator Hollings, and the senior Senator from West Virginia,
Senator Byrd, reflect a deep ambivalence about the benefits to the
United States of trading with China. As I will discuss later, I share
the Senators' skepticism about the grandiose claims some have made
about the economic benefits which will flow to the United States from
this trade agreement. But we are not voting on whether to trade with
China. We are voting on whether to lock in concessions by China to open
its market to the United States. That is why I opposed their
amendments.
My opposition to efforts to turn this trade bill into an omnibus
China Policy Act, and my opposition to efforts to take the ``P'' and
the ``N'' out of PNTR, does not mean that I found all the amendments
offered during the previous two weeks of debate without merit.
Indeed, on their own merits, I would have supported a number of the
amendments offered by my colleagues. If we had considered this
legislation in May, June, or July, there might have been a realistic
possibility of resolving differences between the House and the Senate
versions of this bill. Under those circumstances, some amendments
offered here in the Senate might well have been appropriate.
For instance, Senator Feingold offered an amendment to improve the
Congressional Executive Commission on China to be established under the
terms of H.R. 4444. The modest changes in the commission suggested by
the Senator from Wisconsin are reasonable, and include making sure that
the commission produces concrete recommendations for action and that it
[[Page 18381]]
reports equally to both the House and the Senate. I hope that we might
revisit this issue to ensure that the special commission on China is as
effective as it can be.
Another Foreign Relations Committee colleague, Senator Wellstone,
offered several meritorious amendments, including one endorsing the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom with respect to China policy, and another requiring the
President to certify that China is in compliance with certain memoranda
of understanding regarding prohibition on import and export of prison
labor products.
We should seriously consider the input of the religious freedom
commission and we should hold China accountable for its failure to
implement agreements with the United States, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on these issues in the future.
Finally, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee offered
several amendments, including one expressing the sense of Congress
condemning forced abortions in China. No member of Congress condones
the practice of coerced abortion in China or anyplace else. Senator
Helms, who opposes normalizing our trade with China, knows that, which
is why he offered his amendment.
Now I share the revulsion of the senior Senator from North Carolina
toward forced abortion. It is beyond the pale. But I'm concerned--as I
believe the Senator well knows--that his amendment would imperil the
entire bill and risk a major setback in our efforts to achieve the very
goals we both seek.
Sadly, that is the predicament we find ourselves in now. By delaying
consideration of this historic legislation until the last days of this
Congress, the Republican leadership has effectively denied the Senate
the opportunity to debate the merits of various amendments without also
considering the impact that any amendment, no matter how reasonable,
would have on the prospects of passing the trade bill during this
session of Congress.
So, I approach the pending vote on final passage with some
frustration at the process, but which considerable confidence that
extending permanent normal trade relations to China is in the best
interests of both the United States and the people of China.
I have listened carefully and respectfully to my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle and on both sides of this question. I share with
many of my colleagues a feeling of deep dissatisfaction with the many
deplorable aspects of China's domestic and foreign policies.
But, for reasons I want to make clear today, I do not share the
belief that by preserving the status quo in our relations with China we
will see progress.
This, in a nutshell, is the question before the Senate: shall we
stick with the status quo? Or shall we join with virtually every other
advanced economy in the world, and endorse the membership of China in a
rule-based organization that will help to encourage many of the changes
in Chinese behavior that the opponents of permanent normal trade
relations say they want to see?
While there are few simple answers to the many questions raised by
China, one thing seems clear: If we don't like Chinese behavior now,
why vote to preserve the status quo?
The answer, say some of my colleagues, is that we must preserve the
annual review of China's trade status to keep the spotlight turned on
China.
There are two problems with this answer, in my view. First, we have
never, not once in the two decades of annual reviews of China's trade
status, voted against renewal of normal trade relations. Not after the
tragedy of Tiananmen Square, not after missile launches against Taiwan,
not after so many other provocations, broken promises, and
disappointments. Annual review of China's trade status is an empty
threat--an excuse for a ritual that at one time may have served a
purpose, but that no one can seriously argue today has an affect on
China's behavior.
The second problem with this argument lies in the premise that
extending permanent normal trade relations to China means taking China
out of the limelight. I submit to you that anyone who thinks China is
going to escape scrutiny by the U.S. Congress and the American people
just because it enjoys normal trading privileges with us doesn't know
beans about politics.
As I understand their arguments, those who will vote against
normalizing our trade relationship with China believe China's foreign
and domestic policies remain so objectionable under the system of
annual review that we should not, as they put it ``reward'' China with
permanent normal trade relations.
But if there has been no improvement in China's human rights record
over the past two decades, why should we persist in the fiction of
annual review, repeating the empty threat that we might withdraw normal
trade relations? What has the annual review gained us?
I see the situation differently, Mr. President, I believe China is
changing. China is far from the kind of country that we want it to be,
or that its own long-suffering citizens are now working to build. But
no single snapshot of unsafe working conditions, of religious and
political repression, of bellicose pronouncements about Taiwan, will do
justice to the fundamental shifts that are underway in China.
An objective assessment of China over the past two decades reveals
sweeping changes in almost every aspect of life--changes facilitated
and accelerated by China's opening to the world. These changes are not
the result of our annual review of China's trade status. The roots of
change reach much deeper than that.
China's leaders have consciously undertaken--for their own reasons,
not ours--a fundamental transformation of the communist system that so
long condemned their great people to isolation, poverty, and misery.
They have been forced to acknowledge the failure of communism, and have
conceded the irrefutable superiority of an open market economy. The
result has been a marked improvement in living standards for hundreds
of million of Chinese citizens.
This growing prosperity for the Chinese people, in turn, has put
China on a path toward ever greater political and economic freedom. The
Chinese people, taking responsibility for their own economic
livelihood, are demanding a greater voice in the governance of China.
This is not just my analysis.
This is also the view of people inside and outside of China who are
struggling to deepen China's reforms and to extend them into the
political arena.
Dai Qing, a former Chinese rocket scientist turned political
dissident and environmentalist, testified passionately in support of
permanent normal trade relations before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in July. She said, ``PNTR will help reduce governmental
control over the economy and society; it will help to promote the rule
of law; and it will help to nourish independent political and social
forces in China.''
Wang Dan, the Beijing University student who helped lead the
Tiananmen Square protests and now lives in exile, says, ``Economic
change does influence political change. China's economic development
will be good for the East, as well as for the Chinese people.''
And Xie Wanjun, the Director of the Overseas Office of the China
Democratic Party--a party banned within China--says,
We support unconditional PNTR with China by the U.S.
government. . . . We believe the closer the economic
relationship between the United States and China, the more
chance for the U.S. to politically influence China, the more
chances to monitor human rights conditions in China, and the
more effective the U.S. will be to push China to launch
political reforms.
Martin Lee, Chairman of Hong Kong's Democratic Party, supports
China's entry into the World Trade Organization and the granting of
permanent normal trade relations. ``The participation of China in WTO
would not only have economic and political benefits, but would also
serve to bolster those in China who understand that the country must
embrace the rule of
law. . . .''
[[Page 18382]]
And Chen Shui-Bian, Taiwan's democratically elected President, said
last spring,
We feel that a democratic China will contribute to
permanent peace in this region. Therefore, we support U.S.
efforts to improve relations with China. While we seek to
normalize the cross-strait relationship, especially in the
area of business and trade, we are happy to see the United
States and China improve their economic relations. Therefore,
I am willing to support the U.S. normalization of trade
relations with the PRC.
It's not must dissidents and leading Chinese democracy advocates who
support PNTR.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to introduce into the Record
recent statements by former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter,
former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and James Baker, Chairman
of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Christian
Broadcasting Network Pat Robertson, former National Security Advisory
Brent Scowcroft, and yes, even former President of the United Auto
Workers and former U.S. Ambassador to China Leonard Woodcock, all of
whom support extension of permanent normal trade relations to China.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows;
Quotes in Support of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China
Former President Gerald Ford: ``the facts are a negative
vote in the House and/or the Senate would be catastrophic,
disastrous to American agriculture; electronics,
telecommunications, autos and countless other products and
services. A negative vote in the Congress would greatly
assist our foreign competitors from Europe or Asia by giving
them privileged access to China markets and at the same time,
exclude America's farm and factory production from the vast
Chinese market.'' [remarks at distinguished Americans in
Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
Former President Jimmy Carter: ``China still has not
measured up to the human rights and democracy standards and
labor standards of America. But there's no doubt in my mind
that a negative vote on this issue in the Congress will be a
serious setback and impediment for the further
democratization, freedom and human rights in China. That
should be the major consideration for the Congress and the
nation. And I hope the members of Congress will vote
accordingly, particularly those who are interested in human
rights, as I am; and those who are interested in the well-
being of American workers as I am.'' [remarks at
Distinguished Americans in Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve: ``The
outcome of the debate on permanent normal trade relations
with China will have profound implications for the free
world's trading system and the long-term growth potential of
the American economy . . . The addition of the Chinese
economy to the global marketplace will result in a more
efficient worldwide allocation of resources and will raise
standards of living in China and its trading partners . . .
As China's citizens experience economic gains, so will the
American firms that trade in their expanding markets . . .
Further development of China's trading relationships with the
United States and other industrial countries will work to
strengthen the rule of law within China and to firm its
commitment to economic reform . . . I believe extending PNTR
to China, and full participation by China in the WTO, is in
the interests of the United States.'' [press statement at the
White House, 5/18/2000, including quote from Greenspan letter
to House of Representatives Banking Committee Chairman James
Leach released 5/8/2000]
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger: ``The agreement
is, of course, in our economic interest, since its grants
China what has been approved by the Congress every year for
20 years. But we are here together not for economic reasons.
We are here because cooperative relations with China are in
the American national interest. Every President, for 30
years, has come to that conclusion.'' [remarks at
Distinguished Americans in Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
Former Secretary of State and Treasury James Baker: ``As a
former Secretary of Treasury and of State, I believe that
normalized trade with China is good for America on both
economic grounds and security grounds. It will help move
China in the direction of a more open society, and in time,
more responsive government. As such, normalized trade
relations with China will advance both our national
interests, as well as our national ideals, in our relations
with the world's most populous country.'' [remarks at
Distinguished Americans in Support of PNTR event, 5/9/2000]
Pat Robertson, Chairman of the Board and CEO, The Christian
Broadcasting Network, Inc.: ``If the US refuses to grant
normal trading relations with the People's Republic of China,
and if we significantly curtail the broad-based economic,
education, social and religious contacts that are being made
between the U.S. and China, we will damage ourselves and set
back the cause of those in China who are struggling toward
increased freedom for their fellow citizens.'' [letter to
Congressman Joseph Pitts, 5/10/2000]
Brent Scowcroft, USAF Lt. Gen (ret) and former National
Security Advisor: ``I'm strongly in favor of granting
permanent normal trade relations to China, not as a favor to
China, but because doing so would be very much in the U.S.
national interest. This, in my judgment, goes far beyond
American business and economic interests, as important as
these are, to key U.S. political and security interests . . .
This may be one of those rare occasions on an important issue
where there's virtually no downside to taking affirmative
action. We cannot ourselves determine the ultimate course
China will take. And denying permanent normal trade relations
will remove none of the blemishes that China's opponents have
identified. But we can take steps which will encourage China
to evolve in directions compatible with U.S. interests. To
me, granting permanent normal trade relations is one of the
most important such steps that Congress can take.''
[testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, 4/11/2000]
Leonard Woodcock, former president of the United Auto
Workers and former U.S. Ambassador to China: ``I have spent
much of my life in the labor movement and remain deeply loyal
to its goals. But in this instance, I think our labor leaders
have got it wrong . . . American labor has a tremendous
interest in China's trading on fair terms with the Untied
States . . . The agreement we signed with China this past
November marks the largest single step ever taken toward
achieving that goal.'' [Washington Post, 3/8/2000]
Mr. BIDEN. Finally, I would like to point out that my support for
permanent normal trade relations with China is based not just on an
assessment of the economic benefits to the U.S., not just on the
prospects for political reform in China, but also on the impact on our
national security. As I discussed during the debate on the Thompson
amendment at some length, improving our trade relations with China will
help put the overall relationship on a sounder footing. We need to
cooperate with China to rein in North Korea's nuclear missile
ambitions, to prevent a destabilizing nuclear arms race in South Asia,
and to combat the threats of international terrorism and narcotics
trafficking. We cannot work effectively with China in these areas if we
are treating them as an enemy in our trade relations.
Let me quote General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff: ``I think from every standpoint--from the strategic
standpoint, from the standpoint of our national interests, from the
standpoint of our trading interests and our economic interests--it
serves all of our purposes to grant permanent normal trading
relations.''
So, with all due respect to my colleagues who have brought before us
the images of the worst in China today, we must keep the full picture
before us and keep our eye on the ball. China is changing. We must do
what we can to encourage those changes.
Can we control that change? Of course not. We know that not even
those who currently hold the reins of power in China are confident that
they can control the process that is now underway. What little we know
of internal debate in China tells us that support for China's entry
into the world Trade Organization is far from unanimous there.
It is those who are most closely tied to the repressive, reactionary
aspects of the current China who are most opposed to this profound step
away from China's Communist past. I urge my colleagues who so rightly
and so passionately seek change in China to pause and reflect on that.
While we cannot dictate the future of China, we can--we must--
encourage China to follow a course that will make it a more
responsible, constructive member of the community of nations.
That is why I am proud of my sponsorship of legislation which created
Radio Free Asia, and am pleased that the bill before the Senate
includes increased support for the broadcast of independent news and
analysis to the people of China. The opening of China--to investment,
to trade, to travel, and yes, to foreign news sources--is a necessary
ingredient to the process of economic reform and political
liberalization.
[[Page 18383]]
Some of my colleagues have argued that we must not cast our vote on
PNTR simply on the promise of increased commercial opportunities for
American corporations. I agree, Indeed, unlike some of my colleagues--
on both sides of this question, pro and con--I do not see the question
of China's trade status simply in terms of the economic implications
for the United States.
I do not anticipate a dramatic explosion in American jobs, suddenly
created to fuel a flood of exports to China. Nor do I see the collapse
of the American manufacturing economy, as China, a nation with the
impact on the world economy about the size of the Netherlands',
suddenly becomes our major economic competitor.
Both the opponents and proponents of PNTR, I believe, have vastly
oversold the economic impact of this legislation.
For the record, let me say a few things about that aspect of this
issue. First and foremost, this vote will not determine China's entry
into the WTO. With or without our vote of support here, China will
become a member of the only international institution--created by and,
yes, strongly influenced by, the advanced industrial economies of the
world--in a position to formulate and enforce rules of fairness and
openness in international trade.
The issue for us is what role will we play in that process--will we
put the United States on record in support of change in China's
economic relations with the rest of the world? Will we put the United
States on record in support of China's participation in a rules-based
system whose basic bylaws will require fundamental changes in the
state-owned enterprises, in the People's Liberation Army conglomerates
that are the last bastions of the failed Chinese system?
Or will we put ourselves on the sidelines, and on record in favor of
the status quo?
Will we accept the deal negotiated between the United States and
China last year, in which China made every concession and we made none?
Will we accept the deal which opens China's market to products such
as Delaware's chemical and poultry exports, to Chrysler and General
Motors exports?
Or will we consign ourselves to the sidelines while other nations
cherry-pick Chinese markets and are first out of the gate in building
distribution and sales relationships there?
Our course is clear. China's growing participation in the
international community over the past quarter century has been marked
by growing adherence to international norms in the areas of trade,
security, and human rights. If you want to know what China looks like
when it is isolated, take a look at the so-called Great Leap Forward
and the Cultural Revolution. During those periods of modern Chinese
history perhaps 20 million Chinese died of starvation, religious
practice was almost stamped out entirely, and China supported Communist
insurgents in half a dozen African and East Asian countries.
I will cast my vote today in favor of change, in favor of closing
that sad chapter in China's long history.
Mr. President, I will cast my vote with Wang Dan, Dia Qing, Martin
Lee, Chen Shui-bian, and the other courageous advocates for political
and economic reform in China.
Let us continue to seek change in China, to play our role in the
search for a truly modern China.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my concerns and
views as the Senate moves toward final passage of the bill extending
permanent normal trading relations to the People's Republic of China.
I have diligently listened to the debate in the Senate and have given
careful consideration to all points of view. This has been a valuable
debate. It has educated the American people and has provided the
international community with a statement of American values and ideals.
The intentions and actions of the Government of the Communist Party
of China do give me concern. The record of China has been thoroughly
discussed during this debate. There is no question that reforms are
overdue to improve China's record related to human rights, religious
liberty, environmental protection, and the conditions of workers.
Furthermore, China's record on proliferation of weapons technology is
dangerous both to the region and to the entire world. China's abuses of
trade agreements has been well documented. Finally, the belligerence
shown toward Taiwan has been disconcerting, if not alarming.
Many amendments were offered to this legislation to address these and
other issues. I supported many of those amendments, and am disappointed
that the Senate felt it could not amend this bill, strictly for
procedural reasons. Nevertheless, I must emphasize to the world
community in general, and specifically to China, that the rejection of
these amendments does not mean the United States is unconcerned about
these matters.
Given China's record, why should the United States grant permanent
normal trade relations? I believe, that in the long term, Americans as
well as Chinese will be better off as China joins the international
economic system.
There is no doubt there will be obstacles and slow progress in the
short term. It will take years for the Chinese to fully open up their
economy and develop the legal infrastructure that will facilitate trade
and commerce. I recognize that China has made fundamental internal
economic reforms, moving away from a Marxist state run economy and
centralized planning. The liberalization of external trade should
provide the next step in the process of giving the individual Chinese
more choices. The overall effect will be that as the Chinese economy
improves, Chinese workers will be lifted from poverty. This, coupled
with the development of a legal framework for commerce, will lay the
foundation for democracy and religious freedom.
It is essential that China follow through on its obligations to the
Chinese people to advance democratic reforms, to promote human rights,
and to create greater economic equality for all its citizens. The road
to democracy is paved with free markets. Free trade is the bridge to
reach out to the Chinese.
This opening of Chinese markets will be good for South Carolinians,
specifically, and Americans, generally. In the long run, America's
workers and farmers will benefit from improved trade with China and
access to what is potentially the world's largest market. Passage of
this bill will ensure a reduction in tariffs on American products.
Chinese consumers will be able to obtain high-quality U.S. agricultural
and manufactured goods and business services.
With China's permanent normal trade status and eventual membership in
the World Trade Organization (WTO), there will be stronger incentives
for China to honor its commitments to lowering trade barriers. Finally,
the United States will have access to the WTO's dispute resolution
process to arbitrate trade disputes and seek enforcement of agreements.
In short, China will be required to ``play by the rules.''
Again, I do not expect all of this to go smoothly. But I do
anticipate that opening economic doors will open other opportunities
for prosperity and freedom for the Chinese people. As China develops a
vibrant free market and a more open and democratic society, the Chinese
people will be better off, American security will be strengthened, and
the prospects for international peace will be greatly improved.
Therefore, Mr. President, despite my many concerns, and realizing
this is a long-term process, I support the extension of Permanent
Normal Trade Relations with the People's Republic of China. I
appreciate that the bill also establishes a framework for monitoring
trade agreements and for reviewing our relations with China. I strongly
encourage the next administration to be more vigilant in addressing
national security issues related to China. Finally, I am hopeful that
expanding trade with China will provide opportunities for resolving our
differences in other areas.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, since the House vote, virtually every
news
[[Page 18384]]
account of this trade agreement has called its passage by the Senate
all but certain. After months of such predictions, some people might
conclude that the votes we are about to cast are a mere formality. They
are not. We are making history here. The votes we cast today will have
consequences. Those consequences will affect our economic interests,
and our national security interests, for decades to come.
In one sense, the question before us is simple: Should we grant China
the same trading status as we grant nearly every other nation in the
world? Behind that question, though, is a larger question. China is
home to 1.2 billion people--one-fifth of the world's entire population.
What kind of relationship do we want with China? Do we want a China in
which American products can be distributed--and our beliefs can be
disseminated? Or do we want a China that continues to erect barriers to
American goods and American ideals? Which China is better for our
future? That is the question at the heart of this debate.
Someone who knew something about China answered that question this
way. ``Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China
forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies,
cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors.'' My friends, it was not
President Clinton who said that. It was not Ambassador Barshefsky, or
anyone from this Administration. Richard Nixon wrote that--in 1967.
Five years later, of course, President Nixon made his historic journey
to China, ending 20 years of stony silence between our two nations.
History has shown the wisdom of that journey. Six years after
President Nixon visited, China opened its economy--at least in part--to
the outside world. Since then, China's economy has been transformed--
from a 100-percent state-owned economy to an economy in which the state
accounts for less than one-third of China's output. Along with this
economic change has come social and political change. China is now
taking the first tentative steps toward democratic local elections.
Private citizens are buying property. People are being given more
freedom to choose their schools and careers. You can now find articles
critical of the government in the Chinese press, and a wider selection
of books in Chinese bookstores. Now, China is ready to open its door to
the outside world even further. The question is: Are we going to walk
through that door?
Several people deserve special thanks for helping us reach this
point. First among them is the President. One reason our Nation's
economy is so strong today is because this President understands the
New Economy. He understand that, to win in the New Economy, we need to
maintain our fiscal discipline, invest in our future competitiveness
and open up new markets for the products Americans produce. Under his
leadership, we have negotiated more than 300 trade agreements with
other nations. Among those agreements, none is more significant than
this agreement with China. And none holds more potential promise for
our future.
I also want to acknowledge the President's team--particularly
Charlene Barshefsky--for her extraordinary skill in negotiating this
agreement. I also want to thank our colleagues in the House, Sandy
Levin and Doug Bereuter, for their bipartisan efforts to further
improve on the Administration's efforts. The Levin-Bereuter
improvements--particularly the creation of the human rights
commission--are thoughtful solutions to concerns some of my colleagues
and I had about the original agreement. Representative Levin and I
spoke frequently about those improvements during that process. I know I
speak for many in this chamber when I say we appreciate the great care
he took to make sure his improvements addressed our concerns, as well
as the concerns of our House colleagues.
Here in this chamber, I want to thank Senator Moynihan, our ranking
member on the Finance Committee, for his tireless efforts to pass this
agreement. His accomplishment is a fitting conclusion to an historic
career. I also want to thank Senator Baucus, who is a real leader on
trade issues; Chairman Roth, for his bipartisan leadership and
determination to pass this agreement; and of course the Majority
Leader, for his cooperation and leadership as well. Finally, I want to
thank my colleagues who voted against sending this agreement back to
the House. Their decision to focus on our trade relationship with China
and leave other important questions about that relationship for later
was not an easy decision to make. But it was necessary. I thank them
for making it.
We have heard many eloquent arguments for--and against--this bill.
That's as it should be. Critical decisions require careful
deliberation. No one who values the freedoms we enjoy as Americans can
possibly condone what we have heard about human rights, workers'
rights, and religious freedom in China. None of us approves of China's
frequent hostility, in the past, to the rule of law. I certainly do
not. I intend to vote for this agreement, however, not to reward China
for its past, but to engage China and help it create a different
future.
In the 22 years since it re-opened its doors to outside investors,
China's economy has grown at a rate of 10 percent a year. Still, China
remains--by Western standards--a largely poor and underdeveloped
nation. Reformers there understand that the only way China can build a
modern economy is by becoming a full and accountable member of the
international trade community. In exchange for the right to join the
World Trade Organization, they have therefore committed--in this
agreement--to make a number of extraordinary and fundamental changes.
Under this bilateral agreement, China has agreed to cut tariffs on US
exports drastically. Tariffs on agriculture products will be cut by
more than half--from 31 percent to 14 percent Tariffs on industrial
products will be cut by nearly two-thirds--from about 25 percent to 9
percent. And tariffs on American computers and other telecommunications
products will be eliminated entirely. On our end, this agreement does
not lower a single tariff or quota on Chinese goods exported to the
U.S. Not one.
China has also agreed to lower or eliminate a number of non-tariff
barriers that now make doing business in China extremely difficult.
Under this agreement, American businesses will be able--for the first
time--to sell and distribute their own products in China. The Chinese
government will no longer be the monolithic middle man in every
business deal. In addition, American businesses will no longer be
forced to include Chinese-made parts in products they sell in China.
To appreciate the magnitude of these concessions, you need to
understand the hold the Chinese government now has on China's economy
and--by extension--its citizens. Today in China, the state decides what
products may be imported, and by whom. The state decides who may
distribute and sell products in China. State-owned banks decide who
gets capital to invest. For the more than half of China's workers who
are still employed by state-owned enterprises, the state decides how
much they earn, whether they are promoted, even where they live.
But the state's grip on its citizens' lives is starting to weaken and
will weaken further with this agreement. Nicholas Lardy, a China
scholar with the Brookings Institution, notes that ``the authoritarian
basis of the Chinese regime is (already) . . . eroding. . . .'' By
agreeing to let its citizens own their own businesses, and buy products
and services directly from the outside world, the Chinese government is
agreeing to further relax its authoritarian grip on its people. That is
not just in the interests of Chinese reformers. It is in our interests
as well.
None of us can know, with absolute certainty, the effect these new
economic freedoms will have on China. But I had an experience a few
years ago that makes me think there is reason to be hopeful. I was with
two other Senators on a bipartisan trip to the republics of the Former
Yugoslavia. We were there to assess what progress was being made under
the Dayton peace agreement, and what help the republics
[[Page 18385]]
might need to rebuild politically and economically.
One day, in Albania, I was talking to a man in his early 30's. As you
know, until 1992, Albania was arguably the most closed society in the
world. No one entered or left. And no new information was allowed in
except what the government permitted. The man I talked with said that
when he was a boy, if someone had a satellite dish, and they turned it
to face the sea, to receive uncensored information from Italy, police
would come and turn the dish around. That was for the first offense. If
the police had to come a second time, they took you off to jail.
Then the communications revolution occurred--the explosion of e-mail
and Internet. Suddenly, the government couldn't just pull the plug, or
turn the satellite dish around. Suddenly, Albania was connected to the
rest of the world.
Today, Albania is struggling to create a free society and a free
economy. The man I spoke with told me he hopes the Albania of the
future looks like America.
Today, fewer than 2.5 percent of China's people own personal
computers. And fewer than 1 million Chinese have access to the
Internet. By the end of this year, there will be 10 million Internet
users in China. By the end of next year, it's expected there will be 20
million.
Recent attempts by China to police the Internet, and punish advocates
of democratic reform, are troubling to all of us. They are also
destined to fail. By eliminating all tariffs on information technology
in China, liberalizing distribution, and allowing foreign investment in
telecommunications services--the infrastructure of the Internet, this
agreement will accelerate the telecommunications revolution in China.
That is not just in the interest of Chinese reformers. It is in our
interest as well.
Some have expressed concerns about whether China will honor the
commitments it makes in this agreement, and whether this agreement is
enforceable.
Their concerns are understandable. China has no history with the rule
of law, as we know it. The important point is: by entering the WTO,
China is agreeing--for the first time--to comply with the rules of the
international trade community. It is agreeing to settle its trade
disputes through the WTO, and to honor the WTO's decisions in those
disputes. If it does not, it will face sanctions.
This is a fundamental change. In previous disputes with China--
including our disagreements over intellectual property rights--we have
had to fight alone. But there are 135 members in the WTO. Under this
agreement, we will be able to work with those other nations, many of
whom share our concerns. China's ability to pit its trading partners
against each other will be greatly diminished. By agreeing to these
terms, China is, in fact, agreeing to live by the rule of law. And
while that agreement may be limited--for now--to trade issues,
eventually it is likely to be extended to other areas as well--
including human rights.
Rejecting this agreement, on the other hand, is likely to harm the
cause of civil rights in China. Former President Jimmy Carter--one of
the world's most respected human rights advocates--has said: ``There's
no doubt in my mind that a negative vote on this issue in the Congress
will be a serious setback and impediment for the democratization,
freedom and human rights in China.''
Respected Chinese democracy advocate Martin Lee agrees. In a letter
to President Clinton, Lee wrote that this agreement ``represents the
best long-term hope for China to become a member in good-standing in
the international community.'' Should the agreement fail, he added, ``
we fear that . . . any hope for political and legal reform process
would also recede.'' Clearly, it is in the interest of Chinese
reformers to prevent such a failure. But it is in our interest as well.
There is another reason this agreement is in our national interest,
Mr. President. It will strengthen peace and stability throughout Asia--
particularly in Taiwan. Why? Because the more China trades, the more it
has to lose from war. Taiwan's newly elected President, President Chen,
supports China's entry into the WTO.
By passing this agreement, we would put the United States Congress on
record as saying: ``If China is admitted to the WTO, Taiwan must be
permitted, too--without delay.'' China has already agreed, as part of
this agreement, to accept that condition.
As I said, Mr. President, under this agreement, China is lowering its
tariffs; we are not lowering ours. China is reducing or eliminating its
non-tariff barriers; we are not. There is another way to evaluate the
benefits of this agreement. That is by comparing China's WTO
commitments to those of another huge, largely poor and under-developed
nation: India.
India places a 40 percent tariff on US consumer goods. Under this
agreement, China will lower its tariffs to 9 percent. India places a 30
percent tariff on agriculture products. Under this agreement, China
will reduce its agriculture tariffs to an average of 14 percent. In
addition, China will eliminate all agriculture subsidies to its
farmers. That's something not even our closest ally, the European
Union, has agreed to do.
Four years ago, Congress re-wrote the rules that had governed farming
in this country for 60 years. Supporters of the new rules said at the
time that America's farmers didn't need a safety net any more because
they would make so much money selling their products to new markets
around the world. But that isn't what happened.
Instead of prospering in this New Economy, over the last four years,
family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and across the country have
suffered through the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Obviously, the lack of new market opportunities isn't the only reason
Farm Country is hurting, Mr. President. But opening new markets for
American farm products is a necessary part of the solution to the farm
crisis.
It's time for this Congress to keep its commitment to family farmers
and ranchers. It's time--at the very least--to provide access to the
new markets we said would be available when the rules were re-written
four years ago. The South Dakota Wheat Growers Association is right.
``We have everything to gain by approving PNTR with China, and nothing
to lose.''
One lesson we have learned from past experience is that trade
agreements must be specific. That is why this agreement is
painstakingly detailed. Every commitment China is making is clearly
spelled out, in black and white. We also know from past experience that
no trade agreement--not even one with a nation as large as China--will
solve all of our economic challenges.
Even if we pass this agreement, we will still have a responsibility
to fix our federal farm policy--so family farmers and ranchers can get
a fair price for their products. We will still have a responsibility to
make sure all American workers can learn the new skills required by
this New Economy. And we will also still have a responsibility to
monitor how this agreement is enforced.
We have heard a great deal of concern during this debate--and rightly
so--about how China limits the rights of its citizens to organize their
fellow workers, or pray to their own God. Basic legal safeguards and
due process in China are routinely ignored in the name of maintaining
public order. News reports just before we started this debate told of
Chinese being jailed because they practice their faith in ``non-
official'' churches. Several key leaders of the China Democracy Party
have been jailed because they advocated for democratic change. Workers
rights are tightly restricted, and forced labor in prison facilities
continues.
Let me be very clear: No one should confuse endorsement of this trade
agreement with endorsement of these and other assaults against basic
human rights. Such practices are abhorrent and deeply troubling to
Americans, and to freedom-loving people everywhere.
As part of the Levin-Bereuter improvements, this agreement will
create a high-level commission--modeled after the Helsinki Commission--
that will monitor human rights in China
[[Page 18386]]
and report annually to Congress. We have a responsibility to support
that commission.
Finally, this agreement calls on Congress to help the Chinese people
develop the institutions of a civil society that are needed to support
fair and open trade. We have a responsibility to provide that
assistance.
This is a good agreement. But it is not a panacea. And it is not
self-enforcing. If we want it to work, we have to keep working at it.
In closing, there is another quote I would like to read from
President Nixon. In a toast he made to China's leaders during his 1972
visit, he said, ``It is not our common beliefs that have brought us
together here,'' he said, ``but our common interests and our common
hopes, the interests that each of us has to maintain our independence
and the security of our peoples, and the hope that each of us has to
build a new world order in which nations and peoples with different
systems and different values can live together in peace--respecting one
another while disagreeing with one another, letting history, rather
than the battlefield, be the judge of their individual ideas.''
We have made progress toward that goal over these last 28 years. This
agreement will enable us to build on that progress. It is in China's
interest. It is in our interest. It is in the world's best interest
that we pass it. I urge you to support it.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, we have had an excellent debate over PNTR,
touching on many aspects of our complex relationship with China.
It was, indeed, important we had such an exhaustive discussion
because the vote we are about to cast on PNTR will be a defining moment
in the history of this Chamber and in the history of our country.
That is partly because passage of PNTR will create vast new
opportunities for our workers, our farmers, and businesses. But it is
also because PNTR will serve America's broader national interest in
meeting what is likely to be our single greatest foreign policy
challenge in the coming decades--managing our relations with a rising
China.
China's accession to the WTO has been the subject of intense
negotiations for the past 14 years. The market access package the U.S.
Trade Representative reached with Beijing represents, in my judgment, a
remarkable achievement. From the point of view of every sector of the
American economy, and from the perspective of every U.S. enterprise, no
matter how big or small, the agreement holds the promise of new markets
and future sales.
For the citizens of my own State of Delaware--from poultry farmers to
auto workers to those in our chemical and services businesses--gaining
access to the world's largest country and fastest-growing market, which
is what PNTR permits, offers extraordinary new opportunities.
Passage of PNTR is in our economic interest. I hope our debate has
made that clear. But I hope my colleagues and the American people have
come to understand why PNTR is also in our national interest.
To gain entry to the WTO, China has been compelled to move its
economy to a rules-based system and to end most forms of state control
within roughly 5 years. Indeed, in a number of sectors of its economy,
China will soon be more open to U.S. products and services than some of
our developed-country trading partners in Asia and Europe.
The results of China implementing its WTO obligations will be
revolutionary. But contrary to what occurred in 1949, China will be
transforming itself by adopting a fully-realized market economy,
thereby returning individual property rights and economic freedom to
the people of China.
Why has China accepted such a capitalist revolution? As Long Yongtu,
China's top WTO negotiator and Vice Minister of China's trade ministry,
said earlier this year, what is ``most significant at present [is that]
WTO entry will speed China's reform and opening up. Reform is the only
outlet for China.''
In other words, China has no choice. Its state-directed policies do
not work; free markets and capitalism do.
Mr. Long went on to say:
China's WTO entry would let enterprises make their own
business decisions and pursue benefits according to contracts
and market principles. Liaison between enterprises and
government will only hurt enterprises. Contracts kowtowing to
government, though they look rosy on the surface, usually
lead to failure. After joining the WTO, the government will
be pressed to respect market principles and give up the
approval economy.
I agree with those who say that the rise of China presents the United
States with potentially our biggest foreign policy challenge. But I
also believe it presents us with enormous opportunities. The single
most important step the Senate can take to allow the United States to
respond to that challenge adequately and seize those opportunities is
to pass PNTR.
We must, and we will, continue to press Beijing on the range of
issues where our interests and values diverge, from human rights to
proliferation to China's aggressive stance on territorial disputes.
Yet a China fully immersed in the global trade regime, subject to all
the rules and sanctions applicable to WTO members, is far likelier to
live under the rule of law and to act in ways that comply with global
norms. Indeed, the WTO is exactly the sort of multilateral institution
that can act as a reinforcing mechanism to make China's interests more
compatible with ours.
As that happens, and as China's economic success increasingly comes
to depend on stable and peaceful relations with its trading partners,
Beijing will be more apt to play a constructive regional and global
role.
Finally, if Asia and much of the rest of the world are any guide,
China's economic liberalization will accelerate its path toward greater
political freedom. In East Asia alone, South Korea, Taiwan, and
Thailand have amply demonstrated how economic freedom can stimulate
democratic evolution.
Ultimately, China's participation in the WTO means the Chinese people
will be given the chance to shape their own destiny. As Ren Wanding,
the brave leader of China's Democracy Wall Movement said recently,
``Before the sky was black. Now there is light . . . [China's WTO
accession] can be a new beginning.''
Mr. President, when we pass PNTR, that new beginning will be for the
American people just as surely as it will be for the people of China.
Colleagues, let us begin anew by joining together to pass PNTR
overwhelmingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, throughout the 22 years I have been
privileged to be a Member of the Senate, I have worked very closely
with our distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, and
indeed our colleague from New York, Senator Moynihan. This has to mark
one of their finest hours in the Senate. Senator Moynihan has spoken
with me unreservedly on this important issue and it took the strong
leadership of our chairman and distinguished ranking member to shepherd
this key legislation through the Senate in light of the number of
challenges they faced.
I hope that not only the constituencies in their respective States
but the Nation as a whole recognize the skill with which these two very
seasoned and senior Senators have managed this most critical piece of
legislation. Passage of this legislation is in the interest of our
country economically and in terms of our security--I will dwell on the
security interests in a moment--for today, tomorrow, and the future.
As we enter this millennium, China, in my judgment, is our natural
competitor in economics, and perhaps the nation that could pose the
greatest challenges in terms of our national security. I was very much
involved, as were other Members of the Senate, indeed our two leaders,
in the amendment offered by Senator Thompson. I subscribe to so many of
his goals. Were it not for a framework of laws which adequately address
the concerns of Senator
[[Page 18387]]
Thompson, I would most certainly have supported his amendment. But as
our two managers have pointed out, as drafted, that amendment could
have imperiled the passage of this legislation.
I am pleased to join colleagues today in supporting PNTR for China. I
join all Senators who have spoken so eloquently on the question of
human rights deprivation in China. Indeed, I have traveled there, as
almost every Member of this body has at one time, and have witnessed
with my own eyes the human rights deprivation of the citizens of that
nation. However, continued isolation, in my judgment, would strengthen
the hands of those who inflict the abrogation of human rights on those
citizens by restricting the Chinese people's contact with some of our
very finest Ambassadors. I am not just speaking of the diplomatic
corps. I am talking about the American people, be they traveling for
business or to gain knowledge about China. The American people are
among the best Ambassadors as it relates to human rights.
Our citizens, wherever they travel in the world, most particularly to
China, whether it is to conduct business or for pleasure or for other
reasons, bring with them the closely held and dearly valued principles
of a democratic society, principles of human rights. They are
unrelenting in trying to share those principles and impress upon the
people of China the value of reshaping their society along the
principles of human rights adopted by the major nations of this world,
particularly the United States. Therefore, exposing Chinese citizens to
many of the ideals that our democratic society is built upon can only
help in the strengthening of human rights in China.
It is through such contacts, which will be greatly expanded with the
passage of PNTR with China, that significant improvements can be made
in the human rights situation in China. Not providing the PNTR status
for China would also have a significant impact on both U.S. businesses
and consumers.
China imports 20 percent of the U.S. wheat and timber exports, and
they also are major importers of U.S. cotton, fertilizer, aircraft
equipment and machinery. China supplies the United States with one-
third of those wonderful gifts, particularly at Christmastime, that we
share with our children. They have always had a very innovative insight
into what the children want and a great deal of what we purchase comes
from that nation. Ten percent of our footwear, 15 percent of our
apparel, and a large percentage of our electronic products are supplied
by China. Without a PNTR agreement, duties on these products might
drastically increase and the costs be borne by the American consumer.
However, China's accession to the WTO will be a boon to U.S.
manufacturers, farmers, and service providers. As a requirement to join
the WTO, China has agreed to greatly reduce tariffs across the board.
This will in turn open markets in that huge nation, thereby providing
American business with great opportunities.
Let me take a minute to explain how such a reduction in Chinese
tariffs will beneficially impact my State, the Commonwealth of
Virginia. In 1998, Virginia's worldwide poultry and product exports
were estimated at $101 million. China is currently the second leading
market for U.S. poultry exports. Under its WTO accession agreement, by
2004, China will cut its frozen poultry products tariff in half, from
20 percent to 10 percent. The beautiful Shenandoah Valley of Virginia,
indeed, along with other regions of the State, are the heartland of our
poultry export market. They stand to benefit greatly.
In 1998, Virginia's worldwide live animal and red meat exports were
estimated at $87 million. Under its WTO accession agreement, by 2004,
China will reduce its tariffs 45 percent to 12 percent on frozen beef
cuts, from 45 to 25 percent on chilled beef, and from 20 percent to 12
percent on frozen pork cuts, definitely benefiting Virginia's exports
in these areas.
Virginia's lumber industry is the 13th largest in the Nation. China
is the world's third largest lumber importer. Under its WTO accession
agreement, China will substantially reduce tariffs on this import,
thereby dramatically opening up the market to the American lumber
industry.
Those are but a few examples of how China's accession into the WTO
will provide numerous opportunities for Virginia business, particularly
small- and medium-size companies which account for 54 percent of all
exports from Virginia to China.
I believe it is in the long-term interest of the United States to
maintain a positive trade relationship with China. I believe we can use
our relationship to foster positive social, civil, and economic changes
in China. Isolation tactics will only prevent the United States from
having any influence over guiding China towards democratic reform.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from
Virginia may require.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. I will take but a few
more minutes.
Therefore, I intend to vote loudly and strongly for this measure.
In conclusion, I am privileged to work in the Senate in the area of
security, military and foreign relations as chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
In light of that, I have looked very closely at China. China is
pushing many frontiers, whether it is the export of armaments or being
involved in some of the most complex and fragile relationships the
world over. We need only point out Pakistan and India and how Russia is
on one side and China is on the other side. Let's only hope that their
work with regard to that tension-filled part of the globe will be
constructive and in a way to prevent any significant confrontation
between those two nations.
Therefore, I think it is important that our military maintain its
relationship with the Chinese. Given the tenuous situation with regard
to Taiwan, and the strong principles of our Nation in trying to defend
and support that democracy, I believe such a dialogue will give us a
better opportunity to work on security relationships, whether regarding
India and Pakistan, Taiwan or other regions of the world.
Mr. President, I think we are on the verge of a very historic moment.
I commend the chairman and ranking member for their initiatives and
long weeks of hard work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I know Senator Roth will join me in
expressing great gratitude and appreciation for Senator Warner's
characteristic generosity. It comes from the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee, which is doubly important.
Mr. President, we are nearly there. In a short while, the Senate will
cast an epic vote. At the Finance Committee's final hearing on China
this spring, on April 6, 2000, our last witness--Ira Shapiro, former
Chief Negotiator for Japan and Canada at the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative--put it this way:
. . . [this vote] is one of an historic handful of
Congressional votes since the end of World War II. Nothing
that members of Congress do this year--or any other year--
could be more important.
This achievement--for it is a crowning achievement--caps an eventful
year. All the more impressive in light of last December's ``global
disaster''--as the Economist magazine on December 11, 1999, put it--
that was the Seattle World Trade Organization Ministerial.
In January, it was thought that our long-standing trade policy was in
serious jeopardy--the trade policy that, for 66 years--ever since
Cordell Hull created the Reciprocal Trade Agreements program in 1934--
has contributed so much to our nation's prosperity.
But we have prevailed. And more. In May, the Senate took up and
passed--the vote was 77 to 19--the conference report on the Trade and
Development Act of 2000--establishing a long overdue trade policy for
sub-Saharan Africa and putting in place new trade benefits for the
Caribbean Basin countries. That measure was the most significant trade
legislation passed by the Congress in six years--ever since the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act of 1994.
[[Page 18388]]
Now, just four months later, we are about to give our resounding
approval to H.R. 4444, authorizing the extension of permanent normal
trade relations to China. And with this action, we will have passed
more trade legislation--important trade legislation--in this session of
Congress than any session of Congress in more than a decade.
It has taken us a long while to reach the point of final passage of
the PNTR legislation. We have most certainly not rushed this
legislation through the Senate. The House approved the measure nearly
four months ago, on May 24, by a vote of 237-197. The Senate, in
effect, began its consideration before the August recess--on July 27th,
when we invoked cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill. The vote
was a decisive 86 to 12.
By the time this vote is cast, we will have completed eleven full
days of debate. We have taken up and debated 19 amendments. We have
considered every facet of U.S.-China relations, and we are now ready to
give this measure our overwhelming approval.
And so we ought to do. We are giving up very little--the annual
review of China's trade status that has had at best an inconsequential
effect on China's domestic policies. In return, we are bringing China
back into the trading system that it helped to establish out of the
ashes of the Second World War.
For with its accession to the WTO, China merely resumes the role that
it played more than half a century ago: China was one of the 44
participants in the Bretton Woods Conference--July 1-22, 1944. It
served on the Preparatory Committee that wrote the charter for the
International Trade Organization that was to complement the
International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development. And China was of course one of the 23
original Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade--initially designed to be an interim arrangement until the ITO
Charter would come into force. It did not: the ITO failed in the Senate
Finance Committee and we were left with the GATT.
And in China, revolution intervened. The Republic of China (now on
Taiwan) notified the GATT on March 8, 1950, that it was terminating
``China's'' membership. It was not until 1986 that the People's
Republic of China officially sought to rejoin the GATT, now the World
Trade Organization. And now, after 14 years of negotiations, China is
poised to become the 139th member of the WTO.
It is elemental that China belongs in the WTO. It is in the interests
of all trading nations that a country that harbors one-fifth of
mankind, a country that is already the world's ninth largest exporter
and eleventh largest importer, abide by the rules of world trade--rules
that were, I would point out, largely written by the United States.
We, too, must abide by the WTO's rules. And thus we will approve
today the legislation extending permanent, unconditional normal trade
relations to China--fulfilling the most basic of our obligations under
the WTO's rules--nondiscriminatory treatment.
Let me leave the Senate with the following observations from Joseph
Fewsmith, an associate professor of international relations at Boston
University and a specialist on the political economy of China. He
writes in the National Bureau of Asian Research publication of July 2,
2000:
Some historical perspective is necessary when thinking
about PNTR. When President Nixon traveled to China in 1972,
China was still in the throes of the Cultural Revolution. Mao
Zedong was still in command, there were no private markets,
intellectuals were still raising pigs on so-called ``May 7
cadre schools,'' and labor camps were filled with political
prisoners. Nixon was treated to a performance of ``The Red
Detachment of Women,'' one of only eight model operas that
were permitted to be performed. Nearly three decades later--
not a long period in historical terms--China has changed
dramatically. Communes are gone, the planned economy has
shrunk to a shadow of its former self, and incomes have
increased dramatically. Personal freedoms, while by no means
perfect, are greater than at any other time in Chinese
history. China's opening to the United States is a major
reason for these changes, a dramatic demonstration of the
impact of international influence.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in support of
H.R. 4444.
I would like to attenuate my remarks simply to take up the question
of Taiwan and its accession to the WTO. This ought to be explicit and
perhaps the last thing said in this debate.
Just as China ought to be in the WTO--will be in the WTO--so will
Taiwan. Despite the bluster of senior Chinese officials,
intermittently, and recently as well, Taiwan is on track to be invited
to join the WTO at the same General Council session that will consider
China's application.
Article XII of the Agreement Establishing the WTO provides that:
. . . any State or separate customs territory possessing
full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial
relations . . . may accede to the WTO.
In September 1992, the GATT Council--for the WTO was not yet in
existence--established a separate working party to examine Taiwan's
request for accession. The nomenclature was carefully chosen. Taiwan
was called the ``Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen
and Matsu.'' That is the formulation under which Taiwan will enter the
WTO.
The President has confirmed this and confirmed in the strongest
possible terms that the United States will not accept any other
outcome. The President was adamant on this point in his letter of
September 12. A copy was sent to me, and I believe a copy was also sent
to our distinguished chairman. It says this:
There should be no question that my administration is
firmly committed to Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I
reiterated in my September 8 meeting with President Jiang
Zemin. Based on our New York discussions with the Chinese, I
am confident we have a common understanding that both China
and Taiwan will be invited to accede to the WTO at the same
WTO General Council session, and that Taiwan will join the
WTO under the language agreed to in 1992, namely, as the
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and
Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese Taipei''). The United States
will not accept any other outcome.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter of
September 12 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if China should attempt to block
Taiwan's accession, I suggest to the Senate that there is a remedy.
H.R. 4444 gives the President the authority to extend permanent normal
trade relations status to China upon its accession to the WTO, but he
need not do so. Indeed, if Taiwan's membership in the WTO is blocked, I
would urge--and I am sure my beloved colleague, Senator Roth, would
urge, as I see him nodding--the President to simply refrain from
extending PNTR to China. So we ought to put this matter to rest.
I have no doubt that there will continue to be bumps--some serious
crises indeed--in our relationship with China. Neither membership in
the WTO nor normalized trade relations with the United States will
magically impose the rule of law in China or institute deep-seated
respect for human rights. But certainly it has the potential to advance
those purposes. That is why we are here and why we will shortly make
this epic decision.
Finally, if I may have the indulgence of the Senate--and I know this
is shared by the chairman--I want to read a short paragraph.
My only regret today is that with the final vote on PNTR for China,
we must bid farewell to our chief trade counsel, Debbie Lamb, who
joined the Finance Committee staff over 10 years ago, in June 1990. Ms.
Lamb has played an integral part in every major piece of trade
legislation over the past decade--from the NAFTA and the Uruguay Round
to our attempts to renew so-called fast-track negotiating authority to
the two pieces of trade legislation that we passed this year: The Trade
and Development Act of 2000, and now, at last, PNTR for China. Her
knowledge and dedication to our committee's work has been exemplary.
She is something that is very rare in Washington--
[[Page 18389]]
a person with great breadth and great depth. The committee and I will
miss her deeply as she leaves today to pursue the next phase of a
distinctly distinguished career.
Exhibit 1
The White House,
Washington, September 12, 2000.
Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Moynihan: I want to commend you for commencing
debate on H.R. 4444, which would extend Permanent Normal
Trade Relations to the People's Republic of China. This
crucial legislation will help ensure our economic prosperity,
reinforce our work on human rights, and enhance our national
security.
Normalizing our trade relationship with China will allow
American workers, farmers, and businesspeople to benefit from
increased access to the Chinese market. It will also give us
added tools to promote increased openness and change in
Chinese society, and increase our ability to work with China
across the broad range of our mutual interests.
I want to address two specific areas that I understand may
be the subject of debate in the Senate. One is Taiwan's
accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). There should
be no question that my Administration is firmly committed to
Taiwan's accession to the WTO, a point I reiterated in
September 8 meeting with President Jiang Zemin. Based on our
New York discussions with the Chinese, I am confident we have
a common understanding that both China and Taiwan will be
invited to accede to the WTO at the same WTO General Council
session, and that Taiwan will join the WTO under the language
agreed to in 1992, namely as the Separate Customs Territory
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (referred to as ``Chinese
Taipei''). The United States will not accept any other
outcome.
The other area is nonproliferation, specifically the
proposals embodied in an amendment offered by Senator Fred
Thompson. Preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and the means to deliver them is a key goal of my
Administration. However, I believe this amendment is unfair
and unnecessary, and would hurt our nonproliferation efforts.
Nonproliferation has been a priority in our dealings with
China. We have pressed China successfully to join the
Nonproliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the
Biological Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, and to cease cooperation with Iran's nuclear program.
Today, we are seeking further restraints, but these efforts
would be subverted--and existing progress could be reversed
by this mandatory sanctions bill which would single out
companies based on an unreasonably low standard of suspicion,
instead of proof. It would apply a different standard for
some countries than others, undermining our global leadership
on nonproliferation. Automatic sanctions, such as cutting off
dual-use exports to China, would hurt American workers and
companies. Other sanctions, such as restricting access to
U.S. capital markets, could harm our economy by undermining
confidence in our markets. I believe this legislation would
do more harm than good.
The American people are counting on the Congress to pass
H.R. 4444. I urge you and your colleagues to complete action
on the bill as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton.
Mr. ROTH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes, of course.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I only want to echo what my friend and
distinguished ranking member has said about Debbie. We have
accomplished a lot in the area of trade in recent years, and so much of
the credit should go to the staff who have worked so hard and so long.
Top among those is Debbie Lamb, who has been available not only to her
side, but has been most helpful to the majority as well. Sometimes I
think people don't recognize the cooperation that often exists between
Members of the two parties. But I think what Debbie has done shows that
bipartisanship is still alive. We would not be here celebrating today's
vote if not for her splendid contribution.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I say to our chairman, as evidenced by the fact that
this measure was reported 19-1 in the Finance Committee.
I thank the Chair. We are at a moment of history and the omens are
excellent.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, in keeping with the words of my
distinguished colleague about Debbie, I want to say a few words of
thanks to all those who worked so hard on this bill.
Of course, first, I have to thank my dear friend, our venerable
colleague, and always gracious ranking member of the Finance Committee,
Pat Moynihan. It would never have been possible to be here today with
the kind of vote I think we are going to enjoy if it had not been for
Pat's leadership, for his knowledge and background, and his ability to
bring people together. I thank him for his outstanding contributions.
I also thank Senators Grassley, Thomas, Hagel, Roberts, and Rod Grams
for helping manage the floor. We were on this legislation something
like 11 days. There were times when Pat and I were called from the
floor for other duties. It was most helpful to have these other
individual colleagues helping manage the floor.
Again, I thank all of Senator Moynihan's committee staff who are just
as gracious as the Senator for whom they work. We have already talked
about Debbie Lamb. But David Podoff--I want to express my warm thanks
to you for bringing your expertise to bear on this legislative process.
I agree with Senator Moynihan. This is probably the most important
piece of legislation that will be adopted this year, if not this
decade. But again, it could not have happened without people such as
Dave.
I would also like to thank Linda Menghetti, and Timothy Hogan, as
well as Therese Lee, who I think was such a help as a member of the
Senator's personal staff.
Finally, let me thank my own staff. I would like to claim that I have
the best staff on the Hill. I certainly have one of the best, if not
the very best.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Sir, we have the best staffs.
(Laughter.)
Mr. ROTH. I yield to my distinguished Senator on that point. I stand
corrected.
But, again, I really want to thank my personal staff, and my trade
staff, whether it is Frank Polk, who is always there when you need him,
and Grant Aldonas, Faryar Shirzad, Tim Keeler, J.T. Young, and Carrie
Clark from the Finance Committee. I also particularly want to thank
John Duncan and Dan Bob from my personal office. Dan is really one of
our great experts on Asia, and on international politics in general. I
owe him so much for his help during these last 2 weeks. Thank you all
for a job well done.
Let me say it is an honor and pleasure to work with the ranking
member.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. My honor, sir.
Mr. ROTH. I yield the floor.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Wyoming.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 4516
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding
provisions of rule XXII, that immediately following the cloture vote on
the motion to proceed to the H-1B legislation, the Senate proceed to
the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516, the legislative branch
appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2
hours for debate equally divided between the two managers, with an
additional hour under the control of Senator McCain, 1 hour under the
control of Senator Thomas, and 90 minutes under the control of Senator
Kennedy. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of
the conference report, with no intervening action or debate. I add,
provided that 30 minutes of the Democrat manager's time be under the
control of Senator Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:30
p.m. having arrived, the Senate will now stand in recess until the hour
of 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:35 p.m., recessed until 2:16 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Inhofe).
____________________
[[Page 18390]]
TO AUTHORIZE EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT TO THE PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to vote on the passage of H.R. 4444.
The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use
some of my leader time to conclude discussion on the China PNTR.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. First, Mr. President, this is the last day of a very
critical and helpful staff member working here with the Senate in the
Finance Committee. That person is Debbie Lamb on Senator Moynihan's
staff. She has been his chief trade counsel and has been very helpful,
obviously, to Senator Moynihan and, before that, to Senator Bentsen.
I remember specifically one night we were negotiating the final
contours of a bill between the House and the Senate. I wound up relying
on her counsel as we made the final decisions. People may find it
somewhat a surprise that the majority leader, a Republican, would be
relying on the counsel on the other side of the aisle, but it does work
that way and it attests to her credibility and expertise. She has done
a wonderful job. We wish her the very best.
In that connection, too, I want to recognize the outstanding work
that has been done by Senator Moynihan and by Chairman Roth. Here he
is, sitting right behind me. They have been patient; they have been
willing to spend hours here in the Senate. They waited weeks to get
their opportunity to have it considered in the Senate. There was no
effort made to cut off a full debate. I think every Senator believes he
or she had the opportunity they needed to make their case, state their
positions, and raise their concerns or why they supported it.
Also, we had numerous amendments, and all of them failed. Some of
them were very attractive. In fact, I felt very strongly about a couple
of them, obviously. But they waded through all of this and we are going
to have a final vote in a moment. I think it is going to be an
overwhelming vote. I think it is the right thing to do and I commend
Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan for their leadership.
When history is written about this session, one of the things I
believe it will say is that this is a session of Congress that did
spend time and wound up passing some important trade bills with
relation to not only China but the Caribbean and also Africa. A lot of
credit goes to the leaders of this committee.
Regardless of one's views on the merits, there is no question about
the significance of the measure we consider today. Normalizing trade
relations with China will not only have profound effects upon our
economic well-being, but it will undoubtedly have significant
implications for our relations with China and our national security.
China accounts for a quarter of the world's population. It has one of
the largest economies in the world--an economy that has been growing at
a remarkable rate of nearly 10 percent per year. China unquestionably
is and will be a major factor in the world, especially economically.
There is also no question that China's entry into the World Trade
Organization holds great opportunities for the United States. Chief
among them are the economic benefits that would flow from the
dismantling of Chinese trade barriers--barriers that deny benefits to
our workers and businesses.
But many people in this country have legitimate questions. They
question whether China will live up to its commitments, whether it will
trade fairly in our market, and whether we are ignoring China's human
rights abuses and its destabilizing behavior in the world.
These are not questions to be taken lightly. And that is why I have
insisted that the Senate not rush to action on this bill, and that
those on both sides have a full opportunity to air their views and
their amendments.
The Senate has had ample time to consider the agreements reached with
China, has held numerous hearings on its potential accession to the
WTO, and has engaged in a full and vigorous debate on this issue. That
is certainly fitting on an issue of this magnitude.
I know that many of my colleagues, like myself, have struggled with
this issue in light of our larger concerns about China and its behavior
in the world. We all know that China is a one-party State that denies
the most basic rights to its people. We must acknowledge that it
deprives its people of religious freedom, that it has flagrantly
engaged in weapons proliferation, and that it has repeatedly used
unfair trade practices in our market.
Whle some may argue that we should, I do not believe that we can
totally separate these broader issues from the question of our trade
relationship with China. But I also believe that we cannot allow our
desire for reform in China to blind us not only to the benefits we
receive from trade with China, but from the positive effects trade may
have within that country.
On balance, I am convinced that expanding our trading relation with
China is not only in our economic self interest, but in our broader
national interest as well.
There are many misconceptions about the action Congress is taking
with this legislation. Chief among them is the view that we are voting
on whether to allow China into the World Trade Organization. The fact
is that China will almost certainly enter the WTO, regardless of
whether the United States approves this legislation.
What this legislation will decide is whether the commitments of WTO
membership are applied bilaterally between the United States and China.
Applying WTO commitments to trade between the United States and China
is in our economic interest--and for a simple reason. We already grant
China the favorable access to our market required by the WTO. China,
however, does not grant similar access to our products. As such, this
agreement will expand our access to China's market; it will not expand
China's access to ours.
Many of my colleagues have gone through in detail the market-opening
concessions China will be forced to make upon entry into the WTO. Let
me just highlight some of the major terms that will have a direct
impact on our workers and companies:
China will be required to cut tariffs from a current average of
almost 25 percent to an average of around 9 percent by 2005--with
particularly sharp reductions for farm products and information
technology products;
China will be required to provide our companies with full trading and
distribution rights--eliminating the need to go through trading
companies blessed by the Chinese government;
China will be required to greatly expand access to its market for
agricultural goods, ranging from cotton, wheat, soybeans, rice and farm
products across the spectrum.
China will for the first time be required to provide real access to
financial services providers--allowing U.S. banks, insurers and other
providers significant new access.
Why would we walk away from these new and dramatic benefits--
particularly when our market is already open to Chinese imports?
Both the farming and manufacturing community in my home state--as in
states across the country--have voiced strong support for increased
trade with China.
They know that we cannot afford to neglect economic ties with a
nation of more than 1 billion people, and a market that already is the
sixth largest for U.S. agricultural exports. They know that with
expanded trade China is projected to account for more than one third of
the growth in U.S. agricultural exports. Whether it is cotton farmers
in the delta or poultry producers in central Mississippi, our farmers
need China's market.
We also stand to make huge gains in the high tech sector, where the
U.S. leads, and where my state is growing in leaps and bounds. Only 2.5
percent of China's population has a computer and only 1 percent has
access to the Internet--but these numbers are growing rapidly.
[[Page 18391]]
If we do not trade with China, you can bet that our competitors in
Japan and Europe will. And it will be their workers and industries--not
ours--that reap the benefits of increased access to China's market.
If the economic benefits are clear, what is it that we give up by
approving permanent trade relations with China? Most concretely, we end
the automatic annual review of China's trade status under the Jackson-
Vanik amendment. I do not take this lightly. We must acknowledge that
gaining permanent trading status in our market has been a major
objective of China's. And we should not dismiss out of hand the
salutary effects that have resulted from a yearly review of China's
actions and status.
But we must also question how much leverage this review continues to
provide--particularly given that China's most favored nation status has
never been withdrawn in the 20 years since relations with the PRC were
normalized in 1979. And we must consider as well what benefits and
favorable effects are likely to accompany a closer trading relation
between our countries.
Trade will not solve all of our problems with China, and it will not
change China's behavior overnight. But economic forces are powerful--
often beyond anything we can imagine. China's commitments under the WTO
agreements will require it to loosen its grip--perhaps not dramatically
at first, but in real and observable ways--over the economic life of
its people.
As wealth grows among China's middle class, as they see the benefits
of open markets and freedom, as they share in the unbelievable exchange
of ideas that the new economy and the Internet bring, change will come
to China. And we must be there, to engage, to influence, and to foster
ideas that will hopefully lead to a new flowering of democracy and
freedom--and over the long run to a more peaceful and stable world.
I want to stress one thing. The passage of this bill must not--and I
can tell you that as long as I have anything to say about it, it will
not--mark a lessening of our commitment to scrutinize China's behavior,
to combat proliferation, and to advance the cause of human and
religious rights.
Our friends and allies around the world should not misinterpret what
happened with our vote on the Thompson amendment--a vote that was
caught up in the back and forth of how best to consider the measure.
This country is united in its determination to combat weapons
proliferation in China and around the world. Our commitment has not
wavered, and we have not seen the last of this issue on the Senate
floor.
We must recognize the legitimate fears and concerns of many citizens
regarding trade with China. They know China has abused our market in
the past and has failed to live up to its end of the bargain in recent
trade agreements.
Ensuring Chinese compliance with its commitments will not be easy.
But it is essential that we are unwavering in our vigilance to see that
our workers and our companies get the benefits they are promised. This
agreement maintains our ability to use our trade laws fully to combat
Chinese unfair trade practices, and to take trade measures necessary to
protect our national security. We must respond swiftly and forcefully
where the need arises.
This will be one of the most closely scrutinized trade agreements in
history, as it should be. The American people know that we can compete
and win with fair and open markets, but they will not long tolerate the
systematic flouting of our agreements and the abuse of our market. This
will be a test--not only of our own resolve to make trade agreements
work for our citizens, but of the ability of the WTO and the
international system to deliver on the promises it has made.
This has been a remarkable year for trade legislation.
I want to congratulate Chairman Roth and Senator Moynihan once again
for their extraordinary efforts to get our trade agenda back on track--
passing this year both the Africa-CBI trade enhancement act and now
this critical piece of legislation. It is a record of accomplishment
for which we can all be proud.
But it is not a time to rest or sit back. We saw in Seattle the
consequences of indecision, mixed messages and lack of resolve in the
cause of freer and fairer trade.
Making the case for freer trade and open markets will never be easy.
The concrete dislocations and challenges that come with increased
global trade are often easier to see and to seize upon than the more
diffuse gains from new markets and new economic growth. It is up to us
as policy makers and public officials to ensure that our workers and
our businesses see the gains from trade, that they receive the benefits
of the agreements we make, and that our security and our economic well-
being are enhanced as we seek further engagement in the global economy.
I know there are legitimate concerns about this legislation and that
there are those having to struggle with whether or not we can trust
China's compliance. They are legitimate concerns about human rights
violations, religious persecution, and nuclear weapons activities. But
I also believe it would be a tremendous mistake to ignore the
advantages of this trade legislation. There are a billion people in
China. These are markets that are not now open to us. Just last night,
I looked over what would come out of this legislation. The fact is,
they will have to open markets. China will be required to cut tariffs
from the current average of almost 25 percent to an average of 9
percent by 2005, with a particularly sharp reduction for farm products
and information technology.
China will be required to provide our companies with full trading and
distribution rights; it will be required to greatly expand access to
its markets for agricultural goods, ranging from cotton, wheat,
soybeans, rice, and farm products across the spectrum. For the first
time, China will be required to provide real access to financial
services providers.
This is legislation that is good for America, that is good for the
working people in our country. It will take a lot of vigilance. I think
we need to make sure of its compliance. But it is the right thing to
do. I will vote for this legislation and I hope it will be accepted
overwhelmingly.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
Mr. LOTT. 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 clerk will read the bill for the third
time.
The bill (H.R. 4444) was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 83, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 251 Leg.]
YEAS--83
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Burns
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Robb
[[Page 18392]]
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--15
Bunning
Byrd
Campbell
Feingold
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Inhofe
Jeffords
Mikulski
Reid
Sarbanes
Smith (NH)
Specter
Wellstone
NOT VOTING--2
Akaka
Lieberman
The bill (H.R. 4444) was passed.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today ends an historic debate on permanent
normal trade relations with China. The vote we just cast was certainly
the most important of this year and likely the most consequential of
the past decade.
We have had a vigorous debate on PNTR as well as the full range of
issues my colleagues have raised through amendment.
Because of PNTR's significance, however, I opposed all amendments to
PNTR regardless of merit. And many of the amendments did have merit.
Indeed, I would have supported some of them under other circumstances.
In the case of PNTR, however, a vote for any amendment would have
forced a conference with the House and additional votes in both the
House and Senate on a conference report. Had we chosen that route, we
would likely have run out of time before we could have passed PNTR in
this Congress.
And had we failed to pass PNTR this year, the only certain effect
would have been to punish our workers, farmers, and businesses by
placing them at a huge competitive disadvantage to their fiercest
foreign competitors in gaining access to China's burgeoning market.
That is because PNTR does not determine whether China enters the
World Trade Organization. China will enter the WTO regardless of what
Congress had done on PNTR; and China's entry will definitely take place
this year according to Michael Moore, the Director-General of the WTO.
What PNTR does is allow American firms equal access to China's market
when China joins the WTO.
Let us remember that in joining the WTO, China has committed itself
to abandoning central control and throwing its market wide open to the
United States an all the other WTO members, all within roughly five
years. Let me note here that for our part, the U.S. market will not be
opened further to China; our market is already open to the Chinese.
In keeping with its obligations as a member of the WTO, China will
have to extend permanently and unconditionally its greatly lowered
tariffs and its expansively opened market to every other member of the
WTO. In other words, China will have to maintain PNTR with all member
economies of the WTO. There is only one exception to this rule: when
another WTO member chooses not to extend permanent normal trade
relations to China, China need not extend PNTR to that country.
Of course, there is only one member of the WTO that even considered
denying China PNTR--the United States. In part, that's because there
has been a belief that in denying the Chinese PNTR we would somehow
force them to change their behavior in any number of areas, from human
rights to Taiwan to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But would denying China PNTR actually have changed Chinese behavior?
Frankly, there is little logic to this argument. After all, the only
certain result of denying China PNTR is that we would have deprived
U.S. farmers, workers and businesses access to China's lowered tariffs
and more open market--access that every other member of the WTO will
enjoy.
How is it that putting Americans at a competitive disadvantage to the
French, the Germans, the Japanese and the Canadians would have
compelled Beijing to act in ways the United States would prefer?
I submit that in denying PNTR--and thereby undermining American
economic access to China--we actually would have lost leverage over
China rather than gain it. Only by engaging China economically, by
permitting Americans to work within China and thereby pressuring her
from the inside to restructure her institutions and advance the rule of
law, do we stand the best chance of making Beijing more cooperative.
That's why most of China's human rights dissidents have supported
China's entry into the WTO and PNTR. As Wang Dan, a leader of the
demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, said, China's entry into the WTO
``will be beneficial for the long-term future of China because China
thus will be required to abide by the rules and regulations of the
international community.''
Meanwhile, the Taiwanese, the people most threatened by China, also
support China's WTO accession and PNTR. Taiwan's current and previous
Presidents have both publicly affirmed their support for the United
States fully normalizing trade relations with China. And as President
Clinton stated in a letter he sent in response to an inquiry I made
last week, the U.S. will make sure that Taiwan gains entry to the WTO
just as soon as China does.
On the question of U.S. national security, the Americans most
knowledgeable about the matter, including Presidents Ford, Bush and
Carter, as well as virtually every living former Secretary of State and
Defense, National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff agrees that PNTR will advance American interests. They recognize,
as General Colin Powell put it, that if Congress rejects PNTR, the
result will be ``to make [China] more isolated, truculent and more
aggressive . . .''
The vote over PNTR was thus about more than just economics. It was
also about America's response to China's emergence as a leading power,
a phenomenon which I believe presents us with potentially our most
serious foreign policy challenge. But it also presents us with enormous
opportunities. We can only respond to that challenge adequately and
seize those opportunities through a sensible overall China policy. The
clear objective of that policy should be to encourage China's
constructive and responsible behavior and discourage its aggressiveness
and irresponsibility.
I believe our China policy must have five central elements, and PNTR
forms the core of the first--that of expanding our economic
relationship with Beijing. We should seek such an expanded relationship
because a China integrated into the global economy is more likely to
behave in ways compatible with American interests and international
norms. Thus, we should encourage China's development and participate in
its economic growth by supporting China's accession to the World Trade
Organization and by passing PNTR, as we have done.
The more China is integrated into the international economy, the more
subject Beijing is to the harsh realities of the marketplace. Should
China choose a path toward blatant aggression and destabilizing
domestic repression, foreign investment will dry up and firms will move
to other countries where the risks are lower and the returns are
higher.
Moreover, we have a better opportunity to influence China to act in
ways we prefer when we enmesh it in the sort of economic relationships
fostered by granting China PNTR.
In addition, economic growth nurtured by participation in the global
economy tends to lead to greater demands for democratic reform. Other
Asian countries, such as South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand, have amply
demonstrated the political evolution that accompanies economic
development. By encouraging trade with China, we are also encouraging a
process that is likely to lead to the sort of political liberalization
that is in America's interest.
The second element of any coherent China policy must include
preparedness to deal with China if its participation in world affairs
proves disruptive. Strengthening our current array of bilateral
security ties in Asia is thus essential. Those ties include not only
the
[[Page 18393]]
full security alliances we have with Japan, Korea, Thailand, the
Philippines and Australia, but also the productive security
arrangements we maintain with Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia,
New Zealand and other Asia Pacific nations.
Closer cooperation on security and diplomatic initiatives with
nations in the Asia Pacific that share our interests on China can serve
to prod Beijing to accept the moderating influence of global economic
integration. It also provides a hedge in the event Beijing instead
chooses an aggressive path.
Third, we must enforce current law regarding Chinese actions and be
willing to challenge China on issues of concern. That is why we should
continue to work to improve China's human rights policies and convince
Beijing to abandon its repugnant use of forced abortions and grotesque
practice of harvesting organs. We can pursue these ends, in part, by
ensuring the success of the Levin-Bereuter Commission on human rights
created by H.R. 4444, further supporting Radio Free Asia and condemning
China at the annual human rights conference in Geneva and at other
international fora.
We should respond to China when it persecutes Christians, Muslims and
those of other faiths by using the authority granted by the
International Religious Freedom Act.
We should continue to support Taiwan under the terms of the Taiwan
Relations Act. The TRA affirms that any effort to determine Taiwan's
future by other than peaceful means would, ``constitute a threat to the
peace and security of the Western Pacific and be of grave concern to
the United States.'' The TRA also commits the United States to making
available to Taiwan such defense articles and services in such
quantities as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.
We should push China to negotiate with the Dalai Lama regarding
Tibet, supporting the Dalai Lama's call for ``Cultural autonomy''
within the Chinese system. And we should support the actions of the
Special Coordinator for Tibetan issues within the State Department, a
position created as a result of Congressional pressure in 1997.
We should investigate credible allegations that Chinese goods have
been produced by prison labor and enforce section 307 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, which bars imports of prison-made goods into the United
States.
We should work with the International Labor Organization to make sure
that China lives up to its acceptance of the ILO's Declaration of
Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work, which among other things,
affords the people of signatory countries the right to organize and
bargain collectively.
We should work to counter Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and their means of delivery through strict enforcement of
the Arms Export Control Act, Chemical and Biological Weapons Control
and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991, the Export Administration Act of
1979, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the Nuclear
Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994.
And we should use the WTO's robust dispute settlement system to
ensure that China meets its obligations to open its markets and abide
by the rules of international trade.
The fourth element of a coherent China policy is the continuation of
high-level, regular dialogue with Beijing. Mistrust is bound to grow
when we don't meet, particularly when the list of critical bilateral,
regional and global issues requiring discussion is so long. Keep in
mind that even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we held a
consistent series of summit talks with Soviets.
Finally, we must nurture aspects of the relationship where we share
interests and can cooperate. China has the potential to play a key role
in settling the serious threat posed by North Korea to the South, as
well as to the 37,000 American troops we have on the ground there. I
cannot imagine the Chinese playing a constructive role on any matter of
mutual concern--from controlling transnational crime and narcotics
trafficking to protecting the environment--if we only threaten and
sanction them.
In sum, to meet the challenge and reap the opportunities of a rising
China, we must encourage economic relations with Beijing based on the
China's accession to the WTO and passage of PNTR, strengthen security
and diplomatic ties with our friends in the rest of the Asian Pacific,
enforce current law regarding Chinese actions and be willing to
confront China when necessary, continue high-level dialogue, and
cooperate with China on matters of mutual concern.
In addition, the Congress should not shy away from criticizing
Chinese actions that run counter to internationally-recognized norms or
American interests. For my part, I will do everything in my power as
Chairman of the Finance Committee to see that China not only lives up
to its WTO obligations, but also begins the process of internal change
that is essential if Beijing is to meet those obligations.
PNTR is not a panacea, and there will be many bumps on the road in
relations between the United States and China. But PNTR is a key
component of a coherent strategy for addressing the complex set of
issues associated with the rise of China. That is why I am pleased PNTR
passed overwhelmingly and with bipartisan support.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate has just voted on one of the
most significant and controversial bills of this Congress. I would like
to take this opportunity to share my views on the issues involved and
explain the process I went through in making my decision on how to vote
on providing normal trade relations status to China.
I thought about this matter a great deal and examined the issues very
carefully. I listened to the arguments made by my colleagues in this
Chamber and to the intense public debate over the past months. Just
this last month, along with my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, I visited
China. It was the first time I had been back since 1981. We were able
to gain some valuable insights into the questions before us.
Having listened to the debate on China PNTR, especially in the media,
one may have gotten the idea that this is a clear-cut question. If you
listened to the proponents, you would think PNTR is a magic elixir for
the American economy. If you listened to the opponents, you would think
PNTR spells utter disaster.
After thoroughly looking into this matter, I concluded the claims of
both sides were exaggerated. Passing PNTR was not a slam-dunk or a no-
brainer, but neither was it a sellout or a surrender on the critical
problems we face with China. It was a matter of judging how the scales
tipped: not which side was absolutely correct but which of the
alternatives seemed, on balance, the best course to take. This was not
an easy decision for me. However, I believe the balance did tip,
although not overwhelmingly, in favor of passing this legislation
granting China normal trade relations status.
I would like to discuss briefly what the vote was really about and
why I voted for PNTR.
We had a good deal of discussion over the past several days on the
details and implications of this legislation and on the agreement
between the United States and China regarding China joining the WTO.
There is no need for me to spend any time going over that again. It is
important, though, to be clear on what the vote was really about.
The vote on PNTR was not about whether China is going to join the
WTO; China will. Nothing Congress can say, one way or the other, will
make one bit of difference.
This vote on PNTR was really about whether the United States will
benefit from the WTO's trade rules and enforcement procedures which
hold China accountable to negotiated trade agreements. If we did not
grant PNTR to China, other nations, our competitors, would be able to
take advantage of WTO trade rules and enforcement procedures but we
would not.
Why is that so? Because the WTO rules state that if we want the WTO
to help us enforce fair trade rules, then we cannot treat one WTO
member differently from another. We have to provide China the same
continuous normal
[[Page 18394]]
trade status we provide other WTO members. We cannot single out China
for an annual review of normal trade status and still hold China to WTO
rules and enforcement.
So that is what this debate really boiled down to--whether we should
continue our annual review of normal trade relations with China or
grant permanent normal trade relations; that is, would we gain more
from a new trade relationship with China than we would lose by ending
our annual review?
I firmly believe that the more we can do to bring China's behavior
under the rule of law, the better off we are, the better off the
Chinese people will be, and the better off the rest of the world will
be. That includes our ability to use the WTO to settle trade disputes
involving China.
Now, to be sure, we have had frustrations in the WTO dispute
settlement process. It is far from perfect. But overall it is in our
best interests to have a multilateral means to settle trade disputes
with China according to the rule of law instead of trying to go it
alone. That approach clearly has not been effective.
U.S. trade negotiators did obtain substantial concessions from China
in exchange for WTO membership. These concessions promise to lower
tariffs, reduce trade barriers, and create new opportunities for
selling U.S. goods and services in China. At the same time, the United
States does not have to provide any new access to our markets. So the
agreement should benefit U.S. workers, farmers, businesses, and our
economy in general.
But let's be realistic. The November 1999 agreement is far from
overwhelmingly. It only requires China to go part of the way toward
really opening up its borders and its markets. As my colleague from
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, has repeatedly pointed out, even under
the agreement, China's markets will be far less open than ours.
For example, according to the Congressional Research Service, the
average U.S. tariff on all goods coming into the United States from
China is 4.2 percent. That is the average U.S. tariff on all goods
coming from China to the United States --4.2 percent. But after this
agreement goes into effect, China's average tariff on U.S. industrial
goods will be 9.4 percent, over twice as much. For agricultural
products, China will only reduce its tariffs from an average of 22
percent to 17 percent. U.S. agricultural tariffs are only 6 percent on
average, one-third those of China.
Or take automobiles. The U.S. tariff on autos is 2.5 percent. Under
this agreement, China will have a 25-percent tariff on U.S. autos--10
times higher than ours.
I realize tariff rates are not the whole story and that China agreed
to substantial opening of its markets. However, I am skeptical that our
negotiators obtained as much as they could have. The United States had
a lot of leverage in these negotiations. China needs our consent to
join the WTO. And China had a lot at stake. The United States is the
world's largest economy. We import nearly $100 billion from China. We
run over an $80 billion trade deficit with China.
They need access to our market. Our negotiators should have used our
leverage and China's needs to get a better deal on the core trade
issues and on other issues involving human rights, workers' rights, and
the environment. That our negotiators did not get better tariff
reductions and better agreements on worker and human rights I believe
is a deeply regrettable missed opportunity. I believe our negotiators
were simply in too much of a rush to get this deal done rather than
address those core issues.
In particular, let's be realistic about the benefits of PNTR for
American agriculture. Some of the rhetoric I have heard regarding
agriculture is wildly optimistic. We have heard that U.S. farmers will
soon be feeding over a billion Chinese--a virtually unlimited market.
The truth is, these claims are overstated.
Farmers are ill served by the myth that China is a boon market just
waiting to buy up large quantities of farm commodities and food
products. China is strongly determined to remain largely self-
sufficient in food production, and it is adopting technology and
following policies to meet that objective.
For example, I visited a hog farm in China in 1981, and I visited one
again last month. In 1981, the hogs and their management did not even
compare to those here in America. The changes I saw this August were
dramatic. The hogs I saw in August were every bit as lean as ours.
Their sows are having litters of 12 to 14 pigs. They are saving 90
percent of them. Their cost of production is low because wages are low.
And the Government owns all the land.
I discussed the potential for agricultural trade with the Vice
Minister of Agriculture and other Chinese officials. They made it clear
they do not expect to buy much corn or pork from the United States. In
fact, they are planning to increase their exports of corn. They
exported corn last year. But they did believe there would be somewhat
of an increasing market in China for U.S. beef and citrus as well as
some pork organ meats and similar such products.
Certainly there will be opportunities for U.S. farmers and U.S. food
and agribusiness companies, but, again, we have to be realistic.
While I strongly believe we should sell as much food to China as we
can, it is irresponsible to give farmers false hope that China is going
to reverse the current depression in commodity prices or bail out the
failed Freedom to Farm policy. More than irresponsible, it is just
plain wrong.
That isn't just my own opinion. In Doane's Agricultural Report in
August, Dr. Robert Wisner, a professor of agriculture economics at Iowa
State University, who spent 3\1/2\ weeks in China in June assessed the
prospects for food and agricultural trade with China. He wrote:
For the longer term we can be cautiously optimistic about
U.S. soybean and soybean product exports to China. But
optimism about U.S. corn, wheat and livestock product exports
should be more tempered.
* * * * *
While the jury is still out on the question Who will feed
China? the Chinese answer is, ``China will feed China!''
I will add, in fact, they already do.
I now want to discuss the importance of human rights in our
consideration of PNTR. As I see it, a key issue in PNTR is whether in
relinquishing our annual review, the U.S. will lose important leverage
that could be used to change China's behavior on human rights, workers
rights, and child labor. Let us first be honest about this. China has a
long way to go on religious freedom, freedom of movement, freedom of
expression and association, political rights and the rights of workers.
The China section of the U.S. State Department's annual report on human
rights for this year and for several years running are absolutely
appalling. But I don't have to rely on that report. As I said, I
visited China last month.
True, the human rights situation in many parts of China is not as bad
as when I first visited in 1981. I could see some improvements,
especially in the large cities. But the fact is, the state of human
rights in China is still unacceptable. While in Hong Kong, we learned
of a lawyer who was arrested and thrown in jail. His offense: He had
set up a small table outside a factory to advise workers of their
rights under Chinese law. To the best of my knowledge, he is still
languishing in prison today.
There is also the case of the young man, Ngawang Choepel, who studied
music in the U.S. at Middlebury College in Vermont. He was arrested by
the Chinese authorities several years ago while studying music in Tibet
and charged with espionage and counterrevolutionary sedition. I was
told this young man was convicted of spying for the Dalai Lama. He was
sentenced to 18 years in prison.
I responded to the Chinese that this was a ridiculous charge. But
even if it were true, I asked them, how many tanks does the Dalai Lama
have; how many troops does he command; how many ships does he own? To
me, this was a strong indication of the weak foundation upon which the
Chinese political system rests.
We also know that forced labor and prison labor still exist in China.
I had
[[Page 18395]]
been told by both Chinese and U.S. Government officials that there are
no serious child labor problems in China. But now, after meeting with
reputable worker and human rights organizations in Hong Kong, I know
there are certainly serious child labor problems inside China.
Estimates indicate China has from 10 to 40 million child laborers. When
we left Shanghai and went to Hong Kong, the very next day after we were
told by both U.S. authorities and Chinese authorities that child labor
was not a very serious problem, this was the headline in the Sunday
Morning Post, August 27, 2000, Hong Kong: ``Children Toil in
Sweatshop.''
This was in an area north of Hong Kong, mainland China, where kids as
young as 12 years old were working making toys. This is again a part of
the article: ``Childhood Lost to Hard Labor.''
Also from the article:
Lax age checks open door to underage workers at Shenzhen
factory producing toys for fast food chain.
They were producing toys for a company and that company was selling
its toys to McDonald's. McDonald's gives these toys away, when you buy
a Happy Meal for your kids. It is the kids who are making the toys. Yet
we are told that there are no serious child labor problems in China.
Here was photographic proof, reporting proof that only a few miles
across the border from Hong Kong, we had child laborers toiling to make
these toys, working 16 hours a day and more.
This is a quotation from the story:
The youngsters admit they lie about their ages to get jobs
in the factory, where workers estimate up to 20 percent of
the employees are under the legal age of 16. But they say
only rudimentary checks are done on their ID cards by the
factory to make sure they are old enough to work. Asia
Monitor Resource Centre, a labor monitoring body, said it was
common for people to use fake ID cards to get work. Child
labor is a common problem in China. It exists in rural small
farms and big factories run by transnational enterprises.
Again, we do have the problem of child labor and prison labor, forced
labor in China. So, clearly, there are serious human rights problems in
China that cannot be denied or swept under the rug. But they raise the
questions: What are the best ways to address those problems and to
bring about real progress on human rights in China? And how should
human rights considerations affect our decision on PNTR?
Before I go into these questions, I will take a moment to emphasize
my long and strong commitment to human rights. My record speaks for
itself. I have been working on human rights issues since I first took
office in the House of Representatives 25 years ago and as a private
citizen before then. In fact, the first legislation I authored in the
House in 1975 resulted in the enactment of section 116(d) prohibiting
U.S. foreign assistance to the government of any country which engages
in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally
recognized human rights.
I have worked to end child labor and prison labor and religious
persecution in the former Soviet Union, Haiti, Central America, Chile,
East Timor, India, and other nations. I have worked very hard to free
political prisoners and to end political violence.
What have I learned from all these years? Frankly, I have learned
there is no standard cut-and-dried approach when it comes to advancing
human rights. Of course, there are established minimum standards for
human rights, as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights,
which China has signed.
I am not talking about weakening those standards, never. But there is
no set formula for achieving observance of the standards. We must
tailor our methods to the particular situation and the particular
society.
In the case of China, I am convinced that granting PNTR will not
hinder our efforts to improve human rights there. I believe, in fact,
it will actually help us in that endeavor.
Some have claimed that passing PNTR will cause us to lose our
leverage on human rights. The simple fact is, we have never effectively
used the annual trade status review to influence human rights in China,
and it is highly unlikely we would do so in the future. Annual renewal
of normal trade status has become almost perfunctory. Even in the wake
of Tiananmen Square, President Bush renewed China's normal trade status
and Congress did not reverse that decision.
As I said, I believe passing PNTR and creating a U.S.-China
relationship in the WTO should actually help to improve human rights in
China. How much? It is far too early to tell. However, based on my
examination of the issues and my experience in China, I concluded that
the best way to move China forward is to be engaged with China. And in
order to be fully engaged with China, we had to grant PNTR.
The simple fact is, we cannot simply wall China off. When I visited
the Great Wall in China this summer, it reminded me how impossible such
an effort would be. China could not be walled off centuries ago, and it
cannot be walled off today.
Trade and economic ties alone, however, will never magically
transform China's human rights policies. But I can tell you, there is a
big crack in China's great wall against human rights reform. One day
before long, that wall, too, will come down. Look at recent
developments in China. There has been a huge influx of new products and
services, but more importantly, the people of China are being exposed
to new ideas and new influences regarding human rights, political
rights, and religious freedom.
Now we have the Internet. I can say one thing I learned in China. The
Chinese Government may be able to censor TV and to censor the radio and
the newspapers, but no matter how hard they try, they will not be able
to control or censor the Internet. Nearly every single person Senator
Lautenberg and I talked with in China told us that we should support
PNTR. We even met with dissidents and human rights activists in Hong
Kong, people under no coercion from the Chinese Government, who had
fled China, who can't even go back to China, who urged us to support
PNTR. They said that anything that helps to open up China, that brings
in people and ideas, is helpful.
Throughout my over 25 years in working on human rights, I have seen
that they are right. We must expose countries to the influence of the
rest of the world if we want them to change their policy on human
rights.
I noticed the editorial in the Washington Post this morning about the
``Catholic `Criminals' in China.'' I am sure it has been printed in the
Record earlier today. It talked about an 81-year-old Catholic bishop
who had been thrown in jail--again. We didn't meet with this bishop. We
tried, but we could not. We met with Bishop Aloysius Jin Luxian, the
Bishop of Shanghai, an 85-year-old Catholic bishop who spent 27 years
of his life in Chinese prisons. He is a trained Jesuit. He has been to
America more than once, to Europe several times, and while he would not
politically comment on PNTR, he told us in no uncertain terms that
exposure to the rest of the world would be a positive thing for
religious freedom in China.
I believe he is right. We must expose countries to the influence of
the rest of the world if we want them to change. I also think this is
true of relations with Cuba. Our policy against Cuba, trying
unilaterally to isolate it, has been counterproductive. If we want
Fidel Castro to change, we have to open the doors and let people trade
and visit and move around freely. Our official policy is the best thing
Castro has going for him.
So I conclude that PNTR will help move China toward a greater respect
for human rights because it will open them up to new ideas and
influences.
Even though I concluded that China PNTR offers opportunities for
businesses, workers, and the economy, many people--myself included--
have legitimate concerns about the impact of this bill on America's
working men and women. Many labor leaders were worried that passing
PNTR would cause job shifts to China.
This is a legitimate concern. It is true that for a number of years
jobs have been shifting to countries--including China--that pay lower
wages
[[Page 18396]]
and tolerate poor working conditions, even abuses of worker rights. But
I cannot see how denying China PNTR would have done anything to prevent
jobs from moving to other countries. Some 20 years of annual reviews of
China's trade status have done nothing to reverse this trend. Again, as
I said, PNTR will not make the United States any more open than we have
been in the past to imported products.
Instead of focusing so much just on the issue of extending PNTR to
China, we have to take a broader focus and chart a new, bold course to
counter the adverse effects of globalization.
We first need to look in our own back yard, examine our own laws--
especially tax laws--to see whether they discourage businesses from
staying and investing in American workers. We have to eliminate any tax
provisions that encourage companies to move jobs and production
overseas.
We also should fully utilize U.S. laws that classify unfair labor
practices as unfair trade practices, which, of course, they are.
Section 301 of our trade law treats the systematic denial of
internationally recognized worker rights as an actionable,
unreasonable, and unfair trade practice. No case has yet been brought
under this provision of section 301. So we do not know exactly how it
may apply. But it is time for the United States to enforce this law to
the maximum extent possible.
I am encouraged by the statements of Vice President Al Gore. I will
quote from a statement he made at an APEC business summit in Malaysia:
And as we open the doors to global trade wider than ever
before, let us build a trading system that lifts the fortunes
of more and more people. Let us include strong protections
for workers, for health and safety, for a clean environment.
For at its heart, global commerce is about strengthening our
shared global values. It is about building stronger families
and stronger communities, through strong and steady growth
around the world.
On July 9 of last year, before the Washington Council on
International Trade, Vice President Gore said:
We also must ensure that when it comes to trade, labor
rights and environmental protection are not second-class
issues any longer.
He has also said:
I will insist upon and use authority in those agreements to
enforce workers rights, human rights and environmental
protections. We need to make the global economy work for
all--and that means fighting to make sure that trade
agreements contain provisions that will protect the
environment and labor standards as well as open market in
other countries.
We need to use trade to up standards around the world and
not drag down standards here at home.
In future trade negotiations, future trade agreements, labor rights,
human rights, and environmental protections must be an integral part of
those agreements.
There is no good reason why the WTO doesn't currently protect the
rights of workers. Some will argue that labor rights are not trade
related. I say nonsense. Intellectual property isn't directly related
to trade, but the WTO has strong rules protecting intellectual
property. Why should protecting intellectual property be any more
important than protecting children against child labor or guaranteeing
workers the right to organize? I don't understand why the WTO protects
CDs but not child workers.
The WTO protects the intellectual property because it is produced by
human effort and it has value. If someone abuses intellectual property
rights, that decreases or destroys the value of the intellectual
property. That is why the WTO protects it.
But what about workers? Work is also produced by human effort and it
has value. But let's say an American worker loses a job because that
job has been shifted to a country where worker protections don't exist,
wages are a few cents an hour, and there is rampant forced labor and
child labor. Hasn't the value of that worker's labor been lessened or
destroyed in the exactly same way as intellectual property is devalued
when it is abused? What is the difference between stealing the products
of someone's creativity and stealing the fruits of someone's labor?
There is none.
Globalization is the face of the 21st century. We must keep up the
pressure to include enforceable labor rights in future trade agreements
and particularly in new WTO rules. As the world's leading
industrialized Nation, the United States has the responsibility, the
authority, and the influence to lead this effort.
Again, I firmly believe we need a strong course of action to help
American workers in the face of globalization. However, that was not
what this bill was about. This bill was just about PNTR for China. It
doesn't remove any protections for American workers or further open the
United States to imports. And it should, as far as I can tell, provide
some new economic opportunities for American workers.
So, on balance, I believe that passing this bill was the right choice
for the United States and China. But no one should be under the
illusion that PNTR and China's joining the WTO will automatically open
up China's markets or its society. In a sense, passing PNTR is just the
beginning of a long, hard journey for the United States.
Our work to bring China into the WTO and to pass PNTR won't amount to
a hill of beans if China is not held to its commitments. We simply
cannot afford to drop the ball by failing to stand up and vigorously
enforce WTO rules and the agreements China has made. Joining the WTO is
also the beginning of a long, hard journey for China.
We must never let up in the fight to include enforceable labor rights
and environmental protections in future trade agreements. And in the
face of rapid globalization, it is critical that we reform U.S. labor
and tax laws so America's working men and women don't have the deck
stacked against them.
As I said, trade alone is not enough to improve human rights in China
or elsewhere. Just last month, I stood in Tiananmen Square, and right
off of there is a big McDonald's, a symbol of Western economic
influence in China. However, right near the McDonald's on Tiananmen
Square, members of the Falun Gong gather each morning to do their
exercises and meditation. They are not disturbing the peace, being
violent; they are simply meditating and doing their exercises right in
the shadow of McDonald's. Like clockwork, every morning, the police
come by and arrest them. So adding more McDonald's restaurants and
ensuring freer trade doesn't mean China will suddenly respect
individual rights.
We have to keep up the fight for human rights--and that includes the
rights of workers--using all the tools available to us.
When Senator Lautenberg and I were in China last month we raised the
issue of prison labor at every level. We hammered away at that issue,
and repeatedly asked to visit and inspect a prison labor facility. At
first we ran into a brick wall, but eventually we had a breakthrough.
Chinese officers still refused to allow us to visit a prison labor site
ourselves, but they agreed to renew their compliance with the 1992 and
1994 agreements against sending products of prison labor to the United
States. In fact, we got that assurance from Premier Zhu Rongji himself.
I am pleased to report that just a week and a half ago, U.S. Customs
agents were able to visit a prison labor site in China.
We must also expect and demand that United States companies that do
business in China respect human rights and the rights of workers.
If I may refer back to this article with the children in the
sweatshop making toys to supply MacDonald's, when I got back to
Washington, I immediately arranged to meet with MacDonald's executives
in my office. They were quick to tell me that they first learned of
this child labor scandal when they read about it in the papers, and
that the child laborers were not employed by McDonald's, but by a
subcontractor of a toy vendor. In fact, McDonald's has a voluntary code
of conduct and zero tolerance policy prohibiting child labor and
substandard employment practices. McDonald's has since cut off ties
with that toy vendor and is responding to this child labor problem. All
of this underscores the urgent need to rewrite our trade agreements so
that exploitative child labor
[[Page 18397]]
and other abuses of the rights of workers are considered unfair trade
practices and a basis for trade enforcement action in the WTO.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I voted for China PNTR, with the full
realization that a tremendous amount of work still remains unfinished.
That's why, having cast this vote, we must make a commitment to
redouble our efforts to include workers' rights and environmental
protections in future trade agreements, and strengthen our own laws and
tax code to encourage greater investment in our American workers, and
in education and job training.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, though we are in disagreement, I thank
my colleague from Iowa for his fine words on the floor of the Senate.
____________________
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT AMENDMENTS--MOTION TO PROCEED
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring
to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar No. 490, S.
2045, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect
to H-1B Non-Immigrant Aliens:
Trent Lott, Chuck Hagel, Spencer Abraham, Phil Gramm, Jim
Bunning, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Sam Brownback, Rod
Grams, Jesse Helms, John Ashcroft, Gordon Smith, Pat
Roberts, Slade Gorton, Connie Mack, John Warner and
Robert Bennett.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the quorum call has been
waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 2045, a bill to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act with respect to H-1B Non-Immigrant Aliens, shall be
brought to a close.
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) and the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 1, as follows:--
[Rollcall Vote No. 252 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Hollings
NOT VOTING--2
Akaka
Lieberman
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 1.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 4516), and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk reads as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill H.R.
4516 making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective
Houses this report, signed by a majority of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of July 27, 2000.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the floor
situation right now? Is the floor open?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering the conference
report on H.R. 4516 under a time agreement.
Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry: What is the time? I am
sorry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa does not have time under
the agreement.
Mr. HARKIN. How much time is there?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The managers have 2 hours equally divided.
Senator McCain has 1 hour; Senator Thomas has 1 hour; Senator Kennedy
has 30 minutes; Senator Wellstone has 30 minutes; Senator Dorgan has 30
minutes; and Senator Campbell has 30 minutes.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, again, I still want to understand the
parliamentary situation confronting the Senate right now. We are on the
conference report on Treasury-Postal appropriations and legislative
branch appropriations; is that not correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. HARKIN. There has been a unanimous consent entered into that set
a time limit on this bill and the number of speakers, and their time is
also set.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second? If
the Senator needs time, I will give some of my time to the Senator.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President.
Again, to clarify the situation, I understand that we are now engaged
in 6 hours that will lead ultimately to a vote on the conference report
on the legislative branch appropriations bill; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. I understand that I have 1 hour under my control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BENNETT. I hope that hour will not be necessary. I am prepared to
deal with it. I am prepared to stay on the floor during the hours that
are allocated to other Members of this body. But I hope we can move
this more rapidly than the 6 hours.
This is my fourth year as chairman of the Legislative Branch
Subcommittee and the second year that I have had the privilege of
serving with Senator Feinstein as the ranking member.
I want to begin this report by thanking Senator Feinstein for her
assistance in working on the conference report in the House. She, as
you know, Mr. President, is a former mayor. That experience gives her a
unique insight into some of the issues that we face in this
subcommittee. So I pay tribute to her and to her staff and to the
professional way in which she has handled her responsibilities.
[[Page 18398]]
In our final session of the conference, the question was raised by
Mr. Obey in the other body as to whether or not there would be
additional legislation added to the conference report. I told him at
the time that I knew of no such plan or program. I spoke accurately at
the time. However, as things often happen around here, changes did
occur under the sponsorship of the leadership of both Houses. As a
consequence, the conference report is somewhat expanded from that which
was negotiated.
Division A of H.R. 4516 contains the conference agreement for the
legislative branch appropriations for fiscal year 2001, and additional
funding for the credit subsidy which supports the FHA multi-family
housing insurance programs. Provision B contains the conference
agreement for the Treasury-general government appropriations and repeal
of the excise tax on telephones.
This bill has attracted attention, and the allocation of time that
has been set up around this bill is demonstrated by the time under the
control of Senators who have nothing to do with the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and who presumably will talk about
other issues than those that are directly connected with the
legislative branch appropriations.
I will limit my comments to the conference agreement on the
legislative branch and defer to the other subcommittee chairmen and
other Senators who will address the funding that is contained in this
bill under their jurisdiction.
This conference agreement appropriates $2.53 billion for fiscal year
2001, which is approximately a 1.6-percent increase over the funding
for the fiscal year 2000 level, including the supplemental funding.
Both Senator Feinstein and I are proud of the fact that we have kept
the increase at such a low level, as we have tried to be as responsible
as possible in allocating funds for the legislative branch.
We spent a great deal of time going over the accounts and the
increases that agencies have had over the last 4 years to find where we
could best and most fairly cut or hold down expenditures without
impacting employees.
Our goal was to ensure that funding would be provided for all current
legislative branch employees. We have met that goal. No RIFs, or
reductions in force, will be required under this agreement.
Another priority was to make sure that adequate funding is provided
for maintenance projects, particularly the projects that involve health
and safety issues. I have long since learned in my business career that
one of the quickest ways to temporarily show an increase on the bottom
line is to cut back on maintenance. One of the surest ways to guarantee
that you will get into trouble long term is to cut back on maintenance.
We have tried to make sure that we didn't make that mistake here in our
desire to hold down the total amount that was being spent.
We have also spent a great deal of time talking about security. We
made sure that the resources were made available to the men and women
who protect the Capitol, its visitors, and Members and staff.
I think we have accomplished all of our goals within the current
funding restraints. The conference agreement on the legislative branch
is a good agreement. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Before I yield so that Senator Feinstein can make her comments, I
would like to thank the staff for their hard work: Christine Ciccone,
who acts as the majority clerk; Chip Yost, my legislative director; Jim
English, who represents the Democratic staff director; Edie Stanley
with the Appropriations Committee; and Chris Kerig from Senator
Feinstein's office, all of whom have performed yeomen service, staying
up late nights and coming in the early morning to make sure those who
get the spotlight on the television look better than perhaps we really
are. I pay them that tribute and extend to them my personal thanks for
all the work they have done.
I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I acknowledge the comments made by the
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and
indicate my agreement with them. I also thank the staff people he has
duly mentioned, and I want to speak particularly to the funding of the
legislative branch.
It is my understanding on our side of the aisle that there is deep
concern about the addition of the Treasury-Postal bill on this bill,
largely because it contains a measure which would use 25 percent of the
non-Social Security surplus. I will leave that to others to discuss.
Senator Bennett and I worked in a bipartisan way on the fiscal year
2001 legislative branch appropriations bill. I believe it is a very
good bill. It addresses the critical areas of concern for the
legislative branch and is in the best interests of those whom we serve.
We worked very hard to ensure that each agency within our legislative
branch was treated fairly, and even though we were not able to fully
fund every agency's request, we made every effort to distribute the
scarce resources as fairly as possible. In some cases, we were able to
make modest increases above last year's level.
I particularly note that the $97.1 million which we are providing for
the Capitol Police will fund 1,481 full-time equivalents, a level which
conferees believe will enable the appropriate staffing at building
entrances to ensure the security of our Capitol campus.
Additionally, in order to address some very critical needs, the
conference agreement provides to the Capitol Police $2.1 million in
fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental funds for security
enhancements, and provides the Architect of the Capitol $9 million in
fiscal year 2000 emergency supplemental funds to move forward with a
number of urgent building repairs.
This is my second year as ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Legislative Branch, working alongside our dedicated and
distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator Bennett. Senator Bennett
is always very open and willing to discuss the various issues that
arise in relation to this bill. He has been very accommodating to my
concerns as well as to the concerns of other Members of the Senate. I
know that firsthand. In fact, he never ceases to amaze me with his
extensive knowledge of the various departments and agencies under the
legislative branch--not only their basic structure and the function of
those agencies but their legislative histories as well. It has been a
great pleasure for me to work with Senator Bennett on this bill.
I urge the adoption of the conference agreement.
I yield some time, with the approval of Senator Bennett, to Senator
Harkin.
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield.
Mr. BENNETT. With Senator Harkin not currently on the floor, Senator
Bond desires a few moments. Could we ask unanimous consent that Senator
Bond be allowed to proceed with Senator Harkin to follow?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I agree.
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to Senator Bond.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask my colleague whether, in the proper order,
I could then follow Senator Harkin, or after you two are done?
Mr. BENNETT. If you have the time, fine
Mr. WELLSTONE. I have my own time.
Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, the Senator from Minnesota has his own
time. We have no objection to his using the time in that sequence.
With that, I yield to Senator Bond such time as he may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I extend my deepest thanks and appreciation
to the floor managers of the bill, the chairman and the ranking member.
I take the floor today because there is an issue that has been in and
out of
[[Page 18399]]
this body and is currently in conference negotiations. It is also going
to be the highlight of the news probably tomorrow. I understand the
Vice President is scheduled to talk about the HUB Zone Program. This is
a program that I authored in the Committee on Small Business and this
body unanimously accepted 3 years ago. I am concerned about it because
HUB zones are another example of this administration's record of
squandered opportunities.
To begin at the beginning, in 1997, the Committee on Small Business
reported out legislation to create the HUB Zone Program--historically
Underutilized Business Zones. This program seeks to use Federal
contracting, Federal purchasing, to generate business opportunities and
jobs in the areas of high poverty and high unemployment across the
Nation.
We created incentives to get small businesses to locate and bring
jobs to the distressed areas, areas that usually would not be
considered good places to locate in general business judgment. These
distressed areas lacked established customer bases, trained workforces.
They have been out of the economic mainstream. But the HUB Zone Program
was designed to bring small businesses into the area.
I came up with this idea after talking with a friend who headed up
the JOBS Program in Kansas City. I asked him about bringing more job
training programs to the inner city. He said: Stop sending us job
training programs; we have trained people and retrained and retrained.
He said: Send us some jobs. I thought: there's a good idea.
So we set up a program that was designed to reward small businesses
located in areas of high unemployment. Unfortunately, when we proposed
that idea, immediately the Clinton-Gore administration declared its
opposition. I have a letter from the Administrator of the SBA,
enclosing a statement of administrative policy:
. . . the administration remains concerned and opposed to .
. . provisions relating to HUB Zones.
The administration raised a red herring that has dogged the program
ever since. The alleged concern was that HUB Zones would somehow harm
the 8(a) Minority Business Development Program.
I ask unanimous consent the statement of administration policy be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Small Business Administration,
Washington, DC, November 6, 1997.
Hon. John J. LaFalce,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman LaFalce: The Administration supports
reauthorization of the programs of the Small Business
Administration and supports House passage of S. 1139. The
bill reauthorizes small business loans which assist tens of
thousands of small businesses each year and contributes to
the vitality of our economy. This bill recognizes the
importance of women and service disabled veteran
entrepreneurs and makes permanent SBA's microloan program
which helps those entrepreneurs who need small amounts of
credit. While we are not in total agreement on all its
provisions, we need this legislation to ensure that we can
continue to properly serve our small business customers.
The Administration appreciates the improvement made in the
version of the bill recently passed by the Senate which
maintains the current preference for businesses participating
in the 8(a) Business Development Program.
For the reasons stated in the attached Statements of
Administration Policy, the Administration remains concerned
about and opposed to S. 1139's provisions relating to HUB
Zones, contract bundling, and the extension of the Small
Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. The
Administration notes that the contract bundling provision is
less burdensome than previous versions. Should this
legislation be enacted, we will continue to work with the
Congress to modify these provisions.
The Administration appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the bill, and thanks the House and Senate Small Business
Committees and their staff for working with us on this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Aida Alvarez,
Administrator.
Enclosure.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget,
Washington, DC, September 8, 1997.
Statement of Administration Policy
The Administration strongly supports reauthorization of the
programs of the Small Business Administration and supports
Senate passage of S. 1139, with the changes described below.
The bill reauthorizes small business loan programs which
assist tens of thousands of small businesses each year and
contribute to the overall vitality of our economy. The
Administration also supports the increase in the government-
wide small business participation goal in federal contracting
from 20 to 23 percent, following a phase-in period and in
conjunction with the elimination of the Small Business
Competitiveness Demonstration Program.
However, the Administration strongly opposes the bill's
changes to current law on ``contract bundling,'' as well as
extension of the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration
Program and creation of the ``HUD Zone'' program. The
Administration will seek amendments to address these and
other concerns as addressed below.
Contract Bundling. The Administration is committed to
maintaining a strong role for small businesses in Federal
contracting, but is concerned that the proposed changes to
the current law contract bundling provisions could deny
taxpayers the cost savings and improved quality achievable by
appropriate consolidation of Federal contract requirements.
Therefore, the Administration urges the Senate to maintain
current law, which provides sufficient authority and
flexibility for the Administration to protect the important
interests of small businesses.
Small business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. The
Administration strongly opposes any extension of the Small
Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program. Small
businesses will substantially benefit from discontinuing this
program and lifting the unnecessary paperwork and reporting
burdens it imposes. Moreover, the Administration believes
that if this demonstration program is not allowed to
terminate the scheduled, S. 1139's small business
participation goal will be extremely difficult to achieve.
HUB Zones. The Administration strongly supports new efforts
to promote economic development in the Nation's distressed
urban and rural communities. The bill's HUB Zones provision,
however, could weaken one of the strongest tools for
achieving this objective by according the proposed program a
contracting priority equal to that of the 8(a) program.
The Administration has already proposed regulations and is
ready to begin pilots for the Empowerment Contracting Program
(ECP), a new contracting program targeted at distressed
communities. The Administration believes that these tests
should be permitted to proceed, and that they will
demonstrate the ECP's ability to accomplish the goals of the
HUD Zones provisions at less expense and without affecting
the 8(a) program.
Other administration concerns
The Administration will also seek amendments to:
Remove proposed restrictions on the SBA's ability to use
Women's Business Center funding to finance the costs of
administering the program. Removal of these restrictions is
important to ensuring the effective execution of this
program.
Maintain the ability of Small Business Development Center
(SBDCs) to charge appropriate fees for counseling services
provided under the program.
Authorize sufficient microloan technical assistance funding
to support the projected growth in this program.
Reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
Program for three years, rather than six. The three-year
authorization proposed by the Administration is consistent
with the authorization period for the companion Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, and provides a
reasonable period for both achieving and evaluating program
results.
Delete the proposed pilot program targeting technical
assistance to certain States. This provision would divert
scarce resources needed to administer the STTR and SBIR
programs.
Pay-as-you-go scoring
S. 1139 would increase direct spending; therefore it is
subject to the pay-as-you-go requirement of the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring
estimates of this bill are presented in the table below.
Final scoring of this legislation may differ from these
estimates.
Pay-as-you-go estimates
[In million of dollars]
Outlays
1998..............................................................1
1999..............................................................1
2000..............................................................1
2001..............................................................1
2002..............................................................1
1998-2002.........................................................5
Mr. BOND. The truth is, the 8(a) program has no reason to fear the
HUB Zone Program. In fact, they should be able to work nicely together.
The 8(a) program helps to seek minority programs own a greater stake in
the economy by focusing on ownership and development of small business.
[[Page 18400]]
The HUB Zone Program, on the other hand, focuses on developing jobs
and opportunities in distressed areas, many of them still minority
communities. One brings jobs; the other brings ownership. The two
programs are two prongs of the same fork. HUB Zones in 8(a) should not
fight with each other but focus on the common threads, such as contract
bundling that hurt them and all other small businesses alike.
Yesterday, I was pleased to receive a letter from my friends at the
National Black Chamber of Commerce in which they recognized how these
two programs must work together. Harry Alford, Chamber president and
CEO wrote:
To date, the Small Business Administration and other
agencies have not aggressively pursued the utilization of
this valuable vehicle--
Referring to HUB Zones.
There is a false perception that it is here to replace the
8a program. The author has been guilty of that same fear. In
further research and reflection, it appears that the anxiety
is unjustified. 8a is in the suburbs and nothing is in the
inner city. It will be the HUB Zone activity that will spur a
renaissance where economic activity is lacking. We must
support the HUB zones.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Mr. Alford be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
National Black
Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, September 18, 2000.
Re 8a and HUB zone programs
Hon. Kit S. Bond,
Chairman, Senate Small Business Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
Ranking Member, Senate Small Business Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. James Talent,
Chairman, House Small Business Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nydia Velazquez,
Ranking Member, House Small Business Committee, Washington,
DC.
Dear Leaders of the Small Business Committees: The 8a
program throughout the years has been a successful program.
It has yet to reach maximum levels of utilization but there
are few successful Black owned businesses today that have not
gone through the 8a program during their developmental years.
However, there is something the 8a program has been unable
to address and that is turning around the economic plight of
our distressed inner cities and underdeveloped rural
communities. The vast majority of 8a firms are in suburban
and developed neighborhoods. Their employees usually do not
come from distressed or underdeveloped communities. The 8a
program serves a particular need and should continue in its
present form. What is needed is a better spread of activity.
That is, most companies certified as 8a do not get contracts
from the program. According to the latest GAO report, in 1998
over 50% of 8a contracts went to 209 firms, which is only
3.5% of the 6000 firms in the program. This needs to be
improved.
In addition to keeping the 8a program intact, we must look
at rejuvenating our inner cities and depressed rural
communities. The key to that quest is the HUB Zone program.
The HUB Zone legislation is valuable to the economic future
of our targeted communities.
To date, the Small Business Administration and other
agencies have not aggressively pursued the utilization of
this valuable vehicle. There is a false perception that it is
here to replace the 8a program. This author has been guilty
of that same fear. In further research and reflection, it
appears that the anxiety is unjustified. 8a is in the suburbs
and nothing is in the inner city. It will be the HUB Zone
activity that will spur a renaissance where economic activity
is lacking. We must support the HUB Zones!
Therefore, the National Black Chamber of Commerce will
begin a ``roll out'' marketing the HUB Zone program to
municipalities throughout the nation. We will identify HUB
Zones in these communities and certify HUB Zone companies and
recruit companies to relocate in these zones. The HUB Zone
program will rise through our infrastructure of 180
affiliated chapters located in 37 states. If the federal
government will not hold sufficient workshops and properly
market the program, we will. It is too important to hold on a
shelf or at bay fearing it will cannibalize the 8a program.
The two have different roles.
To ensure either program will not adversely affect the
other, we propose the following. There should be a bi-annual
report from the Federal Procurement Data Center (GSA) that
will review the trends in contracting in both the HUB Zone
and 8a companies. This review should test the prospect of HUB
Zone contracts growing at a cost to 8a companies. If any such
trend exists, the Small Business Committees must implement
immediate redress. The first review can be due June 30, 2001.
We believe the above can be a win-win for both
philosophies. We ask your consideration and hope the SBA
reauthorization will be resolved in the near future. I will
be happy to entertain any queries or participate in any
meetings with your staffs. For the sake of small business, it
is time to aggressively move on.
Sincerely,
Harry C. Alford,
President & CEO.
Mr. BONDS. Mr. President, we resolved the issue of how 8(a) and HUB
zones would interact in 1997, by directing that the programs should not
compete with each other for contracts. We placed responsibility on the
contracting officers to monitor both programs, and to have discretion
to divert contracts to whichever program might be falling behind at a
given moment. That way both programs can succeed.
We incorporated language to that end in our legislation, and included
clarifying language in our committee report. The other body agreed to
our revised language, and the President signed the HUB Zone Act into
law on December 2, 1997. Everyone involved agreed to the final
resolution of this matter.
Subsequently, the Clinton/Gore administration decided that the
program they opposed was not so bad after all. In April of 1998, the
White House put out a press release in which the Vice President
announced an exciting new program, the HUB zone program, that would
likely create 25,000 new jobs. To judge from their press release, the
HUB Zone Act was a Presidential initiative that ``built upon'' a
Presidential Executive order. Apparently no legislation was involved,
which was news to those of us who developed it, worked hard, and passed
it.
The Vice President in his statement, however, overlooked one key
fact, which was that HUB zone small businesses would have to wait
nearly a full year before the program would start operating. It was not
until late March of 1999 that SBA finally got the program off the
ground and started taking applications. Even that occurred only after
an exchange of several letters between my committee and the SBA
Administrator. When we scheduled a hearing on SBA's budget request, SBA
apparently decided they had better be ready to announce the program, so
the Administrator came to the hearing ready to make that announcement.
That was exciting, but then more delay occurred. It took yet another
year for SBA to process and approve 1,000 applications from HUB zone
businesses. This is not nearly enough to meet the program's needs.
The HUB zone program called for 1 percent of Federal contracts to be
awarded to HUB zone firms in 1999, rising to 1.5 percent in 2000. One
thousand firms is not nearly enough to provide two to three billion
dollars in contracting. It just isn't enough.
Without enough certified companies, the HUB zone program is doomed to
failure. This fact did not go unnoticed by the contracting officers who
need to award the contracts, who cited the lack of certified companies
as an excuse not to do much work on the program.
We were puzzled by this failure. After a series of letters and
meetings, it appears at least two factors were involved. First, the SBA
chopped 10 percent of the HUB zone budget out of the program, and
diverted it to other SBA activities. SBA cited the need to pay for
incidental costs that HUB zone program implementation imposed on other
offices at the agency, but the ten percent whack continued even after
the program was finally up-and-running.
Second, it became apparent that a regulatory provision was keeping
small businesses from becoming qualified. In an attempt to have the HUB
zone program work effectively with other SBA programs, SBA included a
requirement that HUB zone firms be affiliated only with firms that are
eligible for those SBA contracting programs.
This provision was probably well-intended. But it became apparent
that this was preventing firms from participating. An otherwise-
qualified firm that was affiliated with a holding company to manage its
real estate (like its headquarters building) would be disqualified if
that holding company was
[[Page 18401]]
not eligible for other SBA programs. Those holding companies are
typically an administrative or tax convenience, so they had never
intended to participate in SBA programs, so their presence disqualified
the firm.
SBA informed us that they were concerned about the unintended effects
of this provision. In February of this year, they sought my committee's
guidance on whether they sought do away with this unduly restrictive
affiliation rule. On February 16th, I wrote Administrator Alvarez to
say that I agreed with that proposed change, and she wrote back on
February 25th to say she agreed and that SBA would do away with the
restriction.
It is now seven months later, and the regulations to implement the
change we agreed to have not been published. Another seven months of
delay and frustration. As Everett McKinley Dirksen once said, a year
here and a year there--pretty soon you're talking about real
obstructionism.
This program is designed to get jobs to people in areas where they
need work, the people moving off welfare, the people at the bottom
economic rung. I would be delighted if the Vice President backed up his
rhetoric when he talks about HUB zones by doing something about it.
They opposed it from the beginning. They claimed credit for it. They
have taken away the budget for it. They have imposed regulatory
roadblocks. They have not implemented it.
They have had their chance and they have not led. We are going to
continue to work with the SBA Administrator. We need SBA to get the
revised regulations out, to get the certification process moving. It
could have been an island of excellence in the sea of neglect in the
Clinton-Gore administration.
When the Vice President goes out tomorrow to claim credit for the
program and talk about it, perhaps somebody will ask him why 2\1/2\
years, almost 3 years after the program was passed, how come it is
still weighted down in a bureaucratic maze? I think it is a good
program. I think it is a good concept. My colleagues in this body on a
bipartisan basis unanimously agreed to it. This is a chance for the
administration to stop talking and do something.
I am from Missouri. Frothy eloquence neither satisfies nor convinces
me. I want to be shown. I hope, for a change, we will see some
significant action, rather than just talk, out of the administration.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, a slight change has been worked out in
the order of speeches. I now yield to the Senator from Colorado, who
will address the Treasury-Postal portion of this bill. That has been
done with the understanding and approval of the minority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I thank the manager, my friend from
Utah. I would like to review the Treasury and general government
section, which was added to the legislative branch bill in conference.
I am going to repeat a few numbers. They are rather dry, but they are
important numbers for my colleagues. Needless to say, I think this is
an important section and hope they support it. Budget constraints made
it impossible for the committee to fund all requests made by the
administration and by our colleagues in the Senate, too, but we tried
to accommodate all of the requests as far as we could.
I think, as does my ranking minority member, Senator Dorgan, we would
probably have preferred to bring this bill to the floor as a free-
standing bill, but time constraints prevented us from doing that. But I
believe it is still a good bill. Let me go over some of the numbers.
Mr. President, the Treasury and general government portion of this
conference report contains a total of $30,371,000 in new budget
authority. Of that, $14,679,607,000 is for mandatory programs over
which the Appropriations Committee has no control.
This conference report strikes a portion between congressional
priorities, administration initiatives, and agency requirements.
Preparation of the Senate committee-reported bill would not have been
possible without the hard work and cooperation of the ranking member of
the subcommittee, Senator Dorgan, and his staff.
As we consider the Treasury and general government portion of the
legislative branch conference report, I would like to highlight some of
the provisions before us:
We emphasize on the need for the Gang Resistance Education and
Training Program--called GREAT--by including $3 million more than the
administration request for grants to State and local law enforcement.
We provided a total of $93,751,000 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms to enforce existing gun laws. This includes:
$19,078,000 to fully staff and expand the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative, bringing the total to 50 cities. This program
allows ATF to track and prosecute those who supply guns to our youth.
Also, $23,361,000 for expanded ballistics imaging technology, and
$41,322,000 to significantly expand the Integrated Violence Reduction
Strategy to support criminal enforcement initiatives such as Project
Exile and Project Ceasefire to combat violent crime.
We have also included $13,700,000 for the Southwest Border Customs
staffing initiative, $130 million for the Customs automation effort,
called ACE, and $2,572,000 more to combat importation of items produced
by forced child labor.
Speaking of youngsters, Mr. President, I am pleased to note that we
have been able to fund the ONDCP anti-drug youth media campaign at $185
million.
We have spent over half a billion dollars in this program in the last
several years.
Title II of this section provides $96,093,000 for the U.S. Postal
Service and continues to require free mailing for overseas voters as
well as for the blind, as well as a 6-day delivery and prohibit the
closing or consolidation of small and rural post offices.
Title III contains a total of $691,315,000 for the Executive Office
of the President. This includes the Office of Management and Budget,
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Federal drug control
programs, and the funding for the media campaign to which I alluded.
There is $29,053,000 for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
for their program to transfer technology to State and local law
enforcement agencies. This is an ongoing program and has been a huge
benefit to both State and local law enforcement groups.
There is $206 million for the High Intensity Drug Traffickers Area
Program, called the HIDTA Program. This is an existing program, and the
funding is continued in this bill under the current level. HIDTA
Programs coordinate local, State, and Federal antidrug efforts. It has
met with a great deal of approval with local and State law enforcement.
As a matter of fact, many Senators requested expansion of this program,
but we had to live within our budget constraints.
Title IV is independent agencies, such as the Federal Elections
Commission, the General Services Administration, the National Archives,
as well as agencies involved in Federal employment issues, such as the
Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Merit Systems Protection Board,
the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Special Counsel, and the
Office of Personnel Management.
Also included in this title are mandatory accounts to provide for
Federal retiree annuities, health benefits, and life insurance. The
conferees have provided a total of $15,986,378,000 for this title in
fiscal year 2001.
For the first time in 4 years, the administration has requested
funding for courthouse construction. Although we have not been able to
fund the entire list due to limited resources, we have included funding
for four courthouse projects in fiscal year 2001, as well as an
additional four projects in fiscal year 2002.
Again, I thank the ranking member of our subcommittee, Senator
Dorgan,
[[Page 18402]]
for his hard work and support. Certainly this bill would not have been
possible without his assistance. Too often we forget the hard work of
staff--for Senator Dorgan, Chip Walgren and Steve Monteiro; for the
majority, Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards--who deserve a
great deal of credit for the long hours, nights, and sometimes weekends
spent in trying to put this section of the bill together. I believe
this conference report deserves the support of the Senate.
One last thing, Mr. President. We are still obviously in a state of
shock and loss at the death of our colleague, Senator Paul Coverdell,
who was a tireless worker in trying to reduce youth violence and drug
use. His life was a model of what youngsters should aspire to. In his
honor, we have named the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's
newest dormitory building at Glynco, GA, for him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the subcommittee
chairman, Senator Campbell, in bringing this hybrid bill to the Senate
floor. The process by which we have arrived here today is one which I
hope we will not replicate on other appropriations bills for the
remainder of the year. I will not belabor the point about the process.
It is unfortunate that the Senate was unable to enact its will on this
legislation when it initially was reported out of the full
Appropriations Committee on July 20. This is not a reflection on the
chairman--he produced a bill in a short period of time acting on the
instructions he was given. I cannot fault him for this. In fact, I
congratulate him for many of the good decisions which were made on the
substance of this legislation, but the fact remains that the Senate was
not well-served by this process.
The conference report before us today provides $15.6 billion in
discretionary budget authority for high priority law enforcement, trade
enforcement and good government programs. It is approximately $1.1
billion above the level of funding approved by the Appropriations
Committee in July. It is also $1.9 billion above last year's enacted
level. Yet is remains $900 million below the President's request. This
is one of the main problems with the underlying bill. While funds were
added for a number of administration priorities, the bill remains
deficient in a few areas, primarily regarding IRS staffing and counter-
terrorism programs. I have received assurances that additional funds
will be provided for a number of these deficiencies in later
appropriations bills. Former President Reagan used to say, ``Trust, but
verify.'' I trust my colleagues and look forward to verifying that
additional funds will be found.
In many ways, however, this conference report is a good bill.
Compared to the bill that was reported out of the Appropriations
Committee, many of the problems with that bill have been resolved.
Objectionable language regarding guns has been removed. Many agencies
are fully funded at the requested level. The Customs Service's computer
modernization program is well funded at $130 million. A good first step
has been made to reduce the court house construction backlog.
This bill represents a responsible and balanced piece of legislation.
I want to note that it has been a pleasure working with Senator
Campbell on this legislation. He and his staff have been professional
and diligent in representing our interests and assisting us in
formulating this legislation. I also want to take this opportunity to
thank his staff, Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards for their
hard work and cooperation in crafting this bill. I also wish to note
the work of my staff, Chip Walgren, Steve Monteiro, and Nicole
Kroetsch, on this legislation.
As the chairman noted, this bill funds base operations for the
Treasury Department, its agencies and other general government
operations. It maintains current operating levels in most instances and
annualizes the costs of FTE, full time equivalent, increases made in
last year's bill. It is designed to limit, as best we can, undue
impacts on personnel. We have tried to avoid funding cuts which would
require reductions in FTE after we increased FTE levels in fiscal year
2000.
Within the constraints imposed by our allocation, we have attempted
to accommodate Members' requests where possible. However, our
allocation also means that no Member received everything he or she
requested. I would note that we received requests from over 75
individual Members to include funding for programs they consider of
importance to their State or the Nation.
I must note that there were a number of deficiencies in this bill
when it was reported out of the committee. While I did not participate
in the drafting of the conference report, I am pleased that many of
those deficiencies have been addressed in this legislation.
One of my major concerns is funding for the Customs Service Automated
Commercial Environment, known as ACE. The original Senate bill had no
funds for Customs' new and crucial computer improvement program. The
existing system is the over-worked backbone of our trade flow system.
It has been experiencing an ever increasing rate of failures and
brownouts. Our trade volume has doubled over the last ten years. Based
on the rate of growth in trade from 1996 to 1999, Customs anticipates
an increase of over 50 percent in the number of entries by the year
2005.
This is an antiquated system which is becoming increasingly expensive
to operate. We need to fund ACE now. The House has provided $105
million for ACE and I am pleased that the conference report includes
$130 million for this crucial program.
Another issue that concerns me, as well as the administration, is
funding for the Internal Revenue Service. While this conference report
does better by the IRS than the original House or Senate bills, we are
still more than $300 million below the President's budget request. I
have spoken with the Commissioner of the IRS, Charles Rossotti, and I
share his fears that funding at these levels may result in staff cuts.
I ask unanimous consent that letters from Commissioner Rossotti dated
September 8, 2000 and September 15, 2000 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Department of the Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, DC, September 8, 2000.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: On July 27, the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on Treasury and General
Government agreed to a conference report on the Senate
Committee-passed and House-passed fiscal year 2001 spending
bill. The conference committees $8.494 billion funding level
is a $305 million reduction from the FY2001 request. Although
this funding level is an increase from FY2000, please
recognize that this level would lead to a further decline in
the already low levels of compliance activity, and threaten
the modernization of IRS computer systems.
Without funding for the Staffing Tax Administration for
Balance and Equity (STABLE) initiative, the IRS efforts to
provide increased service to taxpayers and reduce the decline
in audit coverage are at risk. Specifically, toll-free
service will drop from the current unacceptable level of 65
percent to less than 60 percent; similar private sector
service is above 90 percent. Even more disturbing, audit
coverage will continue to decline. Since FY 1998, that rate
has declined 49 percent. Furthermore, audits of taxpayers
earning more than $100,000 annually a rapidly expending
segment of society have declined almost 33 percent from
FY1998 to FY1999. Even our ability to collect taxes on
acknowledged overdue accounts is declining significantly.
The conference committee also did not fund the requested
$72 million for the Information Technology Investment Account
(ITIA). The entire $2 trillion of annual tax revenue
collected by the IRS is critically dependent on an obsolete
computer system developed over 35 years by the IRS. These
systems are so deficient they do not allow the IRS to
administer the tax system or provide essential service to
taxpayers at an acceptable level. Furthermore, because the
IRS experiences a 1.5 percent annual workload increase in
number of returns processed, either productivity must
increase through improved technology or staffing must
increase just to remain at the same inadequate service
levels. Through the ITIA account provided by Congress, the
IRS in the last 15 months has begun the enormous job of
modernizing these systems. We must have a consistent funding
stream for this program.
[[Page 18403]]
Lack of funding for the ITIA account will slow or even halt
projects currently underway, increasing the time, cost and
risk of our systems modernization.
In order to fulfill requirements of the IRS Restructuring
and Reform Act of 1998 and provide effective tax
administration, we must have full funding. I urge you to seek
ways to provide this funding. Please contact me if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Rossotti,
Commissioner.
____
Department of the Treasury,
Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, DC, September 15, 2000.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: As we discussed earlier today, I am
enclosing a set of talking points and a chart on the IRS' FY
2001 budget request and a description of the FTE commitment
needed to meet the requirements of the IRS Restructuring and
Reform Act of 1998. I cannot thank you enough for your
support for full funding of the agency's budget. It is
critical to carrying out the Restructuring Act and
safeguarding the nation's tax administration system.
If I can be of any further assistance or answer any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Charles O. Rossotti,
Commissioner.
Enclosures.
Talking Points for IRS Budget
background
Full funding for the IRS budget is $8.799 billion--the
House-passed conference report if $8.494 billion--or $305
million short of the FY 2001 request.
This $305 million funds two initiatives that are key to the
success of IRS' modernization effort (it also adds $4m for
Criminal Investigations and $3m for Electronic Tax
Administration):
$72 million for technology investments (ITIA) to upgrade
the IRS's obsolete and inherently deficient computer systems
$225 million for a hiring initiative (called STABLE--
Staffing Tax Administration for Balance and Equity) that will
restore the IRS staffing level near the level prior to
enactment of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
(RRA98).
key points
The IRS needs full funding to deliver on RRA98's mandates.
In terms of technology, IRS has developed a rigorous
management process to ensure that its past mistakes (i.e.
TSM) will not be repeated. The ITIA funding request is
necessary so that the IRS can continue efforts to make
technology investments that will have direct benefits to
taxpayers in 2001. GAO has repeatedly reported that ``until
IRS' antiquated information systems are replaced, they will
continue to hinder efforts to manage agency operations and
better serve taxpayers through revamped business practices''.
Without this funding, the IRS will have to stretch out many
of the projects it has planned to improve the administration
of the nation's tax system and service to taxpayers. For
example, the IRS plans to significantly improve its
communications capabilities with taxpayers--allowing service
representatives to answer taxpayer calls much more quickly
and accurately. This is just the first of a series of planned
upgrades to the decades old IRS technology infrastructure
that will dramatically improve service to taxpayers and could
be delayed.
The staffing initiative (STABLE) is necessary to enable the
IRS to stem the precipitous decline in its collection
activities and, at the same time, improve assistance to
taxpayers. Since 1997, the IRS has experienced an
extraordinary increase in demand for its limited staff. (See
attached table.) There are two main causes for this increase:
RRA98 created numerous new taxpayer rights provisions that
require additional time and resources for IRS employees. The
IRS estimates that more than 4500 FTEs were devoted to
meeting RRA98's demands--an effective reduction of 5.2
percent in FTE since 1997.
As the economy grows so does the IRS workload. Each year
the IRS experience workload growth of 1.8 percent--that
translates to an additional 1800 FTE each year just to keep
pace with increased processing and compliance requirements.
STABLE is designed to compensate for these increases. Even
with STABLE, total IRS staffing will be below the pre-RRA98
level.
IRS FTE RESOURCES IN FY 2001 WILL BE LESS THAN BEFORE RRA '98 WAS
PASSED, EVEN AT FULL FUNDING OF THE REQUEST
1997.......................................................... 102,622
1998.......................................................... ........
1999.......................................................... 99,596
2000.......................................................... 97,361
2001 (IRS request)............................................ 99,862
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 MANDATORY FTE INCREASES FROM RRA '98
[FTE by Program]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Customer Total
Code section EXAM Collection service Other FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1203--Termination of Employment for Misconduct; Incl 1203 ....... 107 ........ 19 126
Training......................................................
1205--Employee Training Program................................ 113 71 177 7 368
3001--Burden of Proof.......................................... ....... .......... 2 3 5
3201--Innocent Spouse Case Processing & Adjudication........... 421 14 118 178 731
3301--Global Interest Netting.................................. 73 19 10 1 103
3401--Due Process in Collections............................... ....... 108 78 170 356
3417--Third Party Notices...................................... 150 270 150 17 587
3462--Offers in Compromise Case Processing..................... ....... 1,536 136 1 1,673
3501--Explanation of Joint & Several Liability................. ....... 19 ........ 1 20
3705--Spanish language assistance/live assistor option/contact ....... .......... 36 27 63
on manually generated notices.................................
****--All Other Codes.......................................... ....... 10 353 166 529
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 757 2,154 1,060 589 4,560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, in the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act of
1998, we mandated specific goals for the IRS to meet in terms of
taxpayer assistance and IRS performance. However, we continue to deny
the IRS the resources it needs to meet these mandated goals. This is an
administration concern, and it is my concern as well. We must do better
by the IRS--if not on this bill--then in subsequent legislation. It is
important that we maintain the concept and provision of ``service'' by
the Internal Revenue Service.
I am pleased we were able to fund the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign at last year's level of $185 million. While this is still $10
million less than requested by the administration, it represents a
continued commitment to getting the message to our young people that
drugs can kill. To date we have appropriated over $500 million for the
media campaign--with mixed results. We had two hearings this year on
the campaign where many of these concerns were raised. While it remains
a somewhat controversial program, I will continue to work with the
chairman and others ensure that the campaign bears identifiable and
quantifiable results.
Finally, I am pleased that the conference report fully funds the
administration's requests for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms to enforce existing gun laws. We fully fund the request to
expand existing ballistics identification activities and to expand the
Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, YCGII, program into 12
additional cities. Also, the objectionable gun preference provision--
inserted in the original Senate bill without debate--has been dropped.
This was a wise action and I congratulate the chairman and others for
taking this step.
Again, while I strongly protest the process by which this conference
report was drafted, in most respects--this is a responsible bill. It
goes far to meeting our commitments to law enforcement and our Federal
employees. I am committed to working with Senators Stevens and Byrd and
the leadership to find additional funds for the IRS and
counterterrorism on subsequent legislation.
Mr. President, briefly, the statements made by the Senator from
Colorado, Mr. Campbell, are accurate statements. He has done an
outstanding job. I am very pleased to work with him. We worked closely
together on this legislation.
He knows I feel somewhat aggrieved by the process. This bill has not
followed the normal course in coming from the full Appropriations
Committee to the floor of the Senate. It was taken in an unusual
circumstance. It was put into conference, and now a conference report
comes to the floor. There are Senators who perhaps would have offered
amendments on the floor who were precluded from doing so. That really
should not be the case.
This is not a good process. That is not Senator Campbell's fault. The
Senator from Colorado is someone who did what was required of him with
respect to the leadership decision. I hope we will not have this
approach used in future bills. I will have more to say about the
Agriculture appropriations bill which is supposed to be in conference
now but on which there is no conference. I will speak more about that
at a later moment.
My sense is much of what is in this bill is on target. We are about
$900 million below the budget request. We made
[[Page 18404]]
progress in a whole range of areas. I was very concerned about the
program called the ACE Program, the computer modernization program at
the Customs Department, known as ACE--Automated Commercial Environment.
The fact is the system for keeping track of what is coming in and
going out of this country in trade, the system used by the Customs
Service is simply melting down. We need to modernize that system. This
program designed to do that was not funded in some of the earlier
versions. The bill that is now on the floor does begin that funding
with $130 million, a pretty robust amount of funding. For that I am
most appreciative.
This legislation is still short with respect to the Internal Revenue
Service needs, with respect to some counterterrorism appropriations,
with respect to an account called unanticipated needs. The chairman of
the full committee has indicated to me that while this is the
conference we are dealing with and we have to take action on this
conference report, he anticipates being able to respond to those
deficiencies in another circumstance. We will probably have an omnibus
appropriations bill. The chairman of the full committee has indicated
the deficiencies that exist will be responded to in some omnibus bill
at the end.
We will have to wait and see if that happens, but I expect perhaps
this conference report was held for some period of time and certainly
would be held at the White House. There is some discussion of a
potential veto unless the holes are filled, especially with respect to
enforcement capabilities at the Internal Revenue Service.
I say that only because there are more and more sophisticated schemes
being used by some of the largest corporate taxpayers about which the
Secretary of the Treasury has talked a great deal. They do need
enforcement capability to penetrate some of those schemes that are used
to avoid paying a fair share of taxes.
Pat Raymond, Tammy Perrin, and Lula Edwards on the majority side, and
Chip Walgren, Steve Monteiro, and Nicole Koretsch spent a lot of time
on this bill. As is the case with the legislative branch appropriations
bill, this bill, the Treasury-general government appropriations bill,
much credit must go to a lot of people who worked a lot of hours to
make sure we funded these agencies properly.
I wanted to make those points and say I do not like this process. It
has produced a bill that is pretty good in almost all respects except
for a handful of things that need some remedy. The chairman of the full
committee has told me, and I think he has told the White House and
others, that he intends to respond to those deficiencies in some other
venue as we go along in the appropriations process, and I appreciate
that.
As we work to finish our remaining appropriations bills, it is my
fervent hope that we can do this in the regular order. Bills passed by
the full Appropriations Committee in the Senate should be brought to
the Senate floor for debate and amendment, and then we send them to
conference. When we have debate and amend a bill in the Senate, as we
did with the Agriculture appropriations bill, which is critically
important--it has my amendment that gets rid of sanctions on the
shipments of agricultural products and stops using food and medicine as
a weapon. The Senate voted for it by a wide margin.
It has the amendment Senator Jeffords and I, Senator Gorton and
others offered on reimportation of prescription drugs which would force
the repricing of prescription drugs in this country. We adopted that.
The House passed their bill the early part of July. We passed ours
mid to late July. I am a conferee, and there has not been a conference.
My expectation is there will never be a conference because they do not
want to have a conference on something that controversial. Either one
of those put to a separate vote in the Senate and the House will pass
by 70 percent. I am worried this process will be used to hijack that
bill.
I serve notice that I intend to inquire of the majority leader later
this afternoon when he comes to the floor or tomorrow at some great
length saying, we lost the issue last year and were hijacked to stop
using food and medicine as a weapon. They adjourned the conference and
never reconvened. It looks as if they are fixing to not convene a
conference this year. That is not the way we should expect the Senate
to do its business. I am sorry to get off on that for a moment.
Again, I appreciate the good work of Senator Campbell and look
forward to not only proceeding with what is in this bill, which I think
is good work, but also remedying a half dozen or so areas that I think
come up short of what we need to do, and I think the chairman of the
full committee has said we need to do that.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to my friend and
colleague from North Dakota.
His advice and counsel has been extremely important to me. I
appreciate his comments very much. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, I would have preferred to bring the bill to the floor as a
self-standing bill, too. We are simply running out of time with only
less than 3 weeks, I guess, of actual workdays before we adjourn for
the year. It just was not possible this year.
But I look forward to working with him. If we do bring some emergency
spending bill to the floor through the full committee, I would ask to
work with him to try to fill in some of the holes we have missed in
this bill.
With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
Grand forks federal building and united states courthouse
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, there are a number of important national
provisions contained within the conference report. One provision,
however, is both of national importance as well as of importance to the
people of North Dakota. I am especially proud that the bill names the
Federal Building and United States Courthouse in Grand Forks, ND after
Judge Ronald N. Davies.
The late Judge Davies is one of North Dakota's proudest sons. While
he grew up in Grand Forks, he is also claimed by Fargo. It was while
serving as a judge in Fargo that President Eisenhower appointed him to
the Federal bench in 1955. While not a household name, Judge Davies has
gone down in history as the judge who ordered Arkansas Governor Orval
Faubus to integrate the Little Rock public schools 43 years ago this
month. It is only fitting that the Federal building in his hometown--
constructed the year he was born--bear his name.
Some of my colleagues may have had the opportunity to visit the
Norman Rockwell exhibit at the Corcoran Gallery of Art in downtown
Washington. Among the many examples of Americana is the famous Rockwell
painting of a little African-American girl, hair in pigtails, head held
high, being escorted to school by U.S. Marshals. The painting puts a
human face on an important turning point in our Nation's history. It
was the result of the ruling by this modest and unassuming son of North
Dakota that our Nation took one more step toward expanding the American
dream to all Americans.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this provision. I ask
unanimous consent that articles from the Grand Forks Herald and Fargo
Forum regarding Judge Davies be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Grand Forks Herald, Aug. 6, 2000]
A Fitting Tribute to Judge
federal building will be renamed for judge ronald n. davies--the man
who made landmark decision on school desegregation
(By Marilyn Hagerty)
Soon it will be the Ronald N. Davies Federal Building and
Courthouse in Grand Forks. The neoclassical building at 102
N. Fourth St. will be renamed to honor the late federal judge
from North Dakota who in 1957 made what is considered the
landmark decision on racial integration in our nation.
Born in Crookston in 1904--the same year work began on the
Federal Building--Davies grew up in Grand Forks.
The Appropriations Committee of the U.S. Senate last month
approved renaming the building in memory of the late Judge
Davies.
[[Page 18405]]
The legislation was proposed by Sen. Byron Dorgan D-N.D.,
who said: ``I can think of no better way to celebrate his
contributions and preserve his legacy for future
generations.'' A date for the renaming ceremony will be
announced.
Davies was appointed to the federal bench by President
Dwight Eisenhower in 1955. Two years later, he made history
when on a temporary assignment to Arkansas he ruled that
Little Rock public schools must allow black students to
attend immediately.
guard called
The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled three years earlier that
segregation was unconstitutional. Before a desegregation plan
could take effect in Little Rock, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus
called out the National Guard to prevent it.
On Sept. 7, 1957, Davies ordered Faubus to stop
interfering. The governor called Davies' ruling high-handed
and arbitrary, but the National Guard was removed. On Sept.
23, nine black children entered the high school, and white
mobs rampaged. The children were removed after sporadic
battles between police and rioters, according to reports by
The Associated Press.
Two days later, the ``Little Rock Nine'' entered the school
under the protection of 1,200 soldiers sent by Eisenhower.
Judge Davies, by then was widely known for his work in
Arkansas. He often was referred to as ``the stranger in
Little Rock.'' This stemmed from an article in Newsweek in
late September in which he was featured as ``This Week's
Newsmaker.''
When a national television broadcast branded him as ``an
obscure federal judge,'' he responded: ``We judges are
obscure--and should be. That is want I want--to return
quietly to the obscurity from which I sprang.''
Before going to Arkansas, Davies said, he never had heard a
desegregation case. He insisted he was only trying to do his
job.
``I have no delusions about myself,'' he was reported to
have said. ``I'm just one of a couple of hundred federal
judges all over the country. That all.''
Davies was named to senior U.S. U.S. District Judge status
in 1971 in Fargo. He died there in 1996 at the age of 91.
highlights
Significant honors awarded Judge Ronald N. Davies:
North Dakota's highest honor, the Theodore Roosevelt
Roughrider Award, was presented to him in 1987. His portrait
hangs in the Hall of Fame in the State Capitol.
Named outstanding alumnus of Georgetown University Law
Center, Washington, D.C., in 1958.
Given an honorary doctor of law award by the UND School of
Law in 1961.
Received Martin Luther King Holiday Award in 1986 by North
Dakota Peace Coalition.
In 1961, the Davies family attended graduation ceremonies
at UND for three rewarding reasons: Son Timothy received a
degree from the law school; son Thomas earned a degree in
business administration, and Judge Davies delivered the
commencement address.
In 1966, Judge Davies rendered a decision he considered one
of his most important cases--Stromsodt vs. Parke-Davis and
Co. The case was tried in Grand Forks and involved a damage
suit against Parke-Davis, one of the nation's largest drug
manufacturers, for an unsafe vaccine administered to Shane
Stromsodt at the age of five months in 1959. The child, who
suffered irreparable brain damage, was represented by
prominent torts attorney Melvin Belli. On Sept. 29, 1966,
Davies awarded $500,000 to the 7-year-old Stromsodt.
____
Davies, The Man--Who Was Judge Ronald N. Davies?
He was competitive, ambitious, courageous. He was a
lawyer's lawyer and a lawyer's judge. He had a sense of humor
that would knock your socks off.
That's what children of the late Judge Ronald N. Davies say
about him.
A daughter, Katherine Olmscheid, of Lafayette, Calif., was
a senior in high school at the time her father was making
headlines in Little Rock, Ark.
She says: ``I knew what was going on, but I was so used to
Dad being a take-charge kind of man that I just expected he
was being very thoughtful about every decision he made. He
did tell me that he well knew that his upholding the law in
this case would not bode well for him in appointments to a
higher court.
``He was competitive and ambitious, but when it came to the
law and the courage to uphold it, there was never any
question. He was a father who took time to talk to me and
explain what was happening, but he never focused on the drama
of it.''
Thomas Davies, a son who is a municipal judge in Fargo,
says his dad had a favorite saying: ``Better to be silent and
thought a fool than to open your mouth and erase all doubt.''
Judge Ronald N. Davis was short--only 5 feet, 1 inch. But
his son says nobody mentioned his height. If they did, the
judge would launch into a good-natured dissertation about
people who were too tall for their own good.
Thomas Davies says his father knew who he was and what he
had to do. ``He respected lawyers, and they respected him. He
never lost contact with the average person. He knew and liked
the janitors, elevator operators, secretaries, waitresses,
labor people and their bosses. He could, in my estimation,
have been elected to any office in state, local or federal
levels; but he had the job he wanted, and he loved it.''
Jody Eidler, a daughter who lives in Wheaton, Ill.,
remembers her father's sense of humor. ``It was the best of
anyone we knew. Ask any lawyer who appeared in his courtroom.
I used to meet him in Chicago when he came to hear cases. I'd
sit back and marvel at how smooth he was with the big-city
attorneys. He handled them with kid gloves.''
Davies' sons and daughters talk of the ``round table'' the
judge held at the Elks Club in Fargo. He would have lunch
with different lawyers, and he always would make room for one
of his children if they happened to drop by.
Olmscheid says: ``Dad was a stickler for his name being
Ronald N. Davies. That N. initial thing was important to him,
so I sure hope the powers that be take that into
consideration when renaming the building.''
As an aside, she said: ``Dad was as proud of being a Sigma
Nu as he was about just about anything else. He always sang
the UND and Sigma Nu songs to us as we drove around Grand
Forks on warm summer nights. He loved the University of North
Dakota. He got his law degree from Georgetown, but he was a
UND man all the way.''
Along with Jody, Katharine and Thomas, the children of
Judge Davies include Jean Marie Schmith and Timothy Davies, a
trial lawyer with the firm of Nilles, Hansen and Davies in
Fargo.
Judge Ronald N. Davies was born in Crookston on Dec. 11,
1904, two years before the completion of the U.S. Post Office
and Court-house--now the U.S. Federal Building that will be
named after him.
He was the son of a former Crookston Times editor and Grand
Forks Herald city editor, Norwood Davies, and Minnie Quigley
Davies.
His interest in the legal world grew as he tagged after his
grandfather, who was chief of police in East Grand Forks. The
family moved to Grand Forks in 1971, and Davies received a
diploma from Central High School in 1922.
He went on to UND and worked at a soda fountain and in a
clothing store to help with expenses. He graduated in 1927.
He earned his law degree from Georgetown University Law
Center in Washington, D.C., in 1930. As a student, he worked
for the Capitol police force.
Davies began his long legal and judicial career in 1932,
when he was elected as judge of the Municipal Court in Grand
Forks. He served in that capacity until 1940, when he went
into private practice. He was called into military service
after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. He entered the
U.S. Army as a first lieutenant and was discharged in 1946 as
a lieutenant colonel.
Davies was married in Grand Forks on Oct. 10, 1933, to
Mildred Doran, who was born in Arvilla, N.D., and grew up in
Grand Forks. She was a graduate of St. John's Hospital School
of Nursing in Fargo. She died in 1994.
The family includes five children, 20 grandchildren and 37
great grandchildren.
____
[From the Fargo Forum, Aug. 11, 2000]
Idea to Honor Judge Davies is Appropriate
(By Terry DeVine)
North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan's introduction of
legislation that would rename the federal courthouse in Grand
Forks in honor of the late federal judge Ronald Davies of
Fargo, who handed down the landmark ruling in the 1957 Little
Rock, Ark., school desegregation case, is certainly
appropriate.
Davies may have been a diminutive man, standing only 5-
foot, 1-inch tall, but he was a Paul Bunyan of the law when
he sat on the bench. His courtroom was a model of decorum,
but never humorless. He had a way of keeping serious matters
from becoming too overwhelming.
``If things were too tense, he'd crack a joke in court to
lighten up the atmosphere,'' says his son, Fargo Municipal
Judge Tom Davies. ``The dad at home was not the judge you saw
in court. He was serious in court but had a real good sense
of humor.''
The Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved
Dorgan's legislation to change the name of the building to
the judge Ronald N. Davies Federal Building and Courthouse.
The provision is included in a larger bill that will be voted
on by the full Senate when it returns from its recess in
September.
The elder Davies was a graduate of the University of North
Dakota and Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C. While in
law school, he worked as a Capitol policeman.
``I'd have loved to see that,'' says his son. ``I'm sure my
dad thought that was a hoot. He did think the rest of the
world was too tall. His nightstick must have been almost as
long as he was tall.''
Former North Dakota senator and power broker Bill Langer
nominated Davies for the federal bench in 1954, and he was
appointed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1955.
At the time, Langer reportedly said Ron Davies would be
appointed to the federal
[[Page 18406]]
bench or there would be no federal judges in North Dakota.
The Senate obliged Langer.
Tom Davies says his father was fully aware of the awesome
power a federal judge possesses, but it only made him more
careful in the way he wielded it. He never let it go to his
head, Davies says.
Davies had practiced law for several years in Grand Forks,
N.D., before moving to Fargo following his appointment to the
federal bench. He was sent to Arkansas to help clear what he
thought was a backlog of routine cases.
Another federal judge ordered the integration of Little
Rock schools, and Judge Davies ordered the integration
process be accelerated at Central High School. Arkansas Gov.
Orville Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to stop
the admission of black students. President Eisenhower
federalized the National Guard troops and nine black students
were admitted to the previously all-white school.
It was a scary time, and there were death threats aplenty,
but Davies stood his ground. He was the right man at the
right time for the nation.
Davies paid his dues long before his federal appointment by
``belonging to just about every organization that ever
existed, with the exception of the Communist Party.''
``He was as active as any human being could ever be,'' says
Tom Davies. ``He was a sparkplug. He never stopped
recognizing people. He said hello to everyone. He was never
arrogant.''
Davies says his father was always available to the media,
but never once took advantage of many opportunities to speak
or write about the Little Rock ruling for large sums of money
in his later years.
``I shouldn't be paid to talk about doing my job,'' he
said.
His son said his father, who died in 1996 at the age of 91,
spoke about Little Rock only once on television when he did a
45-minute show with Fargo-Moorhead radio/television host Boyd
Christenson.
Men like Judge Davies should be remembered. Naming a
federal courthouse in his honor is a fine idea.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before the Senator starts, I ask the
Chair: I am in order to follow the Senator from Iowa; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is in order in the
request.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time do I
have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 25 minutes
under her control but has not yielded a specific amount of time.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I believe Senator Wellstone is speaking under his own
time. I will yield such time as he may consume to Senator Harkin.
Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from California for her graciousness
in yielding me this time.
(The remarks of Mr. Harkin are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Minnesota is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say at the very beginning to
my colleague from Utah, for whom I have a lot of respect, that none of
what I am about to say is aimed directly at him personally; quite the
opposite. But I want to come out here and take very serious exception
with the process and the result.
We finalized the legislative appropriations bill. Rather than having
the Treasury and Postal appropriations bill coming directly from the
floor of the Senate and having the opportunity to offer amendments,
that bill was put into the legislative appropriations conference
report. The two bills were basically linked to one another. This is a
terrible way to legislate.
I say to the majority leader and others that we have been at this
before and that I am out here on the floor of the Senate again today
saying I take very serious exception to this. I cannot represent the
interests of the people in the State of Minnesota very well when there
is no opportunity to come to this floor and have amendments and try to
make a difference.
I didn't come to the floor of the Senate to be a potted plant or a
piece of furniture. In this particular case, I take exception with a
couple of different things.
First of all, we have raised our salary to $141,300, and there is no
opportunity for an amendment to be offered on the floor of the Senate
to block this increase, no opportunity at all, no opportunity for any
debate on this with an amendment. I can understand how the majority
leader or someone on the majority party did not want to have an up-or-
down vote. But I will tell you that I find it is very difficult to
square raising our salary to $141,300 at the same time we are not
willing to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over a 2-year
period. It is just unbelievable to me.
I want to be clear about it again. The Congress, by taking the
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill and putting the salary increase
into it, then putting it into a legislative appropriations conference
report, is basically raising our pay without even taking a vote on it.
I want to tell you that is what gets us in trouble with the people we
represent. This is exactly what gets us in trouble with the people we
represent, and for very good reason.
Maybe the majority leader didn't want to have an up-or-down vote.
Maybe the majority party didn't want to have an up-or-down vote. But I
wanted an opportunity to come here to the floor of the Senate and say
no way am I going to support raising our salary to $141,000 a year when
this Senate and this conference has not been willing to raise the
minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.15 an hour.
To be very honest with Senators, I might raise another question,
which is: Have we earned the salary increase? Have we passed a
Patients' Bill of Rights? No. Have we passed prescription drugs
extended onto Medicare? No. Have we reauthorized the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act? No. Have we reauthorized the Small Business
Administration? No.
In all due respect, we have done hardly any of the work of the
people. We have not done much at all when it comes to the basic issues
that affect the lives of the people we represent. Yet we are raising
our salary to $141,000 a year. We are putting it into an unrelated
conference report so that there will not be a vote on it. I think that
is not a very direct way of conducting business.
I want to remind my colleagues of the words of Senator Kennedy 4
years ago, when the Senate voted to gut rule XXVIII. That is the Senate
rule limiting the scope of conference, and we are violating this
conference report. I quote from Senator Kennedy. This was 4 years ago,
and it is so true to be prophetic.
The rule that a conference committee cannot include
extraneous matter is central to the way the Senate conducts
its business. When we send a bill to a conference we do so
knowing that the conference committee work is likely to
become law. Conference reports are privileged. Motions to
proceed to them cannot be debated, and such reports cannot be
amended. So conference committees are already very powerful.
But if conference committees are permitted to add completely
extraneous matters in conference--that is, if the point of
order against such conduct becomes a dead letter--conferees
will acquire unprecedented power. They will acquire the power
to legislate in a privileged, unrenewable fashion on
virtually any subject. They will be able to completely bypass
the deliberative process of the Senate.
Mr. President, it is a highly dangerous situation. It will make all
of us less willing to send bills to conference and will leave all of us
vulnerable to passage of controversial, extraneous legislation any time
a bill goes to conference. I hope the Senate will not go down this
road. Today the narrow issue is the status of one corporation under the
labor laws, but tomorrow the issue might be civil rights, States
rights, health care, education, or anything else. It might be a matter
much more sweeping than the labor law issue that is before us today.
That is exactly what we have done. What we have here today is a mini-
omnibus measure, and I think it is exactly the road that Senator
Kennedy was warning we should not go down.
I say to colleagues that I think every Senator ought to object to
what we are doing--every Senator, Democrat and Republican alike.
We had an opportunity in the later months of this summer when we came
back to bring this appropriations bill to the floor. We could have
dealt with the Treasury-Postal appropriations
[[Page 18407]]
bill. If we had, I would have brought an amendment to knock out our
salary increase. I would have added an amendment that said we do not
raise our salary increase to $141,000 a year until we raise the minimum
wage. I would like to have had an up-or-down vote. All of us would have
been held accountable, but that is not the way it was done. The
majority party apparently doesn't want to have any votes any longer on
any amendments whereby we will be held accountable.
Instead, anytime a Member desires--and I hope other Democrats will
speak on this--it is true, they can take unrelated issues in matters,
put it into a conference report, vote to raise our salary to $141,000 a
year when we are not willing to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to
$6.15 over 2 years. They are in the majority. They can put it into an
unrelated conference report, bulldoze it over us, and pass this
legislation.
As a Senator from Minnesota, I am not going to let it happen without
speaking about it. There will come a time when they may not be in the
majority and there will come a time when they may find provisions that
are put into conference reports unrelated to the scope of that
conference report antithetical to the values they believe in, against
what they think is right, against a Member's ability to represent their
State, and they won't like it one bit. But that is exactly what has
happened today. It is not because of the Presiding Officer right now,
the Senator from Utah. But I believe this is truly an egregious
process.
Again, one more time--just to be clear to those who are following
this debate--I want to be on record. As a Senator from the State of
Minnesota, people did not elect me to vote for a salary increase to
$141,000 a year, people did not elect me to be here not in a position
to bring out any amendments on the floor of the Senate to represent
their interests, and people certainly did not elect me to let others
put a salary increase--we now go up to $141,000 a year--in a conference
report so we don't have an up-or-down vote on it without someone
speaking out against it.
I speak out against it. I am not showboating. I speak out against it
not because I don't think Senators should make a decent salary. First
of all, what bothers me the most is I don't think we have done much. I
think this has been a do-nothing Senate. I don't think we have done
much on most of the crucial issues that affect people's lives. I am not
sure what we have done to earn this increase.
Second, and I think even more importantly, I don't know how in the
world we can justify raising our salary to $141,000 a year when we are
not even willing to raise the minimum wage. There are 10 million people
in this country who would directly benefit, and many others who would
indirectly benefit, from the raise of the minimum wage. There are
119,826 Minnesotans who would benefit from a $1 increase in the minimum
wage over 2 years, and if we don't do that, the minimum wage increase
that we did pass has essentially lost all of its value. It is not even
keeping up with inflation.
So colleagues understand, we hear a lot about the booming economy. It
is true, but not all the new jobs that are being created are living
wage jobs. In 1998, 29 percent of all the workers were in jobs paying
poverty-level wages. In some of the jobs where we have seen the
greatest growth--waiter staff, cashiers, janitors, and retail sales
people--people earn less than half of what is called a living wage.
A study released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors in 1998 showed that
nearly 4 out of 10 Americans visiting soup kitchens for emergency food
were working; they were working poor people.
I don't think I want to go into the statistics. We have so many
people in this country who could benefit. We have people who work 52
weeks a year, 40 hours a week, and they are still not out of poverty.
The raise in the minimum wage would make a real difference, from $5.15
to $6.15 over a 2-year period.
What are we doing instead? Instead, we are raising our salary to
$141,000 a year. We are raising our salary through the worst process,
whereby rather than risking someone bringing an amendment out and
having an up-or-down vote, someone has put the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill into the legislative appropriations conference
report. Quite clearly, it was done in a very deliberate way so we
wouldn't have to have an up-or-down vote.
In conclusion, I object to this process. I believe one of the worst
things we ever did was make it possible for the majority party--and I
promise the Chair that when we are in the majority I will take the same
position--to basically waive the rule and insist measures that are put
in conference committee be related to the subject material, that we no
longer have to deal with the scope of the conference, the worst thing
we could have ever done in violation of this constitutional process,
and certainly in violation of the very notion of accountability.
We have been down this road before. I have come to the Chamber many
times and objected to this. This time I believe even more strongly in
it. I say to my colleagues, if you want to raise the salary, go ahead,
but don't do it in this way. And don't put one appropriations bill that
we should have been able to vote on into an unrelated appropriations
bill conference report, and then bring it to the floor where there is
no opportunity for amendments. I can't have an amendment that says we
shouldn't raise our salary to $141,000, but I will vote against this.
And I am sorry because the Presiding Officer and other Senators have
done good work and in both these appropriations bills there is funding
for a lot of important work.
I am going to vote no for two reasons. A, I am on record objecting to
the way we are conducting our business. I am on record in opposition to
the way the majority party is bulldozing over the right of the minority
to come to the floor of the Senate with amendments. Second, I am voting
against this appropriations bill because I think it is an outrageous
proposition that the Senate should vote to raise our salaries to
$141,000 a year and we are not willing to vote, to even have a debate
much less a vote, on raising the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to
$6.15 an hour over a 2-year period so people who work hard all year-
round and are still poor, who don't earn a decent living and cannot
take care of their children, are not even given the opportunity to be
able to do better for themselves and their children.
I think it is egregious. It is absolutely egregious what has
happened. I am in opposition to it. I hope other Senators will speak
out in opposition to the process and in opposition to the Congress
being so generous with our own salary and oh so stingy when it comes to
looking out for the interests of many hard-working, working poor people
in this country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 14 minutes of Senator
Dorgan's time be yielded to Senator Graham from Florida and that 6
minutes of my time be yielded to Senator Graham of Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the managers of this bill for
their hard work in putting forth this legislation which provides
federal funding for numerous vital programs in the Treasury Department
and the General Government. However, I am sad to say, once again, I
find myself in the unpleasant position of speaking before my colleagues
about unacceptable levels of parochial projects in another
appropriations Conference Report.
The amount of pork in this bill is a tremendous burden which is
patently unfair to the millions of hard-working American taxpayers, who
do not possess the resources to get a ``pet project'' placed in their
backyard.
The list of projects which received priority billing is quite long
and the dollar amounts are staggering. Nevertheless, I will highlight a
few of the egregious violations.
[[Page 18408]]
The conference report contains numerous provisions for millions of
dollars to construct new courthouses in specific locations such as Los
Angeles, CA, Richmond, VA, and Seattle, WA. Again, why are these
particular sites so deserving of funding, that they receive specific
earmarks to fund their construction? Unfortunately, this spending
frenzy is not limited to courthouses. Somebody in either the other body
or the Senate has concluded that the SSA National Computer Center in
Woodlawn, MD deserves $4.3 million, and the Richard Bolling Federal
Building in Kansas City, MO deserves $26 million are so unique that
they should receive specific earmarks.
Furthermore, this conference report irresponsibly expands the
definition of what constitutes emergency spending to get around the
spending caps. For example, this report designates $9 million in
funding for repairs to the underground garage in the Cannon House
Office Building as emergency spending. I do not think this is what the
American taxpayer would envision as a true emergency.
This report also spends nearly $7 million more for salaries and
expenses for the Treasury Department than was requested by either the
House or the Senate.
The list of spending excesses goes on. This bill provides a
staggering $14.8 million for communications infrastructure, including
radios and related equipment, associated with law enforcement
responsibilities for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. This item is but
one example of the fiscal abuse surrounding the staging of the Olympic
Games in Salt Lake.
This past year, Congressman Dingell and I requested the General
Accounting Office to conduct an audit into Federal financial support
for U.S. cities hosting the Olympics. Specifically, we asked the GAO to
answer two questions: (1) the amount of federal funding and support
provided to the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympics, and planned for the 2002
Winter Olympics, and the types of projects and activities that were
funded and supported, and; (2) the Federal policies, legislative
authorizations, and agency controls in place for providing the Federal
funds and support to the Olympic Games. What the GAO discovered is
that, ``at least 24 Federal agencies reported providing or planning to
provide a combined total of almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars, for
Olympic-related projects and activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer
Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.''
I say to my friends, the number is staggering, but what is more
shocking, but not too surprising once an egregious practice begins and
goes unchecked, is the way in which Federal funds flowing to Olympic
host cities has accelerated. The GAO found that the American taxpayers
provided about $75 million in funding for the 1984 Los Angeles games,
by 1996 the bill to the taxpayers had escalated to $609 million, and
for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, that bill to
American taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion.
That is outrageous, Mr. President, and it is a disgrace. It is a
disgraceful practice to put these pork-barrel projects on this
appropriations bill. I say to the Senator from Utah who is on the floor
now, if another pork-barrel project that is not authorized for the
Olympic games is put on any appropriations bill, I will filibuster the
bill until I fail to do so.
I wrote a letter to the Senator from Utah on September 19, 1997. In
it I said:
I am writing about the recent efforts to add funds--
This is 1997--
to appropriations measures for the 2002 Winter Olympics in
Salt Lake City.
I went on to say:
I recognize that proper preparation for the Olympics is
vital. . . . It seems to me, though, the best course of
action would be to require the U.S. Olympic Committee, in
coordination with the Administration and Congress, to prepare
and submit a comprehensive plan detailing, in particular, the
funding anticipated to be required from the taxpayers. . . .
Please call me so that we can start work immediately to
establish some predictability and rationality in the process
of preparing for Olympic events in our country.
That was 1997. In a rather surprising breach of senatorial courtesy,
the Senator from Utah never responded to that letter, so I wrote him
another letter a year later asking for the same and never got a
response.
The GAO now determines that $1.3 billion--and some of those I will
read: $974,000 for the Utah State Olympic Public Safety Command; $5
million for the Utah Communications Agency Network; $3 million to
Olympic Regional Development Authority, upgrades at Mt. Van Hoevenberg
Sports Complex; $2.5 million, Salt Lake City Olympics bus facilities;
$2.5 million, Salt Lake City Olympics regional park-and-ride lots;
$500,000, Salt Lake City Olympics transit bus loan, and on and on;
$925,000 to allow the Utah State Olympic Public Safety Command to
continue to develop and support a public safety program for the 2002
Winter Olympics; $1 million for the 2002 Winter Olympics security
training; $2.2 million for the Charleston Water Conservancy District,
UT, to meet sewer infrastructure needs associated with the 2002 Winter
Olympic Games.
What the Olympic games supposedly hosted and funded by Salt Lake
City, which began in corruption and bribery, has now turned into is an
incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City and its environs.
Not surprisingly, the GAO found that there was no effective mechanism
in place for tracking Federal funding and support to host cities, one
thing I tried to do in the letter to the Senator from Utah in 1997. The
GAO stated that ``in some cases it was difficult to determine the
amount of federal funding and support because federal agencies
generally did not track or report their funding and support for the
Olympic Games.'' Congress, in some cases, authorized $690 million of
the estimated $2 billion, with some $1.3 billion being approved by
Federal agencies. However egregious it might be for Congress to approve
$690 million in taxpayers funds--most of which was done through
objectionable legislative pork barreling--it is astounding that federal
bureaucrats, with absolutely no accountability, have ponied up $1.3
billion as a regular course of business.
The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, named after my good
friend and colleague from Alaska, sets out the process by which the
United States Olympic Committee operates, and how the USOC goes about
selecting a U.S. bid city. Embodied in this act is a uniquely American
tenet establishing that the United States Olympic movement, including
the bid, and host city process, is an entirely independent, private
sector entity. However, as this report points out, the American
taxpayer has now become, by far, the largest single underwriter of the
costs of hosting the Olympics. Mind you, this is not about private,
voluntary giving to the Olympic movement. Nor is it about corporate
sponsorships. This is about a cocktail of fiscal irresponsibility, made
of congressional pork barreling, and unaccountable Federal bureaucrats.
As I outlined earlier, taxpayer funding of the Olympics has increased
dramatically in recent years, as has the purpose of the funding. In the
1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, $75 million in Federal support--
$75 million versus $1.3 billion for the Salt Lake City Olympics--was
provided. Most notable about this figure, aside from how low it is
relative to Atlanta and Salt Lake, is what the money was used for. Of
the $75 million in Los Angeles, $68 million, or 91 percent, was used to
help provide safety and security services during the planned staging of
the games. Only $7 million was for nonsecurity-related services.
Providing safety and security support is a proper role for the Federal
Government. No one would dispute that the Federal Government should
provide whatever support necessary to ensure that the Games are safe
for everyone. However, the American taxpayer should not be burdened
with building up the basic infrastructure necessary to a city to be
able to pull off hosting the Olympic Games.
Clearly, by the time we got to Atlanta, such was not the case.
Other classic examples include $331,000 to purchase flowers, shrubs
and
[[Page 18409]]
grass for venues and parks around Atlanta, $3.5 million to do things
like installing of solar electrical systems at the Olympic swimming
pool.
As astounding as the Atlanta numbers are, they absolutely pale in
comparison to Salt Lake City. Almost $1.3 billion of Federal funding
and support is planned or has already been provided to the city of Salt
Lake. And $645 million--51 percent--is for construction of roads and
highways; $353 million--28 percent--is for mass transit projects;
approximately $107 million for miscellaneous other activities, such as
building temporary parking lots and bus rentals; and $161 million on
safety and security.
As of April 2000, the Federal Government planned to spend some $77
million to provide spectator transportation and venue enhancements for
the Salt Lake games. This includes $47 million in congressionally
approved taxpayer funding for transportation systems. Among other
things, Salt Lake officials plan to ask the Federal Government for $91
million to pay for things such as transporting borrowed buses to and
from Salt Lake, additional bus drivers, bus maintenance, and
construction and operation of park-and-ride lots.
However, as outlined, most of the money taken from taxpayers to pay
the bill for the Salt Lake games is going to develop, build, and
complete major highway and transit improvement projects, ``especially
those critical to the success of the Olympic games.'' This last phrase
is vital to understanding the fleece game being played by cities such
as Salt Lake City.
It works this way. A city decides they want to host an Olympics to
generate tourism and put their hometown on the map. In order to
successfully manage an Olympics, community leaders know they will have
to meet certain infrastructure demands. They develop their plans, and
then, of course, the pork barreling starts.
The GAO makes several recommendations for congressional
consideration, including a potential Federal role in the selection of a
bid city, a tracking system for funds appropriated, and more direct
oversight. Among other things, the GAO also recommends a larger role
for OMB in exercising oversight regarding agency activities.
However, I believe there are two fundamental reforms that should take
place. The first is budget reform. Appropriations for Olympic
activities should occur through the regular budget process, subject to
the sunshine of public scrutiny and debate within Congress. Second, the
USOC should not consider the bids of cities that do not have in place
the basic capacity to host the Olympic games.
What has happened here is what happens in Congress. We start out with
a little pork barreling; it gets bigger and bigger and bigger. We saw
that recently on the Defense appropriations bill--$4 million on the
Defense appropriations bill to protect the desert tortoise.
I want to repeat, I will filibuster and do everything in my power to
delay any more appropriations bills that have this pork-barrel spending
for Salt Lake City. There is a process. There is a process of
authorization for these projects. They are conducted by the authorizing
committees. Some of them may be worthwhile and necessary. Some of them
may deserve to be authorized. Instead, they are stuck into an
appropriations bill without scrutiny or without anyone looking at them.
I do not understand how we Republicans call ourselves conservatives
and then treat the taxpayers' dollars in this fashion. This is terribly
objectionable. It is up to $1.3 billion. We still have another year, at
least, to go. This has to stop.
I am glad we got the GAO study. It is a classic example of what
happens with pork-barrel spending in this body. It directly contributes
to the cynicism and alienation of the American voter. These are my
taxpayers' dollars, Mr. President, as well as the citizens' tax dollars
of Utah. I have an obligation to my constituents in the State of
Arizona who pay their taxes that their tax dollars should not be spent
on this pork-barrel spending.
Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of
objectionable provisions for the legislative branch conference report
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Objectional Provisions for the Legislative Branch Conference Report
106-796 (Includes Treasury/Postal)
ITEMS IDENTIFIED in Report 106-796
Earmarks
Title I--Department of the Treasury
$47,287,000 for development and acquisition of automatic
data processing equipment, software, and services for the
Department of the Treasury.
$31,000,000 for the repair, alteration, and improvement of
the Treasury Building and Annex.
$29,205,000, for expansion of the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center.
Title II--Other Agencies
Library of Congress
$4,300,000 for a high speed data transmission between the
Library of Congress and educational facilities, libraries, or
networks serving western North Carolina.
Russian Leadership Program--$10,000,000.
Hands Across America--$5,957,800.
Arrearage reduction--$500,000.
Mass deacidification--$1,216,000.
National Film Preservation Board--$250,000.
Digitization pilot with West Point--$404,000.
Botanic Garden
Wayfinding signage--$25,000.
Architect of the Capitol
Replace HVAC variable speed drive motor--$90,000.
Room and partition modifications--$165,000.
Replace partition supports--$200,000.
Lightning protection, Madison building--$190,000.
Title IV--Emergency Fiscal Year 2000 Supplemental Appropriations
Architect of the Capitol
$9,000,000 for urgent repairs to the underground garage in
the Cannon House Office Building.
Title I--Congressional Operations
Replacement of Minton title--$100,000.
Title IV--Independent Agencies
$472,176,000 for construction projects at the following
locations:
California, Los Angeles, U.S. Courthouse;
District of Columbia, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms Headquarters;
Florida, Saint Petersburg, Combined Law Enforcement
Facility;
Maryland, Montgomery County, Food and Drug Administration
Consolidation;
Michigan, Sault St. Marie, Border Station;
Mississippi, Biloxi-Gulfport, U.S. Courthouse;
Montana, Eureka/Roosville, Border Station;
Virginia, Richmond, U.S. Courthouse;
Washington, Seattle, U.S. Courthouse.
Repairs and alterations:
Arizona: Phoenix, Federal Building Courthouse, $26,962,000.
California: Santa Ana, Federal Building, $27,864,000.
District of Columbia: Internal Revenue Service Headquarters
(Phase 1), $31,780,000, Main State Building (Phase 3),
$28,775,000.
Maryland: Woodlawn, SSA National Computer Center,
$4,285,000.
Michigan: Detroit, McNamara Federal Building, $26,999,000.
Missouri: Kansas City, Richard Bolling Federal Building,
$25,882,000; Kansas City, Federal Building, 8930 Ward
Parkway, $8,964,000.
Nebraska: Omaha, Zorinsky Federal Building, $45,960,000.
New York: New York City, 40 Foley Square, $5,037,000.
Ohio: Cincinnati, Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse,
$18,434,000.
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh, U.S. Post Office-Courthouse,
$54,144,000.
Utah: Salt Lake City, Bennett Federal Building,
$21,199,000.
Virginia: Reston, J.W. Powell Federal Building (Phase 2),
$22,993,000.
Nationwide: Design Program, $21,915,000; Energy Program,
$5,000,000; Glass Fragment Retention Program, $5,000,000.
$276,400,000 for the following construction projects:
District of Columbia, U.S. Courthouse Annex;
Florida, Miami, U.S. Courthouse;
Massachusetts, Springfield, U.S. Courthouse;
New York, Buffalo, U.S. Courthouse.
directive language
Title III--General Provisions
Standard buy-American provisions throughout the conference
report.
Title II--Other Agencies
Language directing the General Accounting Office to
undertake a study of the effects on air pollution caused by
all polluting sources, including automobiles and the electric
power generation emissions of the Tennessee Valley Authority
on the Great Smoky
[[Page 18410]]
Mountains National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway and the
Pisgah, Nantahla, and Cherokee National Forests. This study
will also include the amount of carbon emissions avoided by
the use of non-emitting electricity sources such as nuclear
power within the same region. The GAO shall report to the
Committees on Appropriations no later than January 31, 2001.
Title III
Language directing that there be no reorganization of the
field operations of the United States Customs Service Office
of Field Operations which may result in a reduction in
service to the area served by the Port of Racine, Wisconsin.
Up to $2,500,000 for the purchase of land and the
construction of a road in Luna County, New Mexico.
$95,150,000 for the repair, alteration, and improvement of
archives facilities, and to provide adequate storage for
holdings, $88,000,000 is to complete renovation of the
National Archives Building.
Title--Department of the Treasury
$14,779,000 for communications infrastructure for the Salt
Lake City Winter Olympics;
$2,000,000 for Critical Infrastructure Protection; and
$3,500,000 for Public Key Infrastructure.
Additionally, the conferees include $500,000 for Customs'
ongoing research on trade of agricultural commodities and
products at a Northern Plains university with an agricultural
economics program and support the use of $2,500,000 for the
acquisition of Passive Radar Detection Technology.
The conferees therefore direct the Treasury Department and
Customs to complete this model and to report to the
Committees on Appropriations not later than November 1, 2000
on its implementation. In relation to this, the conferees
urge the Customs Service to give full consideration to the
needs of the following areas for increases or improvements in
Customs services: Fargo, North Dakota; Highgate Springs,
Vermont; Charleston, South Carolina; Charleston, West
Virginia; Honolulu, Hawaii; Great Falls, Sweetgrass-Coutts,
and Missoula, Montana; Tri-Cities Regional Airport,
Tennessee; Dulles International Airport; Louisville
International Airport; Miami International Airport;
Pittsburg, New Hampshire; San Antonio, Texas; and multiple
port areas in Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida
Title III--Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to
the President
As ONDCP reviews candidates for new HIDTA funding, the
conferees direct it to consider the following: Las Vegas, NV;
Arkansas; Minnesota; North Carolina; and Northern Florida,
which have requested designation; Mexico, South Texas, West
Texas, and Arizona, New England, Gulf Coast, Oregon,
Northwest (including southwest and eastern Washington), and
Chicago HIDTAs; and full minimum funding for new HIDTAs in
Central Valley, California, Hawaii, and Ohio.
$3,300,000 for anti-doping efforts of the United States
Olympic Committee.
Title IV--Independent Agencies
$3,500,000 for the design and site acquisition of a
combined law enforcement facility in Saint Petersburg,
Florida.
$700,000 for the design of a 10,000-square-foot extension
to the Gerald R. Ford Museum.
GRAND TOTAL: OVER $1.4 BILLION.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, am I correct that I have 20 minutes
reserved at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The distinguished Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry?
Mr. President, may I ask how much time I have left under my control?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah has 45
minutes.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair. I will use time when the Senator from
Florida has finished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator
allowing me to speak on another matter during the debate on the
legislative branch conference report.
(The remarks of Mr. Graham are located in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened with interest when the Senator
from Arizona spoke about the GAO report with respect to the Olympics. I
believe the Senator from Arizona has made a significant contribution
and is attempting to move the Congress in a direction in which we
should go with respect to the Olympic games. I think he has raised
appropriate concerns. I can be specific about some of them. I will not
attempt to be specific about them all because they are quite lengthy.
For example, the $14.8 million for communications infrastructure to
which he objects in the Department of the Treasury portion of the
conference report before us was inserted there at the request of the
Secret Service, which told the Appropriations Committee that was the
amount they required. This was not something that was asked for by the
Salt Lake organizing committee or the Senator from Utah specifically.
It came from the Department of the Treasury.
That is true of some of the other items. But rather than getting
bogged down in a debate over the appropriateness of this amount or that
amount, every one of which has had that debate in one form or another
in the process of getting to the conference report, I want to address
the issue of the GAO report and the comments that the Senator from
Arizona made about it.
He said, very accurately, that the Federal role with respect to the
Olympic games has increased dramatically from the $75 million that was
appropriated in 1984 for the Olympics in Los Angeles to the amount that
has now been appropriated and is going to be appropriated for the
Olympics in Salt Lake City, showing the step-up from Los Angeles to
Atlanta to Salt Lake City.
Inasmuch as Washington, DC, has announced its intention to bid on the
Olympic games in either 2008 or 2012, I think now is an appropriate
time, as the Senator from Arizona has suggested, to talk about the role
of the Federal Government with respect to the Olympic games.
The GAO report makes this comment with which I am sure the Senator
from Arizona would agree and with which I agree. I think it is a very
appropriate comment. It says:
Despite the lack of a specifically authorized Government-
wide role in the Olympic games, the Federal Government has,
in effect, become a significant supporter of the Games when
hosted in the United States. Accordingly, Congress may want
to consider enacting legislation to establish a formal role
for the Federal Government and a Government-wide policy
regarding Federal funding and support for the Olympic Games
when hosted in the United States.
I think that is a very sound recommendation on the part of GAO. It
resonates with the concerns raised by the Senator from Arizona.
I lived in Los Angeles in 1984 and watched the Olympic games from the
standpoint of a resident. Let me add a little history to the history
that has been referred to on the floor this afternoon.
In 1984, as I recall--I could be wrong, but my memory tells me--Los
Angeles was the only city bidding for the Olympic games. The games were
seen as an economic disaster for any city unfortunate enough to end up
as the host. There were examples all over the world of cities that had
hosted the Olympic games and ended up with huge deficits which took
them years and years to pay off. Nobody wanted the Olympic games. Los
Angeles got the Olympic games almost by default. They hired an
extraordinary individual named Peter Ueberroth to serve as the manager
of that event, and Peter Ueberroth did something that was both very
good and, in retrospect, maybe not so good for the Olympic movement. He
brought in for the first time on a serious basis big money sponsors.
I remember reading in the Los Angeles Times after the Olympic games
were over that there was a surplus in the Olympic account of $30
million that would be turned over to the city of Los Angeles. There
were further newspaper stories that said: No, the surplus is $60
million. No, we have looked through the books, the surplus is $100
million. I don't remember now what it ended up being. But it was, for
the time, a comparatively staggering amount of money. There were jokes
made in Los Angeles about the fact that everything was available as the
official filled in the blanks.
[[Page 18411]]
I remember going with my family to watch the women's marathon. It was
the only event we attended in the Los Angeles 1984 Olympic games
because it was the only one that was free. We couldn't afford to buy
the tickets at that time. As the father of six children, I think other
people can understand that particular problem. We stood there on the
sidelines and watched the Olympic runners come down. We cheered for the
Americans. We were excited. Then after it was over, in the spirit of
the time, one of the officials of the games turned to us and said, Do
you want an official Olympic sponge? They had handed sponges filled
with water to the runners as they went by, and the runners cast them
off.
Everything was an ``official Olympic'' this or that and had a price
tag attached to it. I remember Kodak was very concerned because Peter
Ueberroth put the official Olympic film up for bid and Kodak said: You
can't possibly have an official Olympic film that isn't an American
film. Ueberroth said: Make your bid. Fuji Film outbid Kodak. We had
over the Olympics in Los Angeles a large green blimp with ``Fuji Film''
on it. Fuji Film was the official Olympic film for the 1984 Los Angeles
Olympics.
As I say, the number came out to be ultimately something close to
$100 million. It transformed the Olympic movement. From that moment
forward, everybody wanted to be the host city for the Olympic games.
And everybody assumed that if they could somehow get that plum for
their city, they would receive a very substantial economic payoff. But
once you start down that road psychologically, a number of interesting
things happen. And an interesting thing happened to the Olympic
movement.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator be good enough to yield
for a moment for a question?
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I note that we are going to hear from former Vice
President Quayle at 6 p.m., and Senator Stevens wanted to address the
Senate. Just as a point of information, I welcome the chance to be able
to address the Senate tomorrow. If the Senator is going to continue for
a while, if he could let us know, because I wanted to have the
opportunity to hear from Mr. Quayle and also to accommodate Senator
Stevens. The Senator is addressing a very important matter that is
relevant to the remarks of the Senator from Arizona. Could he give us
any indication?
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his inquiry.
Since I have no prepared remarks, I am responding directly to the
remarks of the Senator from Arizona. I can't put an exact timeframe on
it. I will try to restrain my enthusiasm for the sound of my own voice
and finish in maybe 15 or 20 minutes--something in that timeframe. I
will do my best to do it faster. I understand the Senator from Alaska
no longer requires any time. So the Senator from Massachusetts could
speak right up to the time we go into the session with the former Vice
President.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, if I may go back, the reaction out of Los
Angeles caused the leaders of the Olympic movement to also get dollar
signs in their eyes, and the Olympics began to expand. The assumption
was, if the costs go up at the International Olympic Committee or the
costs go up at the U.S. Olympic Committee, no problem; we will just
sell a few more sponsorships and be able to pay for it without any
difficulty.
So one started chasing the other, and the number of sponsorships sold
kept going higher and the costs kept going higher.
One aspect of the cost going up has been the addition of new sports.
Interestingly enough, the number of sports that will participate in the
Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002 is significantly higher than the number
that participated at Lillehammer in, I believe, 1994. In just that
short period of time, the cost of putting on the Olympics has been
expanded by a significant percentage--I do not have the number
currently available--by adding additional sports. The organizers of the
Salt Lake Olympic Committee have told me that even though their budget
is very close to the budget at Lillehammer, their costs are
substantially higher because of the additional sports that have been
added.
Somewhere along the line, someone lost track of what happens to all
of this. Again, the head of the Salt Lake organizing committee, Mit
Romney, has told me that the budget he was handed from the U.S. Olympic
Committee implied more sponsorships for the winter Olympics than
Atlanta had for the summer Olympics in 1996. He has to go out and sell
those sponsorships now because the budget has built into the assumption
that money will be there. He is still approximately $40 million or $50
million shy of being able to cover his budget even though he has
outsold the sponsorships that went into Atlanta. He has more
sponsorship money coming from Atlanta for the winter games, which are
less popular than the summer games, and he is still money short.
That is what has happened as everybody, reacting to what happened in
Los Angeles in 1984, has assumed that the Olympics are a pot of gold.
They are clearly not a pot of gold. And we are getting to the point
where we may be back to the Los Angeles games when no city wanted to
host it because they would end up with a major deficit.
I said to Mit Romney: Will we have a deficit in Salt Lake? He said:
No, we will not have a deficit because, if absolutely necessary, we
will cut back to whatever amount of money we have.
We don't want to have America host Olympics that seem to be second
class by comparison to the rest of the world. But financially we have
no choice if we can't close that gap.
I believe Mit Romney will be able to close that gap. I believe he
will be able to bring it down so that we will have an exact meeting of
expenses and revenues.
But in this whole picture comes the question that has been raised by
the Senator from Arizona: What is the role of the Federal Government?
Increasingly, the Federal Government plays an important role in the
Olympics because, increasingly, as the Olympics get bigger and bigger,
with more and more nations, more and more athletes, and more and more
opportunities for international terrorism, they become a bigger and
bigger problem for the Federal Government.
I think the whole question raised by the Senator from Arizona and by
the GAO report as to the formalization of the Federal role is a very
legitimate question. I think the proposal in the GAO report that was
endorsed by the Senator from Arizona that there be a formal involvement
from OMB and a formal process within the Congress to track these
appropriations is a right and proper proposal. We probably should have
done it after the Atlanta Olympics when we had the first indication
that this was what was going to happen. We didn't.
I am perfectly willing to join with the Senator from Arizona to craft
a way to do this once the Salt Lake City Olympics are over. If
Washington, DC, or some other American city gets the Olympics at some
point in the future, this process will be in place. I think it is the
responsible thing to do. I applaud the Senator from Arizona in helping
move in that direction.
I point out, as the GAO report says, with respect to the $2 billion
figure used by the Senator from Arizona:
According to Federal officials, most of these funds would
have been awarded to these cities or States even if they had
not hosted the Olympic games although the funds could have
been provided later if the games were not held.
Let me talk specifically about the two largest items in that $2
billion figure that relate to Salt Lake City: the mass transit in
downtown Salt Lake City and the renovation of I-15, the interstate
highway that runs through Salt Lake City. Both projects were properly
authorized, properly funded, under established congressional procedures
with respect to transportation activities. I-15 was 10 years beyond its
designed life when renovation construction began. The project was
outlined for 9 years under standard construction procedures.
[[Page 18412]]
The State of Utah, working with the Federal Highway Administration,
came up with a method of doing it which is called design/build; that
is, you design it while you are building it. Instead of designing it
all first and then building it, you do it simultaneously. In the
process, they cut the time from 9 years to 4\1/2\. They also cut the
cost by close to $1 billion.
Yes, it will be done in time for the Olympics. Yes, it will enhance
the Olympics. And GAO has included its total in its calculation of the
cost of the Olympics. But it had to be done. It was a logical expense
of the highway trust fund. It was funded in the normal fashion through
the highway trust fund, and because of the pressure the Olympics put on
it in terms of time, we now have a pilot project with design/build that
is coming in ahead of schedule and under budget. We are saving
taxpayers money by virtue of the pressure that the Olympics put on this
highway project.
There is absolutely no question that the money would have been spent
even if the Olympics had not come to Salt Lake City. It may not have
been spent as wisely or as prudently as it is being spent if we had not
had the pressure of the Olympics.
The second issue is the mass transit system in Salt Lake City. The
mass transit system in Salt Lake City, again, stood in queue with all
of the other mass transit systems that were being reviewed by the
Department of Transportation. It was approved in the Clinton
administration as an appropriate transit program for a metropolitan
area experiencing tremendous growth and congestion. It is interesting
to me to note that the current construction of mass transit in Salt
Lake City is going forward even though there was no assurance that it
would be completed in time for the Olympic games. In other words, the
Department of Transportation approved the full funding grant agreement
for that spur of the mass transit system with the full knowledge that
it might not be available for the Olympics.
Now, the contractors who were building it insisted it would be
available for the Olympics. It certainly will help the Olympics. But it
was not approved as an Olympic project. It was not examined as an
Olympics project. It was not evaluated by the Department of
Transportation as an Olympics project. Its cost, however, is included
in the GAO study as an Olympics project because it occurred in the
period where things were being spent in Utah.
I make a footnote with respect to I-15, the interstate highway. It is
being funded largely by State funds. The Federal dollars only became
available after TEA-21 passed in 1998 and the State decided we couldn't
wait. Had we not had the Olympics and waited for full Federal
participation in this portion of the interstate, the State of Utah
would be paying less than it is now. So the State of Utah has put up a
substantial sum of money by virtue of this for this infrastructure. We
do not complain because we will have the benefit of that infrastructure
after the games are over. However, I want to make it clear to any who
are keeping score that if you take the $2 billion figure to which the
Senator from Arizona referred that is part of the GAO report and break
it down, you come up with a much smaller figure for the Federal
participation in the Olympics games that has nothing to do with
anything else; that is, you have a much smaller figure for Federal
expenditures that are solely Olympics expenditures than anything like
the $2 billion.
Now, back to the earlier point, that we must address the question of
the Federal role. Let us look what the Olympics do to any country that
gets them in today's world. My wife and I went to Nagano, Japan, to see
the Olympics put on in Japan. We read the Japanese newspapers. We
didn't come up with a firm figure, but the Japanese newspapers
speculated that the total amount that Japan as a country spent in order
to put on the Olympics--the lowest figure I read was $13 billion; the
highest figure I read was $18 billion, given the kind of accounting
sleight of hand that accompanied the Japanese Olympics. I think the
higher figure may very well be the accurate one. Even if we take the
lower figure, Japan decided they could not put on an Olympics worthy of
world attention without making such infrastructure improvements as to
spend ultimately $13 billion. I participated in the benefits of that. I
rode the bullet train from downtown Tokyo to Nagano where the Olympics
were held. They decided they couldn't put on the Olympics without
putting in a bullet train.
We, in the United States, view the Olympics as basically a sporting
event. The rest of the world views the Olympics very differently, and
once a city in a country in the rest of the world is awarded the
Olympics, the entire national government of that country becomes
engaged. We need to think this one through as a nation. If we ever want
to hold the Olympic games in the United States again and have the games
be presented to the world on anything like the level that the world has
come to expect for the Olympics, we are going to have to face the fact
that the Federal Government must be involved in a formal kind of way.
The GAO comments about this just growing upon us are correct and a
formal examination of the American Federal Government participation in
the Olympics is overdue. The fact is, now no city in this country can
bid for, accept, and put on the Olympic games without significant,
maybe even in the view of the Senator from Arizona, massive Federal
support. The Clinton administration has recognized that. I have been a
long critic of the Clinton administration in a number of areas, but in
this area I must say that the Clinton administration has stepped up to
the plate and supported absolutely everything that has to be done to
see that the Olympics are put on in an appropriate way.
I salute the people in the OMB with whom we have worked, the people
in the White House staff with whom we have worked in a collaborative
way to bring this all together to see that we will have a responsible
Olympic games.
The Olympic games in Salt Lake City in 2002 are going to be fabulous.
We have the best mountains, the best snow, the best facilities. It is
going to be a fabulous experience for the entire world, and all
Americans are going to be very proud of the job that the Salt Lake
Olympic Organizing Committee will do in putting that on. But the Salt
Lake organizing committee could not do it without the kind of support
that has been provided by all of the Federal agencies who have been
called upon in the various appropriations bills that have gone through.
As we look to the future and anticipate the possibility that at some
point some other American city will either gain the summer games, as
Atlanta did, or the winter games, as Salt Lake City did, we should put
in place the recommendations of the GAO and recognize right up front
that it is a national effort, it is a Federal responsibility, as well
as a city responsibility, and perform as every other country in the
world performs with respect to this particular opportunity.
If we decide as a Congress that we do not want Federal participation
in the Olympic games, make that decision clear, then no American city
will ever host the Olympic games again because no American city can
ever afford the kinds of things that are required.
I thank the Senator from Arizona for raising this issue, for bringing
us to an understanding of the importance of the recommendations that
the GAO has made, and for giving me the opportunity to give these
specifics about the $2 billion figure. The Federal Government, in fact,
will spend far less than that figure, far less than $1 billion, far
less than however many hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not know
the number. I do not know anybody who does. I will try to find it out
and bring it to the floor at some point. It will be less than any other
federal government has spent to bring the Olympics to their host
country, but it demonstrates to us that we have to have the kind of
planning and coordination for which the Senator from Arizona calls.
I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his indulgence. I ask how
much time I have remaining.
[[Page 18413]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah has 18
minutes remaining.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have nothing further to say. I probably
should not have said as much as I did. If there is no Senator seeking
recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum and request that it be
charged to both sides equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have had brought to my attention since
I finished my extemporaneous remarks some information about the funding
of the Olympics that I would like to now share and put into the Record.
This is a draft statement that was prepared for Mit Romney. I do not
want to put these words in his mouth until he has had an opportunity to
review it. It has come from his staff. I believe it is accurate. I will
share some of this information with you.
First, Federal spending for activities directly associated with the
games is entirely appropriate when it is within traditional areas of
public responsibility. Example: Two-thirds of the costs are for public
safety activities, such as providing counterterrorism support. Other
areas where the Government is involved include visas, customs,
transportation to the public, and weather information infrastructure--
all traditional governmental responsibilities.
The statement says the Olympic games are essentially a mission of
peace entirely consistent with the objectives of our country and
recognizing that the Government spends billions of dollars to maintain
wartime capability, it is entirely appropriate to invest several
hundred million to promote peace. That is an editorial comment.
With respect to the funding and the GAO report, there are two types
of unrelated spending combined under the term ``Federal funding.''
First is spending actually required to host an Olympic games; and,
second, spending on projects the Government would have funded whether
or not the Olympics occur. I have already talked at great length about
the second aspect--funding that would have been spent regardless of
whether or not the Olympics have occurred.
Direct Olympics spending; that is, spending that occurs solely
because of the Olympics, as accounted in GAO's report, is about $254
million, not the $1.3 billion that was in the headlines. I repeat that:
About $254 million is the direct spending, and it goes for the items
that are referred to up above--visas, customs, transportation, weather
information and, of course, security and counterterrorism, as indicated
by the $14.8 million to which the Senator from Arizona referred that
was requested by the Secret Service.
I add one other comment to this. The Senator from Arizona talked
about future appropriations. We are pretty much over the hump with this
year's appropriations. We cannot spend money in fiscal 2002 for Olympic
games that are going to be held in February of 2002. So the 2001 fiscal
year budget, which we are involved in here, is the big-ticket item.
Once we are past this budget cycle, there will be some additional
funds in the next year, but they will be much smaller than the funds
that are included this year. I say to my colleagues, I know of no funds
in the 2001 bills that are yet to come before us that have not, in
fact, been authorized in the appropriate procedure to which the Senator
from Arizona referred.
So, Mr. President, I speculated as to what the number was in my
extemporaneous remarks. I have now had the number given to me. The
actual number of Olympics-only Federal spending is in the neighborhood
of $250, $254 million. I make that additional correction to the Record.
expansion of chicago high-density drug trafficking area
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity
to engage the Chairman of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Subcommittee in a brief colloquy.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. My state has an emerging methamphetamine problem,
which is an unmet need of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
program. To tackle this problem successfully, Congress should provide
funding in fiscal year 2001 to implement the expansion of the Chicago
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area to the Southern and Central
Districts of Illinois.
Over the last three years, seizures of methamphetamine laboratories
in Illinois have increased by 925 percent. In 1999 alone, 246
methamphetamine laboratories were seized in Illinois (more than all
previous years combined), and methamphetamine-related crime in the
state is at an all-time high, according to the Illinois State Police.
If this trend continues, Illinois can expect to see an exponential
growth of methamphetamine activities in the next two or three years,
similar to what has occurred in Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa.
I recognize that the final version of the Treasury and General
government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 includes an
additional $14,500,000 to expand existing HIDTAs or fund newly
designated HIDTAs. I would like to ask the Chairman a question: is it
your expectation that a portion of these funds will be used to
implement the expansion of the Chicago HIDTA to the Southern and
Central Districts of Illinois?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes, that is my expectation.
national drug-free workplace alliance
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to enter into a
colloquy with the distinguished Chairman of the Treasury and General
Government Subcommittee, Senator Campbell, regarding the importance of
the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I understand the Senator's interest in this area.
Mr. KYL. I would like to take a few minutes to describe the
importance of the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance. The goal of
the Alliance is to promote and assist the establishment of drug-free
workplace programs and provide comprehensive drug-free workplace
services to American businesses. As you know, drug abuse is prevalent
in the American workplace. One in 12 employees uses illegal drugs.
Equally troubling is that drug and alcohol abusers file about 5 times
as many workers compensation claims as non-abusers, and 47 percent of
all industrial accidents in the United States are related to drugs and/
or alcohol. The Alliance will not only serve as a valuable resource to
businesses, but also to the many organizations across the country
devoted to drug free workplaces. Two such organizations in my state,
Arizonans for a Drug-Free Workplace and Drugs Don't Work, would greatly
benefit from working with the Alliance.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The Subcommittee is increasingly aware of the problems
that drugs pose in the workplace. Helping businesses to address such a
problem will greatly benefit our communities and children. I look
forward to working with my colleague to address your concerns.
Mr. KYL. Once again I would like to thank the distinguished Chairman.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this conference report
on the legislative branch appropriations bill. The reasons for my
opposition have much to do with the process by which this conference
report has come to us. As I said in my statement this May during debate
on the motion to proceed to the foreign operations appropriations bill,
the character of the Senate has been changing. This conference report
is yet another example of that change. And the change has not been for
the better.
The Senate sent to conference a $2\1/2\ billion legislative branch
appropriations bill. The House majority leadership took that conference
on a relatively modest bill and shoveled into it a $55 billion tax cut
and a $30 billion appropriations bill for the Treasury
[[Page 18414]]
Department, the Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President,
and certain independent agencies. This is an abuse of the powers of the
majority.
Mr. President, the Senate may be calloused to the accelerating number
of abuses that we have witnessed in the past few years. And this
growing indifference may have given some comfort to those who are
spearheading this particular offensive.
But, Mr. President, there is a facet to this latest effort that makes
it especially worthy of opposition. For adopting this conference
report, now shielded from amendment, removes the opportunity to force
an open debate of a $3,800 pay raise for every Member of the Senate and
the House of Representatives.
By bringing the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill to the Senate
floor for the first time in this conference report, without Senate
floor consideration, the majority prevents anyone from offering an
amendment on that bill to block the pay raise. The majority makes it
impossible even to put Senators on record in an up-or-down vote
directly for or against the pay raise. The majority has thus perfected
the technique of the stealth pay raise.
And the majority also makes it impossible to link this congressional
pay raise directly to other pay issues of importance to the American
people. With this abuse of the rules, the majority makes it impossible
to consider, among other things, an amendment that would delay the
congressional pay raise until working Americans get a much-needed raise
in the minimum wage.
The majority leadership thus appears to believe that cost-of-living
adjustments make sense for Senators and Congressmen, but that cost-of-
living adjustments do not make sense for working people making the
minimum wage.
The abuse of the process that brings us here today prevents the
Senate from rectifying this injustice. If the Senate were considering
the regular Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, a Senator could offer
an amendment that would point out inequities like this. And that, in
the end, might help explain why the majority is using this procedure
today. That might explain why we are not considering the regular
Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, but are considering an unamenable
conference report.
This unamendable conference report culminates the technique of the
stealth pay raise. As my colleagues are aware, it is an unusual thing
to have the power to raise our own pay. Few people have that ability.
Most of our constituents do not have that power. And that this power is
so unusual is good reason for the Congress to exercise that power
openly, and to exercise it subject to regular procedures that include
debate and amendment.
The question of how and whether Members of Congress can raise their
own pay was one that our Founders considered from the beginning of our
Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments
advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of
Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the
Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an
intervening election. Almost exactly 211 years ago, on September 9,
1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789,
Congress submitted the amendments to the states.
Although the amendment on pay raises languished for two centuries, in
the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the
Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its
approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed
approval by three-fourths of the states.
The 27th amendment to the constitution now states: ``No law, varying
the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives,
shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have
intervened.'' Now, today's action does not violate the letter of the
Constitution, because it is the result of a 1989 law that provides for
a regular cost-of-living adjustment for congressional pay. But stealth
pay raises like the one that the Senate allows today certainly violate
the spirit of that amendment.
Mr. President, this practice must end. To address it, I intend to
introduce legislation that ends the automatic cost-of-living adjustment
for congressional pay.
The conference report before us today took its final shape just
before the August recess, during what were reported to be all-night,
closed-door meetings. The House majority leadership then tried to
muscle this conference report through the House on the day before the
recess. The bill survived a procedural vote by just four votes, 214 to
210. with Representatives anxious to begin their August recess, the
House leadership decided to postpone further action until this month.
The conference report before us today includes the Treasury Postal
bill. The Senate never had a chance to consider the Treasury Postal
bill that is now part of this conference report. The Senate
Appropriations Committee ordered the bill reported on July 20. It is
available for Senate consideration as a separate bill.
This conference report on an appropriations bill also includes a
repeal of the telephone excise tax. Now repealing the telephone tax is
probably the best tax cut idea that we will get in this Congress. I
voted to repeal the telephone tax during consideration of the estate
tax bill.
But that was a tax bill. Today, we are being asked to enact that tax
cut on an appropriations bill. A tax cut that will cost $55 billion
over the next decade should not be added in the middle of the night in
a conference on a $2\1/2\ billion appropriations bill.
As well, the conference report also makes budget process law changes.
Section 1002 of the conference report changes the limits on outlays set
in the current budget resolution for defense and non-defense spending.
It shifts $2 billion from non-defense spending to defense spending.
Making this budget process change violates the rules. Section 306 of
the Congressional Budget Act prohibits including budget process changes
like this in a bill that is not a budget process bill.
Some may argue that if we do not enact this conference report with
this abuse of the process, then the leadership will confront us with an
even greater abuse of process in the form of an even larger omnibus
appropriations bill. Even were that so, my colleagues, we here cannot
and must not give the leadership a blank check to include any matter
that they choose. And we most certainly can demand that Congress do
what we can to ensure that we get no pay raise until such time as
Congress has enacted a raise in the minimum wage.
This is a matter of principle, because this conference report does
not honor the principles of debate and amendment that undergird the
rules of this Senate.
And this is a matter of fairness, because this conference report
allows a $3,800 pay raise for Senators and Congressmen, before the
Congress has enacted a $1,000 pay raise for working Americans making
the minimum wage.
The majority has sought to prevent votes on this pay raise. By
preventing votes on amendments, they have made this final vote on this
conference report the single vote that will allow the congressional pay
raise to happen. A Member who wants to prevent a congressional pay
raise before we have a raise in the minimum wage has this one
opportunity to vote against it.
It is for these reasons that I will vote against this conference
report.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a
period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted
to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
[[Page 18415]]
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: IN THE BIG TENT OR A SIDE SHOW
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, this is the third in a series of five
statements I am making on the issue of providing
a prescription drug benefit for senior Americans. This continues the
discussion I began last Thursday on the subject of how to modernize the
Medicare program into one which will meet the needs of 21st century
seniors in America.
Last week, we discussed the need to fundamentally reform the Medicare
program by shifting its focus from treating acute illness to promoting
and maintaining wellness, essentially converting the Medicare program
from one which has an orientation towards dealing with the disease or
the results of an accident after they have occurred--a sickness
system--to one that attempts to maintain the highest quality of
health--a wellness system.
We discussed the fact that access to affordable prescription
medications is crucial to the success of a health care system based on
keeping seniors healthy, well, and active. And virtually every modality
that is established to maintain the highest state of good health for
seniors involves access to prescription drugs.
Additionally, we discussed that, in the long run, providing seniors
with access to those components of an effective wellness system, such
as preventive screening, medical procedures, and appropriate
prescription drug therapies, can yield significant savings for the
Medicare program and thus for the American taxpayer as well as
providing the enormous benefits to the senior of good health and the
active lifestyle that that will allow.
Let's look at the case of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is a disease
characterized by low bone mass, deterioration of bone tissue, leading
to bone fragility and increased susceptibility to fractures,
particularly of the hip, spine, and wrist.
Osteoporosis is a major public health threat for 28 million
Americans. Eighty percent of those 28 million Americans are women.
Osteoporosis is responsible for more than 1.5 million fractures
annually in the United States. Included in this 1.5 million are 300,000
hip fractures, 700,000 vertebra fractures, 250,000 wrist fractures, and
more than 300,000 fractures in other parts of the anatomy. Estimated
national direct expenditures, including those for hospitals and nursing
homes, for osteoporosis and related fractures is $14 billion a year.
The National Academy of Sciences and the National Institutes of
Health agree that osteoporosis is highly preventable. A combination of
a healthy lifestyle, with no smoking or excessive alcohol use, and bone
density testing and medication and hormone therapies can keep men and
women prone to this disease well and free of the debilitating,
sometimes fatal, effects of fractures. Seniors and near seniors must
have access to screening, counseling, and appropriate medication to
keep this ``silent killer'' at bay.
One of the most common prescriptions for osteoporosis prevention is a
treatment referred to as Fosamax. The annual cost of Fosamax is
approximately $750. Contrast that with a hip replacement where the
surgery and followup therapy will cost the Medicare program and
taxpayers over $8,000.
It makes both programmatic and economic sense that these preventive
interventions be included under the big tent of Medicare. They should
be treated as all of the other benefits that 98 percent of those
eligible for Medicare enjoy today.
Let me restate the fact that Part B of Medicare--that is the part
that, among other things, covers physicians and outpatient services--is
a voluntary program that seniors must elect to get the benefits and to
pay the monthly premiums for participation in Part B. How many seniors
in America who are eligible for that component of Medicare in fact make
that election and pay that monthly fee to get those benefits? The
answer: 98 percent of eligible seniors voluntarily elect to participate
in Part B of Medicare.
Seniors trust and rely on Medicare. As a result, virtually all who
are eligible to join voluntarily elect to do so. When the Federal
Government decides that it should participate in providing a
prescription drug benefit for American seniors, that benefit is best
placed under the same big tent of the Medicare program.
Now, this is not a unanimous opinion. Some of my Senate colleagues
believe that a prescription drug benefit should be left outside the
tent, left to a sideshow status, if you will. In order to determine
which way is truly the best way, the main tent of Medicare or a
sideshow, it is important to answer some key questions.
Question 1 is what do the customers, the seniors and the people who
live with disabilities, what do they want? How would they prefer this
program to be organized and administered? We all know the old saying
that the customer is always right. This will surely be true for the new
drug benefit that we will offer to Medicare beneficiaries. Congress
must learn to ask and to listen--in health care terminology, to first
diagnose before we proceed to prescribe.
This should have been the lesson learned from Congress' ill-
considered decision to add catastrophic coverage to Medicare in the
late 1980s. We prescribed before we listened. When we listen, seniors
tell us they like the Medicare program. Ninety-eight percent of them
voluntarily elect to participate. In 1998, the Kaiser Family Foundation
found that 74 percent of seniors surveyed believed that Medicare was
doing a good job serving their interests.
Seniors tell us that while Medicare is not perfect, it is convenient,
affordable, and dependable. They never worry that the benefits will
suddenly disappear or become too expensive. They like the universality
of the Medicare program. No matter where they are--in Kansas, in Utah,
or in Florida--the benefits are available and affordable. They don't
want to worry, as they would in some plans, that an income of $16,000 a
year would make them ``too wealthy'' to qualify for help.
Including the prescription drug benefit in Medicare would offer peace
of mind. But don't take my word for it. Another recent poll conducted
by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University showed that when
seniors are given the choice of having the Federal Government
administer a Medicare prescription drug benefit versus the alternative
of having the Government help to pay for private insurance plans, 36
percent chose the private option; 57 percent of the respondents
preferred to have the benefit as part of an expanded Medicare program.
We hear over and over in statements on the Senate floor and
occasionally even in political ads that Americans will be better off if
prescription drug benefits are not made part of the Medicare program.
But when we listen to the people, not to just political rhetoric, what
we find is that Medicare beneficiaries do not complain about Medicare.
Rather, we hear a desire to expand Medicare to include real
prescription drug benefits. We should listen to these voices of the
customers.
Question 2: Will a true Medicare benefit or a program that relies on
private and State insurers be the most reliable? Predictability,
sustainability, reliability are important qualities for America's
seniors. The bill I have introduced with Senators Robb, Bryan, Conrad,
Chafee, and Jeffords assures that all beneficiaries, including those in
underserved and rural areas, would be guaranteed a defined, accessible,
affordable, and stable benefit for the same monthly premium nationwide.
Medicare would subsidize benefits directly and pay for prescription
drug costs as any other Medicare benefit.
In contrast, the plan that is being proposed by Governor George W.
Bush and by House Republicans and by some Members of this body asserts
that prescription medications are a sideshow act and should not be
included under the big tent of Medicare. They have outlined plans and
introduced legislation to accomplish that objective.
We have heard from our colleagues that seniors do not want big
government involved in their prescription drug benefit. My colleagues
have said that the Vice President's plan and even the plan that has
been introduced by a bipartisan group of our colleagues is a one-size-
fits-all plan without adequate choice. Governor Bush attacks the Vice
President's plan in his latest television ad entitled ``Compare,''
saying that ``Al Gore's prescription drug plan forces seniors into a
government-run HMO.''
[[Page 18416]]
I would like to quote from the New York Times of September 16, which
analyzes this latest ad. This is what the New York Times has to say
under the category of Accuracy:
Health maintenance organizations are not popular, so it is
not surprising that the commercial links Mr. Gore's
prescription drug plans to HMOs. But to do so is to stretch
the facts.
Mr. Gore does not force the elderly to accept his new
prescription drug benefit. It is voluntary. And Medicare
recipients can stay in traditional plans where they choose
their own doctors.
Mr. Gore's plan does rely on private benefit managers to
manage the program--just like private insurers do--which
encourages use of generic drugs and less expensive brand
names. But these are not HMOs.
Some critics argue that it is Mr. Bush's plan that would increase the
number of older persons enrolling in managed care. Mr. Bush would give
the people the ability to choose between the traditional Medicare
program, including a new drug benefit and government-subsidized private
insurance packages. A question is whether the premiums would rise for
traditional Medicare, causing more people to choose managed care.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the New
York Times of September 16 be printed in the Record immediately
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Let's take another look at what Governor Bush and others
in the House, as well as some of our colleagues, would offer to
seniors. They would offer choice in their prescription drug plan, but
the choice is not for seniors. It is for the private insurers, the
States, and other entities that might choose to participate. HMOs which
participate can choose to offer an affordable benefit or a
prohibitively expensive one or no prescription drug benefit at all.
According to the Health Care Maintenance Organization, this year some
900,000 Medicare beneficiaries who had signed up with a Medicare+choice
HMO have seen those benefits yanked away, as the HMO terminates
coverage.
Many others have seen their HMOs either eliminate the prescription
drug benefit, as have many in my State of Florida, or they have seen
that benefit substantially reduced.
The House Republicans' plan looks to private insurance to offer
prescription drug policies to seniors. We have discussed time after
time that the private insurance industry has said it doesn't want to
offer these plans. Maybe a reason for their disinclination to offer
these plans can be provided through the window of a type of plan which
is very similar to the Republican House proposal.
Under the current law, there are various types of Medigap plans--
plans that are provided by private insurers to fill gaps in the
Medicare program. Three of these Medigap plans cover prescription drug
benefits. All three of these have a $250 deductible and a 50/50 cost
sharing for coinsurance.
Plans labeled ``H'' and ``I'' cover drugs up to $1,250 in total
spending and plan ``J'' covers up to $3,000 in total spending. None of
these three plans offer what is referred to as a stop-loss. There is
never a point in the process where the beneficiary is not forced to
continue to pay half of the cost of their drugs.
Now, what does Medigap charge to get these programs which limit
coverage, in two cases, to $1,250, and in a third, $3,000, without a
stop-loss provision? The average cost of these plans nationwide, per
month, is $136. In my State of Florida, the average cost per month is
$167. This gives you some idea of what seniors are going to be asked to
pay should we go to a private insurance model as the means of providing
prescription medication. These costs are well beyond what is affordable
for most low-income and many middle-income seniors.
With the history of broad variation, high, and unpredictable premiums
and sub-par benefit packages, it is unclear to me why a Medigap-like
approach to designing a Medicare prescription drug benefit would be in
the best interest of America's seniors.
Finally, there is now before us a proposal for an ``immediate fix''
for low-income seniors with incomes up to 150 percent of poverty in the
form of block grants to States. Not only would this plan cover only a
fraction of Medicare beneficiaries, it would provide a patchwork quilt
of coverage for those individuals who did qualify for the benefit.
States could offer coverage consistent with their current Medicaid or
State drug assistance programs, or could punt their programs to the
Federal Government if they chose not to participate at all.
Seniors in some States would have coverage, but when they move to
another State, they might have no coverage, or different coverage. It
would be like Forrest Gump and his box of chocolates--seniors would
never know just what kind of coverage they would get.
The reason that 98 percent of Medicare-eligible beneficiaries sign up
for the Medicare program is that it provides reliable, quality coverage
for everyone equally and everywhere in the United States of America. So
why would we treat a prescription drug benefit differently than we do
for the rest of Medicare benefits?
A third question is who is eligible under the program and what will
they get?
There is a great deal of rhetoric about who will be eligible under
the prescription drug plans being offered. For Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who
make $11,000 a year--100 percent of poverty--both of the plans offered
in the Senate and by Texas Governor Bush claim that their drug coverage
will be completely paid for. But what will that coverage be?
In Texas, the Medicaid program only covers three prescription drugs a
month. So Mr. and Mrs. Jones would be out of luck if they required more
than that. But if they moved to Illinois, the program might only cover
drugs for certain conditions, as is the case with that State's current
drug assistance program.
A prescription drug benefit within Medicare, such as those proposed
by my colleagues and myself in the Senate and the Vice President, would
ensure coverage of all medically necessary prescription drugs based on
need without a benefit cap. That is the kind of reliability that
seniors need. And what of my own constituent, Elaine Kett.
Elaine Kett is a 77-year-old woman from Vero Beach. She is a widow
living on a fixed income of approximately $20,000 a year. Like many of
my constituents, Mrs. Kett sent me a list of all the prescription drugs
that she takes to keep herself active and well. Every year, Elaine Kett
makes sacrifices to ensure that she takes the medications she needs to
live a normal active life. There are millions of seniors like Mrs. Kett
in the United States today. None of them would be covered by a low
income block grant to the states.
Question Four: The final question, which approach would ensure that
seniors have access to an affordable drug benefit--one which could be
most effective in holding down the escalating prices of prescription
medications?
Individuals like Mrs. Kett are not alone. We are all witnessing
prescription drug prices climbing at record levels of over 17 percent
per year. We are all aware of the fact that buying in bulk yields
discounts. Those seniors without insurance plans that cover drugs are
on their own in the market and are faced with the higher drug prices
than those of us who have prescription drug coverage negotiated by a
pharmacy benefit manager.
Tomorrow, we will discuss the impact of the high cost of prescription
drugs on seniors--and what can and should be done to make prescription
medications more affordable for seniors.
Mr. President, our families should be secure in the fact that
prescription medications are included in the big tent of Medicare and
are not treated as the bearded lady outside the big tent at the circus.
For many seniors, prescription medications are the main event--and we
should treat them as such. A prescription drug benefit in the Medicare
program is not ``one size fits all,'' but rather one program for all. I
look
[[Page 18417]]
forward to discussing why a prescription drug benefit must not only be
universal and accessible, but truly affordable.
Mr. President, when I give my fourth statement on this topic, I will
elaborate on the question of which of the options that are before us
inside the ``main tent'' of Medicare or the ``side tent'' of a separate
non-Medicare administered prescription drug benefit, and which one will
have the best opportunity of assuring affordability for America's
seniors.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 2000]
A Three-Part Attack on Gore
(By Alison Mitchell)
The Republican campaign of Gov. George W. Bush and Dick
Cheney has begun broadcasting a commercial, ``Compare,'' in
18 states in its effort to take the offensive on the issues.
It takes aim at Vice President Al Gore's stands on a
prescription drug benefit in Medicare, on education and on
tax cuts.
Producer Maverick Media.
On the screen. The 30-second commercial features statements
about Mr. Gore's proposals in black on stark white
background, counterposed with color pictures of Mr. Bush. It
then shows pictures in color of Americans of different
ethnicity, as it speaks of people who will not get a tax cut
under Mr. Gore's $500 billion plan for tax relief.
The script. A female announcer: ``Al Gore's prescription
plan forces seniors into a government-run H.M.O. Governor
Bush gives seniors a choice. Gore says he's for school
accountability, but requires no real testing. Governor Bush
requires tests and holds schools accountable for results.
Gore's targeted tax cuts leave out 50 million people--half of
all taxpayers. Under Bush, every taxpayer gets a tax cut and
no family pays more than a third of their income to
Washington. Governor Bush has real plans that work for real
people.''
Accuracy. Health maintenance organizations are not popular,
so it is not surprising that the commercial links Mr. Gore's
prescription drug plan to H.M.O.'s. But to do so it has to
stretch the facts.
Mr. Gore does not force the elderly to accept his new
prescription drug benefit. It is voluntary. And Medicare
recipients can stay in traditional plans where they choose
their own doctors. Mr. Gore's plan does rely on private
benefit managers to manage the program--just like private
insurers do--which encourages use of generic drugs and less
expensive brand names. But these are not H.M.O.'s.
Some critics argue that it is Mr. Bush's plan that would
increase the number of older people enrolling in managed
care. Mr. Bush would give people the ability to choose
between the traditional Medicare program including a new drug
benefit and government-subsidized private insurance packages.
A question is whether the premiums would rise for traditional
Medicare, causing more people to choose managed care.
On schools, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore both propose testing and
different kinds of accountability measures, but Mr. Bush's
proposal calls for tests that would cover more grades and be
more frequent than does Mr. Gore's.
It is true that Mr. Bush's $1.3 trillion 10-year tax-cut
plan would give a tax reduction to every income bracket while
Mr. Gore's plan for $500 million in targeted tax cuts would
give tax breaks only for purposes like college education or
child care.
Score card. With its tag line, ``Governor Bush has real
plans that work for real people,'' the spot suggests that Mr.
Gore is not credible and neither are his programs. But Mr.
Bush has his work cut out for him. Many polls show that
voters trust the Democratic candidate more on health care and
education. And while Mr. Bush may have the Republican's
traditional advantage when it comes to tax-cutting, right now
tax cuts are not one of the top concerns of voters.
____________________
IN MEMORY OF MURRAY ZWEBEN, FORMER SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the weekend we were saddened to
learn of the death of Murray Zweben. Murray was chosen by the late
Floyd Riddick to be his assistant in the Parliamentarian's office in
1965. He followed ``Doc'' Riddick in that post and became the Senate
Parliamentarian in 1975. He served in that capacity for 6 years and
left in 1981. The Senate recognized his exemplary service in 1983 by
elevating him to parliamentarian emeritus. After he left the Senate,
Murray worked in private law practice and played as much tennis as his
schedule would permit. Those of us who knew Murray and his
extraordinary ability to fly through the New York Times crossword
puzzle, in ink no less, will miss him. Our thoughts and prayers go out
to his wife Anne, and his children Suzanne, Lisa, Marc, John, and
Harry.
____________________
SUBMITTING CHANGES TO H. CON. RES. 290 PURSUANT TO SECTION 218
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 218 of H. Con. Res. 290 (the FY
2001 Budget Resolution) permits the Chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee to make adjustments to the allocation of budget authority and
outlays to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, provided certain
conditions are met.
Pursuant to section 218, I hereby submit the following revisions to
H. Con. Res. 290:
[By fiscal years; in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation to Senate Armed Services Committee:
2001 Budget Authority..................................... $50,139
2001 Outlays.............................................. 50,129
2001-2005 Budget Authority................................ 267,298
2001-2005 Outlays......................................... 266,974
Adjustments:
2001 Budget Authority..................................... 50
2001 Outlays.............................................. 50
2001-2005 Budget Authority................................ 400
2001-2005 Outlays......................................... 400
Revised Allocation to Senate Armed Services Committee:
2001 Budget Authority..................................... 50,189
2001 Outlays.............................................. 50,179
2001-2005 Budget Authority................................ 267,698
2001-2005 Outlays......................................... 267,374
------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________
THE MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are fast approaching the end of this
Congress and we have much unfinished business. While there are many
items of importance to the American people that remain undone, I will
speak today about a single bill that has been languishing for some time
despite the fact that it is wholly uncontroversial. That bill is S.
671, the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
This bill is important to American businesses, both big and small. As
the International Trademark Association explained in a letter to me on
February 9, 2000 on behalf of its 3,700 member companies and law firms,
``the practical benefits of the Madrid system, such as ease of applying
and renewing trademark registrations internationally, will be of
tremendous benefit to U.S. companies'' and, in particular, the benefits
to ``small, entrepreneurial companies which do not have the financial
means to seek separate national registrations for their trademarks in
every country where they wish to do business.'' The bill and the
Protocol are also supported by the American Intellectual Property Law
Association and the Information Technology Association of America.
I first introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress as S. 2191
and again in this Congress in March, 1999. The Judiciary Committee
reported S. 671, favorably and unanimously, on February 10, 2000.
Unfortunately, the legislation has been languishing on the Senate
calendar for the past eight months. In the House of Representatives,
Congressmen Coble and Berman sponsored and passed an identical bill,
H.R. 769, on April 13, 1999. This marked the third time and the third
Congress in which the House of Representatives had passed this bill.
There is no opposition to S. 671, nor to the substantive portions of
the underlying Protocol. The White House recently forwarded the
Protocol to the Senate for its advise and consent after working to
resolve differences between the Administration and the European
Community, EC, regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members
of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the agreement. These
differences over the voting rights of the European Union and
participation of intergovernmental organizations in this intellectual
property treaty are now resolved in accordance with the U.S. position.
Specifically, on February 2, 2000, the Assembly of the Madrid Protocol
expressed its intent ``to use their voting rights in such a way as to
ensure that the number of votes cast by the European Community and its
member States does not exceed the number of the European Community's
Member States.''
Shortly after this letter was forwarded by the Assembly, I wrote to
[[Page 18418]]
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright requesting information on the
Administration's position in light of the resolution of the voting
dispute. At a hearing of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on April
14, 2000, I further inquired of Secretary Albright about the progress
the Administration was making on this matter.
With the voting rights issue resolved, President Clinton transmitted
Treaty Document 106-41, the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement
to the Senate for ratification on September 5, 2000. United States
membership in the Protocol would greatly enhance the ability of any
U.S. business, whether large and small, to protect its trademarks in
other countries more quickly, cheaply and easily. That, in turn, will
make it easier for American businesses to enter foreign markets and to
protect their trademarks in those markets.
Senators Helms and Biden moved promptly to hold a hearing in the
Foreign Relations Committee on September 13, 2000 to consider the
Protocol, and I commend them for acting quickly so this treaty may be
considered by the full Senate before we adjourn. Members on both sides
of the aisle have worked together successfully and productively in the
past on intellectual property matters, and I am pleased to see these
efforts again with the Protocol and implementing legislation.
Passage of S. 671 would help to ensure timely accession to and
implementation of the Madrid Protocol, and it will send a clear signal
to the international community, U.S. businesses, and trademark owners
that Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost,
efficient system to promote the international registration of marks.
The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act is part of my ongoing effort
to update American intellectual property law to ensure that it serves
to advance and protect American interests both here and abroad. The
Protocol would help American businesses, and especially small and
medium-sized companies, protect their trademarks as they expand into
international markets. Specifically, this legislation will conform
American trademark application procedures to the terms of the Protocol
in anticipation of the U.S.'s eventual ratification of the treaty.
Ratification by the United States of this treaty would help create a
``one stop'' international trademark registration process, which would
be an enormous benefit for American businesses.
S. 671 makes no substantive change in American trademark law but sets
up new procedures for trademark applicants who want to obtain
international trademark protection. This bill would ease the trademark
registration burden on small and medium-sized businesses by enabling
businesses to obtain trademark protection in all signatory countries
with a single trademark application filed with the Patent and Trademark
Office. Currently, in order for American companies to protect their
trademarks abroad, they must register their trademarks in each and
every country in which protection is sought. Registering in multiple
countries is a time-consuming, complicated and expensive process--a
process which places a disproportionate burden on smaller American
companies seeking international trademark protection. The practical
benefits of the Madrid Protocol system will be to provide small and
medium-sized U.S. businesses with faster, cheaper and easier protection
for their trademarks.
I again urge the Senate to promptly consider and send to the
President the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
____________________
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to talk
about an important issue--the critical need for Congress to reauthorize
the Violence Against Women Act or VAWA. It has strong bipartisan
support and it should be passed before the end of this session.
I was a proud cosponsor of this bill when it passed in 1994 and I am
an original cosponsor of the reauthorization bill. This is a law that
has helped hundreds of thousands of women and children in Iowa and
across the nation. It has directed millions of federal dollars in
grants to local law enforcement, prosecution and victim services.
Iowa has received more than $8 million in grants through VAWA. These
grants fund the Iowa Domestic Violence Hotline. They help keep the
doors open at domestic violence shelters, like the Family Violence
Center in Des Moines.
VAWA grants to Iowa have provided services to more than 2,000 sexual
assault victims just this year. And more than 20,559 Iowa students this
year have received information about rape prevention through this
federal funding.
The numbers show that VAWA is working. A recent Justice report found
that intimate partner violence against women decreased by 21 percent
from 1993 to 1998. This is strong evidence that state and community
efforts are working.
But VAWA must be reauthorized to allow these efforts to continue
without having to worry that this funding will be lost from year to
year.
Congress should not turn its back on America's women and children.
Reauthorization should be a priority. So, I urge my colleagues and the
leadership to pass this legislation this session.
____________________
VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it has been more than a year since the
Columbine tragedy, but still this Republican Congress refuses to act on
sensible gun legislation.
Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire.
Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read the names of some of
those who have lost their lives to gun violence in the past year, and
we will continue to do so every day that the Senate is in session.
In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight. Following
are the names of some of the people who were killed by gunfire one year
ago today.
September 19, 2000:
Angel Avila, 17, El Paso, TX; Patrick Codada, 21, Miami, FL; Hugo
Contreras, 19, Houston, TX; Jose C. Diaz, 35, Chicago, IL; Alfred
Harth, 26, Kansas City, MO; Pedro Hernandez, 23, Chicago, IL; Michael
Jones, 18, Baltimore, MD; Michael K. Mills, 17, Chicago, IL; Guadalupe
Munoz, 25, Houston, TX; Mario Cardenas Rivera, 18, Minneapolis, MN;
Enrique Ortiz Suerez, 12, Minneapolis, MN; Ivory Williams, 18, Detroit,
MI; Victor Williams, 17, Detroit, MI; Unidentified Male, 79, Portland,
OR; Unidentified Female, 26, Norfolk, VA.
Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by
gunfire one year ago yesterday.
September 18, 2000:
Carlos Barrera, 28, Dallas, TX; James D. Bivens, 30, Chicago, IL;
Layuvette Daniels, 24, Atlanta, GA; Dedrick Jennings, 21, Memphis, TN;
Julian Johnson, 17, Atlanta, GA; Amyn Noormuhammed, 25, Houston, TX;
Brogdan Patlakh, 24, Philadelphia, PA; Cassiaus Stuckey, 35, Miami, FL;
Rad I. Webster, 27, New Orleans, LA; Darel Whitman, 27, Dallas, TX;
Joshua Young, 26, Detroit, MI; Unidentified Male, 48, Long Beach, CA.
One victim of gun violence I mentioned, 17-year-old Julian Johnson
from Atlanta, was a popular student and football star from Douglass
High School in Atlanta. One year ago yesterday, Julian was shot and
killed in a drive-by shooting after a football game victory.
We cannot sit back and allow such senseless gun violence to continue.
The deaths of these people are a reminder to all of us that we need to
enact sensible gun legislation now.
____________________
20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today to make note of the
anniversary of the signing into law of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Twenty years ago today, the Reg Flex Act, as it is better known, was
signed into law after its passage by the 96th Congress. This historic
piece of legislation explicitly recognized the importance of small
businesses to the economy and their
[[Page 18419]]
contributions to innovation and competition.
With the Reg Flex Act, Congress intended that no federal action taken
in the name of good public policy would undermine the nation's equally
important commitment to preserving competition and to maintaining a
level playing field for small businesses. The law established an
analytical framework in which regulatory agencies were directed to
consider the impact on small businesses of their regulatory proposals
and consider alternatives that would have a more equitable impact
without compromising public policy objectives. The Reg Flex Act had
bipartisan support, as well as the support of the small business
community.
In 1996 the Senate Small Business Committee led the effort to
strengthen the Reg Flex Act with the passage of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Under SBREFA, for the first time,
the courts were given jurisdiction to review agency compliance with the
law and impose remedial action where necessary. This and other changes
have truly altered the culture within regulatory agencies. Federal
government agencies are learning that they must balance diverse public
interest concerns when developing regulations and they must ensure that
their actions do not adversely affect small businesses and competition.
Nearly every regulation is now examined for its impact on small
businesses. Although they may never know it, small businesses have
saved billions of dollars and countless work hours thanks to agency
compliance with the Reg Flex Act.
Mr. President, the Reg Flex Act clearly helps small businesses every
day by compelling agencies to reduce their compliance burdens. The
Senate should take pride in the innovative Reg Flex Act, which has
helped to create the best climate in the world for small business
growth and prosperity. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
Small Business, I am pleased to have played a key role in strengthening
this legislation and ensuring its effective application for the benefit
of our nation's small businesses.
____________________
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN THE ASYLUM PROCESS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to speak today about two
critically important immigration issues--expedited removal and the
treatment of domestic violence victims in our asylum process. They both
arose in a case recently brought to my attention. Two months ago, Ms.
Nurys Altagracia Michel Dume fled to the United States from the
Dominican Republic. She was fleeing from the man with whom she had
lived for the past 11 years, a man who had raped her numerous times,
forbade her even to leave the house, and, shortly before she left,
bought a gun, held it to her head, and threatened to kill her. This was
not the first time he had threatened her life.
She arrived here on July 17, and she was subject to expedited removal
because, in her haste to escape from her abusive partner, she traveled
without a valid passport. She expressed her fear of returning to the
Dominican Republic. After three days of confinement, she was accorded a
credible fear interview. At this crucial interview, at which she would
have to discuss the fact that she had been raped, she was interviewed
by two male employees and was not represented by counsel. Under their
narrow interpretation of what may constitute ``credible fear of
persecution,'' based on their interpretation of a Board of Immigration
Appeals decision, Matter of R-A-, the INS took the position initially
that Ms. Michel should be sent back to the Dominican Republic. Under
their interpretation any asylum claims based on a fear of domestic
violence would be barred. So even though they believed that Ms.
Michel's partner might kill her if she were forced to return to her
native country, they nonetheless made a legal judgment that her claim
was invalid.
I cannot believe that even those supporters of the expedited removal
process who forced it into law in 1996 could have intended for this
matter to be resolved in this way or for questions of law to be
resolved in INS officers at a credible fear hearing. I brought this
case to the attention of the INS by way of a letter on August 28. The
Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and
others wrote, as well. I am glad to report that Ms. Michel was accorded
a second credible fear interview. At this second interview, Ms. Michel
was found to have a credible fear of persecution, and will now have the
chance to raise an asylum claim.
Despite this reprieve, however, Ms. Michel's case reveals yet again
the serious flaws in expedited removal. A woman who told a compelling
history about the danger she faced if returned to her country was only
able to receive an asylum hearing after the intervention of highly
capable counsel and Members of both Houses of Congress. That it is not
an effective or just system. If Ms. Michel's case had not come to the
attention of the Lawyers' Committee, she would likely already be back
in the Dominican Republic. If she had been forced back, I shudder to
think what might have happened to her.
People who flee their countries to escape serious danger should be
able to have asylum hearings in the United States without having to
navigate the procedural roadblocks established by expedited removal. I,
again, call upon the Senate to consider S. 1940, the Refugee Protection
Act, a bipartisan bill I introduced last fall with Senator Brownback
and five other Senators of both parties. This bill would restrict the
use of expedited removal to times of immigration emergencies, and
include due process protections in those rare times when it is used.
Expedited removal was originally instituted in the 1996 Anti-
Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). Under expedited
removal, low-level INS officers with cursory supervision have the
authority to ``remove'' people who arrive at our border without proper
documentation, or with facially valid documentation that the officer
simply suspects is invalid. No review--administrative or judicial--is
available of the INS officer's decision, which is rendered after a so-
called secondary inspection interview. ``Removal'' is an antiseptic way
of saying thrown out of the country.
Expedited removal was widely criticized at the time of its passage as
ignoring the realities of political persecution, since people being
tortured by their government are quite likely to have difficulties
obtaining valid travel documents from that government. Its adoption was
viewed by many--including a majority of this body--as an abandonment of
our historical commitment to refugees and a misplaced reaction to our
legitimate fears of terrorism.
When we debated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act later the same year, I offered an amendment with
Senator DeWine to restrict the use of expedited removal to times of
immigration emergencies, which would be certified by the Attorney
General. This more limited authority was all that the Administration
had requested in the first place, and it was far more in line with our
international and historical commitments. This amendment passed the
Senate with bipartisan support, but it was removed in one of the most
partisan conference committees I have ever witnessed. As a result, the
extreme version of expedited removal contained in AEDPA remained law,
and was implemented in 1997. Ever since, I have attempted to fix the
problems with expedited removal.
The Refugee Protection Act is modeled closely on the 1996 amendment
that passed the Senate, and I have been optimistic that it too would be
supported by a broad coalition of Senators. It allows expedited removal
only in times of immigration emergencies, and it provides due process
rights and elemental fairness for those arriving at our borders without
sacrificing security concerns. But even as the Refugee Protection act
has gained additional cosponsors during this session, it has been
ignored by the Senate leadership. Indeed, despite my requests, the bill
has not even received a hearing.
[[Page 18420]]
Meanwhile, in the three and a half years that expedited removal has
been in operation, we already have numerous stories of valid asylum
seekers who were thrown out of the country without the opportunity to
convince an immigration judge that they faced persecution in their
native lands. To provide just one example, ``Dem,'' a Kosovar Albanian,
was summarily removed from the U.S. after the civil war in Kosovo had
already made the front pages of America's newspapers. During his
interview with the INS inspector who had unreviewable discretion over
his fate, he was provided with a Serbian translator who did not speak
Albanian, rendering the interview a farce. Instead of being embraced as
a political refugee, he was put on the next plane back to where his
flight had originated. We only know about his story at all because he
was dogged enough to make it back to the United States. On this second
trip, he was found to have a credible fear of persecution and he is
currently in the midst of the asylum process.
One of the most distressing parts of expedited removal is that there
is no way for us to know how many deserving refugees have been
excluded. Because secondary inspection interviews are conducted in
secret, we typically only learn about mistakes when refugees manage to
make it back to the United States a second time, like Dem, or when they
are deported to a third country they passed through on their way to the
U.S. This uncertainty should lead us to be especially wary of
continuing this failed experiment.
And now we must even be concerned about the conduct of credible fear
interviews. When aliens subject to expedited removal express a fear of
returning to their home country, the law requires that they be referred
for a credible fear hearing. If their fear is found to be legitimate,
they are then allowed to make a claim for political asylum. These
interviews are not designed to make judgments about legal questions,
but simply to determine whether a person may have a valid asylum claim.
This process failed Ms. Michel, and we must now worry that it is
failing other refugees.
I am also concerned about the underlying legal issue in the case of
Ms. Michel and other victims of domestic violence. Last year, the Board
of Immigration Appeals denied the asylum request of a Guatemalan woman
who faced likely death at the hands of her husband if she were forced
to return home. In that decision, Matter of
R-A-, the BIA decided that victims of domestic violence did not qualify
as a ``social group'' under our asylum laws. The Attorney General
currently has this very decision under review. It is my hope that she
will reverse it.
Last year I sent a letter to the INS Commissioner supporting the
asylum claim of Ms. R-A. In that case, the INS did not dispute her
account of horrific abuse, including her claims that her husband raped
and pistol-whipped her, and beat her unconscious in front of her
children. Nor did the INS dispute that law enforcement authority in her
native Guatemala told her that they would not protect her from violent
crimes committed against her by her husband. Based on this evidence, an
immigration judge determined in 1996 that she was entitled to asylum,
but the INS appealed that ruling and convinced the BIA to reverse it.
That decision is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, but that court has stayed its consideration of the matter
pending the Attorney General's own review.
Evidence of domestic violence is sadly all too common in our asylum
system. Last year, I also encouraged the INS to grant asylum to a 16-
year-old girl from Mexico who sought asylum in the United States after
fleeing from a father who had beaten her since she was three years old,
using whips, tree branches, his fists, and a hose. Apparently, the girl
attempted to intervene when her father was beating her mother. Again,
local law enforcement failed to protect the girl, and she fled to the
United States. As in R-A-, an immigration judge granted her asylum
request, but the INS appealed, and the BIA reversed it.
These BIA decisions came only two years after its decision that
Fauziya Kasinga--who faced female genital mutilation if forced to
return to her native Togo--was protected by our asylum laws. In making
this decision, the BIA found that potential victims of genital
mutilation constituted a ``social group.'' I agree with this decision,
and I believe that women fearing domestic violence must certainly also
so qualify. This is especially true where--as is the case for Ms.
Michel and many other women--the asylum applicants come from nations
where law enforcement officials often turn a blind eye to claims of
domestic violence.
Of course, the problems faced by women around the world go beyond
domestic violence. Another stark example of the ways in which women
applicants may be insufficiently protected by our asylum laws comes
from the case of Ms. A-, a Jordanian woman seeking asylum in the United
States after fleeing the prospect of a so-called ``honor killing'' in
Jordan. I wrote the Attorney General in February--along with a
bipartisan group of six other Senators--to support her asylum
application. Ms. A- had fallen in love with a Palestinian man who asked
her to marry him. Her father forbade the marriage, however, because he
was Palestinian and had a low-paying job. Ms. A- was at that point
faced with the possibility that she might be pregnant and the certainty
that her future husband, whoever he might be, would know that she was
no longer a virgin, a fact that would bring shame and dishonor upon her
family and potentially justify her murder at her family's hands under a
widely-practiced Jordanian custom. She fled to the United States and
married this man.
In June 1995, her sister informed her that their father had met with
their nuclear family, uncles and cousins to demand that they kill A-
wherever they might meet her. The State Department reported that there
were more than 20 ``honor killings'' in Jordan in 1998, and speculated
that the actual number was probably four times as high. Making matters
even worse, these killings are typically punishable by only a few
months' imprisonment.
Despite the very close resemblance between these facts and the facts
in Kasinga, both an immigration judge and the BIA found that Ms. A- was
ineligible for asylum. The INS has agreed to stay further proceedings
in the case while the Attorney General reviews the matter.
The existence of these problems in our asylum system shows that there
is still work to be done, both by this Congress and in the executive
branch. I call upon the Senate to use some of the time we have
remaining to address the problems in our expedited removal system, and
upon the Attorney General and the INS to be vigilant that victims of
rape and other forms of serious domestic abuse not be returned to their
countries under expedited removal. And I renew my call to the Attorney
General that we reevaluate our position on asylum eligibility for
victims of severe domestic violence from nations that do not take
domestic violence seriously. Finally, I encourage all of my colleagues
to sign on to a letter that Senator Landrieu and I are circulating that
would ask the Attorney General to overturn R-A- and reaffirm our
commitment to human rights and women's rights.
____________________
HUD'S GUN BUYBACK PROGRAM
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent months, some Members of
Congress have questioned the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's authority to conduct gun buyback programs under the
Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act. As the author of that
legislation, I rise to set the record straight.
In proposing the Public and Assisted Housing Drug Elimination Act, my
intent was to make our streets safer, particularly in federally-
assisted and low-income housing where the federal government has a
clear responsibility to protect families. And that intent is reflected
in the statutory language, 42 U.S.C. Section 11902(a), which provides
that HUD is to make grants available for use in ``eliminating drug-
related
[[Page 18421]]
and violent crime.'' Certainly, violent crime includes all of the
offenses involving guns, whether it is murder, robbery, or gang-related
activity. In short, gun buybacks are an eligible activity under the
Act, and HUD has acted properly in assisting housing authorities and
local communities with this important effort.
Furthermore, HUD's efforts to combat gun violence have been very
successful. HUD's Gun Buyback and Violence Reduction Initiative has
taken about 18,500 guns off the streets in more than 70 cities, and
this program has received strong support from community organizations
and law enforcement.
Every year, gun violence claims an average of 30,000 lives and wounds
another 100,000 people. Congress should support, and not impede, local
efforts to get guns off our streets and reduce crime.
____________________
THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday,
September 18, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,651,871,016,617.17,
five trillion, six hundred fifty-one billion, eight hundred seventy-one
million, sixteen thousand, six hundred seventeen dollars and seventeen
cents.
Five years ago, September 18, 1995, the Federal debt stood at
$4,963,469,000,000, four trillion, nine hundred sixty-three billion,
four hundred sixty-nine million.
Ten years ago, September 18, 1990, the Federal debt stood at
$3,232,530,000,000, three trillion, two hundred thirty-two billion,
five hundred thirty million.
Fifteen years ago, September 18, 1985, the Federal debt stood at
$1,823,102,000,000, one trillion, eight hundred twenty-three billion,
one hundred two million.
Twenty-five years ago, September 18, 1975, the Federal debt stood at
$550,627,000,000, five hundred fifty billion, six hundred twenty-seven
million which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,101,244,016,617.17, five trillion, one hundred one billion, two
hundred forty-four million, sixteen thousand, six hundred seventeen
dollars and seventeen cents during the past 25 years.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
RECOGNITION OF MEGAN QUANN, GOLD MEDAL SWIMMER FROM PUYALLUP, WA
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this
opportunity to congratulate a remarkable young woman who hails from the
great state of Washington and just recently struck gold at the Summer
Olympics in Sydney, Australia.
On Monday, Megan Quann, a junior at Emerald Ridge High School in
Puyallup, won the gold medal in the 100-meter breaststroke. Megan
rallied from third place to win in a time of 1:07.05, setting a new
American record.
Practicing every morning at 4:30 a.m. and swimming over 11 miles a
day in preparation for the Olympics, Megan is a truly dedicated and
inspiring athlete. I have learned that the City of Puyallup is already
in the planning stages of welcoming their Olympic champion home with
keys to the city and a plan to set aside a day on the calendar as
``Megan Quann Day.''
Later this week, Megan will compete again as part of the women's
medley relay and will have another shot at bringing home the gold. I
wish Megan luck in her next race and ask that the Senate join me in
congratulating her for what she has achieved.
____________________
THE NATIONAL HISTORY DAY PROGRAM
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on and give
my support to a worthy program called National History Day. National
History Day is a year-long, nonprofit program in which children in
grades 6-12 research and create historical projects related to a broad
annual theme. This year's theme was ``Turning points in History:
People, Ideas, Events.'' Using this theme, students research their area
of interest and create a project, which is then entered in an annual
contest. The primary goal of the National History Day program is to
revolutionize the techniques implemented in teaching and training our
youth.
What I want to emphasize today is the tremendous impact this unique
and valuable program has had in my home state of New Mexico. New
Mexico's involvement with National History Day began three years ago,
and has continued to grow and enrich the lives of New Mexico's youth.
The participants in the first year were few, but to date we have had
more than one thousand young New Mexicans participate in the state
competition.
New Mexico students that participate in this program are given the
opportunity to expand upon critical thinking and research skills, which
in turn help them in all subject areas. The projects they work on give
them a greater appreciation of historical events that have helped shape
their own hometowns as well as their nation. This hands on approach to
history is an innovative way to get students excited and genuinely
interested in our great nation's history.
I know that with our support, the National History Day program will
continue to grow, and I believe that this growth is essential for
today's students. When students do not have an opportunity to
participate in this program, they miss out on a chance to grow and to
better themselves. As Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough states:
Knowledge of history is the precondition of political
intelligence. Without history, a society shares no common
memory of where it has been, of what its core values are, or
what decisions in the past account for the present
circumstance.
National History Day gives students an opportunity to learn of our
history and its importance in their daily lives.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this program.
____________________
NATIONAL LIBRARY CARD SIGN-UP MONTH
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to recognize September
as National Library Card Sign-up Month and pay tribute to those
dedicated individuals who, through their passion for books and
learning, make our libraries places of great discovery.
As school begins for millions of children this month, parents and
mentors are coming together to promote one of the most important school
supplies, one available free to every child: a library card. With the
support of the American Library Association, National Library Card
Sign-up Month spotlights the wealth of resources found at our local
public libraries. Libraries not only offer books, magazines, and
reference materials, but many also provide CDs, videos, and Internet
connections to assist children and adults meet their educational goals.
There is no better place than our libraries for bringing the world
and the events that shape it--past and present--to life. Fortunately, a
child doesn't need any special gadgets to experience all the library
has to offer; they just need their library card. A library card can
open the doors to space exploration, put a reader in the front seat
with a storm chaser, transport anyone with a good imagination back
thousands of years in time, and offer every imaginable point of view on
every topic of interest.
Mr. President, during National Library Card Sign-up Month, I commend
America's schools and libraries for providing and promoting an
environment that sparks a passion in people of all ages for books and
learning. And I urge parents and teachers alike to share their
knowledge and passion for learning with our children by signing them up
for library cards at the local public library.
____________________
[[Page 18422]]
FORMER SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR GEORGE CHRISTOPHER
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, it is with sadness that I rise to
inform my colleagues of the death of former San Francisco Mayor George
Christopher,
who passed away on September 14th at the age of 92. I express my
deepest condolences to Mayor Christopher's family and to his countless
friends.
The city has lost an extraordinary civic leader--one whose grand
vision and passion for helping people are vividly remembered by all who
knew him.
Although many residents were not yet born during George Christopher's
two terms as mayor from 1956 to 1964, the citizens of San Francisco
still benefit today from his dynamic and no nonsense leadership. People
like to say that San Francisco grew up during his tenure, that he made
it a big league city. Indeed, it was George Christopher who brought the
then New York Giants to town.
Mayor Christopher changed the way San Francisco looked and the way
its citizens looked at themselves. He transformed the City's skyline,
built the Japan Center and Candlestick Park, and he modernized
downtown. He built San Francisco into a cosmopolitan, world-class city.
The child of Greek immigrants, as mayor he ushered in an era of
stronger civil rights consciousness and was a particular hero to San
Francisco's Greek community. He was a man of international stature who
never lost his close connection to everyday people. Mayor Christopher's
life was dedicated to public service, and the San Francisco of today is
in many ways a living testament to his achievements both in and out of
office.
George Christopher was an exceptional leader who will be greatly
missed.
____________________
BYRON CENTER HIGH SCHOOL NAMED 1999-2000 BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in 1982, the United States
Department of Education initiated its Blue Ribbon Schools Program. In
each year since, the Department has recognized schools throughout the
country which excel in all areas of academic leadership, teaching and
teacher development, and school curriculum. In other words, Blue Ribbon
Schools are recognized because they are the finest public and private
secondary schools our Nation has to offer. They are the schools that
set the standard for which others strive. I am very proud to report
that nine of the 198 Blue Ribbon Schools named by Secretary Richard W.
Riley for 1999-2000 are located in the State of Michigan, and I rise
today to recognize Byron Center High School in Byron Center, Michigan,
one of these nine schools.
Over the past eight years, Byron Center High School has transformed
itself from a school rooted in the curriculum of the 1950's to one
prepared for the constantly changing information age of the 21st
Century. A graduate of Byron Center is now technologically,
academically, and culturally literate. The key to this transformation
has been a shift of focus, as administrators stopped tinkering with
curriculum and teaching strategies and rather developed a comprehensive
restructuring model, which enabled them to more effectively address the
entire educational process that Byron Center students are put through.
With the new restructuring model, Byron Center faculty and
administrators have focused their efforts on four areas: providing
effective guidance to all students by improving and promoting career
awareness programs; forming strong partnerships and effective working
relationships with local business and community leaders; hiring quality
teachers and allowing them to be the leaders in the effort to improve;
and constantly monitoring student performance, not only on state and
national tests, but also by conducting one year and five year follow up
surveys of Byron Center graduates, and collectively employing this
information to determine where improvements could occur within Byron
Center High School to better prepare students find success in a rapidly
changing world.
The success of the transformation can clearly be seen in the new
Byron Center High School facility, which students and staff moved into
the fall of 1998. Dr. Robert Burt, who visited Byron Center to make the
assessment for the Blue Ribbon Award, said that administrators ``built
the school around a structure of technology,'' which provided him a
``dramatic opportunity to learn about the new age of high schools.''
Indeed, the facility was designed to support the curriculum, teaching
strategies and information technology systems that have played such a
vital role in the overwhelmingly successful development of Byron Center
High School.
Mr. President, I applaud the students, parents, faculty and
administration of Byron Center High School, for I believe this is an
award which speaks more to the effort of a united community than it
does to the work of a few individuals. With that having been said, I
would like to recognize Dr. William Skilling, the Principal of Byron
Center High School, whose dedication to making his school one of the
finest in our Nation has been instrumental in creating this community.
On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I congratulate Byron
Center High School on being named a Blue Ribbon School for 1999-2000,
and wish the school continued success in the future.
____________________
IN HONOR OF WILLIAM F. ASKEW
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President. I rise today to give honor to
and remember the life of William F. Askew. Bill devoted his life to his
nation, his family and to delivering the comfort of the Lord's word to
the hearts of all those he touched.
Bill enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1942 and served in the
Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. He also served in
the Florida National Guard during the Korean Conflict. Bill married
Doris Dillman in June, 1946, and together they had 9 children. Bill was
the founding pastor of Arlington Heights Baptist Church in
Jacksonville, Florida, for 15 years, before moving to Springfield's
Noble Hill Baptist Church where he pastored for the next 26 years. In
1995, Bill retired from the pastorate, but continued to touch the lives
of young people with the love of God by serving as the foundations
class teacher at New Life Baptist Church.
Bill understood that preaching God's word meant more than speaking
from the pulpit on Sunday; it meant action as well. Bill participated
in Springfield and area community activities. He served as a longtime
member of the Springfield Northside Betterment Association and the
Breakfast Club of the Ozarks. He served as General Manager of a 100,000
watt Christian Radio Station, KWFC, in Springfield since it first
opened in 1968. And with all these activities, he still found time to
be a member of the teaching faculty at Baptist Bible College.
Bill's devotion to the Savior was his most prominent feature and
shapes the legacy that he leaves with his 9 children, 34 grandchildren
and 14 great grandchildren.
____________________
THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE AIR FORCE
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the
United States Air Force as it celebrates its 53rd anniversary. For more
than half a century, the men and women of the Air Force, through their
dedicated service and sacrifice, have helped to ensure the freedom and
security of America and the world.
Although military aviation in this country had its beginnings in the
Army, less than four years after the Wright brothers made their
historic first flight, it was not until 1947 that the Air Force was
established as a separate branch of the armed services.
The birth of the Air Force itself can be traced to 1907, when the
Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps was organized. In
1935, the General Headquarters was established, and the Air Corps
gained control of tactical units under General Frank Andrews, after
whom Andrews Air Force Base was named. Between the years of 1939 and
1945, this organization was known as the Army Air Force and was led by
the legendary General Henry ``Hap'' Arnold. In March 1942, the Army Air
Force became coequal with the
[[Page 18423]]
Army ground forces, a major step in the evolution of the Air Force.
Chief Army officers such as Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower witnessed
firsthand the vital role played by air power in World War II, and
foresaw the increasing importance of air power in future conflicts.
Military leaders recognized that the growing strategic significance of
aircraft made necessary the creation of an additional military branch,
alongside the Army, Navy, and Marines, and in 1947 the National
Security Act made the Air Force an autonomous military power.
Over the course of its illustrious history, the Air Force has taken
on additional responsibilities, extending its reach beyond the
atmosphere into space. In 1956, it was put in charge of all land-based
ballistic missile systems. The first missile under the control of the
Air Force--the Atlas ballistic missile--was made operational in
September 1959. By 1965, the Air Force was responsible for the
development of satellites, boosters, space probes, and other systems
used by NASA. According to former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Ronald
R. Fogleman, America is safer in a dangerous world because of what the
Air Force brings to our nation's defense: ``long range lethal combat
power . . . strategic mobility . . . global awareness that comes from
space assets, and . . . theater air dominance.'' This has been made
possible through a combination of highly trained service members and
highly sophisticated technology.
Thanks to the Air Force, the lives of American servicemen and women
in all military branches are safer than ever before during times of
conflict. Military aircraft are now able to achieve many military
objectives that once required ground troops, and American casualties
are greatly reduced as a result. The amazing performance of the Air
Force in the Persian Gulf War, which by all accounts dramatically
reduced the number of American lives lost in that conflict, shows just
how much we all owe our brave airmen.
In addition to its critical defense role, the Air Force has been
highly active in humanitarian and relief efforts over the years. One of
the most famous of these undertakings was the Berlin airlift between
June 1948 and June 1949. The largest airlift/evacuation in American
history occurred in 1991 when the Air Force moved 52,000 military
personnel and dependents from the Philippines to the U.S. following the
eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. An airlift in February of 1992 provided food
and medicine to Russia in Operation Provide Hope. Operation Provide
Promise, a relief effort into Sarajevo in 1992, was the longest
sustained humanitarian airlift in history. The Air Force has also been
involved in hundreds and hundreds of other relief missions all over the
world in response to earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters.
I would like to take this opportunity to note the contributions made
by Minnesotans and those men and women serving at Minnesota's Air Force
bases. These airmen have made a vital contribution to the success of
the Air Force over the past 53 years. I would like to thank in
particular those serving at Minnesota's Air Force Reserve and Air
National Guard facilities, specifically the airmen of the 934th Airlift
Wing and 133rd Airlift Wing in Minneapolis and the 148th Fighter Wing
in Duluth who keep our C-130s and F-16s flying. These men and women
deserve our thanks for making sure that we will always be prepared to
face with confidence any future threats to our nation's security.
On behalf of all Minnesotans, I thank the members of the Air Force
for their selfless devotion to our nation's defense. Throughout the
history of the Air Force, its members have made countless sacrifices
for their country, from the financial struggles all too often faced by
service members and their families, to the high price paid by those who
have been wounded, taken prisoner, or killed in battle. A grateful
nation will always be in their debt.
I'm sure my colleagues will join me in recognizing the rich heritage
and dedicated service of the United States Air Force on its
anniversary.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
executive messages referred
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
REPORT ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS PAYMENTS MADE TO CUBA PURSUANT TO TREASURY
DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC LICENSES--MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT--PM 128
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying
report; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
To the Congress of the United States:
As required by section 1705(e)(6) of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992,
22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6), as amended by section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty
and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Public Law 104-114,
110 Stat. 785, I transmit herewith a semiannual report detailing
payments made to Cuba as a result of the provision of
telecommunications services pursuant to Department of the Treasury
specific licenses.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, September 19, 2000.
President's Periodic Report on Telecommunications Payments Made to Cuba
Pursuant to Treasury Department Specific Licenses
This report is submitted pursuant to section 1705(e)(6) of
the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, 22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6) (the
``CDA''), as amended by Section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty
and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Public Law
104-114, 110 Stat. 785, 22 U.S.C. 6021-91 (March 12, 1996)
(the ``LIBERTAD Act''), which requires that I ``submit to the
Congress on a semiannual basis a report detailing payments
made to Cuba by any United States person as a result of the
provision of telecommunications services authorized by this
subsection.
The CDA, which provides that telecommunications services
are permitted between the United States and Cuba,
specifically authorizes the President to provide for these
payments by license. The CDA states that licenses may be
issued for full or partial payment of amounts due as a result
of provision of telecommunications services authorized by
this subsection, but shall not require any withdrawal from a
blocked account. Following enactment of the CDA on October
23, 1992, a number of U.S. telecommunications companies
successfully negotiated agreements to provide
telecommunications services between the United States and
Cuba consistent with policy guidelines developed by the
Department of State and the Federal Communications
Commission.
Subsequent to enactment of the CDA, the Department of the
Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (``OFAC'')
amended the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part
515 (the ``CACR''), to provide for specific licensing on a
case-by-case basis for certain transactions incident to the
receipt or transmission of telecommunications between the
United States and Cuba, 31 C.F.R. 515.542(c), including
settlement of charges under traffic agreements.
OFAC has issued eight (8) licenses authorizing transactions
incident to the receipt of transmission of telecommunications
between the United States and Cuba since the enactment of the
CDA. None of these licenses permits payments from a blocked
account. The licenses are AT&T Corporation (formerly,
American Telephone and Telegraph Company), AT&T de Puerto
Rico, IDB WorldCom Services, Inc. (formerly, IDB
Communications, Inc.), MCI International, Inc. (formerly, MCI
Communications Corporation), Telefonica Larga Distancia de
Puerto Rico, Inc., WilTel, Inc. (Formerly, WilTel Underseas
Cable, Inc.), WorldCom, Inc. (formerly, LDDS Communications,
Inc.), and Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (formerly,
Global One, and prior to that, Sprint Incorporated).
During the period January 1 through June 30, 2000, the
licensees transferred funds to the Cuban telecommunications
company Empresa de Telecommunicaciones de Cuba, S.A.
(``ETECSA'') to settle current charges for its portion of
jointly provided international telecommunications services.
In addition, many of the licenseses transferred funds earned
by ETECSA in prior periods but not transferred in those prior
periods due to pending litigation (Alejandre v. the Republic
of Cuba et al.). Pursuant to changes in corporate accounting
practices, payments on
[[Page 18424]]
behalf of AT&T de Puerto Rico are now being disbursed by AT&T
Corporation. The aggregated funds transferred during the
period January 1 through June 30, 2000 totaled:
AT&T Corporation (formerly, American Telephone and Telegraph$17,331,979
Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (formerly Global One, Sprint
Incorporated)...............................................6,033,989
IDB WorldCom Services, Inc. (formerly, IDB Communications, Inc1,234,773
MCI International, Inc. (formerly, MCI Communications Corporat4,373,238
Telefonica Larga Distancia de Puerto Rico, Inc..................367,936
WilTel, Inc. (formerly, WilTel Underseas Cable, Inc.)...........897,435
WorldCom, Inc. (formerly, LDDS Communications, Inc.)..........4,496,465
________________
Total..................................................34,735,815
I shall continue to report semiannually on OFAC-licensed
telecommunications payments.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 12:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate.
H.R. 1113. An act to assist in the development and
implementation of projects to provide for the control of
drainage, storm, flood and other waters as part of water-
related integrated resource management, environment
infrastructure, and resource protection and development
projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed, California.
H.R. 1715. An act to extend the expiration date of the
Defense Production Act of 1950, and for other purposes.
H.R. 2271. An act to amend the National Trails System Act
to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National
Historic Trail.
H.R. 2798. An act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to
provide financial assistance to the States of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, and California for salmon habitat
restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages.
H.R. 2799. An act to amend the Clear Creek County,
Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 to provide
additional time for Clear Creek County to dispose of certain
lands transferred to the county under the Act.
H.R. 2984. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior,
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to convey to the Loup
Basin Reclamation District, the Sargent River Irrigation
District, and the Farwell Irrigation District, Nebraska,
property comprising the assets of the Middle Loup Division of
the Missouri River Basin Project, Nebraska.
H.R. 4096. An act to authorize the Secretary of the
Treasury to produce currency, postage stamps, and other
security documents at the request of foreign governments, and
security documents at the request of the individual States or
any political subdivision thereof, on a reimbursable basis,
and for other purposes.
H.R. 4226. An act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to sell or exchange all or part of certain administrative
sites and other land in the Black Hills National Forest and
to use funds derived from the sale or exchange to acquire
replacement sites and to acquire or construct administrative
improvements in connection with the Black Hills National
Forest.
H.R. 4643. An act to provide for the settlement of issues
and claims related to the trust lands of the Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4931. An act to provide for the training or
orientation of individuals, during a Presidential transition,
who the President intends to appoint to certain key
positions, to provide for a study and report on improving the
financial disclosure process for certain Presidential
nominees, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5010. An act to provide for a circulating quarter
dollar coin program to commemorate the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5173. A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
sections 103(b)(2) and 213(b)(2)(C) of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the
public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on the public
debt.
H.R. 5193. An act to amend the National Housing Act to
temporarily extend the applicability of the down payment
simplification provisions for the FHA single family housing
mortgage insurance program.
The message also announced that the House disagree to the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4919) entitled ``An act to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to make
improvements to certain defense and security assistance provisions
under those Acts, to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain
foreign countries, and for other purposes,'' and agree to the
conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses and appoint the following Mr. Gilman, Mr. Goodling, and Mr.
Gejdenson, to be the managers of the conference on the part of the
House.
The message further announced that the House has agreed to the Senate
amendment to the following bill, with an amendment:
H.R. 1651. An act to amend the Fisherman's Protective Act
of 1967 to extend the period during which reimbursement may
be provided to owners of United States fishing vessels for
costs incurred when such a vessel is seized and detained by a
foreign country, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the Senate
amendment to the following bill, with an amendment:
H.R. 2909. An act to provide for implementation by the
United States of the Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry
Adoption, and for other purposes.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bill, with an amendment, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
S. 1849. An act to designate segments and tributaries of
White Clay Creek, Delaware and Pennsylvania, as a component
of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, with an
amendment.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1113. An act to assist in the development and
implementation of projects to provide for the control of
drainage, storm, flood and other waters as part of water-
related integrated resource management, environmental
infrastructure, and resource protection and development
projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed, California; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2798. An act to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to
provide financial assistance to the States of Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, and California for salmon habitat
restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 2799. An act to amend the Clear Creek County,
Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 to provide
additional time for Clear Creek County to dispose of certain
lands transferred to the county under the Act; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 2984. An act to direct the Secretary of the Interior,
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to convey to the Loup
Basin Reclamation District, the Sargent River Irrigation
District, and the Farwell Irrigation District, Nebraska,
property comprising the assets of the Middle Loup Division of
the Missouri River Basin Project, Nebraska; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 4096. An act to authorize the Secretary of the
Treasury to produce currency, postage stamps, and other
security documents at the request of foreign governments, and
security documents at the request of the individual States or
any political subdivision thereof, on a reimbursable basis,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
H.R. 4643. An act to provide for the settlement of issues
and claims related to the trust lands of the Torres-Martinez
Desert Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
H.R. 5010. An act to provide for a circulating quarter
dollar coin program to commemorate the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
H.R. 5193. A bill to amend the National Housing Act
temporarily extend the applicability of the downpayment
notification provisions for the FHA single family housing
mortgage insurance program; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs.
____________________
[[Page 18425]]
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bills were read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:
H.R. 2271. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act
to designate El Camino
Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail.
H.R. 4226. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to sell or exchange all or part of certain administrative
sites and other land in the Black Hills National Forest and
to use funds derived from the sale or exchange to acquire
replacement sites and to acquire or construct administrative
improvements in connection with the Black Hills National
Forest.
H.R. 4931. A bill to provide for the training or
orientation of individuals, during a Presidential transition,
who the President intends to appoint to certain key
positions, to provide for a study and report on improving the
financial disclosure process for certain Presidential
nominees, and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
H.R. 5173. A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
sections 103(b)(2) and 213(b)(2)(C) of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the
public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on the public
debt.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
On September 12, 2000, the following communication was laid before
the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents,
which was referred as indicated:
EC-10678. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Closure of Fishery for Loligo Squid''
received on September 8, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
On September 19, 2000, the following communications were laid before
the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents,
which were referred as indicated:
EC-10795. A communication from the Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the OMB Sequestration Update
Report for fiscal year 2000, referred jointly, pursuant to
the order of January 30, 1975 as modified by the order of
April 11, 1986, to the Committees on Appropriations; the
Budget; Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Armed Services;
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Commerce, Science, and
Transportation; Environment and Public Works; Energy and
Natural Resources; Finance; Foreign Relations; Governmental
Affairs; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; the
Judiciary; Rules and Administration; Small Business;
Veterans' Affairs; Indian Affairs; and Intelligence.
EC-10796. A communication from the Deputy Chief Counsel of
the Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Depositaries and Financial Agents of the Federal Government
(31 CFR Part 202)'' (RIN1510-AA75) received on September 8,
2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10797. A communication from the Deputy Chief Counsel of
the Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Acceptance of Bonds Secured by Government Obligations in
Lieu of Bonds with Sureties (31 CFR Part 225)'' (RIN1510-
AA77) received on September 8, 2000; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-10798. A communication from the Deputy Chief Counsel of
the Financial Management Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Payment of Federal Taxes and the Treasury Tax and Loan
Program (31 CFR Part 203)'' (RIN1510-AA76) received on
September 8, 2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10799. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Weighted Average Interest Rate Update'' (Notice 2000-46)
received on September 11, 2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10800. A communication from the Commissioner of Social
Security, Social Security Administration, transmitting, a
draft of proposed legislation entitled ``Social Security
Amendments of 2000''; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10801. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revenue Procedure 2000-38 Distributor Commissions'' (RP-
105492-00) received on September 14, 2000; to the Committee
on Finance.
EC-10802. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Bureau of
the Public Debt, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Collateral Acceptability and Valuation'' (RIN1535-AA00)
received on September 12, 2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10803. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Rev. Proc. 2000-37 Like-kind exchanges (``parking''
arrangements)'' (Rev. Proc. 2000-37) received on September
15, 2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10804. A communication from the Chief, Regulations Unit,
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Toll-Free Number For The Appeals Customer Service Program''
(Announcement 2000-80, 2000-40 I.R.B.) received on September
15, 2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10805. A communication from the Chief, Regulations
Branch, U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Vessel Equipment Temporarily Landed for Repair'' (RIN1515-
AC35) received on September 15, 2000; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-10806. A communication from the Chief, Regulations
Branch, U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Endorsement of Checks Deposited by Customs'' (RIN1515-AC48)
received on September 15, 2000; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-10807. A communication from the Secretary of Commerce
and the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting jointly, a
draft of proposed legislation entitled ``Marine Mammal
Protection Act Amendments of 2000''; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-10808. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations, Las Vegas and Pecos, NM''
(MM Docket No. 00-5, RM-9752) received on September 5, 2000;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-10809. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments; FM Broadcast Stations Arcadia, Gibsland, and
Hodge, Louisiana and Wake Village, Texas'' (MM Docket No. 99-
144, RM-9538, RM-9747, RM-9748) received on September 12,
2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-10810. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Kaycee, Basin, Wyoming)''
(MM Docket No. 98-87 RM-9278 RM-9608) received on September
12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-10811. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Stamps and Fouke,
Arkansas)'' (MM Docket No. 99-241; RM-9480) received on
September 12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-10812. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Canton and Saranac Lake,
NY)'' (MM Docket No. 99-293, RM-9720, RM-9721) received on
September 12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-10813. A communication from the Special Assistant to the
Bureau Chief, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Canton and Morristown, New
York)'' (MM Docket No. 99-362, RM-9730) received on September
12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-10814. A communication from the Associate Bureau Chief,
Wireless Telecommunications, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Geographical channel block layout'' (RINDA
00-1654) received on September 11, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-10815. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries off West Coast
States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery; Announcement of fixed gear sablefish mop-up fishery;
fishing restrictions'' received on September 14, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
[[Page 18426]]
EC-10816. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery;
Implementation of Conditional Closures'' received on
September 14, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-10817. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Pacific Tuna Fisheries; Closure
of the Purse Seine Fishery for Bigeye Tuna'' received on
September 14, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-10818. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States
and in the western Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries;
Inseason Adjustments From Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain,
Oregon'' received on September 12, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-10819. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackerel in the Eastern
Aleutian District and Bering Sea Subarea of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands'' received on September 12, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-10820. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels
using Trawl Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands''
received on September 12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-10821. A communication from the Acting Director of the
Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska--Closes Gulf of Alaska for Hook-and-
Line Gear Groundfish'' received on September 12, 2000; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-10822. A communication from the Associate Bureau Chief,
Wireless Telecommunications Commission, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``WT Docket 99-327, 24 GHz Report
and Order, Amendment of rules governing 24 GHz Service, 47
C.F.R. 1, 2, 87 and 101'' (WT Docket 99-327, FCC 00-272)
received on September 12, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-10823. A communication from the Chairman of the Federal
Election Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Revision of Reporting Forms
Implementing FEC Rules Transmitted on June 16, 2000 and July
6, 2000'' received on September 15, 2000; to the Committee on
Rules and Administration.
EC-10824. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Final Flood Elevation
Determinations 67 FR 53917 09/06/2000'' received on September
15, 2000; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-10825. A communication from the General Counsel of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Disaster Assistance:
Cerro Grande Fire Assistance 65 FR 52260 08/28/2000'' (RIN-
3067-AD12) received on September 5, 2000; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-10826. A communication from the Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the
Santa Barbara County Distinct Population of the California
Tiger Salamander as Endangered'' (RIN1018-AF81) received on
September 18, 2000; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-10827. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of
State (Legislative Affairs), transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of the transmittal of the certification of the
proposed issuance of an export license relative to Japan; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-10828. A communication from the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Prevailing Rate Systems;
Abolishment of the St. Louis, MO, Special Wage Schedule for
Printing Positions'' (RIN3206-AJ24) received on September 15,
2000; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-10829. A communication from the Director of the National
Science Foundation, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
relative to the inventory of commercial activities; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
EC-10830. A communication from the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the Patent
and Trademark Office, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Simplification of Certain
Requirements in Patent Interface Practice'' (RIN0651-AB15)
received on September 15, 2000; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
EC-10831. A communication from the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting, a report
relative to the October 2000 Term of the Court; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
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 2001'' (Rept.
No. 106-414).
By Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
without amendment:
H.R. 2647: A bill to amend the Act entitled ``An Act
relating to the water rights of the Ak-Chin Indian
Community'' to clarify certain provisions concerning the
leasing of such water rights, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 106-415).
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 3064. A bill to provide for the reliquidation of certain
entries of vacuum cleaners; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. MILLER:
S. 3065. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to expand the Hope Scholarship Credit for expenses of
individuals receiving certain State scholarships; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 3066. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social
Security Act to require criminal background checks for
nursing facility workers; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kennedy,
and Mr. Reid):
S. 3067. A bill to require changes in the bloodborne
pathogens standard in effect under the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr
. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Graham, Mr. Wellstone, and
Mr. Kerry):
S. 3068. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to remove certain limitations on the eligibility of
aliens residing in the United States to obtain lawful
permanent resident status; read the first time.
By Mr. BROWNBACK:
S. 3069. A bill to amend the Television Program Improvement
Act of 1990 to restore the applicability of that Act to
agreements relating to voluntary guidelines governing
telecast material and to revise the agreements on guidelines
covered by that Act; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3070. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
establish criminal penalties for distribution of defective
products, to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States
Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, and
discovery information in civil actions, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Schumer) (by
request):
S. 3071. A bill to provide for the appointment of
additional Federal circuit and district judges, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 3072. A bill to assist in the enhancement of the
development of expansion of international economic assistance
programs that utilize cooperatives and credit unions, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 3073. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the
Social Security Act to promote smoking cessation under the
medicare program, the medicaid program, and the maternal and
child health program; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire):
S.J. Res. 52. A joint resolution granting the consent of
Congress to the International
Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
[[Page 18427]]
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. Con. Res. 136. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress regarding the importance of bringing
transparency, accountability, and effectiveness to the World
Bank and its programs and projects; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. Con. Res. 137. Concurrent Resolution recognizing,
appreciating, and remembering with dignity and respect the
Native American men and women who have served the United
States in military service; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 3066. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security
Act to require criminal background checks for nursing facility workers;
to the Committee on Finance.
the senior care safety act of 2000
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Senior
Care Safety Act of 2000. This bill prohibits nursing homes and other
long-term care facilities operating under the Social Security and
Medicaid systems from employing individuals with a demonstrated history
of violent, criminal behavior or drug dealing. To that end, it requires
these nursing facilities to conduct criminal background checks on all
of their prospective employees as part of the hiring process. Nursing
facilities that fail to conduct a background check prior to hiring an
employee are subject to a civil fine of up to $5,000. The reason for
these requirements is simple: we must ensure that our most defenseless
senior Americans--those in need of long-term nursing care--are attended
not by people with a demonstrated history of violent, criminal
behavior, but by the most qualified and trustworthy individuals
available.
The Senior Care Safety Act provides nursing facilities with the tools
necessary to accomplish this objective. It requires the Department of
Justice to open federal databases of criminal background information to
nursing homes so that they can promptly determine if prospective
employees have a criminal record. The act provides that the Department
of Justice provide this information without charge to the facility or
the applicant. Furthermore, it ensures that those who comply with the
background check requirement are insulated from liability for refusing
to hire someone prohibited from working in a nursing facility by this
provision. Finally, it guarantees the privacy of those individuals who
are denied such employment due to a criminal record by prohibiting the
use by a nursing facility of an individual's background information for
any purpose other than complying with this act.
It is tragic that a bill like this is necessary. But, while the
overwhelming majority of those who care for the more than 40,000 senior
citizens receiving 24-hour care in my home state of Missouri, and the
more than 1.5 million of such seniors nationwide are dedicated and
caring individuals, there are unfortunately too many examples of those
who take advantage of this position of trust. There are far too many
stories of convicted violent felons who have slipped through the cracks
in the hiring process and have physically or mentally abused our
frailest citizens in the very institutions that their families have
entrusted them for care. This bill will play an important role in
ensuring that when a family entrusts their loved ones to a nursing
facility, they can rest assured that those who are looking after them
are not violent felons. I look forward to working with my fellow
Senators to pass this important legislation in the time remaining this
year.
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. 3066
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 ``Senior Care Safety Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR NURSING FACILITY
WORKERS.
(a) Medicare.--
(1) Requirement to conduct criminal background checks.--
Section 1819(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395i-3(d)(4)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Screening of workers.--
``(i) In general.--A skilled nursing facility shall not
knowingly employ an individual unless the individual has
passed a criminal background check conducted in accordance
with the requirements of clause (ii).
``(ii) Requirements.--
``(I) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall notify skilled
nursing facilities of the requirements of this subparagraph.
``(II) Skilled nursing facility requirements.--
``(aa) Provision of statements to applicants.--Not later
than 180 days after a skilled nursing facility receives a
notice in accordance with subclause (I), the skilled nursing
facility shall adopt and enforce the requirement that each
applicant for employment at the skilled nursing facility
shall complete the written statement described in subclause
(III).
``(bb) Transmittal of completed statements.--Not later than
5 business days after a skilled nursing facility receives
such completed written statement, the skilled nursing
facility shall transmit such statement to the Attorney
General.
``(III) Statement described.--The written statement
described in this subclause shall contain the following:
``(aa) The name, address, and date of birth appearing on a
valid identification document (as defined section 1028(d)(2)
of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, a
description of the identification document used, and the
applicant's social security account number.
``(bb) A statement that the applicant has never been
convicted of a crime of violence or of a Federal or State
offense consisting of the distribution of controlled
substances (as that term is defined in section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
``(cc) The date the statement is made.
``(IV) Attorney general requirements.--
``(aa) In general.--Upon receipt of a completed written
statement from a skilled nursing facility, the Attorney
General, using information available to the Department of
Justice, shall notify the facility of the receipt of such
statement and promptly determine whether the applicant
completing the statement has ever been convicted of a crime
described in subclause (III)(bb).
``(bb) Notification of failure to pass.--Not later than 5
business days after the receipt of such statement, the
Attorney General shall inform the skilled nursing facility
transmitting the statement if the applicant completing the
statement did not pass the background check. A skilled
nursing facility not so informed within such period shall
consider the applicant completing the statement to have
passed the background check.
``(cc) No fee.--In no case shall a skilled nursing facility
or an applicant be charged a fee in connection with the
background check process conducted under this clause.
``(iii) Limitation on use of information.--A skilled
nursing facility that obtains criminal background information
about an applicant pursuant to this subparagraph may use such
information only for the purpose of determining the
suitability of the worker for employment.
``(iv) No action based on failure to hire.--In any action
against a skilled nursing facility based on a failure or
refusal to hire an applicant, the fact that the applicant did
not pass a background check conducted in accordance with this
subparagraph shall be a complete defense to such action.''.
(2) Penalties.--Section 1819(h)(1) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(h)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking the heading and inserting ``State
authority'';
(B) in the first sentence--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii) and indenting such clauses appropriately; and
(ii) by striking ``If a State'' and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--If a State'';
(C) in the second sentence, by striking ``If a State'' and
inserting the following:
``(C) Penalties for prior failures.--If a State''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (A) (as added by
subparagraph (B)(ii) of this paragraph) the following new
subparagraph:
[[Page 18428]]
``(B) Required penalties.--A civil money penalty of not
more than $5000 shall be assessed and collected, with
interest, against any facility which is or was out of
compliance with the requirements of clause (i), (ii)(II), or
(iii) of subsection (d)(4)(B).''.
(b) Medicaid.--
(1) Requirement to conduct criminal background checks.--
Section 1919(d)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r(d)(4)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) Screening of workers.--
``(i) In general.--A nursing facility shall not knowingly
employ an individual unless the individual has passed a
criminal background check conducted in accordance with the
requirements of clause (ii).
``(ii) Requirements.--
``(I) Notification.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall notify nursing
facilities of the requirements of this subparagraph.
``(II) Nursing facility requirements.--
``(aa) Provision of statements to applicants.--Not later
than 180 days after a nursing facility receives a notice in
accordance with subclause (I), the nursing facility shall
adopt and enforce the requirement that each applicant for
employment at the nursing facility shall complete the written
statement described in subclause (III).
``(bb) Transmittal of completed statements.--Not later than
5 business days after a nursing facility receives such
completed written statement, the nursing facility shall
transmit such statement to the Attorney General.
``(III) Statement described.--The written statement
described in this subclause shall contain the following:
``(aa) The name, address, and date of birth appearing on a
valid identification document (as defined section 1028(d)(2)
of title 18, United States Code) of the applicant, a
description of the identification document used, and the
applicant's social security account number.
``(bb) A statement that the applicant has never been
convicted of a crime of violence or of a Federal or State
offense consisting of the distribution of controlled
substances (as that term is defined in section 102(6) of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
``(cc) The date the statement is made.
``(IV) Attorney general requirements.--
``(aa) In general.--Upon receipt of a completed written
statement from a nursing facility, the Attorney General,
using information available to the Department of Justice,
shall notify the facility of the receipt of such statement
and promptly determine whether the applicant completing the
statement has ever been convicted of a crime described in
subclause (III)(bb).
``(bb) Notification of failure to pass.--Not later than 5
business days after the receipt of such statement, the
Attorney General shall inform the nursing facility
transmitting the statement if the applicant completing the
statement did not pass the background check. A nursing
facility not so informed within such period shall consider
the applicant completing the statement to have passed the
background check.
``(cc) No fee.--In no case shall a nursing facility or an
applicant be charged a fee in connection with the background
check process conducted under this clause.
``(iii) Limitation on use of information.--A nursing
facility that obtains criminal background information about
an applicant pursuant to this subparagraph may use such
information only for the purpose of determining the
suitability of the worker for employment.
``(iv) No action based on failure to hire.--In any action
against a nursing facility based on a failure or refusal to
hire an applicant, the fact that the applicant did not pass a
background check conducted in accordance with this
subparagraph shall be a complete defense to such action.''.
(2) Penalties.--Section 1919(h)(2)(A) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(h)(2)(A)) is amended by
inserting after clause (iv) the following new clause:
``(v) A civil money penalty of not more than $5000 shall be
assessed and collected, with interest, against any facility
which is or was out of compliance with the requirements of
clause (i), (ii)(II), or (iii) of subsection (d)(4)(B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
take effect on October 1, 2000.
SEC. 3. REPORT ON CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall conduct a
study of the effects of background checks in nursing
facilities and submit a report to Congress that includes the
following:
(1) The success of conducting background checks on nursing
facility employees.
(2) The impact of background checks on patient care in such
facilities.
(3) The need to conduct background checks in other patient
care settings outside of nursing facilities.
(4) Suggested methods for further improving the background
check system and the estimated costs of such improvements.
(b) Definition of nursing facility.--In subsection (a), the
term ``nursing facility'' has the meaning given that term in
section 1919(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r(a)) and includes a skilled nursing facility (as defined
in section 1819(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(a))).
______
By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Reid):
S. 3067. A bill to require changes in the bloodborne pathogens
standard in effect under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
THE NEEDLESTICK SAFETY and PREVENTION ACT
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to introduce
today, along with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Reid, the Needlestick
Safety and Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that our
nation's health care workers, who tend to our citizens when care is
urgently needed, will no longer be risking their own health, and,
perhaps, their own lives, when providing this life giving work.
Statistics paint a stark picture of the risks from accidental sharps
injuries that health care workers face daily on the job, injuries that
can be prevented, and, when Congress passes this legislation, will be
prevented. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated
that as many as 800,000 injuries from contaminated sharps occur
annually among health care workers. Due to these injuries, numerous
health care workers have contracted fatal or other serious viruses and
diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis
B, and hepatitis C.
``Needlesticks'' refer to the broad category of injuries suffered by
workers in health care settings who are exposed to sharps, including
items such as disposable syringes with needles, IV catheters, lancets,
and glass capillary tubes/pipettes. The true shame in these alarming
statistics is that accidental needlestick injuries can be prevented.
Technological advancements have led to the development of safer medical
devices, such as syringes with needle guards or sheaths.
The heart of the ``Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act'' is its
requirement that employers identify, evaluate, and make use of
effective safer medical devices. And the legislation emphasizes
training, education, and the participation of those workers exposed to
sharps injuries in the evaluation and selection of safer devices. The
Act also creates new record keeping requirements, a ``sharps injury
log,'' to aid employers in identifying high risk areas, and in
determining the types of engineering controls and devices most
effective in reducing or eliminating the risk of exposure. Importantly,
the legislation we introduce today will not impede, but will encourage
technological development, as it does not favor the use of a specific
device, but requires an employer to evaluate the effectiveness of
available devices.
I urge all my colleagues to join us in supporting the ``Needlestick
Safety and Prevention Act.''
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 3067
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 ``Needlestick Safety and
Prevention Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Numerous workers who are occupationally exposed to
bloodborne pathogens have contracted fatal and other serious
viruses and diseases, including the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), hepatitis B, and hepatitis C from exposure to
blood and other potentially infectious materials in their
workplace.
(2) In 1991 the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration issued a standard regulating occupational
exposure to bloodborne pathogens, including the human
immunodeficiency virus, (HIV), the hepatitis B virus (HBV),
and the hepatitis C virus (HCV).
(3) Compliance with the bloodborne pathogens standard has
significantly reduced the
[[Page 18429]]
risk that workers will contract a bloodborne disease in the
course of their work.
(4) Nevertheless, occupational exposure to bloodborne
pathogens from accidental sharps injuries in health care
settings continues to be a serious problem. In March 2000,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that
more than 380,000 percutaneous injuries from contaminated
sharps occur annually among health care workers in United
States hospital settings. Estimates for all health care
settings are that 600,000 to 800,000 needlestick and other
percutaneous injuries occur among health care workers
annually. Such injuries can involve needles or other sharps
contaminated with bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, HBV, or
HCV.
(5) Since publication of the bloodborne pathogens standard
in 1991 there has been a substantial increase in the number
and assortment of effective engineering controls available to
employers. There is now a large body of research and data
concerning the effectiveness of newer engineering controls,
including safer medical devices.
(6) 396 interested parties responded to a Request for
Information (in this section referred to as the ``RFI'')
conducted by the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration in 1998 on engineering and work practice
controls used to eliminate or minimize the risk of
occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens due to
percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. Comments were
provided by health care facilities, groups representing
health care workers, researchers, educational institutions,
professional and industry associations, and manufacturers of
medical devices.
(7) Numerous studies have demonstrated that the use of
safer medical devices, such as needleless systems and sharps
with engineered sharps injury protections, when they are part
of an overall bloodborne pathogens risk-reduction program,
can be extremely effective in reducing accidental sharps
injuries.
(8) In March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimated that, depending on the type of device
used and the procedure involved, 62 to 88 percent of sharps
injuries can potentially be prevented by the use of safer
medical devices.
(9) The OSHA 200 Log, as it is currently maintained, does
not sufficiently reflect injuries that may involve exposure
to bloodborne pathogens in health care facilities. More than
98 percent of health care facilities responding to the RFI
have adopted surveillance systems in addition to the OSHA 200
Log. Information gathered through these surveillance systems
is commonly used for hazard identification and evaluation of
program and device effectiveness.
(10) Training and education in the use of safer medical
devices and safer work practices are significant elements in
the prevention of percutaneous exposure incidents. Staff
involvement in the device selection and evaluation process is
also an important element to achieving a reduction in sharps
injuries, particularly as new safer devices are introduced
into the work setting.
(11) Modification of the bloodborne pathogens standard is
appropriate to set forth in greater detail its requirement
that employers identify, evaluate, and make use of effective
safer medical devices.
SEC. 3. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS STANDARD.
The bloodborne pathogens standard published at 29 C.F.R.
1910.1030 shall be revised as follows:
(1) The definition of ``Engineering Controls'' (at 29
C.F.R. 1930.1030(b)) shall include as additional examples of
controls the following: ``safer medical devices, such as
sharps with engineered sharps injury protections and
needleless systems''.
(2) The term ``Sharps with Engineered Sharps Injury
Protections'' shall be added to the definitions (at 29 C.F.R.
1910.1030(b)) and defined as ``a nonneedle sharp or a needle
device used for withdrawing body fluids, accessing a vein or
artery, or administering medications or other fluids, with a
built-in safety feature or mechanism that effectively reduces
the risk of an exposure incident''.
(3) The term ``Needleless Systems'' shall be added to the
definitions (at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1030(b)) and defined as ``a
device that does not use needles for (A) the collection of
bodily fluids or withdrawal of body fluids after initial
venous or arterial access is established, (B) the
administration of medication or fluids, or (C) any other
procedure involving the potential for occupational exposure
to bloodborne pathogens due to percutaneous injuries from
contaminated sharps''.
(4) In addition to the existing requirements concerning
exposure control plans (29 C.F.R. 1910.1030(c)(1)(iv)), the
review and update of such plans shall be required to also--
(A) ``reflect changes in technology that eliminate or
reduce exposure to bloodborne pathogens''; and
(B) ``document consideration and implementation of
appropriate commercially available and effective safer
medical devices designed to eliminate or minimize
occupational exposure''.
(5) The following additional recordkeeping requirement
shall be added to the bloodborne pathogens standard at 29
C.F.R. 1910.1030(h): ``The employer shall establish and
maintain a sharps injury log for the recording of
percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps. The
information in the sharps injury log shall be recorded and
maintained in such manner as to protect the confidentiality
of the injured employee. The sharps injury log shall contain,
at a minimum--
``(A) the type and brand of device involved in the
incident,
``(B) the department or work area where the exposure
incident occurred, and
``(C) an explanation of how the incident occurred.''.
The requirement for such sharps injury log shall not apply to
any employer who is not required to maintain a log of
occupational injuries and illnesses under 29 C.F.R. 1904 and
the sharps injury log shall be maintained for the period
required by 29 C.F.R. 1904.6.
(6) The following new section shall be added to the
bloodborne pathogens standard: ``An employer, who is required
to establish an Exposure Control Plan shall solicit input
from non-managerial employees responsible for direct patient
care who are potentially exposed to injuries from
contaminated sharps in the identification, evaluation, and
selection of effective engineering and work practice controls
and shall document the solicitation in the Exposure Control
Plan.''.
SEC. 4. EFFECT OF MODIFICATIONS.
The modifications under section 3 shall be in force until
superseded in whole or in part by regulations promulgated by
the Secretary of Labor under section 6(b) of the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b)) and shall be
enforced in the same manner and to the same extent as any
rule or regulation promulgated under section 6(b).
SEC. 5. PROCEDURE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) Procedure.--The modifications of the bloodborne
pathogens standard prescribed by section 3 shall take effect
without regard to the procedural requirements applicable to
regulations promulgated under section 6(b) of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655(b))
or the procedural requirements of chapter 5 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) Effective Date.--The modifications to the bloodborne
pathogens standard required by section 3 shall--
(1) within 6 months of the date of enactment of this Act,
be made and published in the Federal Register by the
Secretary of Labor acting through the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration; and
(2) take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date
of such publication.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of the introduction
today of S. 3067, a bipartisan bill to provide protection for our
nations health care workers against accidental needlesticks and sharps
injuries. I want to acknowledge and commend my colleagues Senators
Jeffords, Kennedy and Reed in the Senate and the Honorable Mr.
Ballenger and Honorable Major Owens in the House for their work on this
important safety issue.
Since the mid-1980's, injuries to health care workers from needles or
other ``sharps,'' such as IV catheters or lancets, have presented an
increasingly troubling issue. As the spread of bloodborne pathogens
such as HIV and Hepatitis B and C has escalated over the last 15 years,
so has the danger to health care workers of contracting one of these
diseases through sharps contaminated with bloodborne pathogens, such as
HIV and Hepatitis B and C. Even where the injured worker does not
ultimately contract a bloodborne disease, the uncertainty and fear of
infection created by such injuries can be excruciating and destructive
to the lives of the injured health care workers.
In response to this problem, in 1991 the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, or ``OSHA,'' issued a standard requiring
workplace safety measures to be used to protect against occupational
exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This was a laudable step in the fight
against worker infection, and its implementation brought a reduction in
the risk of contracting a bloodborne disease in the workplace. The
success of this measure, however, was limited by the effectiveness of
the safety technology available at the time, and occupational exposure
to bloodborne pathogens from accidental sharps injuries has continued
to be a problem. In March 2000, the Centers for Disease Control
estimated that between 600,000 and 800,000 needlesticks still occur
among health care workers annually.
Fortunately, since the publication of the bloodborne pathogens
standard there has been a substantial increase in the number and
assortment of new
[[Page 18430]]
medical devices, such as needless systems and retractable needles, that
protect against needlesticks. Numerous studies have shown that the use
of these safer devices, as part of an overall bloodborne pathogen risk
reduction program, can be extremely effective in reducing accidental
sharps injuries.
The legislation we introduce today will ensure that these safer
devices are used, and lives will be saved as a result. The bill
provides narrowly tailored instruction to OSHA to amend its bloodborne
pathogen standard to make certain that employers understand they must
identify, evaluate, and, where appropriate, make use of these safer
medical devices to eliminate or reduce occupational exposure to
bloodborne pathogens. OSHA issued similar instructions in a compliance
directive published December 1998. Because OSHA's directive is merely
agency guidance and does not have the force of law, however, I felt it
was important that both employers and employees be given formal
regulatory instruction on this vitally important safety issue. This
legislation provides this security and improves protection for
employees while still allowing employers the necessary flexibility to
determine the best technology to use in the particular circumstances
presented. This legislation even goes a step further to ensure that
employers will have valuable input from the front line employees when
it makes these determinations.
This bill is an important step for safety in the workplace, and I
hope it will bring some peace of mind to the more than 8 million
workers who perform the vitally important service of providing health
care in this country. I am extremely proud to be a part of legislation
which will save lives and help stop the spread of bloodborne diseases.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleagues
in introducing the Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act. I commend
Senators Jeffords, Enzi and Reid for their effective work on this bill
that is vitally important to health care professionals and all
Americans who come in contact with them.
The need for needle stick protection is compelling. Last year alone,
there were almost 800,000 needle stick injuries to health care
professionals. Over 1,000 health care workers were infected with
serious diseases, including HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. Sadly,
all of these injuries were preventable. The good news is that through
the provisions of this bill, many future needle stick injuries will be
prevented. In fact, the Center for Disease Prevention estimates that
needle stick injuries will be reduced by as much as 88 percent.
But as is so often the case, numbers alone cannot convey the full
story of human tragedy resulting from these injuries. One of my
constituents, Karen Daley of Boston, is the President of the
Massachusetts Nurses Association and was a registered nurse, a job she
loved and found very fulfilling. In January 1999, while working in an
emergency room in Boston, Karen was accidentally stuck by a
contaminated needle. Six months later, she tested positive for HIV and
Hepatitis C. Fortunately, Karen is in relative good health, although
she will never again be able to practice her chosen profession of
nursing.
The Needle Stick Safety and Prevention Act is intended to prevent
tragic accidents like this. This bill requires employers to implement
the use of safety-designed needles and sharps to reduce the potential
transmission of disease to health care workers and patients. This bill
also provides that employers establish an injury log to record the kind
of devices, and the location, of all needle stick accidents.
Equally important, this bill allows non-managerial employees--those
on the front lines of service delivery--to be involved in determining
the appropriate devices used in health care settings.
This bill has bipartisan support in the Senate and the House. It also
is supported by the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses
Association, the Service Employees International Union and the American
Federation of Federal, State County and Municipal Employees.
I urge all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to join us
in supporting this important bill, and I am hopeful that it can be
enacted into law before this session of Congress ends.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3070. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish
criminal penalties for distribution of defective products, to amend
chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective
orders, sealing of cases, and discovery information in civil actions,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
DEFECTIVE PRODUCT PENALTY ACT
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from
Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, to introduce legislation to better protect
American consumers from irresponsible companies who knowingly allow
defective vehicles or vehicle parts to remain on the market.
Our bill, the ``Defective Product Penalty Act,'' would significantly
increase the responsibility of companies to test products for defects,
to recall those products when necessary, and to report to authorities
when defects are found.
Recent news stories about Firestone tires have grabbed the headlines,
but this bill really addresses some long-standing and serious
deficiencies within our current laws. The Firestone case has
highlighted the need for these overdue proposals, and it is our hope
that this legislation receives swift and serious consideration. The
time has come to close some loopholes and impose some real
responsibility on company executives who ignore public safety.
Let me describe specifically what this bill does:
First, this legislation will increase civil penalties for failure to
recall a defective vehicle or part or withholding information from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Current
penalties are $1,000 per violation with a maximum penalty in these
cases of $925,000. The Defective Product Penalty Act would increase the
penalty to $10,000 per violation, and would eliminate the maximum
penalty altogether. A penalty of $925,000 for a multi-billion dollar,
multinational business is not even enough to cause the company to think
twice about releasing or recalling a defective vehicle. We need to give
the NHTSA some real teeth.
Second, this legislation will establish criminal penalties for
knowingly distributing a defective vehicle or part, or for failing to
recall or tell authorities about a defective product, if that defect
results in death or injuries. If death results, the legislation calls
for a penalty of up to 15 years in prison. If serious injury results,
the legislation calls for penalties of up to 5 years.
Third, this legislation would extend the statute of limitations for
NHTSA to mandate recalls, from 8 to 10 years for vehicles, and from 3
to 5 years for tires.
Fourth, the bill would require companies to actually test vehicle
products before self-certifying that the product is in compliance with
NHTSA standards.
Next, the legislation clarifies federal law to make it clear that in
cases involving vehicle products sold in the U.S., a company must send
the NHTSA copies of all notices sent to dealers and owners, even if the
notices are sent only to owners and dealers in foreign countries.
Finally, this legislation includes provisions from Senator Kohl's
``Sunshine in Litigation Act'' (S. 957), to:
Prohibit federal courts from issuing protective orders that prohibit
individuals from disclosing potential defects or dangers to regulatory
agencies; and
Prohibit federal courts from enforcing secrecy agreements without
first balancing the need for privacy against the public's need to know
about potential health and safety hazards. In other words, no longer
can a company put other consumers at risk by forcing a plaintiff to
keep quiet about a potential threat to public safety.
Mr. President, this legislation will send a clear signal to
irresponsible companies and individuals who intentionally put the
public at risk from defective products--you will now be held
[[Page 18431]]
responsible for your actions. I urge my colleagues to join us in this
effort.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague Senator
Feinstein in introducing the Defective Product Penalty Act of 2000.
As the Firestone/Bridgestone tire controversy sadly demonstrates,
current consumer protection laws do not provide sufficient incentive
for some manufacturers to put the health and safety of consumers at the
forefront of their business decisions. Although most of us would find
it very difficult to believe that a company knowingly introduced a
defective product into the marketplace, or failed to recall one once a
defect was discovered, the families of the Firestone/Bridgestone
casualties do not need to be reminded that it does happen. Most
companies are responsible corporate citizens, of course--and for them
this legislation will not affect their behavior--but for the others who
need to be ``incentivized'' to make consumer health and safety a
foremost priority, the Defective Product Penalty Act (``DPPA'') should
serve as sufficient notice.
Specifically, the DPPA creates tough criminal penalties for those who
knowingly introduce defective products into the stream of commerce with
the realization that the product may cause death or bodily harm to an
unsuspecting consumer. Risking the lives of millions of Americans
because a cost-benefit analysis suggests that profits earned from a
product outweigh the potential costs of liability is not only wrong,
but also criminal. And it should be treated as such. Indeed, Mr.
President, whenever a company adheres to the bottom line instead of
respecting the health and safety of their consumers, they deserve
severe, immediate, and strict punishment.
This bill also incorporates S. 957, the Sunshine in Litigation Act.
This part of the bill ensures that consumers are better informed about
product defects that may affect consumer health and safety. All too
often our Federal courts allow vital information that is discovered in
litigation--and which bears directly upon public health and safety--to
be covered up, to be shielded from mothers, fathers and children whose
lives are potentially at stake, and from the public officials we have
asked to protect our public health and safety.
All this happens because of the use of so-called ``protective
orders''--really gag orders issued by courts--that are designed to keep
information discovered in the course of litigation secret and
undisclosed. Typically, injured victims agree to a defendant's request
to keep lawsuit information secret. They agree because defendants
threaten that, without secrecy, they will fight every document
requested and will refuse to agree to a settlement. Victims cannot
afford to take such chances. And while courts in these situations
actually have the legal authority to deny requests for secrecy,
typically they do not--because both sides have agreed.
The problem of excessive secrecy orders in cases involving public
health and safety has been apparent for many years. The Judiciary
Committee first held hearings on this issue in 1990 and again in 1994.
In 1990, Arthur Bryant, the executive director of the Trial Lawyers for
Public Justice, told us, ``The one thing we learned . . . is that
this problem is far more egregious than we ever imagined. It goes the
length and depth of this country, and the frank truth is that much of
civil litigation in this country is taking place in secret.''
The Defective Product Penalty Act will go a long way to ensuring that
the health and safety of consumers will receive the consideration it
deserves in the boardrooms and courtrooms across our country. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bingaman,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerrey, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Robb, and Mr. Schumer) (by request):
S. 3071. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
federal judgeship act of 200
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, at the request of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, Senator Leahy and I are introducing
the Federal Judgeship Act of 2000. This legislation was drafted by the
Judicial Conference and is based upon the recently completed biennial
survey of judgeship needs conducted by the Judicial Conference, which
analyzed caseload statistics for each federal district court and
circuit court of appeals. The legislation sets forth the Judicial
Conference's recommendation that the Congress create 63 new federal
judgeships throughout the country--10 new circuit court judgeships and
53 new district court judgeships.
Perhaps the federalism decisions that have marked the tenure of the
Rehnquist Court ultimately will serve to check the expansion of federal
jurisdiction and the caseload burdens and need for new judges that
necessarily follow such expansion. Presently, however, many of our
judges--especially those in the border states of Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California--are overburdened by heavy caseloads. Caseload
statistics compiled by the Judicial Conference have convinced me of the
need for a debate about new judgeships. In this debate, we must ask
ourselves: How large do we really want our federal judiciary to be?
It should be noted that over the past 22 years, the judiciary has
grown substantially. Currently, there are 848 judgeships created
pursuant to article III of the Constitution. By contrast, just 23 years
ago, there were only 509 Article III judgeships. this growth in the
size of the federal judiciary--a 67 percent increase--has outpaced
growth in the size of the United States. During the same period, the
population of the United States has grown by just 24 percent, from 220
million to 275 million.
Given that there are only a few weeks remaining in this Congress, it
is going to be difficult to achieve consensus on a comprehensive
judgeship bill. Nevertheless, it is important that the views of the
Judicial Conference on the issue of judgeship be brought to the
attention of the Congress and given the appropriate level of
consideration. Still, it is possible that consensus may be reached on
legislation authorizing new judgeships. I know that many of my
colleagues share my concerns about the expansion of the federal
judiciary. It is my judgment, however, that the Judicial Conference's
recommendation that additional judgeships be created be brought to the
attention of the Congress. I look forward to a dialogue with my
colleagues on this issue.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today Senator Hatch and I are introducing
the Federal Judgeship Act of 2000. I am pleased that Senators
Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Graham, Reid, Robb, Inouye, Edwards, Murray,
Bingaman, Bayh, Kerrey, and Domenici are joining us as original
cosponsors of this measure.
Our bill creates 70 judgeships across the country to address the
workload needs of the federal judiciary. This bill incorporates the
recommendations for additional judgeships most recently forwarded to us
by the Judiciary Conference of the United States. Specifically, our
legislation would create 6 additional permanent judgeships and 4
temporary judgeships for the U.S. Courts of Appeal; 30 additional
permanent judgeships and 23 temporary judgeships for the U.S. District
Courts; and convert 7 existing temporary district judgeships into
permanent positions.
The Judicial Conference of the United States is the nonpartisan
policy-making arm of the judicial branch. Federal judges across the
nation believe that the increasingly heavy caseloads of our courts
necessitate these additional judges. The Chief Justice of the United
States in his annual year-end reports over the last several years has
commented on the serious problems facing our federal courts having too
much work and too few judges and other resources.
The Judicial Conference and Chief Justice Rehnquist are right.
According
[[Page 18432]]
to his 1999 year-end report, the filings in our federal courts have
reached record heights. In fact, the numbers of criminal cases and
defendants have reached their highest levels since the Prohibition
Amendment was repealed in 1933. In 1999, overall growth in appellate
court caseload included a 349 percent upsurge in original proceedings.
This sudden expansion resulted from newly implemented reporting
procedures, which more accurately measure the increased judicial
workload generated by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act and the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, both passed in 1996.
District court activity was characterized by an increase in criminal
filings and a smaller increase in civil filings. Criminal case filings
rose 4 percent from 57,691 in 1998 to 59,923 in 1999, and the number of
defendants grew 2 percent from 79,008 to 80,822. Criminal case filings
per authorized judgeship went up almost 5 percent. Since the last
significant expansion of the federal judiciary in 1990, felony criminal
case filings have increased almost 50 percent, from 31,727 in 1990 to
46,789 in 1999.
Despite these dramatic increases in case filings, Congress has failed
to authorize new judgeships since 1990, thus endangering the
administration of justice in our nation's federal courts. Without the
extraordinary contributes of our senior judges, the administration of
justice could well have broken down entirely.
Over the last several decades, a 6-year cycle for reviewing the needs
of the judiciary and authorizing additional judgeships had been
followed by Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, in 1978,
Congress passed legislation to address the need for additional
judgeships. Six years later, in 1984, Congress passed legislation
creating additional judgeships. Then, again six years later, in 1990,
Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress fulfilled their
constitutional responsibilities and enacted the Federal Judgeship Act
of 1990 because of a sharply increasing caseload, particularly for
drug-related crimes. At that time President Bush was in the middle of
his first term in office.
That type of bipartisan effort broke down in 1996. It has now been 10
years since Congress made a systematic evaluation of the needs of the
federal judiciary and acted to meet those needs. For each of the last
two Congresses, the Republican majority has resisted any such action.
Three years ago, the Judicial Conference requested an additional 55
judgeships to address the growing backlog. I introduced the Federal
Judgeship Act of 1997, S. 678, legislation based on the Judicial
Conference's 1997 recommendations. That legislation languished in the
Judicial Committee without action during both sessions of the last
Congress. Again last year, the Judicial Conference updated its request
and recommended an additional 72 judgeships. I, again, introduced those
recommendations in the Federal Judgeship Act of 1999, S. 1145. There
was no action on it by the Judiciary Committee.
This year, the Judiciary Conference took the unusual step of updating
last year's recommendations yet again. Those updated recommendations
affect 70 judgeships. Today may signal a turning point in our efforts.
Today Republicans are joining with us. I welcome them to this effort
and look forward to working with them to pass the Federal Judgeship Act
of 2000.
Included within our bill are the additional judgeships that would be
authorized by S. 2730, the Southwest Border Judgeship Act of 2000.
Senator Feinstein has been tenacious in seeking the resources needed
the federal courts of our southwest border States, including southern
California. She is right. Those 13 judgeships for California, Arizona,
New Mexico and Texas are included in our bill.
Implicit in our legislation is acknowledgment that the federal
judiciary does not just have 64 current vacancies with 9 of the
horizon, but that even if all those vacancies were filled, the federal
judiciary would remain 70 judges short of those it needed to manage its
workload, try the cases and provide the individual attention to matters
that have set a high standard for the administration of justice in our
federal system. In other words, considering vacancies and taking into
account the judgeships authorized by our bill, the federal judiciary is
today in need of more than 130 more judges.
We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long
protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary
check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible
to the gusts of the political winds.
Let us act to ensure that justice in our federal courts is not
delayed or denied for anyone. I urge the Senate to do in this last
month of this Congress what the Republican majority has so strenuously
resisted for the last four years: Enact the Federal Judgeship Act
without further delay.
______
Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 3072. A bill to assist in the enhancement of the development of
expansion of international economic assistance programs that utilize
cooperatives and credit unions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
support for overseas cooperative development act
Mr. GRAM. 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. 3072
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 ``Support for Overseas
Cooperative Development Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the mutual economic interest of the United
States and peoples in developing and transitional countries
to promote cooperatives and credit unions.
(2) Self-help institutions, including cooperatives and
credit unions, provide enhanced opportunities for people to
participate directly in democratic decision-making for their
economic and social benefit through ownership and control of
business enterprises and through the mobilization of local
capital and savings and such organizations should be fully
utilized in fostering free market principles and the adoption
of self-help approaches to development.
(3) The United States seeks to encourage broad-based
economic and social development by creating and supporting--
(A) agricultural cooperatives that provide a means to lift
low income farmers and rural people out of poverty and to
better integrate them into national economies;
(B) credit union networks that serve people of limited
means through safe savings and by extending credit to
families and microenterprises;
(C) electric and telephone cooperatives that provide rural
customers with power and telecommunications services
essential to economic development;
(D) housing and community-based cooperatives that provide
low income shelter and work opportunities for the urban poor;
and
(E) mutual and cooperative insurance companies that provide
risk protection for life and property to under-served
populations often through group policies.
SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress supports the
development and expansion of economic assistance programs
that fully utilize cooperatives and credit unions,
particularly those programs committed to--
(1) international cooperative principles, democratic
governance and involvement of women and ethnic minorities for
economic and social development;
(2) self-help mobilization of member savings and equity,
retention of profits in the community, except those programs
that are dependent on donor financing;
(3) market-oriented and value-added activities with the
potential to reach large numbers of low income people and
help them enter into the mainstream economy;
(4) strengthening the participation of rural and urban poor
to contribute to their country's economic development; and
(5) utilization of technical assistance and training to
better serve the member-owners.
(b) Development Priorities.--Section 111 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``In meeting the requirement of the
preceding sentence, specific priority shall be given to the
following:
[[Page 18433]]
``(1) Agriculture.--Technical assistance to low income
farmers who form and develop member-owned cooperatives for
farm supplies, marketing and value-added processing.
``(2) Financial systems.--The promotion of national credit
union systems through credit union-to-credit union technical
assistance that strengthens the ability of low income people
and micro-entrepreneurs to save and to have access to credit
for their own economic advancement.
``(3) Infrastructure.--The support of rural electric and
telecommunication cooperatives for access for rural people
and villages that lack reliable electric and
telecommunications services.
``(4) Housing and community services.--The promotion of
community-based cooperatives which provide employment
opportunities and important services such as health clinics,
self-help shelter, environmental improvements, group-owned
businesses, and other activities.''.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, in consultation with the heads of
other appropriate agencies, shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of section 111 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i), as amended
by section 3 of this Act.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 3073. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the Social
Security Act to promote smoking cessation under the Medicare Program,
the Medicaid Program, and the Maternal and Child Health Program; to the
Committee on Finance.
THE MEDICARE, MEDICAID AND MCH SMOKING CESSATION SERVICES ACT OF 2000
Mr. DURBIN. Mr President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
expands treatment to millions of Americans suffering from a deadly
addiction: tobacco. I am pleased to have Senator Brownback join me in
this effort. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion
Act of 2000 will help make smoking cessation therapy accessible to
recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health
Program.
We have long known that cigarette smoking is the largest preventable
cause of death, accounting for 20 percent of all deaths in this
country. It is well documented that smoking causes virtually all cases
of lung cancer and a substantial portion of coronary heart disease,
peripheral vascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, and
cancers of other sites. And the harmful effects of smoking do not end
with the smoker. Women who use tobacco during pregnancy are more likely
to have adverse birth outcomes, including babies with low birth weight,
which is linked with an increased risk of infant death and a variety of
infant health disorders.
Still, despite enormous health risks, 48 million adults in the United
States smoke cigarettes--approximately 22.7 percent of American adults.
The rates are higher for our youth--36.4 percent report daily smoking.
In Illinois, the adult smoking rate is about 24.2 percent. And perhaps
most distressing and surprising, data indicate that about 13 percent of
mothers in the United States smoke during pregnancy.
We have also learned the hard way that in addition to the heavy
health toll of tobacco, the economic costs of smoking are also high.
The total cost of smoking in 1993 in the U.S. was about $102 billion,
with over $50 billion in health care expenditures directly linked to
smoking. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports
that approximately 43 percent of these costs were paid by government
funds, primarily Medicaid and Medicare. Smoking costs Medicaid alone
more than $12.9 billion per year. According to the Chicago chapter of
the American Lung Association, my state of Illinois spends $2.9 billion
each year in public and private funds to combat smoking-related
diseases.
Today, however, we also know how to help smokers quit. Advancements
in treating tobacco use and nicotine addiction have helped millions
kick the habit. While more than 40 million adults continue to smoke,
nearly as many persons are former smokers living longer, healthier
lives. In large part, this is because new tools are available.
Effective pharmacotherapy and counseling regimens have been tested and
proven effective. The just-released Surgeon General's Report, Reducing
Tobacco Use, concluded that ``pharmacologic treatment of nicotine
addiction, combined with behavioral support, will enable 10 to 25
percent of users to remain abstinent at one year of posttreatment.''
Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use
treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health
improvements and cost savings. Creating a new nonsmoker reduces
anticipated medical costs associated with acute myocardial infarction
and stroke by $47 in the first year and by $853 during the next seven
years in 1995 dollars. And within four to five years after tobacco
cessation, quitters use fewer health care services than continued
smokers. In fact, in one study the cost savings from reduced use paid
for a moderately priced effective smoking cessation intervention in a
matter of three to four years.
The health benefits tobacco quitters enjoy are undisputed. They are
living longer. After 15 years, the risk of premature death for ex-
smokers returns to nearly the level of persons who have never smoked.
Male smokers who quit between age 35 and 39 add an average of five
years to their lives; women can add three years. Even older Americans
over age 65 can extend their life expectancy by giving up cigarettes.
Former smokers are also healthier. They are less likely to die of
chronic lung diseases. After ten smoke-free years, their risk of lung
cancer drops to as much as one-half that of those who continue to
smoke. After five to fifteen years the risk of stroke and heart disease
for ex-smokers returns to the level of those who have never smoked.
They have fewer days of illness, reduced rates of bronchitis and
pneumonia, and fewer health complaints.
New Public Health Service Guidelines released this summer conclude
that tobacco dependence treatments are both clinically effective and
cost-effective relative to other medical and disease prevention
interventions. The guideline urges health care insurers and purchasers
to include the counseling and FDA-approved pharmacotherapeutic
treatments as a covered benefit.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government, a major purchaser of health
care through Medicare and Medicaid, does not currently adhere to its
own published guidelines. It is high-time that government-sponsored
health programs catch up with science. As a result, I am introducing,
along with my colleague Senator Brownback, legislation to improve
smoking cessation benefits in government-sponsored health programs.
The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of
2000 improves access to and coverage of smoking cessation treatment
therapies in four primary ways.
Our bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit to Medicare. By
2020, 17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or
older. It is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat
tobacco-related diseases over the next twenty years. In a study of
adults 65 years of age or older who received advice to quit, behavioral
counseling and pharmocotherapy, 24.8 percent reported having stopped
smoking six months following the intervention. The total economic
benefits of quitting after age 65 are notable. Due to a reduction in
the risk of lung cancer, coronary heart disease and emphysema, studies
have found that heavy smokers over age 65 who quit can avoid up to
$4,592 in lifelong illness-related costs.
Our measure provides coverage for both prescription and non-
prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The bill
eliminates the provision in current Federal law that allows states to
exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under
Medicaid. Ironically, State Medicaid programs are required to cover
Viagra, but not to treat tobacco addiction. Despite the fact that the
States are now receiving the full benefit of their federal lawsuit
against the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide
coverage for smoking cessation in their Medicaid program.
[[Page 18434]]
On average, states spend approximately 14.4 percent of their Medicaid
budgets on medical care related to smoking.
Our legislation clarifies that the maternity benefit for pregnant
women in Medicaid covers smoking cessation counseling and services.
Smoking during pregnancy causes about 5-6 percent of perinatal deaths,
17-26 percent of low-birth-weight births, and 7-10 percent of preterm
deliveries, and increases the risk of miscarriage and fetal growth
retardation. It may also increase the risk of sudden infant death
syndrome (SIDS). The Surgeon General recommends that pregnant women and
parents with children living at home be counseled on the potentially
harmful effects of smoking on fetal and child health. A new study shows
that, over seven years, reducing smoking prevalence by just one
percentage point would prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save
$572 million in direct medical costs.
Our bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Program
recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the
inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered
part of quality maternal and child health services. In addition to the
well-documented benefits of smoking cessation for maternity care, the
Surgeon General's report adds, ``Tobacco use is a pediatric concern. In
the United States, more than 6,000 children and adolescents try their
first cigarette each day. More than 3,000 children and adolescents
become daily smokers each day, resulting in approximately 1.23 million
new smokers under the age of 18 each year.'' The goal of the MCH
program is to improve the health of all mothers and children. This goal
cannot be reached without addressing the tobacco epidemic.
I hope my colleagues will join me not only in cosponsoring this
legislation but also in working with me to see that its provisions are
adopted before the year is out. As the Surgeon General states in his
report: ``Although our knowledge about tobacco control remains
imperfect, we know more than enough to act now.''
______
Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Smith of New Hampshire):
S.J. Res. 52. A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to
the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of
Understanding; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 52
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.
Congress consents to the International Emergency Management
Assistance Memorandum of Understanding entered into between
the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the Provinces of Quebec,
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland. The compact is substantially as follows:
``Article I--International Emergency Management Assistance
Memorandum of Understanding Purpose and Authorities
``The International Emergency Management Assistance
Memorandum of Understanding, hereinafter referred to as the
`compact,' is made and entered into by and among such of the
jurisdictions as shall enact or adopt this compact,
hereinafter referred to as `party jurisdictions.' For the
purposes of this agreement, the term `jurisdictions' may
include any or all of the States of Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the
Provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and such other states and
provinces as may hereafter become a party to this compact.
``The purpose of this compact is to provide for the
possibility of mutual assistance among the jurisdictions
entering into this compact in managing any emergency or
disaster when the affected jurisdiction or jurisdictions ask
for assistance, whether arising from natural disaster,
technological hazard, manmade disaster or civil emergency
aspects of resources shortages.
``This compact also provides for the process of planning
mechanisms among the agencies responsible and for mutual
cooperation, including, if need be, emergency-related
exercises, testing, or other training activities using
equipment and personnel simulating performance of any aspect
of the giving and receiving of aid by party jurisdictions or
subdivisions of party jurisdictions during emergencies, with
such actions occurring outside actual declared emergency
periods. Mutual assistance in this compact may include the
use of emergency forces by mutual agreement among party
jurisdictions.
``Article II--General Implementation
``Each party jurisdiction entering into this compact
recognizes that many emergencies may exceed the capabilities
of a party jurisdiction and that intergovernmental
cooperation is essential in such circumstances. Each
jurisdiction further recognizes that there will be
emergencies that may require immediate access and present
procedures to apply outside resources to make a prompt and
effective response to such an emergency because few, if any,
individual jurisdictions have all the resources they need in
all types of emergencies or the capability of delivering
resources to areas where emergencies exist.
``The prompt, full, and effective utilization of resources
of the participating jurisdictions, including any resources
on hand or available from any other source that are essential
to the safety, care, and welfare of the people in the event
of any emergency or disaster, shall be the underlying
principle on which all articles of this compact are
understood.
``On behalf of the party jurisdictions participating in the
compact, the legally designated official who is assigned
responsibility for emergency management is responsible for
formulation of the appropriate inter-jurisdictional mutual
aid plans and procedures necessary to implement this compact,
and for recommendations to the jurisdiction concerned with
respect to the amendment of any statutes, regulations, or
ordinances required for that purpose.
``Article III--Party Jurisdiction Responsibilities
``(a) Formulate Plans and Programs.--It is the
responsibility of each party jurisdiction to formulate
procedural plans and programs for inter-jurisdictional
cooperation in the performance of the responsibilities listed
in this section. In formulating and implementing such plans
and programs the party jurisdictions, to the extent
practical, shall--
``(1) review individual jurisdiction hazards analyses that
are available and, to the extent reasonably possible,
determine all those potential emergencies the party
jurisdictions might jointly suffer, whether due to natural
disaster, technological hazard, man-made disaster or
emergency aspects of resource shortages;
``(2) initiate a process to review party jurisdictions'
individual emergency plans and develop a plan that will
determine the mechanism for the inter-jurisdictional
cooperation;
``(3) develop inter-jurisdictional procedures to fill any
identified gaps and to resolve any identified inconsistencies
or overlaps in existing or developed plans;
``(4) assist in warning communities adjacent to or crossing
jurisdictional boundaries;
``(5) protect and ensure delivery of services, medicines,
water, food, energy and fuel, search and rescue, and critical
lifeline equipment, services and resources, both human and
material to the extent authorized by law;
``(6) inventory and agree upon procedures for the inter-
jurisdictional loan and delivery of human and material
resources, together with procedures for reimbursement or
forgiveness; and
``(7) provide, to the extent authorized by law, for
temporary suspension of any statutes or ordinances, over
which the province or state has jurisdiction, that impede the
implementation of the responsibilities described in this
subsection.
``(b) Request Assistance.--The authorized representative of
a party jurisdiction may request assistance of another party
jurisdiction by contacting the authorized representative of
that jurisdiction. These provisions only apply to requests
for assistance made by and to authorized representatives.
Requests may be verbal or in writing. If verbal, the request
must be confirmed in writing within 15 days of the verbal
request. Requests must provide the following information:
``(1) A description of the emergency service function for
which assistance is needed and of the mission or missions,
including but not limited to fire services, emergency
medical, transportation, communications, public works and
engineering, building inspection, planning and information
assistance, mass care, resource support, health and medical
services, and search and rescue.
``(2) The amount and type of personnel, equipment,
materials, and supplies needed and a reasonable estimate of
the length of time they will be needed.
``(3) The specific place and time for staging of the
assisting party's response and a point of contact at the
location.
[[Page 18435]]
``(c) Consultation Among Party Jurisdiction Officials.--
There shall be frequent consultation among the party
jurisdiction officials who have assigned emergency management
responsibilities, such officials collectively known
hereinafter as the International Emergency Management Group,
and other appropriate representatives of the party
jurisdictions with free exchange of information, plans, and
resource records relating to emergency capabilities to the
extent authorized by law.
``Article IV--Limitation
``Any party jurisdiction requested to render mutual aid or
conduct exercises and training for mutual aid shall undertake
to respond as soon as possible, except that it is understood
that the jurisdiction rendering aid may withhold or recall
resources to the extent necessary to provide reasonable
protection for that jurisdiction. Each party jurisdiction
shall afford to the personnel of the emergency forces of any
party jurisdiction, while operating within its jurisdictional
limits under the terms and conditions of this compact and
under the operational control of an officer of the requesting
party, the same powers, duties, rights, privileges, and
immunities as are afforded similar or like forces of the
jurisdiction in which they are performing emergency services.
Emergency forces continue under the command and control of
their regular leaders, but the organizational units come
under the operational control of the emergency services
authorities of the jurisdiction receiving assistance. These
conditions may be activated, as needed, by the jurisdiction
that is to receive assistance or upon commencement of
exercises or training for mutual aid and continue as long as
the exercises or training for mutual aid are in progress, the
emergency or disaster remains in effect or loaned resources
remain in the receiving jurisdiction or jurisdictions,
whichever is longer. The receiving jurisdiction is
responsible for informing the assisting jurisdictions of the
specific moment when services will no longer be required.
``Article V--Licenses and Permits
``Whenever a person holds a license, certificate, or other
permit issued by any jurisdiction party to the compact
evidencing the meeting of qualifications for professional,
mechanical, or other skills, and when such assistance is
requested by the receiving party jurisdiction, such person is
deemed to be licensed, certified, or permitted by the
jurisdiction requesting assistance to render aid involving
such skill to meet an emergency or disaster, subject to such
limitations and conditions as the requesting jurisdiction
prescribes by Executive order or otherwise.
``Article VI--Liability
``Any person or entity of a party jurisdiction rendering
aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this compact are
considered agents of the requesting jurisdiction for tort
liability and immunity purposes. Any person or entity
rendering aid in another jurisdiction pursuant to this
compact are not liable on account of any act or omission in
good faith on the part of such forces while so engaged or on
account of the maintenance or use of any equipment or
supplies in connection therewith. Good faith in this article
does not include willful misconduct, gross negligence, or
recklessness.
``Article VII--Supplementary Agreements
``Because it is probable that the pattern and detail of the
machinery for mutual aid among 2 or more jurisdictions may
differ from that among the jurisdictions that are party to
this compact, this compact contains elements of a broad base
common to all jurisdictions, and nothing in this compact
precludes any jurisdiction from entering into supplementary
agreements with another jurisdiction or affects any other
agreements already in force among jurisdictions.
Supplementary agreements may include, but are not limited to,
provisions for evacuation and reception of injured and other
persons and the exchange of medical, fire, public utility,
reconnaissance, welfare, transportation and communications
personnel, equipment, and supplies.
``Article VIII--Workers' Compensation and Death Benefits
``Each party jurisdiction shall provide, in accordance with
its own laws, for the payment of workers' compensation and
death benefits to injured members of the emergency forces of
that jurisdiction and to representatives of deceased members
of those forces if the members sustain injuries or are killed
while rendering aid pursuant to this compact, in the same
manner and on the same terms as if the injury or death were
sustained within their own jurisdiction.
``Article IX--Reimbursement
``Any party jurisdiction rendering aid in another
jurisdiction pursuant to this compact shall, if requested, be
reimbursed by the party jurisdiction receiving such aid for
any loss or damage to, or expense incurred in, the operation
of any equipment and the provision of any service in
answering a request for aid and for the costs incurred in
connection with those requests. An aiding party jurisdiction
may assume in whole or in part any such loss, damage,
expense, or other cost or may loan such equipment or donate
such services to the receiving party jurisdiction without
charge or cost. Any 2 or more party jurisdictions may enter
into supplementary agreements establishing a different
allocation of costs among those jurisdictions. Expenses under
article VIII are not reimbursable under this section.
``Article X--Evacuation
``Each party jurisdiction shall initiate a process to
prepare and maintain plans to facilitate the movement of and
reception of evacuees into its territory or across its
territory, according to its capabilities and powers. The
party jurisdiction from which the evacuees came shall assume
the ultimate responsibility for the support of the evacuees,
and after the termination of the emergency or disaster, for
the repatriation of such evacuees.
``Article XI--Implementation
``(a) This compact is effective upon its execution or
adoption by any 2 jurisdictions, and is effective as to any
other jurisdiction upon its execution or adoption thereby:
subject to approval or authorization by the United States
Congress, if required, and subject to enactment of provincial
or State legislation that may be required for the
effectiveness of the Memorandum of Understanding.
``(b) Any party jurisdiction may withdraw from this
compact, but the withdrawal does not take effect until 30
days after the governor or premier of the withdrawing
jurisdiction has given notice in writing of such withdrawal
to the governors or premiers of all other party
jurisdictions. The action does not relieve the withdrawing
jurisdiction from obligations assumed under this compact
prior to the effective date of withdrawal.
``(c) Duly authenticated copies of this compact in the
French and English languages and of such supplementary
agreements as may be entered into shall, at the time of their
approval, be deposited with each of the party jurisdictions.
``Article XII--Severability
``This compact is construed to effectuate the purposes
stated in Article I. If any provision of this compact is
declared unconstitutional or the applicability of the compact
to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the validity
of the remainder of this compact and the applicability of the
compact to other persons and circumstances are not affected.
``Article XIII--Consistency of Language
``The validity of the arrangements and agreements consented
to in this compact shall not be affected by any insubstantial
difference in form or language as may be adopted by the
various states and provinces.
``Article XIV--Amendment
``This compact may be amended by agreement of the party
jurisdictions.''.
SEC. 2. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.
The validity of the arrangements consented to by this Act
shall not be affected by any insubstantial difference in
their form or language as adopted by the States and
provinces.
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby
expressly reserved.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 61
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added
as cosponsors of S. 61, a bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to
eliminate disincentives to fair trade conditions.
S. 522
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S. 522, a bill to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the quality of
beaches and coastal recreation water, and for other purposes.
S. 693
At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) 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. 922
At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
922, a bill to prohibit the use of the ``Made in the USA'' label on
products of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and to
deny such products duty-free and quota-free treatment.
S. 1351
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 1351, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
and modify the credit for electricity produced from renewable
resources.
[[Page 18436]]
S. 1399
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1399, a bill to amend title 38,
United States Code, to provide that pay adjustments for nurses and
certain other health-care professionals employed by the Department of
Veterans Affairs shall be made in the manner applicable to Federal
employees generally and to revise the authority for the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to make further locality pay adjustments for those
professionals.
S. 1438
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1438, a bill
to establish the National Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land in the
District of Columbia.
S. 1510
At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1510, a bill to revise
the laws of the United States appertaining to United States cruise
vessels, and for other purposes.
S. 1536
At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Grams) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1536, a bill to amend the
Older Americans Act of 1965 to extend authorizations of appropriations
for programs under the Act, to modernize programs and services for
older individuals, and for other purposes.
S. 1538
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1538, a bill to amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to clarify State and local authority to
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of broadcast
transmission and telecommunications facilities, and for other purposes.
S. 1608
At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1608, a bill to provide annual payments to the States and counties from
National Forest System lands managed by the Forest Service, and the
revested Oregon and California Railroad and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon
Road grant lands managed predominately by the Bureau of Land
Management, for use by the counties in which the lands are situated for
the benefit of the public schools, roads, emergency and other public
purposes; to encourage and provide new mechanisms for cooperation
between counties and the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management to make necessary investments in Federal lands, and reaffirm
the positive connection between Federal Lands counties and Federal
Lands; and for other purposes.
S. 1805
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Torricelli) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1805, a bill to
restore food stamp benefits for aliens, to provide States with
flexibility in administering the food stamp vehicle allowance, to index
the excess shelter expense deduction to inflation, to authorize
additional appropriations to purchase and make available additional
commodities under the emergency food assistance program, and for other
purposes.
At the request of Mr. Thomas, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1805, supra.
S. 2029
At the request of Mr. Frist, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Stevens) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2029, a bill to amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit telemarketers from interfering
with the caller identification service of any person to whom a
telephone solicitation is made, and for other purposes.
S. 2505
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2505, a bill to amend title
X VIII of the Social Security Act to provide increased assess to health
care for medical beneficiaries through telemedicine.
S. 2686
At the request of Mr. Concran, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2686, a bill to amend chapter
36 of title 39, United States Code, to modify rates relating to reduced
rate mail matter, and for other purposes.
S. 2698
At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the names of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli), and the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) were added as cosponsors of S. 2698, a
bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an incentive
to ensure that all Americans gain timely and equitable access to the
Internet over current and future generations of broadband capability.
S. 2709
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2709, to establish a Beef
Industry Compensation Trust Fund with the duties imposed on products of
countries that fail to comply with certain WTO dispute resolution
decisions.
S. 2718
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the name of the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2718, a
bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives
to introduce new technologies to reduce energy consumption in
buildings.
S. 2725
At the request of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, the names of the
Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) were added as cosponsors of S. 2725, a bill to provide for a
system of sanctuaries for chimpanzees that have been designated as
being no longer needed in research conducted or supported by the Public
Health Service, and for other purposes.
S. 2726
At the request of Mr. Helms, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2726, a bill to protect
United States military personnel and other elected and appointed
officials of the United States Government against criminal prosecution
by an international criminal court to which the United States is not a
party.
S. 2733
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. L. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2733, a bill to
provide for the preservation of assisted housing for low income elderly
persons, disabled persons, and other families.
S. 2781
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Reid) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2781, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that a deduction equal to fair market
value shall be allowed for charitable contributions of literary,
musical, artistic, or scholarly compositions created by the donor.
S. 2802
At the request of Mr. Wellstone, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Grams) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2802, a bill to
amend the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 to add
White Earth Tribal and Community College to the list of 1994
Institutions.
S. 2868
At the request of Mr. Frist, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator
from Maine (Ms. Collins), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2868, a bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act with respect to children's health.
S. 2912
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2912, a bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to remove certain limitations on the
eligibility of aliens residing in the United States to obtain lawful
permanent residency status.
S. 2936
At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 2936, a bill to provide incentives for new markets and community
development, and for other purposes.
[[Page 18437]]
S. 2957
At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2957, a bill
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve coverage of
drugs and biologicals under part B of the medicare program.
S. 2986
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2986, a bill to
limit the issuance of regulations relating to Federal contractor
responsibility, to require the Comptroller General to conduct a review
of Federal contractor compliance with applicable laws, and for other
purposes.
S. 3009
At the request of Mr. Hutchinson, the name of the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3009, a bill to
provide funds to the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement.
S. 3016
At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mr. Gorton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3016, to amend the Social
Security Act to establish an outpatient prescription drug assistance
program for low-income medicare beneficiaries and medicare
beneficiaries with high drug costs.
S. 3017
At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mr. Gorton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3017, a bill to amend the
Social Security Act to establish an outpatient prescription drug
assistance program for low-income medicare beneficiaries and medicare
beneficiaries with high drug costs.
S. 3020
At the request of Mr. Grams, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr.
Conrad) were added as cosponsors of S. 3020, a bill to require the
Federal Communications Commission to revise its regulations authorizing
the operation of new, low-power FM radio stations.
S. 3054
At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3054, a bill to
amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to reauthorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out pilot projects to increase
the number of children participating in the summer food service program
for children.
S. 3055
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3055, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the payments for
certain physician pathology services under the medicare program.
S. CON. RES. 135
At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the names of the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Sessions) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) were added
as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 135, a concurrent resolution recognizing
the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975
S.J. RES. 30
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 30, a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States relative to equal rights for women and men.
S. RES. 304
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 304, a resolution expressing the sense
of the Senate regarding the development of educational programs on
veterans' contributions to the country and the designation of the week
that includes Veterans Day as ``National Veterans Awareness Week'' for
the presentation of such educational programs.
S. RES. 339
At the request of Mr. Abraham, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Res. 339, supra.
At the request of Mr. Reid, the names of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Breaux), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland), the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Georgia (Mr.
Miller), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Wellstone) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 339, a resolution
designating November 18, 2000, as ``National Survivors of Suicide
Day.''
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 136--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS
REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF BRINGING TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
EFFECTIVENESS TO THE WORLD BANK AND ITS PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Enzi) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations:
S. Con. Res. 136
Whereas the United States is the single largest shareholder
of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
and the International Development Association (in this
concurrent resolution referred to as the ``World Bank'');
Whereas recent reports by the General Accounting Office and
others raise serious questions about management at the World
Bank, corruption involving World Bank programs and projects,
and the lack of effectiveness of World Bank programs and
projects;
Whereas the estimated failure rate of World Bank programs
and projects based on the World Bank's data is greater than
50 percent, as determined at the time of the final loan
disbursement, and the estimated failure rate rises to 65 to
70 percent in the most impoverished nations;
Whereas the United States has an obligation to the American
people to ensure that the hard-earned dollars they pay in
taxes to the Federal Government are, when made available to
the World Bank, being spent efficiently and as they were
intended to be spent;
Whereas the United States has a duty to ensure that the
policies and practices of the World Bank are consistent with
the laws and objectives of the United States; and
Whereas the World Bank will continue to seek financial
contributions from the United States to fund its programs and
projects: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring),
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE
AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS OF WORLD BANK PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS.
(a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the World Bank should publicly commit to execute within
one year performance audits and a complete performance
evaluation of the effectiveness of its programs and projects
by independent private sector firms;
(2) the individual program and project audits and the
complete performance evaluation conducted by the World Bank
should be published and meet the requirements of subsection
(b);
(3) the audits and complete performance evaluation of the
programs and projects, together with the General Accounting
Office review of these audits and evaluations, would help
bring necessary transparency, accountability, and
effectiveness to the World Bank and its programs and
projects; and
(4) the health and well-being of people around the world
would be aided by the World Bank's efforts to ensure that its
resources are properly and appropriately directed to those
truly in need.
(b) Requirements.--The requirements referred to in
subsection (a)(2) are the following:
(1) One-third of the number of the World Bank's programs
and projects should be audited at the location of the program
or project between four and six years after the final
disbursement of World Bank funds with respect to those
programs and projects.
(2) Audited programs and projects should be representative,
by sector and recipient country, of the World Bank's programs
and projects.
(3) Results of the individual program and project audits
should be compiled into a complete performance evaluation
that examines whether the funds loaned by the World Bank are
used in a manner that complies with the conditions of the
loans and analyzes the direct and indirect costs and benefits
of each program or project audited.
(4) The individual program and project audits and the
complete performance evaluation of programs and projects
should be performed every 3 years and should examine those
programs and projects that have been completed since the
submission of the last evaluation.
[[Page 18438]]
(5) Not later than six months after the date of completion
of the complete performance evaluation, the General
Accounting Office should have complete and unfettered access
to the auditors, the individual program and project audits,
and the complete performance evaluation and should review and
report to Congress on the results and methodologies of the
audits and the evaluation, the independence and competence of
the auditors, and the appropriateness, thoroughness, and
quality of the audit and evaluation procedures.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that
expresses Congress' views on the importance of bringing transparency,
accountability, and effectiveness to the World Bank. A necessary step
towards achieving these worthwhile objectives is getting the World Bank
to carefully and properly examine current programs and projects. The
resolution I am introducing today calls for the World Bank to commit to
independent performance audits and evaluations of its programs and
projects. It outlines some of the steps the World Bank must take to
begin a much-needed overhaul.
I share the objectives of the World Bank in reducing poverty in
developing countries and bolstering their economies. The World Bank
seeks a ``World Free of Poverty,'' and we can all recognize this as a
good aim. We live in a global society and all have a role in improving
the health and well-being of people living in all parts of the world.
With this said, I fear that the U.S. is sending its taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars to the World Bank with little to show for it.
Collectively, U.S. taxpayers represent the single largest contributor
of financial resources to the World Bank. Recent reports by the General
Accounting Office, the congressionally-mandated and bipartisan
International Financial Institution Advisory Commission as well as the
testimony of experts testifying before a hearing I held this summer in
the Senate Banking Subcommittee on International Trade and Finance, all
agree on one thing--we can't even tell with a reasonable level of
certainty that funds the World Bank spends on its programs and projects
are spent efficiently and as intended to be spent.
Additionally, right now Congress is being asked to pony up money for
bilateral debt relief to the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) and
as a contribution to the HIPC Initiative for mulilateral debt relief to
these poor countries. This allows the multilateral financial
institutions to forgive debts and make debt service payments that they
are owed by the HIPCs. In part, HIPC Trust Fund monies are used to
reimburse the World Bank for debt relief it provides to the HIPCs. We
don't want to be sending good money after bad. We don't want to support
failed lending and program practices of any international institutions
because that would be money wasted. If Congress is to continue
supporting the HIPC Initiative, we need to send a message that we want
change.
This is why it is essential that Congress take a stand for our
taxpayers who contribute so much money and a stand for the people
around the globe who the Bank's programs and projects are designed to
benefit.
Adopting this resolution makes this statement. It asks the World Bank
to carefully examine its current activities and the way it conducts
business. The resolution calls for the World Bank to publicly commit to
having an independent third party with no vested interest in the
outcome, conduct a thorough review of the Bank's programs and projects
through performance audits and a complete performance evaluation that
is made public.
A complete and open examination of the Bank's practices, its
successes and failures, is a win-win for everyone. It's a win for the
Bank who will know whether its programs are best targeted to achieve
its mission of `A World Free of Poverty,'' a win for member countries
who will know whether their monies are being spent as intended, and
most importantly, a win for people worldwide whose health and well-
being the Bank strives to improve.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this measure.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 137--RECOGNIZING, APPRECIATING, AND
REMEMBERING WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT THE NATIVE AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN
WHO HAVE SERVED THE UNITED STATES IN MILITARY SERVICE
Mr. LEVIN submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs:
S. Con. Res. 137
Whereas it is necessary to recognize, appreciate, assist,
and remember the Native American men and women who have
served the United States in military service;
Whereas Native American men and women have served the
United States armed forces in every military campaign since
the American Revolutionary War;
Whereas some tribes, notably the Ottawa Nation, sent a
special company of warriors to serve in the Civil War with
the Michigan Sharpshooters and the Ottawa Warriors of Company
K were highly decorated for their brave actions in that
military action;
Whereas some tribes, notably the Ottawa Nation, sent their
finest warriors to serve in the Spanish American War and one
of their warriors distinguished himself in the calvary with
Teddy Roosevelt on San Juan Hill;
Whereas some tribes, notably Ottawa, Chippewa, and
Potawatomi answered the warrior call from within and served
in great numbers in World War I even though they were not
accepted as citizens of this country at that time;
Whereas the Navajo Code Talkers as well as other tribes,
including the Ottawa and Chippewa, used their sacred
languages to assist our country in World War II;
Whereas these sacred languages were also used to assist the
United States efforts in the Korean war and the Vietnam
conflict during which Native American veterans distinguished
themselves with their bravery;
Whereas Native American veterans served in operations
Desert Storm and Desert Shield; and
Whereas Native Americans have served in the United States
military in numbers that far exceed their representation in
the United States population: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress recognizes, appreciates, and
remembers with dignity and respect the service to the United
States of Native American veterans.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to submit a concurrent
resolution along with Representative Bart Stupak which recognizes the
Native American men and women who have served in the United States
military.
This resolution recognizes the contributions of Native Americans in
the United States Military service which are indeed impressive. Native
Americans have served in the United States military since the American
Revolution. During the Civil War, there were 3 Confederate units and 1
Union unit primarily made up of Native Americans from the Oklahoma
tribes. Many Native Americans fought in the Spanish American War. In
fact, one warrior from Michigan, Jonas Shawandase, fought bravely with
Teddy Roosevelt on San Juan Hill.
In World War I, many Native Americans were so eager to join that they
went to Canada to enlist before the United States entered the war.
6,000 of the more than 8,000 who served during this war were
volunteers. This tremendous act of patriotism persuaded Congress to
pass the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924. During World War II, 25,000
Native American men and women fought on all fronts in Europe and Asia,
receiving more than 71 Air Medals, 51 Silver Stars, 47 Bronze Stars, 34
Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Congressional Medals of Honor. In
fact Ira Hayes, a Pima Indian, was one of the men to raise the flag on
Iwo Jima.
In the Vietnam War more than 41,500 Native Americans served in the
United States Armed Forces. Of those, 90% were volunteers, giving
Native Americans the highest record of service of any ethnic group in
the country. In 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, some 24,000
Native American men and women were in the military. Approximately 3,000
served in the Persian Gulf. One of every four Native American males is
a military veteran.
Native Americans in Michigan have told me that veterans are greatly
respected in Native American societies and this honor is nowhere more
apparent than at powwows. At a powwow celebration, the veterans are
given the honor of carrying the flag and are the first to enter the
powwow circle.
This resolution recognizes those Native Americans who with dignity
served in the U.S. military. We note today their service to this
country and honor Native Americans for their military contributions.
____________________
[[Page 18439]]
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED
______
STEM CELL RESEARCH ACT OF 2000
______
BROWNBACK AMENDMENTS NOS. 4140-4153
(Ordered referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.)
Mr. BROWNBACK submitted fourteen amendments intended to be proposed
by him to the bill, H.R. 2015, to amend the Public Health Service Act
to provide for research with respect to human embryonic stem cells; as
follows:
Amendment No. 4140
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON MIXING HUMAN AND ANIMAL GAMETES.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Gamete.--The term ``gamete'' means a haploid germ cell
that is an egg or a sperm.
(2) Somatic cell.--The term ``somatic cell'' means a
diploid cell whose nucleus contains the full set of
chromosomes of a human or an animal.
(b) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person to
knowingly attempt to create a human/animal hybrid by--
(1) combining a human gamete and an animal gamete; or
(2) conducting nuclear transfer cloning using a human egg
or a human somatic cell nucleus.
(c) Sanctions.--
(1) In general.--Any person who violates subsection (b)
shall be fined in accordance with title 18, United States
Code, or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Civil penalties.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate regulations providing for the
application of civil penalties to persons who violate
subsection (b).
____
Amendment No. 4141
On page 1, line 4, strike ``This''.
____
Amendment No. 4142
On page 1, line 4, strike ``Act''.
____
Amendment No. 4143
On page 1, line 4, strike ``may''.
____
Amendment No. 4144
On page 1, line 4, strike ``be''.
____
Amendment No. 4145
On page 1, line 4, strike ``cited''.
____
Amendment No. 4146
On page 1, line 4, strike ``as''.
____
Amendment No. 4147
On page 1, line 4, strike ``the''.
____
Amendment No. 4148
On page 1, line 4, strike ``Stem''.
____
Amendment No. 4149
On page 1, line 4, strike ``Cell''.
____
Amendment No. 4150
On page 1, line 4, strike ``Research''.
____
Amendment No. 4151
On page 1, line 5, strike ``Act''.
____
Amendment No. 4152
On page 1, line 5, strike ``of''.
____
Amendment No. 4153
On page 1, line 5, strike ``2000''.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
Committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on September 20, 2000
in SR-328A at 9:00 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review
how our food safety system should address microbial contamination.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that the oversight hearing
scheduled for Wednesday, September 20, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been rescheduled for
Tuesday, September 26, 2000, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the current
outlook for supply of heating and transportation fuels this winter.
For further information, please call Dan Kish at (202) 224-8276 or Jo
Meuse (202) 224-4756.
committee on indian affairs
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the
Committee on Indian Affairs will meet on Wednesday, September 20, 2000
at 2:00 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct a
business meeting to markup S. 2920, the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Improvement Act of 2000; S. 1840, the California Indian Land Transfer
Act; S. 2688, the Native American Languages Act Amendments Act of 2000;
S. 2665, To establish a streamlined process to enable the Navajo Nation
to lease trust lands without having to obtain the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior of individual leases, except leases for
exploration, development, or extraction of any mineral resources; S.
2917, the Santo Domingo Pueblo Claims Settlement Act of 2000; S. 2580,
the Indian School Construction Act; and S. 3031, technical amendments.
Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee on Forestry,
Conservation, and Rural Revitalization will meet on September 21, 2000
in SR-328A at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to review
the Trade Injury Compensation Act of 2000.
subcommittee on forests and public land management
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public
that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests
and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 at 2:30
p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C.
S. 3039, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell a
Forest Service administrative site occupied by the Rocky Mountain
Research Station in Boise, Idaho, and use the proceeds derived from the
sale to purchase interests in a multiagency research and education
facility to be constructed by the University of Idaho, and for other
purposes, has been added to the agenda.
Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington,
D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge at (202)
224-6170.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to
receive testimony on U.S. policy toward Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Tuesday, September 19, 2000 to mark up H.R. 4986, the FSC Repeal and
Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 and H.R. 2868, the Tariff
Suspension and Trade Act of 2000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on governmental affairs
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 19,
2000, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing to consider the nomination of George
Omas to be a Commissioner of the Postal Rate Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 18440]]
subcommittee on international security, proliferation, and federal
services
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security,
Proliferation, and Federal Services be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, at 10:00 a.m. for
a hearing on ``The State of Foreign Language Capabilities in the
Federal Government--Part II''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on water and power
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Tuesday, September 19 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing. The
subcommittee will receive testimony on H.R. 3577, a bill to increase
the amount authorized to be appropriated for the north side pumping
division of the Minidoka reclamation project, Idaho; S. 2906, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts the
city of Loveland, Colorado, to use Colorado-Big Thompson Project
facilities for the impounding, storage, and carriage of nonproject
water for domestic, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial
purposes; S. 2942, a bill to extend the deadline for commencement of
construction of certain hydroelectric project in the State of West
Virginia; S. 2951, a bill to authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation
to conduct a study to investigate opportunities to better manage the
water resources in the Salmon Creek watershed of the Upper Columbia
River; and S. 3022, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain irrigation facilities to the Mampa and Meridian
Irrigation District.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. CLELAND. On behalf of Senator Feinstein, I ask unanimous consent
Howard Krawitz, a legislative fellow in her office, be granted the
privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 4444 and any votes
thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Marianne
Clark of my staff be permitted floor privileges during the pendency of
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MEASURE READ FOR THE FIRST TIME--S. 3068
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understand S. 3068 introduced earlier
today by Senator Kennedy and others is at the desk, and I ask for its
first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the first
time.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3068) to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to remove certain limitations on the eligibility of
aliens residing in the United States to obtain lawful
permanent resident status.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading, and I
object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The bill will be read the second time on the next legislative day.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--H.R. 5173
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I understand that H.R. 5173 is at the
desk, and I ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 5173) to provide for reconciliation pursuant
to sections 103(b)(2) and 213(b)(2)(C) of the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the
public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on the public
debt.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading and
object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill will be read the second time on the next legislative day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2000
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30
a.m. on Wednesday, September 20. I further ask consent that on
Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings
be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for
the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the
Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m., with
Senators speaking for up to 5 minutes each, with the following
exceptions: Senator Gramm of Texas for 30 minutes, Senator Graham of
Florida for 10 minutes, Senator Sessions for 30 minutes, Senator Dorgan
for 20 minutes, and Senator Durbin for 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. BENNETT. When the Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m., the Senate will
be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. Following morning
business, the Senate will resume debate on the conference report to
accompany the legislative branch appropriations bill. Under the
previous order, there are approximately 4 hours remaining for debate.
Therefore, I expect that the vote will occur at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow on
adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516.
Following the 3:30 p.m. vote, it is hoped that the Senate can begin
consideration of the Water Resources Development Act under a consent
agreement. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout tomorrow
afternoon's session of the Senate.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BENNETT. 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 5:48 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, September 20, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate September 19, 2000:
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
EDWARD FRANCIS MEAGHER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY), VICE
DAVID E. LEWIS, RESIGNED.
IN THE COAST GUARD
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES COAST GUARD TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 14,
U.S.C., SECTION 271:
To be rear admiral (lower half)
CAPT. CHARLES D. WURSTER, 0000
CAPT. THOMAS H. GILMOUR, 0000
CAPT. ROBERT F. DUNCAN, 0000
CAPT. RICHARD E. BENNIS, 0000
CAPT. JEFFREY J. HATHAWAY, 0000
CAPT. KEVIN J. ELDRIDGE, 0000
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
September 19, 2000
[[Page 18441]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, September 19, 2000
The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
September 19, 2000.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Paul Ryan to act as Speaker
pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate agreed to the following resolution.
S. Res. 358
Whereas Murray Zweben served the Senate with honor and
distinction as its third Parliamentarian from 1974 to 1981;'
Whereas Murray Zweben was Assistant Senate Parliamentarian
from 1963 to 1974;
Whereas Murray Zweben served the Senate for more than 20
years;
Whereas Murray Zweben performed his Senate duties in an
impartial and professional manner;
Whereas Murray Zweben was honored by the Senate with the
title Parliamentarian Emeritus; and
Whereas Murray Zweben served his country as an officer in
the United States Navy from 1953 to 1956: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound sorrow
and deep regret the announcement of the death of the
Honorable Murray Zweben, Parliamentarian Emeritus of the
United States Senate.
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate communicate
these resolutions to the House of Representatives and
transmit an enrolled copy thereof to the family of the
deceased.
Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns today, it stand
adjourned as a further mark of respect to the memory of the
Honorable Murray Zweben.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed with amendments
in which the concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House
of the following title:
H.R. 940. An act to designate the Lackawanna Valley
National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill of the
following title in which the concurrence of the House is requested:
S. 2247. An act to establish the Wheeling National Heritage
Area in the State of West Virginia, and for other purposes.
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 106-181, the
Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, appoints the following
individuals to serve as members of the National Commission to Ensure
Consumer Information and Choice in the Airline Industry:
Ann B. Mitchell, of Mississippi.
Joyce Rogge, of New York.
____________________
MORNING HOUR DEBATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 19, 1999, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to not to exceed 25 minutes, and each Member, except
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited
to not to exceed 5 minutes, but in no event shall continue beyond 9:50
a.m.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for
5 minutes.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. On behalf of my colleagues, Jimmy
Walsh and other Members of the New York delegation, I welcome Mrs.
Moynihan, Elizabeth Moynihan, who is with us in the gallery, and
Senator Moynihan.
He is one of our truly inspiring legislators. He has been a scholar,
a legislator, an ambassador, a cabinet officer, a presidential adviser
in four administrations, a witness, a teacher, a writer, and one of the
best Senators ever to grace the Halls of this institution.
He is unmatched in his ability to craft innovative solutions to
society's most pressing problems, from welfare to Social Security, to
transportation, to taxes. His legislative stamp is everywhere. Known
as, and I quote the Almanac of American Politics, ``the Nation's best
thinker among politicians since Lincoln, and its best politician among
thinkers since Jefferson,'' Senator Moynihan has moved people through
the power of his ideas. He is a unique figure in public life, a man of
pure intellect who is unafraid of speaking inconvenient truths.
Senator Moynihan's life exemplifies the American dream. He grew up in
a slum known as Hell's Kitchen. Abandoned by his father, his mother
became the sole supporter of the family during the Depression. Small
wonder that Senator Moynihan grew up to be a strong voice on welfare
issues.
He recognized the danger of fostering a culture of dependency while
understanding the importance of maintaining a strong safety net. He has
proved to be one of the most accurate prophets of our era. Time after
time, he has correctly predicted future consequences, even though many
refused to believe him when his prediction ran counter to conventional
wisdom.
In the 1960s, he expressed concern about the disintegration of the
African American family. In the 1980s, he predicted the coming collapse
of the Soviet Union. In the 1990's, he expressed concern about the
tendency of our society to define deviancy down. Antisocial behavior,
he warns, is tolerated at our peril.
For New Yorkers, Senator Moynihan has always been one of our
homegrown heroes, our proud gift to the Nation. Despite his reputation
for attention to the more scholarly pursuits, he authored 18 books.
Senator Moynihan has never forgotten those of us who elected him. He is
a hero to landmark preservationists for his effort to preserve the
Custom House and the Farley Post Office, the new train station on the
Farley site he helped plan and is continuing to fund, but it does not
have a name yet. I believe it should be named for Daniel Patrick
Moynihan.
When the Coast Guard left Governors Island, he persuaded President
Clinton to agree to give the island to New York for a dollar. I am
hopeful that in the last days of this Congress, we will be able to make
that pledge a reality.
As ambassador to the United Nations, he denounced the resolution
equating Zionism with racism. Seventeen years later, the U.N. reversed
itself, revoking this shameful resolution. Senator Moynihan was a prime
mover behind ISTEA, which changed the way highway and transportation
funds are distributed. He is widely credited with shifting
transportation priorities and making it possible for us to invest in
alternatives like high speed rail. As a member of the Senate Finance
Committee, he has been a guardian of Social Security; and most
recently, he has focused his attention on the importance of opening up
government filings and reducing secrecy in government.
I was proud to have worked with him on the passage of the Nazi War
Crimes Disclosure bill. After 50 years, Americans finally are beginning
to get a
[[Page 18442]]
glimpse of the things that our government knew. Senator Moynihan has
also worked tirelessly on getting an accurate census for our country.
Senator Moynihan's absence will make the Senate a poorer place. I am
hopeful that he will remain in the public eye as a strong voice of
public conscience. We need him and we will miss him, and my colleagues
are here to join me in paying tribute to the great Senator from the
great State of New York, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a true
American treasure.
Mr. Speaker, I will place into the Record his biography and a list of
his speeches. I also will place editorials and tributes that have
appeared recently in the papers of our country, applauding the work and
contributions of the great Senator from New York.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the senior United States Senator
from New York. First elected in 1976, Sen. Moynihan was re-
elected in 1982, 1988, and 1994.
Sen. Moynihan is the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate
Committee on Finance. He serves on the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works and the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration. He also is a member of the Joint
Committee on Taxation and the Joint Committee on the Library
of Congress.
A member of the Cabinet or sub-Cabinet of Presidents
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford, Sen. Moynihan is the only
person in American history to serve in four successive
administrations. He was U.S. Ambassador to India from 1973 to
1975 and U.S. Representative to the United Nations from 1975
to 1976. In February 1976 he represented the United States as
President of the United Nations Security Council.
Sen. Moynihan was born on March 17, 1927. He attended pubic
and parochial schools in New York City and graduated from
Benjamin Franklin High School in East Harlem. He went on to
attend the City College of New York for one year before
enlisting in the United States Navy. He served on active duty
from 1944 to 1947. In 1966, he completed twenty years in the
Naval Reserve and was retired. Sen. Moynihan earned his
bachelor's degree (cum laude) from Tufts University, studied
at the London School of Economics as a Fulbright Scholar, and
received his M.A. and Ph.D. from Tufts University's Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy.
Sen. Moynihan was a member of Averell Harriman's
gubernatorial campaign staff in 1954 and then served on Gov.
Harriman's staff in Albany until 1958. He was an alternate
Kennedy delegate at the 1960 Democratic Convention. Beginning
in 1961, he served in the U.S. Department of Labor as an
assistant to the Secretary, and later as Assistant Secretary
of Labor for Policy Planning and Research.
In 1966, Sen. Moynihan became Director of the Joint Center
for Urban Studies at Harvard University and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. He has been a Professor of
Government at Harvard University, Assistant Professor of
Government at Syracuse University, a fellow at the Center for
Advanced Studies at Wesleyan University, and has taught in
the extension programs of Russell Sage College and the
Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
Sen. Moynihan is the recipient of 62 honorary degrees.
Sen. Moynihan is the author or editor of 18 books. He most
recent work is Secrecy: The American Experience, published in
the fall of 1998, an expansion of the report by the
Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy.
Sen. Moyniahn, as Chairman of the Commission, led the first
comprehensive review in forty years of the Federal
Government's system of classifying and declassifying
information and granting clearances.
Since 1976 Sen. Moynihan has published an analysis of the
flow of funds between the Federal Government and New York
State. In 1992 the analysis became a joint publication with
the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard
University, and includes all fifty states.
Sen. Moynihan is a fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS). He was Chairman of the
AAAS's section on Social, Economic and Political Science
(1971-72) and a member of the Board of Directors (1972-73).
He also served as a member of the President's Science
Advisory Committee (1971-73). Sen. Moynihan was Vice Chairman
(1971-76) of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars. He served on the National Commission on Social
Security Reform (1982-83) whose recommendations formed the
basis of legislation to assure the system's fiscal stability.
He was the founding Chairman of the Board of Trustees of
the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (1971-85) and
serves as Regent of the Smithsonian Institution, having been
appointed in 1987 and again in 1995. In 1985, the Smithsonian
awarded him its Joseph Henry Medal.
In 1965, Sen. Moynihan received the Arthur S. Flemming
Awards, which recognizes outstanding young Federal employees,
for his work as ``an architect of the Nation's program to
eradicate poverty.'' He has also received the International
League of Human Rights Award (1975) and the John LaFarge
Award for Interracial Justice (1980). In 1983, he was the
first recipient of the American Political Science
Association's Hubert H. Humphrey Award for ``notable public
service by a political scientist.'' In 1984, Sen. Moynihan
received the State University of New York at Albany's
Medallion of the University in recognition of his
``extraordinary public service and leadership in the field
for education.'' In 1986, he received the Seal Medallion of
the Central Intelligence Agency and the Britannica Medal for
the Dissemination of Learning.
He has also received the Laetare Medal of the University of
Notre Dame (1992), the Thomas Jefferson Award for Public
Architecture from the American Institute of Architects
(1992), and the Thomas Jefferson Medal for Distinguished
Achievement in the Arts or Humanities from the American
Philosophical Society (1993). In 1994, he received the Gold
Medal Award ``honoring services to humanity'' from the
National Institute of Social Sciences. In 1997, the College
of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University awarded
Sen. Moynihan the Cartwright Prize. He was the 1998 recipient
of the Heinz Award in Public Policy ``for having been a
distinct and unique voice in the century--independent in his
convictions, a scholar, teacher, statesman and politician,
skilled in the art of the possible.''
Elizabeth Brennan Moynihan, his wife of 44 years, is an
architectural historian with a special interest in 16th
century Mughal architecture in India. She is the author of
Paradise as a Garden: In Persia and Mughal India (1979) and
numerous articles. Mrs. Moynihan is a former Chairman of the
Board of the American Schools of Oriental Research. She
serves as a member of the Indo-U.S. Subcommission on
Education and Culture, and the visiting committee of the
Freer Gallery of Art at the Smithsonian Institution. She is
Vice Chair of the Board of the National Building Museum, and
on the Trustees Council of the Preservation League of New
York State.
personal
Born March 16, 1927, Tulsa, OK.
Three children, Timothy Patrick, Maura Russell, and John
McCloskey; two grandchildren.
Reside in Washington, D.C. on Pennsylvania Avenue and near
Pindars Corners in Delaware County, Davenport, NY.
public service
Office of the Governor of the State of New York, W. Averell
Harriman, Albany, NY, 1955-58 Speech writer, Assistant to
Secretary Jonathan Bingham; Assistant Secretary for Reports,
1956; Acting Secretary, 1958.
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Labor, Washington,
DC, 1961-62.
Executive Assistant to the Secretary of Labor, Washington,
DC, 1962-63.
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy Planning and
Research, Washington, DC, 1963-65.
Assistant to the President for Urban Affairs, Washington,
DC, 1969-70.
Counselor to the President, Washington, DC, 1969-70.
Consultant to the President, Washington, DC, 1971-73.
Member, United States delegation to the Twenty-Sixth
General Assembly of the United Nations, United Nations, 1971.
U.S. Ambassador to India, New Delhi, India, 1973-75.
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, New York,
NY, 1975-76.
elected office
Candidate for New York City Council President, 1965.
U.S. Senator from New York, 1977-
Chairman, Committee on Finance, 1993-1994
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 1992
U.S. Senate Committees
Committee on Finance, Ranking Minority Member.
Subcommittees: International Trade, Social Security and
Family Policy; and Taxation and IRS Oversight.
Committee on Environment and Public Works, second ranking
minority member.
Subcommittees: Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk
Assessment; and Transportation and Infrastructure.
Committee on Rules an Administration.
Joint Committee on the Library.
Joint Committee on Taxation.
Committee on Foreign Relations, 1987-95.
Committee on the Budget, 1977, 1979-86.
Committee on Commerce, 1977.
Select Committee on Intelligence 1977-85, Vice Chairman,
1981-85.
legislative achievements
West Valley Demonstration Project Act of 1980
Sponsor. Authorized U.S. Department of Energy to clean up
and remove 600,000 gallons of nuclear wastes stored at West
Valley, NY. Commits Federal government to convert liquid
wastes into a solid glass-like logs to be transported to a
permanent and secure Federal repository.
The Acid Precipitation Act (Became Title VII of the Energy
Security Act of 1980)
First federal legislation addressing the problem of acid
rain. Established a ten year
[[Page 18443]]
program for research on the causes and effects of acid rain
and possible control strategies. Ultimately the Federal
government's largest scientific study outside NASA.
Clear Air Act Reauthorization of 1982
Mandated an eight million ton reduction in annual sulfur
dioxide emission in the eastern U.S. by January 1, 1995.
Social Security Act Amendments of 1983 (Greenspan Commission)
Chief Democratic sponsor of amendments guaranteeing
solvency of the Social Security system well into the 21st
century.
Water Resources Development Act of 1986
Authorized $1.1 billion for 33 New York water projects.
Obtained funding for the Erie Canal, Olcott Harbor, and Coney
Island.
Superfund Reauthorization Act of 1985
Principal cosponsor. Provided $8.5 billion over five years
to clean up toxic waste.
Tax Reform Act of 1986
One of the law's six principal drafters. Successfully
opposed attempts to eliminate the deduction for state and
local income and property taxes. Took millions of working
poor off tax rolls, lowered tax rates and closed tax shelters
and other loopholes.
Family Support Act of 1988
Author. Began process of transforming the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program from an income
security program to one which helps individuals secure
employment.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Original cosponsor. First revision of the Clean Air Act
since 1977. The acid rain control provisions built upon the
first Federal legislation on acid rain: Moynihan's Acid
Precipitation Act of 1980 (see above).
Intermodeal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA)
Chief author and sponsor of landmark legislation, known
commonly as ISTEA, which redirected Federal surface
transportation policy to include more spending for non
highway-related projects. Greatly increased the amount of
Federal Highway Trust Fund money to New York State which
received $12 billion in highway and transit funds over six
years and will be reimbursed $5 billion for the New York
State Thruway over 15 years.
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
Led efforts to get the first Clinton budget through the
Finance Committee and the full Senate resulting in historic
deficit reduction and uninterrupted economic growth.
Social Security Domestic Employment Act of 1993 (``Nanny
Tax'')
Simplified requirements regarding the payment of Social
Security taxes due on wages paid to domestic employees.
Social Security Administration as an independent agency
(1994)
Author of bill to make the Social Security Administration
independent from the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to restore public confidence, improve accountability
and insulate the SSA from undue political pressure.
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment
Leader of the redevelopment of Penn Station in Manhattan in
the James A. Farley Postal Building. Secured $315 million in
Federal, State, and private funds; established the
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp. to oversee
completion.
1994 Crime Bill--Ban on ``Cop-Killer'' bullets
Introduced and received Senate passage of legislation to
protect police officers from a new class of armor-piercing
ammunition. The bill extends the 1986 Law Enforcement
Officers Protection Act, also sponsored by Sen. Moynihan, to
prohibit this new type of ``cop-killer'' bullet.
Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995
Principal sponsor with Senator Robert J. Dole of bill to
recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of the State of Israel and
to require the U.S. Embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem
by 1999.
Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center Act of
1995
Sponsor. Named the newest (and last) Federal Triangle
building after the former President. The Federal Triangle's
completion marks the end of the redevelopment of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a personal goal since the Kennedy Administration.
Taxpayers Relief Act of 1997
Repealed the cap on issuance of section 501 (c)(3) bonds
for universities, colleges, and non-hospital health
facilities.
Government Secrecy Act of 1997
Introduced with Senator Jesse Helms legislation recommended
by the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government
Secrecy (of which Senator Moynihan chaired) to establish
principles on which Federal classification and
declassification programs are to be based.
Social Security Solvency Act of 1998
Introduced with Senator J. Robert Kerrey legislation to
save Social Security by reducing payroll taxes by almost $800
billion and returning to a pay-as-you go system. Also
requires benefit increases to accurately reflect the cost of
living and gradually phase in an increase in the retirement
age. Beginning in 2001 the bill would permit voluntary
personal savings accounts, which workers could finance with
the proceeds of the 2% cut in the payroll tax. And beginning
in 2003, retires could continue to collect benefits
regardless of how much they earn.
teaching and academic positions
Assistant in Government, Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Tuffs University, Medford, MA, 1949-50.
Lecture, Russell Sage College, Troy, NY, 1957-58.
Lecture, NYS School of Industrial Relations, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, 1959.
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Maxwell Graduate
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse
University, Syracuse, NY, 1960-61.
Fellow, Center for Advanced Studies, Wesleyan University,
Middletown, CT, 1965-66.
Director, Joint Center for Urbana Studies, MIT and Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, 1966-1969.
Professor of Education and Urbana Studies, MIT and Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, 1969-73.
Professor of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA,
1973-77.
courses taught
Harvard University
1971-72
Administration and Social Policy x-154. Social Science and
Social Policy--A review of the rise of social science
influence in the formulation of social policy with respect to
predominantly non-economic issues. Changing perceptions of
the political orientation of social science findings. Class
work concentrated on case studies drawn from recent American
experience
Administration and Social Policy x-227. Federal Policy
Toward Higher Education--This seminar considered the
emergency of Federal policy toward higher education in the
context of historical programs and the social policies which
they reflect, in order to define the choices implicit in the
adoption of a formal national policy.
Administration and Social Policy x-256. Social Science and
Education Policy--An exploration of recent and prospective
influences on educational policies of social science theory
and research. Included consideration of the policy making
processes within the educational system and various modes of
responses to social science findings.
1972-73
Government 251. Ethnicity in American Politics--An
historical inquiry into the role of ethnic group identity as
an organizing factor in American politics.
1976-77
Social Science 115. Social Science and Social Policy--And
examination of the influence of various social science
disciplines on the formulation of social policy.
1976-77
Government 216. Ethnicity in Politics--An historical and
theoretical enquiry into the role of ethnicity as an
organizing principle in modern politics.
fellowships
1969--Honorary Fellow, London School of Economics and
Political Science.
1971--Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
1976--Chubb Fellow, Yale University.
lectureships
1985--Feingold Lecturer, Columbia University, New York, NY.
1985--Feinstone Lecturer, U.S. Military Academy, West
Point, NY.
1986--Godkin Lecturer, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
1986--Marnold Lecturer, New York University, New York. NY.
1987--Gannon Lecturer, Fordham University, Bronx, NY.
1991--Cyril Foster Lecturer, Oxford University, Oxford,
England.
honorary degrees
LL.D. LaSalle College, 1966.
LL.D. Seton Hall College, 1966.
D.P.A. Providence College, 1967.
D.H.L. University of Akron, 1967.
LL.D. Catholic University, 1968.
D.S.W. Dusquesne University, 1968.
D.H.L. Hamilton College, 1968.
LL.D. Illinois Institute of Technology, 1968.
LL.D. New School for Social Research, 1968.
LL.D. St. Louis University, 1968.
LL.D. Tufts University, 1968.
D.S.S. Villanova University, 1968.
LL.D. University of California, 1969.
LL.D. University of Notre Dame, 1969.
LL.D. Fordham University, 1970.
H.H.D. Bridgewater State College, 1972.
D.S. Michigan Technological University, 1972.
L.L.D. St. Bonaventure University, 1972.
LL.D. Indiana University, 1975.
LL.D. Boston College, 1976.
Ph.D. Hebrew University, 1976.
LL.D. Hofstra University, 1976.
LL.D. Ohio State University, 1976.
LL.D. St. Anselm's College, 1976.
D.H.L. Baruch College, 1977.
LL.D. Canisius College, 1977.
D.C.L. Colgate University, 1977.
LL.D. LeMoyne College, 1977.
LL.D. New York Law School, 1977.
[[Page 18444]]
LL.D. Salem College, 1977.
LL.D. Hartwick College, 1978.
LL.D. Ithaca College, 1978.
D.H.L. Rabinnical College of America, 1978.
LL.D. Skidmore College, 1978.
LL.D. College of St. Rose, 1978.
LL.D. Yeshiva University, 1978.
LL.D. Brooklyn Law School, 1978.
D.H.L. Marist College, 1979.
LL.D. Pace University Law School, 1979.
LL.D. St. John Fisher College, 1980.
LL.D. Dowling College, 1981.
LL.D. Bar-Ilan University, 1982.
LL.D. New York Medical College, 1982.
LL.D. Pratt Institute, 1982.
LL.D. Rensselar Polytechnic Institute, 1983.
D.C.L. Union College, 1983.
D.S.I. Defense Intelligence College, 1984.
D.H.L. New York University, 1984.
LL.D. Syracuse University School of Law.
D.H.L. Bard College, 1985.
D.H.L. Hebrew Union College, 1986.
LL.D. Marymount Manhattan College, 1986.
LL.D. Columbia University, 1987.
LL.D. Touro College, 1991.
D.H.L. Hobart and William Smith College, 1992.
D.H.L. University of San Francisco, 1992.
D.C.L. St. Francis College, 1993.
LL.D. University of Rochester, 1994.
LL.D. Union College, 1995.
LL.D. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1997.
D.H.L. Texas A&M University, 1998.
other positions
Budget Assistant, U.S. Air Force base, Ruislip, England,
1951-53.
Director of Public Relations, International Rescue
Committee (IRC), New York, NY 1954.
Human Rights Organization, assisted refugees forced to
leave their own countries through persecution.
Director, New York State Government Research Project,
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 1959-61.
commissions and committees
Member, New York State Tenure Commission, 1958-60.
Member, President's Council on Pennsylvania Avenue, 1962.
Vice-Chairman, President's Temporary Commission on
Pennsylvania Avenue, 1965-74.
Member, Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety, Department of
HEW, 1966-68.
Member, President's Science Advisory Committee, 1971-73.
education
Diploma, Benjamin Franklin High School, New York, NY, 1943.
City College of New York (1943-44), New York, NY, followed
by naval service.
B.N.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1946.
B.A. (cum laude), Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1948.
M.A. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University, Medford, MA, 1949.
Fulbright Scholarship, London School of Economics, London,
England, 1950.
Ph.D., Doctor of Philosophy, Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1961; thesis: The
U.S. and the I.L.O., 1889-1934.
democratic political experience
Volunteer, New York City Mayoral campaign of Robert F.
Wagner, 1953.
Secretary, Public Affairs Committee of the New York State
Democratic Party, 1958-60.
Member, New York State Delegation to the Democratic
National Convention, 1960, 1976. Authored position papers for
presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kennedy, 1960.
naval service
1944-45--V-12 Naval Officer training program, Middlebury,
VT.
1945--ROTC Tufts University/B.N.S., 1946.
1947--Communications, Gunnery Officer, U.S.S. Quirinus.
medals
The American Campaign Medal.--Given to those in service
between 1941 and 1946. Recipient must have served outside the
United States for 30 days or within the United States for one
year.
The Naval Reserve Medal.--For ten years of honorable
service in the Naval Reserve.
World War II Victory Medal.--For service in the U.S. Armed
Forces, 1941-1846.
books
Beyond the Melting Pot (with Nathan Glazer), The MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1963.
Study of ethnic life in American society and politics.
Questioned contemporary conception of America as homogenous
society and in which group differences were disappearing.
(Winner of the Ansfield-Wolf Award in Race Relations)
The Defenses of Freedom: The Public Papers of Arthur J.
Goldberg, ed., Harper & Roe, New York, NY, 1966.
Papers of the Supreme Court Justice and American Ambassador
to the United Nations.
Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding, The Free Press, New
York, NY, 1969.
On the role of community action in the war on poverty and
why the Johnson Administration's poverty program failed to
fulfill expectations.
On Understanding Poverty, ed., Basic Books Inc., New York,
N.Y. 1969.
A collection of essays by leading academics and experts in
the field of poverty studies.
Toward a National Urban Policy,, ed., Basic Books Inc., New
York, NY, 1970.
Essays by academics and urban experts on a range of
subjects related to urban affairs, including housing urban
planning, transportation, crime, health, education, and race.
On Equality of Educational Opportunity, ed. (with Frederick
Mosteller), Random House, New York, NY, 1972.
Papers from the Harvard University Faculty Seminar on the
Coleman Report ``Equality of Educational Opportunity.'' The
Report demonstrated that minority schools were not especially
unequal in their facilities and that neither teacher-pupil
ratios nor per-pupil expenditures were directly related to
academic achievement.
The Politics of A Guaranteed Income, Random House, New
York, NY, 1973.
An explanation of the Family Assistance Plan (FAP) which
guaranteed minimum income to families with children and why
the proposal was defeated.
Coping: On the Practice of Government, Random House, New
York, NY, 1973.
Essays on a range of subjects encountered during government
service: welfare, political reform, race relations, traffic
safety, education, urban affairs. Discusses how the trained
social scientist can contribute to the practice of
government.
Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, ed. (with Nathan Glazer),
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1975.
A collection of essays by academics and social commentators
on the meaning and significance of ethnicity in modern
society.
A Dangerous Place (with Suzanne Weaver), Little, Brown &
Company, Boston, MA, 1978.
A testimonial from term as Ambassador to the United
Nations. Recounts battle against Arab sponsored and Soviet
inspired U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism.
Counting our Blessings, Little, Brown & Company, Boston,
MA, 1980.
A collection of essays on foreign policy, the judicial
system, domestic and regional economic policy, arms control
and other issues. Argues, among other things for public aid
to nonpublic schools and that the Nation stress human rights
as a priority in international relations.
Loyalties, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY, 1984.
On the history and meaning of the arms race, respect for
international law, and the Communist theory of racism applied
to those who opposed Soviet totalitarianism. The book argues
for loyalty to principals of law, rights and humanity.
Family and Nation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY,
1986.
On the disintegration of the American family. Argues for
the establishment of a national policy to support and enhance
the viability of families.
Came the Revolution: Argument in the Reagan Era, Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY, 1988.
A collection of speeches, essays and other writings from
1981-1986.
On the Law of Nations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1990.
An examination of international law and the history of
American internationalism in the twentieth century.
Pandaemonium: Ethnicity in International Politics, Oxford
University Press Inc., New York, NY, 1993.
An account of ethnicity as an elemental force in
international politics. How the power of ethnicity defied
both the liberal myth of the melting pot and the Marxist
prediction of proletarian internationalism.
Miles to Go: A Personal History of Social Policy, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
A personal analysis of the changing welfare state and the
nation's social strategies over the last half-century. Topics
include welfare, family disintegration, health care, social
deviance, addiction, and broader views on civil rights and
capitalism.
Secrecy: The American Experience, Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT, 1998.
A history of government secrecy in America since World War
I. Based on findings as Chairman of the Commission on
Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy (1995-1997).
Secrecy is a mode of government regulation, indeed, ``it is
the ultimate mode for the citizen does not even know that he
or she is being regulated.''
HONORS AND AWARDS
Meritorious Service Award of the U.S. Department of Labor
(1963)
For exceptional service as Staff Director of the
President's Task Force on Employee-Management Relations and
for outstanding contributions to development of the policy of
Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service.
Arthur S. Fleming Award as an ``Architect of the Nation's War
on Poverty'' (1965)
Awarded to the ten most outstanding young men and women in
the Federal service. Selected by an independent panel of
judges.
International League of Human Rights Award (1975)
For extraordinary commitment to international human rights.
Oldest human rights award in the nation.
[[Page 18445]]
John LaFarge Award for Interracial Justice (1980)
Given by the Catholic Interracial Council (NY) for
commitment and leadership in fighting racism and
discrimination.
American Political Science Association's Hubert H. Humphrey
Award (1983)
First recipient of the award for ``notable public service
by a political scientist.''
Medallion of the University, State University of New York at
Albany (1984)
For extraordinary service to the University and to
education. The highest award for distinguished service the
university bestows.
Henry Medal of the Smithsonian Institution (1985)
Presented by the Board of Regents for outstanding service
to the Smithsonian Institution.
Seal Medallion of the Central Intelligence Agency (1986)
In recognition of outstanding accomplishment as vice-
chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence from
February 1977 to January 1985.
Britannica Medal for the Dissemination of Learning and the
Enrichment of Life (1986)
Presented by Encyclopedia Britannica. The award's first
recipient.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Medal (1986)
For distinguished service and outstanding achievement in
the cancer field.
Gold Medal, American-Irish Historical Society (1986)
In appreciation of significant service rendered to the
cause of Ireland.
Natan Sharansky Humanitarian Award, Rockland Committee for
Soviet Jewry (1987)
For distinguished achievement on behalf of human rights and
noble efforts in support of Soviet Jewry and the Jewish
people throughout the world.
Honor Award, National Building Museum (1989)
For fostering excellence in the built environment. Received
for championing the resurrection of Pennsylvania Avenue, for
promoting quality in federal building programs, and for
leading efforts to rebuild the nation's deteriorating
infrastructure.
Wolfgang Friedmann Award, (Columbia University School of Law
(1991)
For outstanding contributions to the field of international
law. Given by the Columbia School of Law's Journal of
Translational Law.
President's Medal, Municipal Art Society of New York (1992)
President to an individual whose accomplishments have made
an enduring contribution to urban life in America and
especially to the City of New York.
Thomas Jefferson Award for Public Architecture, American
Institute of Architects (1992)
For advocacy furthering the public's awareness and/or
appreciation of design excellence.
Laetare Medal, University of Notre Dame (1992)
The University's highest honor. Given to those who have
``ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of
the Church, and enriched the heritage of humanity.'' Regarded
as the most significant annual award conferred upon Catholics
in the United States. Selected by a committee headed by the
president of Notre Dame.
Thomas Jefferson Medal, American Philosophical Society (1993)
The society's most prestigious medal in recognition of
distinguished achievement in the arts, humanities, or social
sciences.
Distinguished Leadership Award, American Ireland Fund (1994)
In recognition of the Senator's long-time interest in and
concern for Irish causes.
The Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Service to Humanity
(1994)
Presented by the National Institute of Social Sciences.
United Jerusalem Award, Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations (1994)
Awarded to ``the single most consistent, thoughtful, and
articulate champion of a united Jerusalem in the United
States Congress.''
Profiles in Courage Award, American Jewish Congress (1996)
For significant and courageous contributions to the cause
of democracy and human freedom at home and abroad.
Award for Public Service Excellence (1996)
Presented by the Association of American Medical Colleges.
For ``visionary leadership in the U.S. Senate as a champion
for the education, research, and patient care missions of our
nation's medical schools and teaching hospitals.''
Cartwright Prize, Columbia University (1997)
Presented by the College of Physicians and Surgeons at
Columbia University for ``outstanding contributions to
medicine.'' The first non-physician to be honored.
John Heinz Award (1999)
current memberships
Aleph Society, New York, NY.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA.
American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Washington, DC.
American Heritage Dictionary, Usage Panel.
American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA.
American Antiquarian Society, Worches-
ter, MA.
Bedford-Stuyvesant Development and Service Corporation, New
York, NY.
Century Association, New York, NY.
Committee on the Constitutional System, Washington, DC.
Corporation for Maintaining Editorial Diversity in America,
Washington, DC.
Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy (Board of Trustees),
Medford, MA.
Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, Hyde Park, NY.
Harvard Club, New York, N.Y.
Irish Georgian Society, New York, NY.
Jacob K. Javits Foundation, Inc. (Board of Trustees), New
York, NY.
Jerome Levy Economic Institute at Bard College (Board of
Trustees), Annandale-on-Hudson, NY.
The Maxwell School (Board of Trustees), Syracuse, NY.
National Academy of Social Insurance, Washington, NY.
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,
Washington, NY.
New York Landmarks Conservancy, New York, NY.
Project on Ethnic Relations, Princeton, NJ.
The Public Interest/National Affairs, Inc., Washington, DC.
Regent, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC (Appointed
1987 and 1995).
The Harry S Truman Research for the Advancement of Peace,
New York, NY.
prior memberships
President's Science Advisory Committee (1971-73).
American Association for Advancement of Science Council
1971; Member, Board of Directors, 1972-73; Chairman, Social,
Economic and Political Science Section, 1971-72.
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Vice
Chairman (1971-76), Board of Trustees (1969-76).
Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden Founding Chairman;
Board of Trustees (1971-85).
reports and government documents
Executive Order 10988, ``Employee-Management Cooperation in
the Federal Service.'' Approved by President John F. Kennedy
January 17, 1962. Permitted Federal government employees to
join unions or other employee organizations.
``Report to the President by the Ad Hoc Committee on
Federal Office Space,'' Committee on Public Works, U.S. House
of Representatives, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, June 1, 1962. Includes reports on the
redevelopment of Pennsylvania Avenue and architectural
guidelines for Federal office buildings.
``One Third of a Nation,'' report of the Task Force on
Manpower Conservation, submitted to President Lyndon B.
Johnson January 1, 1964 (Task Force included the Director of
the Selective Service System and the Secretaries of Defense,
Health, Education, and Welfare, and Labor). Concluded that
one-third of draft-age men were unfit for military service
and called for manpower conservation program to give physical
training and medical attention as necessary to meet national
standards.
``The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,'' Office
of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor,
March 1965.
Report on Traffic Safety, Secretary's Advisory Committee on
Traffic Safety, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, February 29, 1968 (commonly known as The Moynihan
Report on Traffic Safety).
``Toward a More Accurate Measure of the Cost of Living,''
report to the U.S. Senate Finance Committee from the Advisory
Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index (Boskin
Commission), December 4, 1996. Concluded that using the CPI
as cost of living index--which it is not--creates enormous
costs to the Federal government in increased outlays and
decreased revenues. The present upward bias is 1.1 percent
points per year over the next decade, an overstatement of
roughly one-third. The Commission states: ``The bias alone
would be the fourth largest Federal program.''
``Secrecy'' Commission on Protecting and Reducing
Government Secrecy, Chairman. Appendix: ``Secrecy` A Brief
History of the American Experience,'' March 4, 1997.
``Memorandum of Points and Authorities of Senator Robert C.
Byrd, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Carl Levin as Amici Curiae
in Support of Plaintiff's Motions to Declare Line Item Veto
Act Unconstitutional,'' November 26, 1997. Brief filed in the
case The City of New York v. Clinton, the lawsuit brought by
New York City challenging the constitutionality of the Line
Item Veto Act of 1996. In a 6-3 decision on June 25, 1998 the
Supreme Court ruled the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional.
Perhaps the most important case on legislative-executive
relations in the history of the Court.
[[Page 18446]]
introductions/forewords
Children, Poverty, and Family Allowances, by James C.
Vatican, 1968. Foreword.
Will They Ever Finish Bruckner Boulevard? by Ada Louise
Huxtable, 1970. Preface.
The Injury Industry and the Remedy of No-Fault Insurance,''
1971. Foreword
That Most Distressful Nation: The Taming of the American
Irish by Andrew M. Greeley, 1972. Foreword.
``Ending Insult to Injury: No-Fault Insurance for Products
and Services,'' 1975. Foreword.
A Cartoon History of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975. Foreword.
A Cartoon History of United States Foreign Policy, 1776-
1976, by the editors of the Foreign Policy Association, 1975.
Introduction.
Drawings, by David Levine, March 4, 1976. Introduction.
The Catskills: Land in the Sky, by John G. Mitchell, 1977.
Preface.
Education and the Presidency, by Chester E. Finn, Jr.,
1977. Foreword.
Encounters with Kennan: The Great Debate, by George Kennan
et al., 1979. Introduction.
Best Editorial Cartoons, 1980. Introduction.
``Do They Tell You What to Draw?'' A Decade of Political
Cartoons by Hy Rosen, October 1980. Introduction.
``So How Come You Stay in Albany?'' A Decade of Cartoons,
1980. Introduction.
No Margin for Error: America in the Eighties, by Sen.
Howard H. Baker, Jr., 1980. Introduction.
``Another Opinion: A Labor Viewpoint,'' 1980. Introduction.
A Portrait of the Irish in America, by William D. Griffin,
1981. Introduction.
Strategies for the 1980s: Lessons of Cuba, Vietnam, and
Afghanistan, by Philip van Slack, 1981. Foreword.
There You Go Again, by G. Fisher, 1987. Foreword.
Government by Choice: Inventing the United States
Constitution, by Elizabeth P. McCaughey, 1987. Foreword.
Caste and Class in a Southern Town, by John Dollard, 1988.
Introduction.
Government By Choice, 1989. Foreword.
Disraeli, A Picture of the Victorian Age, by Andre Maurois,
1989. Foreword.
A Blue Moonray in My Kitchen, by Gabriel Aubouin, September
1991. Foreword.
Autobiography of Robert J. Myers, 1992. Foreword.
India and the United States: Estranged Democracies, by
Dennis Kux, 1992. Introduction.
DANA: The President's Man, by Douglass Cater, 1995,
Preface.
The Tyranny of Numbers, by Nicholas Eberstadt, 1995.
Foreword.
The Torment of Secrecy, by Edward A. Shils, 1996.
Introduction.
Great American Railroad Stations, 1996. Foreword.
Welfare: Indicators of Dependency, by Paul E. Barton, 1998.
Foreword.
Between Friends: Perspectives on J. K. Galbraith,
``Galbraith as Neighbor,'' 1998. Contributor.
A Passion for Truth: The Selected Writings of Eric
Breindel, ed. By John Podhortez, 1998.
the federal budget and the states
An annual report since 1976 on the balance of payments
between New York State and the Federal government. ``The
Fisc'' compares the amount of taxes New York sends to
Washington each fiscal year with the amount of all forms of
Federal outlays received (social security, welfare, defense
spending, Federal contracts, etc.). ``The Fisc'' has expanded
to include all 50 states and is now published jointly with
the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the John
F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Publications
The Federal Government and the Economy of New York State,
Fiscal Year 1976.
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1977.
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1978.
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1979.
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1980.
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1981.
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1982--``Is Anybody
Listening?''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1983--``A Further
Report on Manufactures.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1984--``A disposition
to be just . . . to all parts of the country.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1985--``The Deficit
Becomes Structural.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1986--``Second Decade
Thoughts.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1987--``Useful
Knowledge.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1988--``Reality Sets
In.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1989--``Deficit by
Default.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1990--``Reflections at
Fifteen.''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1991--``Who Cheated NY
out of $136 Billion?''
New York State and the Federal Fisc, 1992--``Baumol's
Disease.''
The Federal Budget and the States, 1993--``Outside the
Paradigm.'' With Monica E. Friar and Herman B. Leonard.
Published jointly with the Taubman Center for State and Local
Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA.
The Federal Budget and the States, 1994--``Reagan's
Revenge.'' With Monica E. Friar and Herman B. Leonard.
The Federal Budget and the States, 1995--``A Culture of
Waste.'' With Monica E. Friar, Herman B. Leonard and Jay H.
Walder.
The Federal Budget and the States, 1996--``Routinely
Shortchanged.'' With Herman B. Leonard and Jay H. Walder.
The Federal Budget and the States, 1997--``Work in
Progress.'' With Herman B. Leonard and Jay H. Walder.
The Federal Budget and the States, 1998--``A Grand
Compromise?'' With Herman B. Leonard and Jay H. Walder.
articles
``Epidemic on the Highways.'' The Reporter, April 30, 1959.
``New Roads and Urban Chaos.'' The Reporter, April 14,
1960.
``Changing Governors and Police.'' Public Administration,
Autumn 1960.
``Passenger Car Design and Highway Safety.'' West Point
Conference on Vehicle Safety and Design, 1961.
``How Catholics Feel About Federal School Aid.'' The
Reporter, April 25, 1961.
``When the Irish Ran New York.'' The Reporter, June 8,
1961.
``Bosses and Reformers: A Profile on New York Democrats.''
Commentary, June 1961.
``The Question of the States.'' Commonweal, October 12,
1962.
``Politics in a Pluralist Democracy: Studies of Voting in
1960 Elections.'' Commentary, October 1964.
``Draft Rejectees: Nipping Trouble in the Bud.'' The
Reporter, February 13, 1964.
``Patronage in New York State.'' The American Political
Science Review, June 1964.
``United States Traffic Accident Statistics Useless.''
American Trial Lawyers, June/July 1965.
``Breakthrough of Ljubljana.'' The National Jewish Monthly,
September 1965.
``Behind Los Angeles Jobless Negroes and the Boom.'' The
Reporter, September 9, 1965.
``A Family Policy.'' Daedalus--Journal of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fall 1965.
``Employment, Income, and the Ordeal of the Negro.''
Daedalus, Fall 1965.
``The Professionalization of Reform.'' The Public Interest,
Fall 1965.
``The War Against the Automobile.'' The Public Interest,
Spring 1966.
``The Negro Family in the U.S..'' Commonweal, April 1966.
``(Review of book by E. Franklin Frazier.)
``Who Gets in the Army?'' The New Republic, November 5,
1966.
``The President and the Negro: The Moment Lost.''
Commentary, February, 1967.
``Social Goals and Indicators for American Society.''
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences, May, 1967.
``Next: A New Auto Insurance Policy.'' The New York Times
Magazine, August 27, 1967.
``Sources of Resistance to the Coleman Report.'' Harvard
Educational Review, 1968.
``Toward a National Urban Policy.'' The Public Interest,
Fall 1969.
``Politics as the Art of the Impossible.'' The American
Scholar, Autumn 1919.
``What's Wrong with Welfare--Answers from Nixon's
Adviser.'' U.S. News & World Report, June 1970.
``Policy vs. Program in the 70s.'' The Public Interest,
Summer 1970.
``The Need to Move Beyond Programs to Policy in the Federal
System.'' State Government, Autumn 1970.
``The Presidency and the Press.'' Commentary, March, 1971.
``Social Welfare: Government vs. Private Efforts.''
Foundation News, March-April 1972.
``Back to Earth.'' Cry California, Spring 1972.
``The Schism in Black America.'' The Public Interest,
Spring 1972.
``How the President Sees His Second Terms.'' Life,
September 1, 1972.
``Equalizing Education: In Whose Benefit?'' The Public
Interest, Fall 1972.
``Address to the Entering Class of Harvard.'' Commentary,
December 1972.
``Income by Right.'' The New Yorker, January 13, 1973.
`` `Peace'--Some Thoughts in the 1960s and 1970s.'' The
Public Interest, Summer 1973.
``A Country in Need of Praise.'' Saturday Review/World,
September 11, 1973.
``Was Woodrow Wilson Right? Morality and American Foreign
Policy.'' Commentary, May 1974.
``Why Ethnicity?'' Commentary, October 1974 (with Nathan
Glazer).
``India--No Margin for Error.'' Reader's Digest, November
1974.
``Burma.'' Holiday, January 1975.
``The Politics of Higher Education.'' Daedalus, Winter
1975.
``The U.S. in Opposition.'' Commentary, March 1975.
``George A. Wiley: A Memoir.'' The Crisis, April 1975.
``Presenting the American Case.'' The American Scholar,
Fall 1975.
``A Diplomat's Rhetoric.'' Harpers, January 1976.
``The Totalitarian Terrorists.'' New York, July 26, 1976.
``Abiotrophy in Turtle Bay: The United Nations in 1975.''
Harvard International Law Journal, Summer 1976.
[[Page 18447]]
``On U.S. Support for the World Bank Loan to Chile.'' The
New York Times, January 4, 1977.
``The State, the Church, and the Family.'' The Urban and
Social Change Review, Winter 1977.
``The Liberal's Dilemma.'' The New Republic, January 22,
1977.
``Party and International Politics.'' Commentary, February
1977.
``Meeting the Ideological Challenge.'' The Washington Post,
March 19, 1977.
``As Our Third Century Begins--The Quality of Life.''
Across the Board, May 1977.
``The Most Important Decision-Making Process.'' Policy
Review, Summer 1977.
``The Challenge to Liberalism.'' The New Leader, June 6,
1977.
``Defenders and Invaders.'' The Washington Post, June 13,
1977 (Excerpt from address at the Capitol Page School
commencement).
``Freedom, Communism, and Poverty.'' The Chicago Tribune,
June 24, 1977 (Excerpts from June 9, 1977 Baruch College
Commencement address.
``The Soviets Do Tap Our Phones.'' The Philadelphia
Inquirer, July 17, 1977.
``Forum: Professors, Politicians and Public Policy.'' AEI
Forums, July 29, 1977.
``The Politics of Human Rights.'' Commentary, August 1977.
``Can Private Universities Maintain Excellence.'' Change,
August 1977.
``Creative Proposals Will Come--Slowly.'' Phi Delta Kappan,
September 1977.
``Aid for Parochial Schools.'' Catholic Mind, September
1977.
``Book Review: A Passion for Equality.'' The New Republic,
November 5, 1977.
``The Politics of Human Rights.'' Reader's Digest, December
1977.
``Carter Welfare Plan Disappointing.'' The Advocate,
February 1978.
``Avoiding the Next War Between the States.'' Newsday,
February 6, 1978.
``The Aging of America: Implications for Secondary
Education.'' Andover Bulletin, March 1978.
``Why Private Schools Merit Public Aid.'' The Washington
Post, March 5, 1978.
``Government and the Ruin of Private Education.'' Harpers,
April 1978.
``New York, New York: What Next, What Next.'' Daily News,
April 6, 1978.
``Welfare Reform and Congress.'' Journal of the Institute
for Socio-Economic Studies, Spring 1978.
``The Politics and Economics of Regional Growth.'' The
Public Interest, Spring 1978.
``The Roots of Success.'' Family Circle, April 24, 1978.
``Is There a Crisis of Spirit in the West?'' Public
Opinion, May/June 1978.
``Imperial Government.'' Commentary, June 1978.
``On America and the Dissidents.'' Daily News, July 16,
1978.
``Saying it Their Way.'' Daily News, July 27, 1978.
``Capitalism Faces Tough Test in World Arena.'' Commitment,
Summer 1978.
``Should Federal Aid Be Given to Private Schools?''
Instructor, September 1978.
``Words and Foreign Policy.'' Policy Review, Fall 1978.
``Distortions of Political Language.'' The Washington Post,
November 21, 1978.
``Editor's Focus.'' Public Welfare, Winter 1978.
``Volunteerism Needs to Survive.'' Community Focus,
December 1978.
``The Case for Tuition Tax Credits.'' Phi Delta Kappan,
December 1978.
``Some Negative Evidence Against the Negative Income Tax.''
Fortune, December 4, 1978.
``Social Science and the Courts.'' The Public Interest,
Winter 1979.
``The U.S. Cannot Abandon World Press Freedom.'' The
Reporter Dispatch (White Plains, NY), March 22, 1979.
``UNESCO and Freedom of the Press.'' Syracuse Herald
Journal, April 9, 1979.
``A Subtle Change.'' Syracuse Herald Journal, April 10,
1979.
``Patterns of Ethnic Succession: Blacks and Hispanics in
New York City.'' Political Science Quarterly, Spring 1979.
``Private Schools and the First Amendment.'' The National
Review, August 3, 1979.
``What Do You Do When the Supreme Court is Wrong?'' The
Public Interest, Fall 1979.
``Government Aid to Non-government Schools.'' Catholic
Mind, September 1979.
``Exporting Anti-Semitism.'' The New Leader, November 5,
1979.
``Will Russia Blow Up?'' Newsweek, November 1979.
``Reflections: The SALT Process.'' The New Yorker, November
19, 1979.
``On the Subject of the First Amendment.'' Thought,
December 1979.
``Social Science and the Courts.'' The Public Interest,
Winter 1979.
``Technology and Human Freedom.'' Syracuse Scholar, Winter
1979/80.
``Anti-Semitic Plague from Moscow.'' Jewish Digest, January
1980.
``Russians Play Politics So Put'em in Penalty Box.'' Daily
News, January 20, 1980.
``What Will They Do for New York?'' The New York Times
Magazine, January 27, 1980.
``And This, Then, Is Our Moment of Maximum National
Peril.'' Boston Herald American, January 29, 1980.
``The Issue: Will We Bear the Cost of Defending Liberty?''
Boston Herald American. January 30, 1980.
``A New American Foreign Policy.'' The New Republic,
February 9, 1980.
``From the Third Reich to the Third via Moscow.'' The
American Zionist, February/March 1980.
``The Great Game the Russians Won.'' Parade (with Liz
Moynihan), May 11, 1980.
``On the Hostaging of Westway to the EPA.'' Daily News, May
15, 1980.
``Of Sons' and Their `Grandsons'.'' The New York Times,
July 7, 1980.
``Rescuing the Family.'' America, July 19-26, 1980.
``Maxims for Democrats.'' The New Republic, August 16,
1980.
``A Pattern of Failure.'' The Wall Street Journal, August
19, 1980.
``Remembering John Dollard.'' The New York Times Book
Review,'' November 9, 1980.
``Washington vs. The Universities,'' Harper's, December
1980.
``The Payoff. . . Feds to Northeast Drop Dead.'' Daily
News, January 27, 1981.
``Joining the Jackals: The U.S. at the U.N., 1977-80.''
Commentary, February 1981.
``The Imprudence of Forcing a Balanced Budget,'' The Wall
Street Journal, March 18, 1981.
``Children and Welfare Reform,'' Journal of the Institute
for Socioeconomic Studies, Spring 1981.
``Beyond 96-0.'' The New York Times, May 22, 1981.
``Floccinaucinihiliplification.'' The New Yorker, August
10, 1981.
``Tax Reform Lives!'' The New York Times, August 23, 1981.
``Betraying Our Compact with Labor.'' Buffalo Courier-
Express, December 27, 1981.
``One-third of a Nation.'' The New Republic, June 9, 1982.
``It's Time for the U.S. to Rally Behind Israel.'' New York
Post, April 7, 1982.
``Managing Money,'' The New York Times, June 22, 1982.
``Israel Gives West a Rare Opportunity.'' New York Post,
June 24, 1982.
``Why Indira Ghandi is Here.'' The Washington Post, July
29, 1982.
``Put Youth to Work on the Public Lands.'' USA Today,
November 15, 1982.
``Thinking Clearly on Police and Crime,'' Respect, January
1983.
``Centralize Trade Policy.'' The New York Times, January
16, 1983.
``More than Social Security was at Stake,'' The Washington
Post, January 18, 1983
``Should Congress Enact the proposed `American Conservation
Corps Act of 1983'?'' Congressional Digest, May 1983.
``The Way to Make Congress's Life Easier.'' The New York
Times, June 26, 1983.
``The Nuclear Challenge.'' Catholicism in Crisis (May 15,
1983 Daemen College Commencement Address, Buffalo, NY), July
1983.
``Reagan's MX Plan Commits U.S. to First Strike.'' Newsday,
July 26, 1983.
``Reagan's Bankrupt Budget.'' The New Republic, December
31, 1983.
``Should Congress Enact Legislation to Provide Tax Credits
for Nonpublic School Tuition?'' Congressional Digest, January
1984.
``Indifference to International Law.'' Congress Monthly,
January/February 1984.
``The Kremlin After Andropov.'' New York Post, February 13,
1984.
``Nurturing Terrorism.'' Harpers, March 1984.
``Zionism, the United Nations and American Foreign
Policy.'' Catholicism in Crisis, April 1984.
``U.S. Has Abandoned International Law.'' Newsday, April
13, 1984.
``India's Gift for Pageantry,'' TV Guide (with Elizabeth
Moynihan), April 21-27, 1984.
``International Law and International Order,'' Syracuse
Journal of International Law and Commerce, Summer 1984.
``Preserving a Pillar of Crisis Stability,'' Christian
Science Monitor, July 9, 1984.
``Should the CIA Fight Secret Wars:'' Harper's, September
1984.
``Richard Rovere,'' The New Yorker, September 17,1984.
``Dn=D0 (a+r) n=A Formula for
Trouble,'' The New York Times, November 21, 1984.
``Tax Changes That Would Hurt New York.'' The New York
Times, November 21, 1984.
``The Irish Among Us.'' Reader's Digest, January 1, 1985.
``It's a Nice Place for a Parade Now.'' The Washington
Post, January 21, 1985.
``The Case of the Reluctant Spy.'' The New York Times Book
Review, February 17, 1985.
``How to Make Sure There's Enough Good Water.'' U.S. News &
World Report, March 18, 1985.
``Budget Process' is an Oxymoron.'' The New York Times,
March 20, 1985.
``On the Condition of American Liberalism.'' American
Spectator (symposium), April 1985.
``Indira Ghandi & Democracy.'' Freedom at Issue, May-June
1985.
``An Assault on Federalism.'' Seattle Times, June 21, 1985.
``Reagan's Inflate-the-Deficit Game.'' The New York Times,
July 21, 1985.
``Red Ink Was Brewed a Purgative.'' The Wall Street
Journal, August 16, 1985.
``The Paranoid Style in American Politics Revisited.'' The
Public Interest, Fall 1985.
``At 40, U.N. Needs a Firmer U.S.'' The New York Times,
September 17, 1985.
[[Page 18448]]
``Extension, Reforms Urged for Trade Adjustment Act.''
Journal of Commerce (with Sen. William V. Roth, Jr.),
September 30, 1985.
``Tax Reform in Public Education.'' Journal (NYSSBA),
October 1985.
``How Has the United States Met its Major Challenges Since
1945?'' Commentary, November 1985.
``The Potemkin Palace.'' The National Interest, Winter
1985/86.
``Senator Moynihan's Spy Story.'' Reader's Digest (from
Senator's constituent newsletter), January 1986.
``Revenue Sharing to Aid Cities, Towns, Counties, Worth
Fighting For,'' Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, February 2,
1986.
``A Family Policy for the Nation.'' America, March 22, 1986
(reprint of September 18, 1965 issue).
``The Family and the Nation--1986.'' America, Mach 22,
1986.
``The Links Between LaRouche and New York Corruption.'' The
New York Times, April 1, 1986.
``What Wretched Refuse?'' New York, May 12, 1986.
``Tax Overhaul Takes Wing.'' Newsday, May 18, 1986.
``Political Aids.'' The New Republic, May 26, 1986.
``Constitutional Dimensions to State and Local Tax.''
Publius, Summer 1986.
``Focus on Children and Poverty: The Family Economic
Security Act.'' APA Newsletter, Summer 1986.
``The Diary of a Senator.'' Newsweek, August 25, 1986.
``Congress Has Destroyed Equal Treatment for Public and
Private Education.'' Chronicle of Higher Education (text of
Marymount speech), November 12, 1986.
``Report's Error Would Make Beneficial Law.'' USA Today,
November 12, 1986.
``When Washington Bends the Law.'' U.S. News & World
Report, December 8, 1986.
``Reagan's Doctrine and the Iran Issue.'' The New York
Times, December 21, 1986.
``Warns of LaRouche Danger to Democracy, Human Rights.''
Teamsters News, January 1987.
``Guns Don't Kill People, Bullets Do.'' New York Post,
January 7, 1987.
``The `New Science of Politics' and the Old Art of
Government.'' The Public Interest, January/February 1987.
``Remarrying Congress and the CIA.'' The New York Times,
February 11, 1987.
``Regaining Ground.'' New Perspectives Quarterly, Winter
1987.
``How the Soviets are Bugging America.'' Popular Mechanics,
April 1987.
``Help for the Homeless Mentally Ill.'' Newsday, April 7,
1987.
``Lessons of the Iran-Contra Affair.'' Reader's Digest,
June 1987.
``How Should Contractors be Taxed?'' Datamation, June 1,
1987 (with Sen. Alfonse M. D'Amato.
``Duplicity in the Persian Gulf.'' The New York Times, June
7, 1987.
``Helping Welfare to Its Feet.'' Newsday, August 9, 1987.
``The Indigent Aren't a Caste.'' Newsday, Sept. 10, 1987.
``How Reagan Created the Crash.'' The New York Times,
November 1, 1987.
``The Tecumseh Club.'' New York, December 21, 1987.
``Our `Succession Crisis'.'' Newsweek, February 1, 1988.
``The War on Poverty Must Continue.'' The Los Angeles
Times, March 7, 1988.
``Politics and Children.'' Public Opinion, March-April
1988.
``The Modern Role of Congress in Foreign Affairs.'' Cardozo
Law Review, April 1988.
``Conspirators, Trillions, Limos in the Night.'' The New
York Times, May 23, 1988.
``Don't Turn Artists into Accountants.'' Art News, Summer
1988.
``Debunking the Myth of Decline.'' The New York Times
Magazine, June 19, 1988.
``Upstate and Downstate: There's No Great Divide.''
Newsday, September 4, 1988.
``Half the Nation's Children: Born Without Fair Chance.''
The New York Times, September 25, 1988.
``Tribute to William Hadden, Jr. M.D.'' Bulletin of the New
York Academy of Medicine, September/October 1988.
``An Opportunity for Canada.'' Financial Post, November 17,
1988.
``Common Sense Prevails.'' Sierra (Letchworth), November/
December 1988.
``Legislation for Independent-Living Programs.'' Child
Welfare, November/December 1988.
``End of the Marxist Epoch.'' The New Leader, January 23,
1989.
``Yes, We do Need a Methadone Clone.'' The New York Times,
February 26, 1989.
``Why We Called For a Surplus.'' The Washington Post, March
7, 1989.
``Welfare Reform: Serving America's Children.'' Teachers
College Record, Spring 1989.
``The End of History.'' The National Interest, Summer 1989.
``Toward a Post-Industrial Social Policy.'' The Public
Interest, Summer 1989.
``Orphanages.'' Daily News, June 13, 1989.
``The Trouble with New York.'' The Buffalo News Magazine,
September 10, 1989.
``We the People: An Atlas of the World's Ethnic Identity.''
The New York Times Book Review, October 8, 1989.
``Assassinations: Can't We Learn?'' The New York Times,
October 20, 1089.
``How to Lose: The Story of Maglev.'' Scientific American,
November 1989.
``The Coming Age of American Social Policy.'' USA Today,
November 1989.
``To My Social Security Critics.'' The New York Times,
February 9, 1990.
``The Time and Place for International Law.'' The
Washington Post, April 1, 1990.
``Surplus Value.'' The New Republic, June 4, 1990.
``Peace Dividend.'' The New York Review of Books, June 28,
1990.
``The Soviet Economy: Boy Were We Wrong.'' The Washington
Post, August 11, 1990.
``Another War--The One on Poverty--is Over, Too.'' The New
York Times, July 16, 1990.
``Families Falling Apart.'' Society, July/August 1990.
``International Law A Conceit? Look Again.'' The Wall
Street Journal, October 2, 1990.
``The Children of the State.'' The Washington Post,
November 25, 1990.
``Lets Keep Our Cool In the Gulf.'' Rochester Democrat and
Chronicle, December 7, 1990.
``How America Blew It.'' Newsweek, December 10, 1990.
``Family and Nation Revisited.'' Social thought, 1990.
``A World Regained?'' Columbia Journal of Transnational
Law, 1991.
``War?'' Jewish World. January 11-17, 1991.
``It's Almost Midnight.'' the New York Times, January 15,
1991.
``Educational Goals and Political Plans.'' The Public
Interest, Winter 1991.
``Fifty Years of Four Freedoms.'' New York Post, February
14, 1991.
``Puerto Rico Deserves the Vote.'' the San Juan Star,
February 22, 1991.
``Independence Makes Sense for an Agency as Huge as Social
Security.'' Federal Times, March 11, 1991.
``Coming to terms with Social Realities.'' Newsday/New York
Newsday, March 18, 1991.
``Do We Still Need The C.I.A.?'' The New York times. May
19, 1991.
``A Roads Scholar on Highways.'' Roll Call, May 28, 1991.
``Social Science and Learning: Educational Reform Today.''
Current, June 1991.
``Political Candor.'' Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin, June
9, 1991.
``The Constitutional Argument for Increased Senate
salaries.'' Roll Call, June 27, 1991.
``Crack Epidemic Deserves as Much of Our Attention as
AIDS.'' The New York Times, July 2, 1991.
``What Do We have in Common.'' Time, July 9, 1991.
``Totalitarianism R.I.P.'' The Washington Post, July 22,
1991.
``A Grand Bargain: Aid for Arms Control.'' Newsweek,
September 9, 1991.
``Social Justice in the Next Century.'' America, September
14, 1991.
``The Hearings on Judge Thomas.'' The Washington Post,
September 22, 1991.
``An End to Making Welfare Policy by Anecdote.'' The New
York Times, September 26, 1991.
``Big Red Lie.'' The Washington Post, September 26, 1991.
``Dependency is Our New Problem.'' Newsday, October 18,
1991.
``Two Cheers for Solzhenitsyn.'' The New York Times Book
Review, November 24, 1991.
``How 100 Amendments Became a Simple 10.'' New York Post,
December 14, 1991.
``The Paranoid Style.'' The Washington Post, December 29,
1991.
``Should Congress Extend Fast Track Negotiating
Authority?'' Congressional digest, February 1992.
``North Dakota, Math Country.'' the New York times,
February 3, 1992.
``Wretched Exceed.'' The Washington Post, February 9, 1992.
``Traffickers in Hate and Misinformation.'' Long Island
Jewish World, March 3-9, 1992.
`` `Welfare is Back in the News': What Has Changed since
the Passage of the Family Support Act.'' Public Welfare,
Spring, 1992 (part of symposium: ``the New Paternalism'').
``Social Security.'' the Wall Street Journal, April 1992.
``Official Lies.'' Albany Times Union, May 3, 1992.
Adaptation of Blashfield Address. The Yale Review, July
1992.
``How the Great Society `Destroyed the American Family'.''
the Public Interest, Summer 1992.
``Even Liberals in DC Could Soak New York.'' Newsday, July
25, 1992.
``Supreme Court's Kidnaping Decision is Manifestly Wrong.''
Newsday, July 25, 1992.
``On Bishop O'Keefe.'' Catholic Sun, July 30, 1992.
``The Underclass: Toward a Post-Industrial Society.''
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, September
1992 (with W.W. Rostow and Elspeth Rostow).
``A Landmark for Families.'' The New York Times, November
16, 1992.
``Defining Deviancy Down.'' The American Scholar, Winter
1992.
``A Legislative Proposal.'' EPA Journal, January/February/
March 1993.
``When the Irish Ran New York.'' City Journal, Spring 1993.
[[Page 18449]]
``The Prisoners of Charity.'' Forward, May 1993.
``Don't Blame Democracy.'' The Washington Post, June 6,
1993.
``Iatrogenic Government: Social Policy and Drug Research.''
The American Scholar, Summer 1993.
``Acid Precipitation and Scientific Fallout.'' Forum for
Applied Research and Public Policy, Summer 1993.
``Toward a New Intolerance.'' The Public Interest, Summer
1993.
``No Surrender.'' (reprint of ABNY Speech), City Journal,
Summer 1993.
``Pioneer Feminists Get a Shrine.'' The New York Times,
July 4, 1993.
``Neutralizing 19th Century Science.'' The Washington Post,
July 26, 1993.
``Guns Don't Kill People, Bullets Do.'' The New York Times,
December 12, 1993.
``Crime and Tolerance.'' Current, February 1994.
``A Project for the Millennium.'' Daily News, February 28,
1994 (not published).
``Our Stupid but Permanent CIA.'' The Washington Post, July
24, 1994.
``One Common Heart.'' Social Education, November 1994.
``The Case Against Entitlement Cuts.'' Modern Maturity,
November-December 1994.
``The Summer of '65.'' The American Enterprise, January
1995.
``Just Bite the Bullets!'' The Washington Post, January 5,
1995.
``Forget the Guns; Control the Bullets.'' Newsday, January
10, 1995.
``Time to Scrap Baseball Lords' Antitrust Exemption.''
Daily News, January 8, 1995.
``Decaying Morals Undoing Society.'' Daily News, April 16,
1995.
``Free Trade with an Unfree Society.'' The National
Interest, Summer 1995.
``Block Grants for Welfare.'' Daily News, July 9, 1995.
``The Price of Secrecy.'' The Washington Post, July 21,
1995.
``Secret Policy in the Cold War.'' The Buffalo News, July
30, 1995.
``Devolution Revolution.'' The New York Times, August 6,
1995.
``I Cannot Understand How this Can Be Happening.'' The
Washington Post, September 21, 1995.
``CPI: An Easy Fix (`The 1% Solution').'' The Washington
Post, September 26, 1995.
``It Will Shame the Congress.'' The New York Review of
Books, September 26, 1995.
``The Professionalization of Reform II.'' The Public
Interest, Fall 1995.
``An Attack on Children.'' Daily News, November 21, 1995.
``Moved by the Data, Not Doctrine.'' (on James S. Coleman)
The New York Times Magazine, December 31, 1995.
``Close Call.'' The Washington Post, January 11, 1996.
``Congress Builds a Coffin.'' The New York Review of Books,
January 11, 1996.
``Clinton Forgets Needy Children'' The Buffalo News,
January 17, 1996.
``The Culture of Secrecy.'' New York Post, March 25, 1996.
``When Principle is at Issue.'' The Washington Post, August
4, 1996 (from remarks on the welfare bill delivered on the
Senate Floor, August 1, 1996).
``From Dream to Nightmare, then Salvation.'' The Buffalo
News, August 17, 1996 (on West Valley).
``What Did Truman Know?'' New York Post, December 2, 1996.
``Social Security as We Knew It.'' The New York Times,
January 5, 1997.
``The Big Lie of 1996.'' The Washington Post, January 28,
1997.
``The MFN Muddle.'' The Washington Post, May 21, 1997 (with
Sen. William V. Roth, Jr.)
``Why I Oppose the Line Item Veto.'' Daily News, August 17,
1997.
``Not Bad For A Century's Work.'' The Washington Post,
November 23, 1997.
``Ethnicity Lives On--I'm Optimist.'' Moment, December
1997.
``Chorus of Politicians, Executives and Experts is Unable
to Agree.'' (on social Security) The New York Times, January
12, 1998.
``Putting Pizazz Back in Public Works.'' The New York Time,
March 6, 1996.
``A Confusion over Identity.'' The Wall Street Journal,
March 20, 1998.
``How to Preserve the Safety Net.'' U.S. News & World
Report, April 20, 1998.
``Don't Expand NATO.'' The Boston Globe, April 30, 1998
(from a speech delivered at the 150th Anniversary Celebration
Of The Associated Press,
allas, TX).
``Why I Oppose NATO Expansion.'' Daily News, April 30,
1998.
``Decades in the Marking, (I-86 is the Tier's Great Hope.''
Binghamton Press & Sun Bulletin, June 16, 1998.
``The Power of Upstate Politics.'' Albany Times-Union, June
21, 1998 (from a speech never delivered before NYS Democratic
Convention at Rye Brook, NY; spoke on nuclear tests in
Subcontinent).
``NATO and Nuclear War.'' Analysis of Current Events, July/
August 1998 (adapted from AP and Middlebury Speeches).
``Congress' Threat to Democracy.'' New York Post, October
22, 1998.
``Ex-Friendly Fire.'' The Weekly Standard, February 1,
1999.
major speeches
``The New Racialism.'' Commencement Address at the New
School for Social Research New York, NY, June 4, 1968.
(Published in The Atlantic Monthly, August 1968.) (Published
in Coping: On the Practice of Government.)
``The Politics of Stability.'' Speech to the National Board
Meeting of the Americans for Democratic Action, Washington,
DC, September 23, 1967.
``Politics as the Art of the Impossible.'' Commencement
Address at University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN, June
1969. (Published in The American Scholar, Autumn 1969.)
(Published in Coping: On the Practice of Government.)
``The Whiskey Culture and the Drug Culture.'' Address at
the Governors' Conference Luncheon, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, December 3, 1969.
``A Moment Touched with Glory.'' Address before the
American Newspaper Publishers Association, New York, NY,
April 22, 1970. (On the Family Assistance Plan.)
``On Universal Higher Education,'' Speech to the 53rd
annual meeting of the American Council on Education, St.
Louis, MO, October 8, 1970.
Speech to the Third Committee of the United Nations, New
York, NY, October 7, 1971.
``An Address to the Entering Class at Harvard College.''
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Fall 1972. (Published in
Commentary, December 1972.)
``The World in the Year Ahead.'' Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS, May 6, 1975.
``Pacem in Terris,'' Pacem in Terris IV Convocation,
Washington, DC, December 2, 1975.
``On Receipt of the Sculpture `Isis' at the Hirshorn Museum
and Sculpture Garden,'' Washington, DC, July 19, 1978.
``An Imperial Presidency Leads to An Imperial Congress
Leads to An Imperial Judiciary: the Iron Rule of Emulation.''
Herbert H. Lehman Memorial Lecture, March 28, 1978.
``On a Democratic Foreign Policy For a Totalitarian Age.''
U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, March 22, 1979.
``Human Rights in American Foreign Policy.'' Brooklyn
College Commencement, Brooklyn, NY, June 10, 1981.
``We Confront, at This Moment, the Greatest Constitutional
Crisis since the Civil War.'' St. John's University
Commencement, Queens, NY, June 6, 1982.
``If We Can Build Saudi Arabia, Can We Not Rebuild
America?'' Robert C. Weinberg Fund Distinguished Lecturer
speech, American Planning Association, New York, NY, June 18,
1983.
``Catholic Tradition & Social Change,'' Second Annual
Seton-Neumann Lecture, U.S. Catholic Conference, Washington,
DC, May 7, 1984.
``International Law and International Order,'' Commencement
Address, Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse, NY,
May 13, 1984. (Published in Detroit College of Law Review,
Winter 1984.)
``Only the Brave Risk Intelligence.'' Defense Intelligence
College Commencement Address, Bolling A.F.B., Washington, DC,
June 18, 1984.
``Z=R, plus 9.'' Israeli-Foreign Ministry an World Zionist
Organization, conference on Refuting Zionism/Racism equation,
Jerusalem, Israel, November 11, 1984.
``Tell the Truth About the Lie.'' Speech at ``Zionism
Equals Racism,'' State Department seminar, Washington, DC,
Decembver 10, 1984.
``Family and Nation.'' The Godkin Lectures at Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA, April 8, 1985. (Basis for Family
and Nation.)
Potemkin Palace; The Sol Feinstone Lecture on the Meaning
of Freedom; United States Military Academy, West Point, NY,
October 4, 1985.
``Constitutional Crisis . . .'' Columbia University School
of Law, New York, NY, May 12, 1987.
Address to the 78th NAACP Convention on Apartheid and
Racial Issues, New York, NY, July 7, 1987.
``Is America in Decline?'' The Samuel Lecture in Public
Policy at Sarah Lawrence College, Bronxville, NY, February
22, 1988.
``Pennsylvania Avenue: America's Main Street.'' National
Archives Author Lectures, Washington, DC, January 19, 1989.
``The Coming Age of American Society Policy.'' Brown
University, Providence, RI, March 13, 1989.
``Social Justice in the 21st Century.'' Fordham University,
Bronx, NY, March 29, 1991.
``The Arts in Society.'' At the Julliard School
Commencement, New York, NY, May 17, 1991.
``Address on UN Resolution 3379, ``Zionism is Racism,'' to
the Orthodox Jewish Union New York, June 5, 1991.
The Cyril Foster Lecture at Oxford University, (on
ethnicity and international relations) Oxford, England,
November 29, 1991. (Basis for Pandemonium: Ethnicity in
International Politics.)
``Stateways, Folkways and Statistics.'' Speech to the
National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC, February 21, 1992.
``Solvency as a Condition of Economic Stability.'' Speech
to the Washington Area Economic Forum, Washington, DC, June
19, 1992.
``Defining Deviancy Down.'' Speech to the American
Sociological Association, Washington, DC, August 22, 1992.
[[Page 18450]]
``Social Policy and Drug Research.'' The Inaugural Norman
E. Zinberg Lecture, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, December 5, 1992.
``The Class of ``43 (Toward a New Intolerance).'' Speech to
the Association for a Better New York (ABNY), New York, NY,
April 15, 1993. (Published in City Journal, Summer 1993.)
Dedication of the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building,
Washington, DC, March 11, 1999.
``Return to Legality as an International Norm.'' The Lionel
Trilling Lecture at Columbia University, New York, NY,
February 19, 1996.
Remarks at the Secretary's Open Forum (on Secrecy), U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC, March 6, 1996.
Testimony (on Secrecy), U.S. Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, Washington, DC, March 27, 1996.
Address at The VENONA Conference. National War College, Ft.
McNair, Washington, DC, October 4, 1996.
``Secrecy as a Form of Government Regulation.'' Georgetown
University, Washington, DC, March 3, 1997.
Remarks at the Memorial for Al Shanker. George Washington
University, Washington, DC, April 9, 1997.
The Commissioning of the U.S.C. The Sullivans. Staten
Island, NY, April 19, 1997.
Times Square Symposium on the Homeless. New York, NY, April
21, 1997.
Arts Education Technology Conference. Palisades, NY, May 3,
1997.
Dedication of the Chaim Herzog Center. Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev, Jerusalem, Israel, May 26, 1997.
``Secrecy.'' National Press Club, Washington, DC, June 13,
1997.
``Government Secrecy in the Information Age.'' Secretary's
Open Forum, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC, July
25, 1997.
Keynote address. Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy
Conference, Buffalo, NY, September 20, 1997.
``Fifty Years of `Meet the Press.'' Al Smith Memorial
Dinner, Waldorf-Astoria, New York, NY, November 3, 1997.
Joseph Henry Award Presented to Dr. Frederic Seitz.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, November 7, 1997.
``100 Years of Ziolnism.'' The Capitol, Washington, DC,
November 14, 1997.
``On the Commodification of Medicine.'' The Cartwright
Lecture, Columbia University School of Medicine, New York,
NY, December 10, 1998. (Published in Academic Medicine, May
1998.)
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are cautioned not to refer to guests
in the gallery.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join in the tribute to our
good friend and our distinguished Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan; and I congratulate my colleague, the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney), for helping to organize this fitting tribute. It
is fitting in many senses, not the least of which is its
bipartisanship.
I begin by paraphrasing the great William Shakespeare's play Julius
Caesar: We have come not to bury the Senator, but to praise him.
New York has great pride in Senator Moynihan and his career. A native
son, he began his life in Hell's Kitchen. That crucible of Hell's
Kitchen helped to create the character that is now our great Senator.
George Will's column recently was an excellent explanation of his
distinguished career, but there are many points that I think all of us
have some identity with. Certainly the fact that he spends his summers
in Pindar's Corners in upstate New York shows that he is a Senator for
the entire State.
In New York State, we have what is commonly referred to as upstate
and down state. Now, the people from down state, which we think of as
New York City, refer to everything north of the Bronx as upstate, or as
everybody from upstate refers to everything in the five bureaus and
Long Island as down state.
I would like to think of Senator Moynihan as being from mid-state. He
has always defied that upstate-down state divide. There are a couple of
songs that sort of sum up New York. Billy Joel wrote and sang a song
called New York State of Mind. I prefer that to Frank Sinatra's New
York, New York. New York, New York is a little presumptuous. The New
York State of Mind I think explains perhaps the Senator, not playing
the partisan role, not taking upstate versus down state, urban versus
rural, or even domestic versus foreign in our policies. He has somehow
avoided that trap.
Just as he did with many, many issues, you can describe him as a man
for all seasons, a renaissance man; but certainly he has fulfilled
many, many roles throughout his successful life.
As ambassador to India, he helped to bridge a gap between the world's
two greatest democracies. India, for some reason, never saw itself as a
friend of the United States until Senator Moynihan served there with
distinction and helped to create that bridge which we saw somewhat
fulfilled the other day when Prime Minister Vajpayee spoke here before
the United States Congress, a very important role for 2 great peoples.
He served in the cabinet in many administrations, as a professor in my
hometown at Syracuse University, as United States ambassador. What a
tremendous resume.
He was able to take on issues that few others would be willing to
enter into the fray. We have a tremendous environmental issue up home
in my hometown, Onondaga Lake. He looked at the factions that divided
the cure for that problem and pointed at all of them and said you are
all wrong. We need to get to work on this. He helped me as a Republican
bring in the Army Corps of Engineers to play a major role.
I remember the first meeting we had with the Army Corps, and he said
to the colonel who was going to take over this project, he said, this
project can make a general out of you if you do a good job. Well, he is
no longer on the job, but the job has begun and the lake is cleaner
already. I owe my partner a great deal and the community does too.
The Erie Canal, the legacy of New York State which strung all of the
pearls of the upstate cities together along this waterway, we are
restoring that. We are recreating it; we are redeveloping it.
He was never shy about pointing out the peccadillos of our leaders,
to his credit. He had a knack for reducing complex issues to the nut of
the problem. But, on the other hand, he could also philosophize and wax
thoughtfully and embellish. There was a saying when Moynihan and
D'Amato were the Senators, if you wanted to get the history of
immigration in the United States, you saw Moynihan. If you wanted a
passport, you saw D'Amato.
That tells you a little bit about the man.
Somehow, he has managed over the years to avoid the slings and arrows
of outrageous editorial writers, although I am sure he could point out
a time or two when they took them on. I don't think too many of them
were smart enough to take him on. He will be remembered for his witness
and wisdom, for his devotion to his beloved wife, Liz, for his 6
decades of public service, for his pithy comments, but mostly for his
honesty and integrity.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaFALCE. Senator Moynihan, I wanted to thank you because I have
gone to you not only for the history, but for the passports also.
I am very pleased to join with all my colleagues today as we honor a
true giant of the United States Senate, and really one of the giants of
public life within the history of the United States; and the words we
express today will really pale in comparison to his accomplishments and
the esteem in which he is held.
The breadth of his intellect is revealed in his literary output
alone. He has authored 18 books on subjects ranging from poverty and
race to education, urban policy, welfare, arms
[[Page 18451]]
control, the family, government secrecy, international law. But while
the quantity of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's record is tremendous, it is
the quality that really matters. I can think of no one who has served
in the Capitol complex during the 20th century who has made a greater
contribution to our Nation.
Others have also mastered the intricacies of the appropriations
process, the details of communication law; but too few of us are able
consistently to keep the big picture in front of us all the time, and
that is what Senator Moynihan does best. He understands that what we do
in one area of the law can and often does have unintended impact in
other areas of life. He knows that solving one problem could easily
create two more, so he moves with care and caution; and in that regard
you could say Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a conservative in the best
sense of that word.
But he also knows that without action, without government action, we
would stagnate and atrophy, and that there are instances where taking
bold action is the only appropriate thing to do, and it is a necessity.
In that sense, he is a liberal in the best sense of that word.
I guess my time has expired, so I just must include the rest of my
remarks in the Record. But let me congratulate him on many, many
things, but most of all for having the good common sense and the good
judgment to have seen the jewel in his wife, Liz Moynihan, early on and
made that decision, because I really think, Patrick, she deserves the
praise equally with you.
But Pat also knows that without action, we would stagnate and
atrophy. And that there are instances where taking bold action is the
only appropriate thing to do. So he is also truly ``liberal,'' in the
best sense of that word.
What has impressed me most over the years, however, has been the
intellectual depth which Senator Moynihan brings to his endeavors. He
disdains imprecise thought and turgid prose. The rigor he brings to
public discourse will be sorely missed. And the attention he paid to
the quality of writing will be equally missed.
Indeed, I hope someone will pull together a book with samples of his
writings, and that it will become required reading for freshman
legislators. How often can we truly say we want to read another
Member's or a Senator's speech or ``Dear Colleague'' letter? Yet every
time I see Pat's letterhead, I know that I'll see new and imaginative
uses of our language which, almost 100 percent of the time, are not
only enlightening but also refreshing.
Mr. Speaker, today's tribute cannot fully reflect what we all owe
Senator Moynihan, but I hope that our words inspire people around the
nation and throughout the world to look back on occasion and remember
the importance of his contributions to the progress of the human race
on this mortal coil.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure and an
honor to join my colleagues today in standing before you to salute our
very good friend and colleague, our distinguished Senator, senior
Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, for nearly 25 years,
Senator Moynihan has worked tirelessly for the citizens of our great
State of New York, as well as for the rights and freedom of people
throughout the world. Perhaps no other national figure of the past 4
decades has better symbolized or articulated the democratic ideals and
traditions of our Nation than Senator Moynihan.
Prior to his arrival in the Senate in 1977, Senator Moynihan served
as both our United States ambassador to India and the United States
ambassador to our United Nations. To that distinguished forum, he
brought extensive foreign policy experience to the Congress, and he has
been a leading voice on American foreign policy issues throughout his
service in the Senate.
Senator Moynihan has long lent his name and support to the goals of
lasting peace and justice in Northern Ireland. Along with Senators
Dodd, Kennedy, Mack, and many others in the Senate, Senator Moynihan
has been the leading voice of reason, calling on the parties to
renounce violence and to secure lasting peace and justice by way of
democratic means.
As a testament to his courage and conviction, Senator Moynihan
advocated his approach to peace in Ireland when it was still very
unpopular to do so.
Senator Moynihan's efforts and those of his colleagues, especially
Senator Mitchell, have helped bring about peace in Northern Ireland
today, something for which we are all highly grateful. Their efforts
created the potential to finally end the long and painful history of a
divided Ireland.
All peace-loving people, both here and around the globe, owe Senator
Moynihan a debt of gratitude. Accordingly, today, Senator Moynihan, it
is an honor to join with my colleagues in saluting you and thanking you
for your selfless service to the people of New York, to the United
States of America, and to peace throughout the world.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 2 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Two minutes, Mr. Speaker, how do you talk about Patrick
Moynihan in 2 minutes? It would take 2 minutes to thank Liz for
allowing you to do all the wonderful things that you have been able to
do:
Only in America. It makes us so proud, those of us that come from the
great State of New York, to know that someone that could attend a high
school like Ben Franklin, know Hell's Kitchen, know what it is like to
shine shoes and work on the docks, and at the same time, be able to
reach the intellectual heights that you have done, not just for New
Yorkers or the Senate, but for America. It gives hope to everybody in
this country, but especially throughout the world, to show that when
one is given an opportunity, that maybe they cannot reach the same
heights that you have, but it is possible to do it in the United States
of America.
Your eloquence and wit, combined with your ability to defy party
labels, whether it is liberal or conservative, you have always been
able to do and to say and to be appreciated for what is good for the
country. And whether we are talking about Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon
or Ford, Presidents have been smart enough to know that when you are
talking about Patrick Moynihan, you are not talking partisanship; but
you are talking sound policy for our great country.
It has been said that New Yorkers have a little more self-esteem than
we need. It has been said that those that are on the Senate Finance
Committee or the Committee on Ways and Means walk with swaggers. And
even though most Members really do not deserve that label, when we know
that we are honored to include among our body someone of such esteem as
you, then we should be allowed to walk a little taller.
Elizabeth, thank you for what you have done for our great country. We
look forward to working with you, no matter what both of you decide to
do later. God bless.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Speaker, I will include my prepared remarks for
today's Record, because we in these prepared remarks talk about the
things that Senator Moynihan has done.
I would like to file those, and if I may, Senator, take a moment of
personal privilege to thank you on behalf of the residents of Buffalo
and Erie County in western New York for all you have done over several
years. I remember when I got elected in 1992 and
[[Page 18452]]
first came into office in 1993, the very first visitor in my office was
you, the very first person to come over and talk with me. We sat in the
corner and enjoyed a cup of tea, and you told me what would be
important for New York State. And you were right.
You have been for all of us, Members and constituents alike, a model
and an example. I can give you a little secret here that my cousin
Peter Quinn in Monroe County in Rochester, New York, has a son about 7
or 8 right now, and his name is Daniel Patrick Quinn. My youngest
brother, Mike up in Buffalo, has a son named Daniel Patrick Quinn.
There are no John Francis Quinns running around that I know of,
Senator, but lots of Daniel Patricks.
We cannot find a stronger advocate for the arts, whether it is the
Darwin Martin House and the Frank Lloyd Wright effort in Buffalo, New
York, when we turn to someone like you.
Finally Senator, and to Liz and your family, we obviously wish you
the best; but some people would say that I'm talking the height of
flattery, and I want you to know when I leave this place, whenever it
is and for whatever reason, if I can leave as Daniel Patrick Moynihan
leaves, I will be a lucky man.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today and join with my colleagues
to pay tribute and officially recognize the retirement of my good
friend, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Senator Moynihan has dedicated his life to service of his country. He
served with the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford administrations, and
as an Ambassador to India, U.S. Representative to the United Nations,
and as United States President of the U.N. Security Council.
Upon his election to the United States Senate in 1976, Senator
Moynihan emerged as a strong advocate for the State of New York, but
never lost sight of his obligations to the Nation as a whole. His
strong commitment to education, science, and arts and humanities is
testimony to his leadership and integrity as a United States Senator.
A prolific author, Senator Moynihan has penned or edited a remarkable
eighteen books. He truly personifies that old phrase ``a gentleman and
a scholar,'' and I am proud to count him among my friends. His strong
example is one we all strive to follow.
When I arrived in Congress in January 1993, one of the very first
visitors to my office in Cannon was Senator Moynihan. We shared a cup
of tea and talked about what was important for Buffalo and New York
State. Senator Moynihan has been a stalwart supporter of my district
and our State, every day since that first visit. I want to say thank
you: not only from me and my staff, but all Buffaloians.
Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to join with both houses and the New
York State delegation in commending Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan on
his commitment to New York and the country. I also join with his wife,
Elizabeth; his children, Timothy Patrick, Maura Russell and John
McCloskey; and indeed, all Americans in expressing our sincerest
gratitude for his leadership and service.
We have marched in parades together. There is no stronger advocate in
the Congress of the arts than Pat Moynihan. Whether it's the Darwin
Martin House in Buffalo with its Frank Lloyd Wright history or the
Albright-Krax Art Gallery, we are fortunate to have had Pat Moynihan as
our supporter, benefactor and friend.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 2 minutes.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I certainly stand here to
give a tribute to our Senator from New York. I remember when I was
running for my first election in 1996, the great Senator was assigned
to me as his ``buddy,'' and I remember going and meeting with you in
your office and sitting there saying, Oh, my God, I am with Senator
Moynihan.
Senator, you have been of great service to New York. You have fought
for New York, but you also have fought for the country. But one of the
things I certainly respect about you the most is the way you always
presented an argument. It was not the partisanship that sometimes we
see today. You were always a gentleman. You were always someone with
kind words for everyone, and I think that is something that we should
all remember.
We all know about your intellect, we all know about your great words;
but, really, I think New Yorkers and the country will remember you as
being the gentleman from New York, and you served your time well.
Senator, we are going to miss you, but somehow I have a feeling that
you will always have your hand in New York politics, one way or the
other. The tributes that you are hearing today can never match the
words and the deeds that you have done for all of us over the last 25
years.
Sir, I hope I can follow in your footsteps just with your wisdom,
those are big shoes to follow; but someday we are going to have so many
of us to remember you by.
Thank you, Senator.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 2 minutes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to join with
my colleagues this morning to honor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It
is a special pleasure for me, because I have a relationship to Pat that
none of my colleagues can claim: I am his Congressman, as the Senator
reminds me; and I could tell you one could not wish for a better
constituent.
But it is not only an honor and a pleasure representing and working
with the Senator, it is an education. One cannot have a conversation
with Pat without benefiting from his years of experience and the depth
of his insight. As the recent biography of the Senator shows, one can
pretty much trace the history of the second half of the 20th century
simply by following his career.
His is that rare life that crosses so many supposedly impermeable
boundaries. He has made his mark in the academic and in the so-called
real world. He has been a critical player in domestic and foreign
policy. He has been a key member of Democrat administrations and
Republican administrations. He has served ably in the executive branch
and in the legislative branch. He has been esteemed as an author of
books and an author of laws.
His record becomes more inspiring and amazing the more it is
examined. Finally, he has brought that breadth and that stature to
bear, not only on the great pivotal issues of the day, race and
ethnicity, welfare fair and tax policy, the Cold War and terrorism, but
also on the more local matters that can make a great difference in
people's lives.
So, as a New Yorker and as an American, I am sorry to see Pat
Moynihan leaving the Senate; but as a Congressman, I know I will still
be able to rely on his wise counsel.
I expect that I will not only be reading additional books by the sage
of Pindar's Corners, but also constituent mail, and those are letters
that I will be eager to receive.
I salute you, very able and distinguished public servant.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 1 minute.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, we live in cynical times. We live in times
when reams of newspaper are printed about our foibles, individual and
collective; but there is scant recognition of the greatness of our
country and its great people.
Today we pay tribute to a truly great man, Liz Moynihan's husband.
For more than a generation, Senator Moynihan has brought dignity to
these halls, and during the push and pull of daily political discourse,
there has been one voice which for more than 40 years has seen around
the corner into the face of our future challenges.
Mr. Speaker, this is my first term; and if I serve just this one
term, or 20 more, I hope to display just one ounce, one thimbleful, of
the dignity and grace and wisdom of the senior Senator from New York.
Godspeed, Senator Moynihan.
____________________
[[Page 18453]]
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOUGHTON. Senator, it is hard for me to stand up here and talk to
you, of all people, who are so eloquent and has given so many wonderful
and meaningful things to us over the years.
Also I think of the words of John Lord O'Brien, who you remember was
the great lawyer from Buffalo and was the head of probably the greatest
law firm in the history of the country, which was the War Production
Board during World War II. Somebody was saying very nice things about
him one time, and he says, ``I accept that and I appreciate it. The
problem I have is not inhaling them.''
You have had so many nice things said about you, I know it must be
very difficult. But as you know, no one person is indispensable,
clearly you nor I nor anyone around here. But if anyone comes close to
indispensability, it is you.
I think of that wonderful story that Archibald McLeash told at one
time. He was talking to a group of students, and one of the students
said at the end of the lecture, ``Mr. McLeash, would you try to sum up
what you have said?'' And he said, ``Yes, I will try.'' He said,
``Don't forget the thing.'' And the student said, ``What do you mean,
Mr. McLeash, by `the thing'?''
Mr. McLeash said, ``I will tell you what `the thing' is. You know, so
many times in life we judge ourselves, are we a Congressman, a Senator,
a head of this or in charge of that, what we do. The thing is not what
we do, but what we are.'' And what you are and what you are to us and
will continue to be, this is not a finite thing, it is more than I can
express.
Obviously there are things that are important to me, what you have
done in terms of our transportation in upstate New York, Route 17 or I-
86, to be exact, extraordinary. Not only have you been able to do
things which have really helped and opened up what could be an economic
wasteland, and is not because of your efforts; but you put it all in
perspective, such as many times in discussions we have, going away
back, 30, 40 years, Governor Dewey and some of the things he was trying
to do. It was very, very helpful.
I also remember being I think it was in the Cannon Caucus Room when
Bob Dole decided he was going to step out of the race in 1988. And who
was there from the other side? It was you. You did not have to be
there. I do not know whether anybody asked you, but you were there to
lend support to your colleague.
Also I remember the times that we have been at Seneca Falls and the
Women's Hall of Fame and the importance of women's issues in this
country.
I could go on and on, but I want to go back to what Mr. McLeash said,
it is what you are, rather than what you have done.
There was a wonderful statement that George Patton made to the Third
Army in 1945, and it goes this way: ``The highest honor I have attained
is that of having my name coupled with yours in these great events.'' I
echo that now with you, sir.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 2 minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, time will not permit me to read my prepared
remarks, Senator, so I will just summarize them. As a veteran of Hell's
Kitchen, I went to Power Memorial High School in Hell's Kitchen, so we
have that in common.
As a veteran of World War II, as a veteran of academia, as a veteran
of four administrations serving as a cabinet official or sub-cabinet
official, as a veteran of the U.N. and as a veteran of the United
States Senate, what a career, what a life, a life that would be admired
and is admired by all Americans. But especially we in New York admire
you for your service to our State, to our city and to our country.
You have been an inspiration to millions of Americans, especially to
the poor, for your work in dealing with the poor and helping those who
are least fortunate. Really, I believe following through on the beliefs
that you were taught as a young man I am sure and throughout your
entire career, you have stuck to them, always looking out for the most
unfortunate among us.
We are going to miss you here in Washington, but we are going to have
you, we hope, a lot more back in New York where we can all cherish you
as we have right now.
In the words of our ancestors, let me summarize by saying, may the
road rise up to meet you, and may the wind be always at your back, your
wife Liz's back, and your entire family.
God bless you, Senator.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, Senator Moynihan has often said that there is
no sense in being Irish unless you realize that some day, somehow, the
world is going to break your heart. Well, obviously the hearts of New
Yorkers are broken by the stepping down from the Senate of Senator
Moynihan. But, at the same time, we as New Yorkers can rejoice in the
absolutely unparalleled contributions he has made to our country, to
our State, and also in the fact that he is the quintessential New
Yorker.
Whether it was growing up in the streets of New York, shining shoes,
working on the docks, working for Governor Harriman, running for the
president of the New York City Council many years ago, serving as
ambassador to the U.N. in New York where he stood up for the dignity of
people everywhere, where he almost single-handedly denounced the
resolution against Zionism, a man who was willing to always come to the
brink, to stand and fight for what was right. Certainly during the 24
years he has been in the United States Senate, he has never allowed
partisanship to in any way interfere with the job that he did.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) stated that he has the
privilege of being your Congressman. I got the short straw. I
represented Senator D'Amato for many years as his Congressman. I
remember the many conversations I had with Senator D'Amato, where he
would say how you were invaluable to the Senate, how partisanship never
entered into the relationship you had, going back to the very first
meeting after his election you had with him in the Hotel Carlyle in
Manhattan.
I remember Senator D'Amato preparing for that meeting with you, and
afterwards saying, ``I just met the greatest guy in the world.'' From
that day forward you forged a close relationship.
But that really personifies the relationship you had with all the
people of New York. You were always there. You were, on the one hand,
always defending the institutions of the United States, but, at the
same time, willing to challenge accepted thinking.
Your book Beyond the Melting Pot certainly redefined the importance
of ethnicity in the United States, the fact that you were willing to
challenge Federal programs that were not working, which certainly
antagonized people on the left; but then you went against people on the
right by telling them that we had much more to do to strengthen the
American family, we
[[Page 18454]]
had more to do to be responsive to those who were being left behind in
good economic times.
Senator Moynihan, it really is a privilege for me as a Member of
Congress to be able to join in this tribute to you. It certainly was a
great meaning to me as a New Yorker for many years, whether it was
reading your books, whether it was trying with my thesaurus and
dictionary trying to understand all of your speeches and op-ed pieces
in the New York Times and intellectual journals, whether it was always
being challenged and sometimes provoked, other times really just put to
the test by trying to measure up to the standards you set by answering
the questions that you were posing; and you real personify what it
means to be a Senator.
You are a man of Hell's Kitchen and a renaissance man; a working man
and a Harvard professor; a street politician who ran for president of
the city council; and a diplomat who walked with world leaders.
So I am again honored and privileged to be able to serve with you in
the United States Government, but, most importantly, to be here today,
and also to not really make a request, but almost impose upon you to
say you have an obligation to work with us for all of your remaining
years, to keep those columns coming, those op-ed pieces, to keep the
letters and speeches coming, and never, ever stop probing our
conscience, making us take that extra step to work for our constituents
and the meaning of the United States.
Thank you, Senator Moynihan.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 3 minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to a great public
servant and a dear friend, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is hard
to believe, but we know you are going to stay fighting with us all this
time.
Senator Moynihan has served our country honorably through more than 4
decades of public life and four distinguished terms as Senator from New
York. I want to especially salute Liz, our friend, your soulmate, your
champion, your partner, your friend and fighter for all the causes that
are good in New York and this country. We know you are going to
continue to fight with us, Liz.
As a New Yorker, it has been an honor to be represented by Senator
Moynihan; and, as a Member of Congress, it has truly been a privilege
for me to work with him. A leading advocate for New York's renowned
medical schools and teaching hospitals, Senator Moynihan has fought
tirelessly to make sure that New York receives the Federal health care
dollars that it deserves.
As a member of the Irish caucus, I have seen firsthand Senator
Moynihan's passionate commitment to establishing peace with justice for
the people of Northern Ireland. Senator Moynihan has also worked
relentlessly to strengthen the United States-Israel relationship and to
bring peace to that troubled region.
Yet Senator Moynihan's storied legislative career, numerous political
appointments and 62 honorary degrees are only part of what makes him so
remarkable. Anyone who has had the pleasure of his company or the
opportunity to work and fight by his side knows that his eloquence,
intellect and dignity have made him a model leader for all Americans
and a venerable advocate for the people of New York.
Indeed, Senator Moynihan has been a guiding light on so many issues
critical to the American landscape, perhaps nowhere more evident than
his lifelong commitment to ending poverty in this country. With his
incisive intellect, his boundless passion, Senator Moynihan has worked
tirelessly to speak for those who have no voice and to mend the social
fabric of our Nation.
I know I speak for all New York and the Nation when I say that this
institution will lose a brilliant mind when Senator Moynihan retires
next year, but we will continue to have your brilliant mind in fighting
with us on all these critical issues that mean so much to New York and
this country.
I will always treasure the time I have served with and have been
represented by my good friend, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. We wish
you well. Godspeed to you, Liz, as well.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) is recognized
during morning hour debates for 1 minute.
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join my
fellow colleagues in honoring the distinguished Senator from New York.
For almost a quarter of a century, Daniel Patrick Moynihan has
represented the interests of the people of New York with a thoughtful,
diplomatic leadership presence in the Senate. He has defined politics
of civility.
His experience and expertise in domestic policy, foreign policy,
science and the arts has guided our country through some of her
toughest challenges. As a new Member of Congress seeking guidance,
Senator Moynihan and his staff were there for me whenever I called on
them on behalf of the constituents of the 6th Congressional District.
Senator Moynihan's professional story during four honorable Senate
terms serves as a powerful contrast to the prevailing cynicism about
politics and public service. Pat Moynihan has been a larger-than-life
figure for New York and the Senate, being a true role model and a great
leader, with grace and wisdom, that has made all Americans proud, no
matter what party, race, sex, religion or creed, no matter whether you
are rich or you are poor. Indeed, Senator Moynihan, your career has
been about bringing people together. What a great legacy, about
bringing people together and caring for all.
Open behalf of my constituents, I thank Senator Moynihan for his
dedication and distinguished public service; and I wish him and his
wife, Liz, all of God's blessing. The people of New York will miss him
greatly. So will the Congress, and so will our country.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 3 minutes.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, when I first met Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, it was early in his career. As a graduate of the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Medford,
Massachusetts, he was, with characteristic concern for quality
education, working with my husband and others to form a New York
chapter of the Tufts Alumni Association. Its purpose was to found and
fund scholarships and identify bright young students who would benefit
from a college education. I remember then thinking how impressive he
was in his grasp and understanding of the need of a quality education
for all and the need for its early recognition.
When Daniel Patrick Moynihan ran for Senator from New York, it was as
native son come home. A list of Senator Moynihan's accomplishments
would run on for hours, and we have heard many of them recounted here
today. However, the most important things I believe so many will
remember about him will be the fact that he changed their lives. He
changed so many by applying intellect and concern for policy over
politics.
During his distinguished career, many people gained a better quality
of life and many people were able to better understand the government's
functions, thanks to his thoughtful work.
Senator Moynihan, it has been a great pleasure to work across the
aisle from this House to the Senate and with you. We thank you for your
hard work,
and I thank you also for the work of your excellent staff. Although
Washington may miss you, sir, we welcome you back to New York.
____________________
[[Page 18455]]
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized
for 2 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that a non-New Yorker has been
able to get a word in edgewise this morning. I come to the floor as a
fourth generation Washingtonian to pay tribute to a great New Yorker
and a great American. Actually, I was a New Yorker. I was Chair of the
New York City Human Rights Commission and I was the executive assistant
to Mayor John Lindsey. The Senator introduced me when I was nominated
to be the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
But I come this morning because Washingtonians would want me to come
and other Americans would want me to come to thank the Senator for what
he has done for the Nation's Capital, and, therefore, for his country.
This is only one of the unique roles the Senator has managed to carve
out in 25 years in the Senate.
As an African American, I also thank him for the prescient role he
played in pointing out difficulties in the black family, a position
that has now been embraced by black leadership themselves. As an
academic, I thank him for his work as a public intellectual. I fished
out only two of the many books he has written from my bookcase this
morning. How he has managed to write books and be a Senator, this
academic still does not understand.
The lasting monument of this great man, I must say to you, for this
city and the country, is surely his work in resurrecting Pennsylvania
Avenue. From the Capitol to the White House, instead of a slum, the
American people now see an avenue the equivalent of the Champs Elysee.
It would not have been that way were it not for the determination and
the sheer persistence of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
We will not have to rename The Avenue for you, Senator, in order to
remember you. We will remember your work on Pennsylvania Avenue by our
ongoing work and by your remarks in your Jefferson lecture at the
University of Virginia in April, where you said, ``In all a reassuring
tale. An urban design, indivisible from a political-constitutional
purpose, endured during two centuries and has now substantially
prevailed. Pennsylvania Avenue lively, friendly and inviting. Yet of a
sudden closed. Just so. In 1995, blockades went up at 14th Street and
at 16th Street in front of the White House. Blockades and block houses.
Armed Guards.''
We will open The Avenue for you, Senator.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is
recognized during morning hour debates for 3 minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, Daniel Patrick Moynihan has been valued and
will continue to be valued for his wisdom on a kaleidoscopic range of
subjects, for his prescient and nuanced analysis of social problems,
his persistent and eloquent defense of government support for the poor
and the disadvantaged, long after that position had become
unfashionable; for his role in international affairs, as a participant
and observer; as courtly diplomat and passionate defender of democracy.
His example, his independence of mind, his indifference to fashion, his
rejection of cant and conventional wisdom, is perhaps the best
demonstration of why his favorite cause, the dignity of the free
individual soul, matters so much.
Perhaps the proudest achievement of our country and our democratic
system is that we allow people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan to speak
their minds and rise to power.
His particular legacy to New York lies in his understanding that the
lives of free individuals can be enhanced by the beauty and grandeur of
all that surrounds them: the landscape, the streetscape, and the
history that underlies them. So he made it his mission to see that our
home, New York, would retain its distinguished features and add to its
beauty and eloquence.
He committed himself to enhancing everyday life and to landmarks that
spoke of the dignity of ordinary people, the efforts of the forgotten,
and the conviction that every person matters. So throughout his Senate
career, he worked to protect the landmarks of the women's rights
movement in Seneca Falls, because he knew that the more celebrated
proclamations of liberty in Philadelphia rang a little hollow for more
than half the American people.
He worked equally hard to give Federal recognition to the Erie and
Champlain Canals in New York, because he knows that the working folk
who dug the ditches and piloted the boats, whose names we have
forgotten, were more responsible for the westward expansion of our
country and the opportunities it opened than the more celebrated
frontier explorers.
He is working now to protect Governors Island in New York Harbor, the
island most people ignored because its work was the daily grind of
protecting the harbor, the overlooked work that sustains us. He has
directed Federal funds to the protection of an ordinary businessman's
house in Buffalo, because that little known man, Darwin Martin, had the
daring and foresight to build a place of no pretension, but great
beauty, by hiring an unregarded architect named Frank Lloyd Wright.
Pat Moynihan insisted that public spaces where ordinary people pass
daily and conduct their mundane business should remind them of their
dignity and the soaring ideals of the American endeavor. So he insisted
that the New York courthouses should be fine, even grand places, and he
devoted himself to the rebirth of Pennsylvania Station as a place of
splendor, a worthy replacement for the building we lost when people
believed that public places should be drab and functional.
Of course, here in Washington, we know that it was Pat Moynihan more
than any other person who saw to it that Pennsylvania Avenue was also
reborn, and again became a place of eloquence and beauty, appropriate
to its place as the main boulevard of our Capital.
Pat Moynihan made his home in New York, appropriately at the
crossroads of the ordinary and the ideal, a tiny rural settlement named
in honor of a classical poet, the Hamlet of Pindar's Corners. His home
there at the same time was a modest rural farmhouse and a Greek temple,
a common 19th century architectural style in upstate New York, but one
rarely seen today.
His blending of the common, the human, the mundane, and of the
highest ideals and greatest dignity, is a reflection of America at its
best, what this country is all about. Nothing could be more appropriate
for the man who best reflects that same vision, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan.
Mr. Speaker, Pat Moynihan has always appeared larger than life. From
the day he arrived in the Senate as a freshman in 1977, he was not just
another Senator. He has always stood apart. He is one of the few
Senators of whom it can be said that his name is just as powerful, just
as important, whether the title ``Senator'' is attached or not. After
most of us leave Congress, the world has much less interest in what we
have to say. But that will not be the case with Pat. When he speaks--
whether he is Senator Moynihan, Professor Moynihan, or just Daniel
Patrick Moynihan--the world listens.
He has been valued, and will continue to be valued, for his wisdom on
a kaleidoscopic range of subjects--for his prescient and nuanced
analysis of social problems, his persistent and eloquent defense of
government support for the poor and disadvantaged, long after that
position had become unfashionable, for his role in international
affairs as participant and observer, as courtly diplomat and passionate
defender of democracy and freedom. His own example--his independence of
mind, his indifference to fashion, his rejection of cant and
conventional wisdom--is perhaps
[[Page 18456]]
the best demonstration of why his favorite cause--the dignity of the
free individual soul--matters so much. Perhaps the proudest achievement
of our country and our democratic system is that we allow people like
Daniel Patrick Moynihan to speak their minds, and rise to power.
Any list of his achievements will be long. But we New Yorkers have
some more particular and parochial reasons to thank him and to honor
him, and reasons to be proud that we sent him to the Senate. He was
born in Oklahoma, of course, and spent much of his professional life
before he came to the Senate in Massachusetts. But we New Yorkers
embraced him as he embraced us, and we will always be proud to count
him as one of us.
His particular legacy to New York lies in his understanding that the
lives of free individuals can be enhanced by the beauty and grandeur of
all that surrounds them--the landscape, the streetscape, and the
history that underlies them. So he made it his mission to see that our
home, New York, would retain its distinguished features and add to its
beauty and elegance.
It is telling that Pat Moynihan did not put his greatest efforts into
the more obvious treasures of the State, or into monuments to the great
and famous. instead, he committed himself to enhancing everyday life,
and into landmarks that spoke of the dignity of ordinary people, the
efforts of the forgotten, and the conviction that every person matters.
So throughout his Senate career he worked to protect the landmarks of
the women's rights movement in Seneca Falls, because he knew that the
more celebrated proclamations of liberty in Philadelphia rang a little
hollow for more than half the American people. He has worked equally
hard to give federal recognition to the Erie and Champlain Canals in
New York, because he knows that the working folk who dug the ditches
and piloted the boats whose names we have forgotten were more
responsible for the westward expansion of our country and the
opportunities it opened than the more celebrated frontier explorers. He
is working now to protect Governors Island in New York Harbor--the
island most people ignored because its work was the daily grind of
protecting the harbor, the overlooked work that sustains us. He has
directed federal funds to the protection of an ordinary businessman's
house in Buffalo because that little known man, Darwin Martin, had the
daring and foresight to build a place of no pretension but great beauty
by hiring an unregarded architect named Frank Lloyd Wright.
Pat Moynihan has not just looked to protect our history, however. In
a time when public buildings and public spaces were given little
regard, and their design was contracted to the low bidder Pat Moynihan
insisted that public spaces where ordinary people pass daily and
conduct their mundane business should remind them of their dignity and
the soaring ideals of the American endeavor. So he insisted that the
new courthouses in New York should be fine, even grand places, and he
devoted himself to the rebirth of Pennsylvania Station as a place of
splendor, a worthy replacement for the building we lost when people
believed that public spaces should be drab and functional. Of course
here in Washington we know that it was Pat Moynihan, more than any
other person, who saw to it that Pennsylvania Avenue was also reborn,
and again became a place of elegance and beauty appropriate to its
place as the main boulevard of our Capital. I believe that New Yorkers
and the Nation will thank him for his work on restoring aesthetics to
community life for a long time to come.
Typically, though, Pat Moynihan did not focus on just a few great
buildings and monumental spaces. One of his finest achievements, in my
view, was his imaginative and inventive idea for financing what he
called ``enhancements'' with highway money--parks, gardens,
beautification, historic restoration, and other improvements of the
landscape and the community, available to every place touched by a
federally funded highway. Most of these enhancements are small changes
in ordinary communities, changes that touch the life and lift the
spirits of all those who see them and use them. Most people don't know
that Pat Moynihan had anything to do with them, but they may be one of
his most lasting legacies to our Nation.
Pat Moynihan made his home in New York, appropriately at the
crossroads of the ordinary and the ideal--a tiny rural settlement named
in honor of a classical poet, the Hamlet of Pindar's Corners. His home
there was at the same time a modest rural farmhouse and a Greek temple,
a common nineteenth century architectural style in upstate New York,
but one rarely seen today. This blending of the common, the human, the
mundane, and of the highest ideals and greatest dignity is a reflection
of America at its best, what this country is all about. Nothing could
be more appropriate for the man who best reflects that same vision,
Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we are here this morning to honor Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who will soon be concluding a distinguished
career of public service. Senator Moynihan's curriculum vitae extends
over 44 pages. As one reads, one can not but be astounded that a single
person could achieve so much, in so many areas.
During World War II, Daniel Patrick Moynihan left college after one
year to serve his country as a Naval officer. Returning to the United
States after the war, he went on to become the sole person to ever
serve 4 successive administrations at the Cabinet or Sub-Cabinet level.
He served Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford in such roles as
Cabinet Assistant Secretary, Counselor to the President, Assistant to
the President, Ambassador and President of the U.N. Security Council.
In 1977 he was elected to the United States Senate, a post that he has
held until today. Throughout the course of his career, Senator Moynihan
has been the recipient of countless honors, ranging from honorary
degrees from universities throughout the world, to awards from a
variety of groups far too numerous to mention.
Yet, as outstanding as his record of achievement has been, what has
always impressed me is the independence of mind that has consistently
characterized Daniel Patrick Moynihan's views, statements and policy
positions. During the early 1970s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan incurred the
wrath of many critics when he came out with a report on the social
crisis posed by the explosion in out-of-wedlock births that was as
prescient as it was controversial. Serving as our Ambassador to the
United Nations, he spoke eloquently and forcefully in defense of
Israel, when the infamous ``Zionism equals Racism'' resolution was
passed in that body.
As a United States Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's willingness to
take on the unpopular, yet necessary issues has remained intact. For
years, when the conventional political wisdom was that Social Security
reform was the ``third rail of politics,'' Daniel Patrick Moynihan
talked of the impending crisis of solvency for Social Security. He has
similarly been willing to buck the tide of political convention and
correctness.
To put it quite simply, Daniel Patrick Moynihan is one of the most
honorable public servants I have ever met. His presence in the United
States Senate will be sorely missed. He is a New Yorker, through the
through, and has been a truly eloquent voice in Washington for all of
us in the Empire State. I would be deeply honored to serve as his
successor.
As he embarks upon a new chapter of his life, I would like to wish
him Godspeed, secure in the knowledge that whatever new challenge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan next chooses to address will be met with the
same courage, determination and raw talent that has brought him success
throughout his long and distinguished career.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks relating to this tribute to Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until 10 a.m. today.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 50 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until 10 a.m.
____________________
{time} 1000
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Linder) at 10 a.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Fulfilling Hebrew psalms and Christian exhortations, may all in this
House and in this Nation be of one mind, sympathetic, loving one
another, compassionate and humble.
[[Page 18457]]
Let no one return evil for evil, or insult for insult. On the
contrary, make us a blessing for others, for this is our calling.
As God's children, we will inherit a blessing so far surpassing the
momentary trouble we face and the inscrutable behavior we suffer.
God, Your blessing does not rest only on us. God's blessing, once
revealed, so penetrates our being and all our relationships that we
become a blessing for all our brothers and sisters in the human family,
now and in the future, and forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). 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 California (Mr.
George Miller) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California 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.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 20th
anniversary of the enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Over 20 years ago, several Members of this House, along with Members
from the other body, worked tirelessly and in a bipartisan fashion to
advance the interests of small businesses caught in the endless stream
of new regulations pouring out of the Federal government. Regulatory
agencies and executive departments were constantly advancing new
regulations with a one-size-fits-all approach. This approach to
regulation was destroying our small businesses.
A handful of visionaries came to the rescue with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act which is often referred to as the magna carta of small
business rights. It was advanced in a bipartisan manner by a group of
individuals who deserve our praise today.
Members of the House who led the charge back then were Andy Ireland,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and Neal Smith. Their
colleagues in the Senate were John Culver and Gaylord Nelson. From the
business community, there were many individuals who contributed to this
effort, most notably John Motley and former Congressman Mike McKevitt.
And, of course, as with most things we do, there was exceptional staff
work done on making the Regulatory Flexibility Act a reality, most
notably the contributions of then the House Committee on Small Business
staffer, Stephen P. Lynch.
Happy birthday Reg Flex Act.
____________________
REFORM FOR SENTENCING OF SEX OFFENDERS
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, a 22-year-old Boston transvestite
kidnapped and molested a 12-year-old boy with a screwdriver. After all
of this, the judge said there is just a little too much hype about this
case. Thus, Judge Lopez sentenced this sex offender to 1 year probation
and no jail time.
Unbelievable. What is next? Country clubs for child molesters? Think
about it. These courts are so screwed up, admitted serial murderers get
3 square meals, TV, law libraries, and air-conditioning.
Beam me up. I say there should be a court-ordered sex change on this
transvestite performed by Dr. Lorena Bobbit in Boston, Massachusetts.
That would stop this garbage.
I yield back the fact that this judge should be removed from office.
____________________
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HOLLYWOOD UNDERMINES CANDIDATE CREDIBILITY
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, on August 10, 1999, there was an article in
the Los Angeles Times. Al Gore was in Hollywood raising money for his
campaign.
The Los Angeles Times reported that he told these big Hollywood
contributors in very clear terms that a probe into Hollywood violence
was the President's idea, not his. These Hollywood big wigs make a lot
of money from violent movies and did not like the idea of Washington
politicians meddling with their profits.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that investigation that Al Gore once disavowed is
complete and it turns out that these Hollywood types have been
marketing violent movies and video games to 12-year-olds. Even
President Clinton is mad. But Al Gore has accepted over $13 million in
donations from this special interest industry.
Now, Al Gore wants us to believe that he is going to do something
about violent movies, video games and music lyrics. Would it seem too
cynical if I said, quite simply, I do not believe it.
____________________
CALLING FOR RECALL OF CONTAMINATED GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN
(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, we are told over and over again that the
Food and Drug Administration is protecting the food supply by carefully
scrutinizing this new genetically engineered food technology with full
consideration for our safety. We are told over and over again that the
biotech food industry will protect us. We are told over and over again
that genetically engineered food is safe.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may have heard the startling new reports
that unapproved genetically engineered corn has contaminated the Taco
Bell taco shells found on our grocery store shelves. This corn has not
been approved by the EPA for human consumption because of their concern
for allergens.
The GE food industry, the genetically engineered food industry fails
the American public and they are losing the public's trust in this
matter.
Yesterday, the FDA announced that they will recall the product if
their own testing confirms the contamination. I am asking Members to
please sign my letter to the FDA asking for the recall and the FDA
testing of more products that might contain this illegal corn variety.
____________________
DIGITAL DIVIDE ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY ACT
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, let me share some statistics with my
colleagues. Over 100 million Americans today are online, and seven new
Americans go on line every second. One-third of all new jobs today are
created in the technology sector, and in my home State of Illinois,
salaries of technology workers are 59 percent higher than other
traditional jobs.
There is great opportunity in this new economy, but educators tell me
they notice the difference back home in our schools between those
children who have computers and Internet access at home and those who
do not. When we ask why they do not, they always say that the cost is
the biggest challenge.
Well, the private sector, Ford, Intel, Delta and American Airlines
have stepped forward to provide Internet-accessed computers for their
employees. Unfortunately, the IRS wants to
[[Page 18458]]
tax it. For a worker making $27,000 a year, that means $200 in higher
taxes, just because their employer provides them with a computer. Think
about that. The janitor, the assembly line worker, the laborer, their
children having Internet access and a computer at home to do their
school work.
Mr. Speaker, it is good policy; and I am glad to see the private
sector stepping forward.
That is why I want to ask my colleagues to join with me in
cosponsoring the DDATA Act, legislation that clarifies that employer-
provided computers and Internet access are tax free, treated the same
way as an employer-provided pension or health care benefit.
The DDATA Act is pro worker, pro education, and pro technology. Let
us stop the IRS from taxing these kinds of employer benefits.
____________________
IMMIGRANTS IN HIGH-TECH INDUSTRY PROVIDE ECONOMIC SECURITY
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible for
this great body to address the concerns of many, if there is an effort
to deliberate and concentrate and generate a solution.
This week, we may have the opportunity to look closely at the needs
of our high-tech industry with respect to additional personnel. It is
called the H1-B nonimmigrant visas. As many of us have heard and as the
country has heard, this high-tech industry has been an anchor of our
economic boom.
However, at the same time, there are serious humanitarian issues that
I believe warrant our consideration. One of them deals with the
providing of late amnesty options for thousands upon thousands of
immigrants who have been living in this country and paying taxes,
buying homes and raising their children, but because of an INS mistake,
were not able to apply for late amnesty. Then we have the parity that
needs to occur for Central America similar to that given to any
Nicaraguans and Cubans so that the fairness will allow families to
remain united.
Then, as we look at the nonimmigrant visas, it is important to
protect American workers and to provide opportunities for employment in
the high-tech industry for African Americans and Hispanics. We can do
good if we put our minds to it.
____________________
PRESIDENT CALLS FOR MORE TAX COLLECTORS AT IRS
(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, it astounds me and most of my fellow
Nevadans as well when we hear that the Clinton-Gore administration
intends to veto the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, a bill which
this Chamber passed just last week; veto it simply because the bill
does not give enough money to the IRS.
The IRS is demanding $224 million more than their current $8.6
billion budget to pay for 5,000 more tax collectors.
Mr. Speaker, what the American people need is not more tax
collectors; what the American people need is a tax break. The
overwhelming tax burden currently placed on the American families is
simply unconscionable and by vetoing the Treasury-Postal bill President
Clinton also vetoes the repeal of the telephone excise tax, a tax
passed over 100 years ago to fund the Spanish American war.
Not one single Nevadan has ever asked me to fight for more IRS tax
collectors. Americans do not want the bloated bureaucracy of the IRS to
expand; they want and deserve a tax break.
____________________
AMERICA SHOULD BE STRONG PARTICIPANT IN UNITED NATIONS
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to talk for
1 minute about today being United Nations Day. It is also the beginning
of the decade of peace in the world. They are trying to begin to
emphasize how to bring peace in a variety of different places across
the globe.
It is important for us in this body to recognize the important part
we play, not only by our contributions to the U.N. in which we have
lagged seriously behind, but in our support for what goes on.
The United States has, from time to time, supported the U.N. when it
has been in our interests and at other times we walk away from them.
But as we look across the globe with all of the places, Sierra Leone or
Liberia or Somalia, when we look, we see always that the U.N. sometimes
has our support and sometimes does not.
Now, if we are going to be the leader of the world, we certainly are
economically, but if we are politically going to be leaders of the
world, we must participate in the United Nations in a very strong way.
That means paying our dues.
____________________
GENERICS ARE CRITICAL IN ADDRESSING HEALTH CARE COST ESCALATION
(Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell Members of this body
that health care inflation is out of control. Our constituents are
telling us that every day.
They are feeling the effects of medical costs that increased over 10
percent in 1999 alone. The latest projections are that health care
inflation will outpace overall inflation for many years to come. This
poses a significant threat to American families, government programs,
and employers who are shouldering a growing burden of the U.S. health
care costs.
One solution to this problem is to increase the availability of
generic drugs. Generic drugs deliver the same health results as brand
drugs, but generics cost 70 percent less on average than the brands
they replace. The savings are significant.
A new report released by Sanford University in Alabama shows that for
every 1 percent increase in generic drug utilization, consumers,
taxpayers and employers save over $1 billion in prescription drug
costs. It is clear that the greater use of generic drugs must be a part
of the plan to cure the Nation's ailing health care system.
____________________
{time} 1015
GENERIC DRUGS
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, most Americans know that
the cost of pharmaceutical drugs is at a record high. Prescription drug
costs rose 85 percent between 1993 and 1998, and prescription drugs
represent the highest out-of-pocket expense for three out of four
senior citizens.
Generic drugs are FDA approved to be safe and to be secure, but they
cost 70 percent less than brand name drugs. The fact of the matter is,
there are loopholes in today's laws that block entry to these
affordable generic drugs.
This Congress needs to reform the Hatch-Waxman Act to improve
competition and make our markets more accessible and fair. Let us end
the brand drug monopoly that stifles competition, restricts our
consumers' choice, and raises consumer drug prices.
____________________
[[Page 18459]]
CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
(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, the month of September is Childhood Cancer
Awareness Month, and I am proud
to stand here wearing my gold ribbon of hope and voice my support for
the children and families who are affected by this disease.
Cancer causes more deaths during childhood than any other disease.
This year an estimated 12,400 children will be diagnosed with cancer,
and 2,300 will die. Though we celebrate with the survivors and their
families, we cannot forget the children who will, unfortunately,
succumb.
That is why I am preparing to introduce legislation on behalf of
these children and their families that will support them through the
hospice care. Later this month, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran)
and I will host a conference for Members and staff in order to address
the challenges concerning hospice care for children and share our ideas
and examine questions regarding this serious topic.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, the conference,
and Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.
____________________
GENERIC DRUGS PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ALTERNATIVE
(Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, today over 40 million Americans lack adequate
health insurance coverage and millions more are struggling to cover
their health care bills. Unfortunately, seniors and children are among
the groups most vulnerable in American society. Finding solutions to
this health care crisis has to be at the top of our agenda.
Fortunately, there is help. Right now, generic drug companies are
producing lifesaving and life-improving medicines that cost
substantially less than brand name drugs. In fact, generic drugs
provide one of the best values in the United States health care system.
The substantial savings provided by generic drugs means more Americans
can buy the medicines they need. It also means that through greater use
of generic drugs, public health programs, like Medicaid and Medicare,
can manage to help more Americans.
Generic drugs should be a key part of any prescription drug program
approved by this Congress.
____________________
BRAND NAME AND GENERIC DRUGS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE
(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, does anyone in the Chamber know the
difference between Zantac and Ranitidine Hydrochloride? Here is the
answer: Price. Zantac is the brand name of a popular medication to
treat ulcers. Ranitidine Hydrochloride is the generic name of the exact
same drug.
The Food and Drug Administration ensures that whether a consumer uses
a drug by its brand name, such as Zantac, or a drug that goes by the
generic name, such as Ranitidine, they will receive the same active
ingredients and the same health benefits. To quote FDA Commissioner
Jane Henney, ``If the FDA declares a generic drug to be therapeutically
equivalent to an innovator drug, the two products will provide the same
intended clinical effect.''
This is important, Mr. Speaker, because if we ever hope to bring
health care inflation under control, we have to understand that brand
drugs and generic drugs are truly interchangeable. Through greater use
of high quality, less costly generic drugs, we can have truly
affordable and effective medicine.
If we check our medicine cabinets, we find that there are more
affordable generics available for many of these expensive
prescriptions.
____________________
ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED TO RESOLVE OIL CRISIS
(Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, first let me say the Federal Reserve has
done a great job in keeping our economy strong and growing.
Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration's lack of a coherent
energy policy threatens that very economic prosperity.
As I speak, fuel prices around the Nation and around the world are
skyrocketing as the price of oil tops $37 per barrel. Rising fuel
prices affect every sector of the economy and eventually every
American.
Airlines are increasing fares; truckers, who deliver our food,
medicine, and virtually everything else are straining to meet their
contractual obligations and pay for fuel that is now costing an average
of $1.62 cents a gallon. As consumer prices rise, consumer spending
will decrease, leading to sluggish sales, larger inventories and slower
growth.
So, Mr. Speaker, what is the administration's answer to the pending
crisis? Well, instead of using the 8 years they had in office to
develop an energy policy which would have prevented this crisis, the
Clinton-Gore administration squandered those opportunities and now is
only offering last-minute solutions, like begging Saudi Arabia to
increase oil production.
For an administration that has not been ashamed to take all the
credit for the current economy, I hope they do as much to solve this
crisis than just admit, as they did in the spring, that they fell
asleep at the switch.
____________________
BLUE RIBBON PANEL SHOULD BE FORMED TO PROTECT RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF
ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, at the time that Wen Ho
Lee was first arrested, I met with the Chinese-American Political
Association of the greater San Francisco Bay area. Many in that
community raised their concerns that he was the target of selective
prosecution, of racial profiling, and prosecutorial abuse. As we now
see, as that case has started to come to a conclusion with the plea
bargain, in fact many of the concerns raised by the Chinese community
turned out to be true.
All Americans should be deeply disturbed by the prosecutorial abuse
that was raised in this case and used against Wen Ho Lee. This does not
suggest that Wen Ho Lee did not have some serious transgressions of the
current law and policy, but what his government did to him should cause
concern by all Americans.
All Americans are entitled to an impartial review of the actions by
all parties to that prosecution. Unfortunately, the congressional
committees, the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and all the rest
participated in the feeding frenzy at the time of the arrest.
I think maybe we ought to have a national, impartial blue ribbon
commission to look at the Wen Ho Lee case and see how we can better
safeguard the rights and liberties of all American citizens.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to the provisions of
clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will postpone further
proceedings today on motions 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.
Any record vote on the Debt Relief and Retirement Security
Reconciliation Act of 2000, together with such other votes as may have
been postponed to that point, will be taken after the debate has
concluded on that motion.
Record votes on remaining motions to suspend the rules will be taken
later today.
____________________
[[Page 18460]]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4919, SECURITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to
certain defense and security assistance provisions under those Acts, to
authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries,
and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to
the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York? The Chair hears none and, without objection,
appoints the following conferees:
Messrs. Gilman, Goodling, and Gejdenson.
There was no objection.
____________________
FHA DOWNPAYMENT SIMPLIFICATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2000
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(5193) to amend the National Housing Act to temporarily extend the
applicability of the downpayment simplification provisions for the FHA
single family housing mortgage insurance program, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5193
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 ``FHA Downpayment
Simplification Extension Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF DOWNPAYMENT
SIMPLIFICATION PROVISIONS.
Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(10) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(10)(A)) is amended by striking
``executed for insurance in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000'' and inserting ``closed on or before October 30,
2000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5193, the FHA Downpayment Simplification Extension
Act of 2000 would extend existing statutory provisions in the National
Housing Act that provides for the manner and method of calculating
downpayments by new homeowners closing on mortgage loans insured by the
Federal Housing Administration.
This simplification is merely a technical change that rewrites and
clarifies downpayment requirements that, over time, have been amended
in such a manner that are now unclear and difficult to understand. A
simplified or streamlined method would provide savings to homebuyers
and a calculation method uniformly understood by the mortgage industry
and consumers.
This calculation method would reduce from a three-tiered approach to
a two-tiered approach. Its effect would also decrease the amount of
downpayments necessary. For example, this streamlined approach will
save borrowers of a typical $150,000 home loan approximately $1,000 to
$2,000 at closing.
In the 105th Congress this body passed similar legislation.
Originally, the legislation was extended through a demonstration
project to Hawaii and Alaska. In last year's VA-HUD appropriations act,
this body extended the legislation to the rest of the country.
The current legislation will expire September 30. This bill's
extension through October 30 accomplishes two goals. First, the
extension will allow this committee more time to complete its work and
pass the comprehensive housing conference report on H.R. 1776, the
American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. H.R. 1776
overwhelmingly passed the House on April 6 by a 417 to 8 vote and
includes permanent authorization to simplify the manner of FHA
downpayment calculations.
Secondly, and more important, this extension will eliminate any
confusion that now exists in the mortgage finance market for the next
few weeks where some borrowers would face uncertain downpayments
requirements at closing.
Let me close by stressing that the extension of a technical change to
the law reflects sound policy and allows creditworthy families greater
homeownership opportunities.
I would also like particularly to express my appreciation for the
work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kuykendall), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce) for their leadership in this area.
Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record a letter received in
support of this legislation by the National Association of Home
Builders.
National Association of Home
Builders,
Washington, DC, September 18, 2000.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 200,000 members of
the National Association of Home Builders, I am writing to
express our support for H.R. 5193, the ``FHA Downpayment
Simplification Extension Act,'' which is scheduled to come
before the full House of Representatives tomorrow under
suspension of the rules. The bill provides a fifteen-day
extension of the Federal Housing Authority's (FHA)
downpayment simplification. We very much appreciate your
consideration of our views.
NAHB is very supportive of FHA's downpayment simplification
process. It has been hugely successful in enabling more low-
income households to purchase their first home. Given such
successes, we support Congress' action to provide a short-
term extension until a more appropriate venue--namely through
the authorization process--may be utilized and further, that
at that time, the downpayment simplification be made
permanent.
The simplification is a technical change that rewrites and
clarifies downpayment requirements, that over time had been
amended in such a manner that makes them unclear and
difficult to understand. A simplified or streamlined method
provides savings to the homebuyer and a calculation method
uniformly understood by the mortgage industry and consumers.
This calculation method is reduced from a three-tiered
approach to a two-tiered approach. Its effect decreases the
amount of downpayments necessary where the borrower is
otherwise creditworthy.
Finally, as you may be aware, the issue of extending the
FHA downpayment simplification is addressed in H.R. 1776, the
``American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act,''
which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 6,
2000 by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 417 to 8.
Considering the strong support of this housing proposal
within the House of Representatives, we continue to urge the
Senate to consider H.R. 1776 and either bring it to the floor
for a vote, or move to a formal conference with S. 1452, the
Senate's manufactured housing legislation as soon as
possible.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this
important housing issue. We appreciate your continued support
for the home building industry and look forward to working
with you during the remaining days of the 106th Congress, and
into the 107th Congress, as we seek to provide safe,
affordable housing for all Americans.
Sincerely,
William P. Killmer.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this 30-day technical extension of
the FHA downpayment simplification formula. The bill makes sure that in
the event of a VA-HUD appropriations bill not being signed into law by
October 1, that FHA borrowers and lenders may continue to use the
current simplified downpayment formula in anticipation of a permanent
biennial or annual extension of this formula.
This bill is the second development over the last few months which
clearly illustrates the folly of the current approach of interim
extensions of the FHA downpayment simplification formula. Two years
ago, Congress applied this formula nationwide to all 50 States for a
period of 2 years ending October 1 of this year. Yet just a few months
ago, confusion set into the mortgage markets as many lenders were
concerned about the technical language of the 2-year application;
whether the effective cutoff date was the day a loan closed or the day
that HUD insured it.
{time} 1030
We were in the ridiculous situation in which lenders all over the
country might have had to revert to the old formula for a month or two,
potentially
[[Page 18461]]
raising down payment levels, creating confusion, and killing home
purchases.
Fortunately, both congressional leaders and HUD concurred that
Congress' intent was to refer to the closing date and HUD issued a
clarification to that effect, and today's bill explicitly uses this
approach.
The second development is today's bill, which highlights the
possibility that we will not enact a VA-HUD bill by October 1. This
once again raises the very real possibility that an interim extension
for down payment simplification could expire unintentionally.
The obvious conclusion is that anything less than a permanent
extension of the down payment formula runs the risk that we will be in
the same position a year or so from now, facing expiration of the new
formula.
Moreover, the approach of a permanent extension was taken in H.R.
1776, the homeownership bill, which passed the House earlier this year.
This approach of a permanent extension was taken with overwhelming
bipartisan support.
So I think our course should be clear. We should make this formula
permanent through whatever legislative vehicle is available in the next
few weeks.
Unfortunately, there is a real risk that through inadvertence the
down payment simplification formula could lapse for an extended period
of time, thereby forcing FHA borrowers and lenders to revert to the
old, confusing, anti-consumer formula. This risk was highlighted by an
action the other body took last week where a 1-year extension of the
down payment formula was put into the VA-HUD bill in subcommittee but
then was inexplicably stripped by the majority in full committee.
Thus, the real risk is that, as we simultaneously consider both the
fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD appropriations bill and potentially a
conference on H.R. 1776, down payment simplification could fall through
the cracks, especially in the confusion of the last week or so of this
Congress.
That would be a terrible result for the hundreds of thousands of home
buyers that use FHA.
Therefore, I ask the chairman of our Committee on Banking and
Financial Services that, however these various bills are considered,
that we work to ensure that down payment simplification either
permanently, as in H.R. 1776, or as an extension, is included in some
bill that the President signs into law. And if it is an extension, I
hope it will be a long-term extension, although I support the 30-day in
today's bill.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaFALCE. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, I concur in
everything the gentleman has just said, and it is one of the reasons I
am so strongly supportive of getting H.R. 1776 made into public law.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the Chair for
changing this bill from 15 days to 30 days.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in
any regard, I will say to the gentleman that the scenario that he has
laid out of possible problems is a credibly unfortunate scenario that
could occur, and it is the intent of the Chair to be as vigilant as
possible to ensure that it does not occur.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, and
I thank the chairman of the full committee for their comments. I ask
all to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5193, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. LEACH. 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 extraneous material on H.R. 5193.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
____________________
HOMEOWNERS FINANCING PROTECTION ACT
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3834) to amend the rural housing loan guarantee program under
section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide loan guarantees
for loans made to refinance existing mortgage loans guaranteed under
such section, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3834
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 ``Homeowners Financing
Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. GUARANTEES FOR REFINANCING LOANS.
Section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C.
1472(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(13) Guarantees for refinancing loans.--Upon the request
of the borrower, the Secretary shall, to the extent provided
in appropriation Acts, guarantee a loan that is made to
refinance an existing loan that is made under this section or
guaranteed under this subsection, and that the Secretary
determines complies with the following requirements:
``(A) Interest rate.--The refinancing loan shall have a
rate of interest that is fixed over the term of the loan and
does not exceed the interest rate of the loan being
refinanced.
``(B) Security.--The refinancing loan shall be secured by
the same single-family residence as was the loan being
refinanced, which shall be owned by the borrower and occupied
by the borrower as the principal residence of the borrower.
``(C) Amount.--The principal obligation under the
refinancing loan shall not exceed an amount equal to the sum
of the balance of the loan being refinanced and such closing
costs as may be authorized by the Secretary, which shall
include a discount not exceeding 2 basis points and an
origination fee not exceeding such amount as the Secretary
shall prescribe.
The provisions of the last sentence of paragraph (1) and
paragraphs (2), (5), (6)(A), (7), and (9) shall apply to
loans guaranteed under this subsection, and no other
provisions of paragraphs (1) through (12) shall apply to such
loans.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3834, the Homeowners Financing Protection Act,
would allow borrowers under the Rural Housing Service (RHS) single-
family program to refinance their mortgages to take advantage of lower
interest rates with new RHS-guaranteed loans.
Under the current law, RHS borrowers, under the direct or guarantee
program, are precluded from refinancing their existing loan with a new
RHS-guarantee loan. This anomaly affects low- and very-low-income
families who originally qualified for RHS direct mortgage loans.
While the direct loans were meant to provide temporary credit in some
circumstances, borrowers were unable to successfully apply for mortgage
credit without a government guarantee even though their financial
condition had modestly improved.
H.R. 3834 would remove the statutory prohibition from refinancing
direct single-family housing loans using the guaranteed program.
According to the General Accounting Office, as of May 31, 2000,
approximately 9,100 RHS loans exist with an interest rate of 13 percent
or higher; 65,000 loans exist with an interest rate of at least 9\1/2\
percent. It is clear that these borrowers would benefit from
refinancing using the guaranteed program by lower interest rates and,
therefore, lower monthly payments.
[[Page 18462]]
At the same time, the Federal Government would maximize its resources
by providing a more cost-efficient mechanism to ensure homeownership
for those sectors of our community that are unable to obtain private-
sector financing and insurance.
In conclusion, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), who is chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and particularly the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their work in this area.
CBO has advised the committee that the bill is budget neutral.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter from the
Housing Assistance Council:
Housing Assistance Council,
Washington, DC, August 18, 2000.
Representative Rick Lazio,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Attn: Joe Ventrone & Clinton Jones
Re: Title V Rural Housing
Dear Chairman Lazio: The Housing Assistance Council (HAC)
writes you to support a proposal by Rep. Robert E. Andrews to
amend Section 502(g) to permit refinancing of certain Rural
Housing Service (RHS) direct loans with guarantees under
Section 502(h) in Title V in the Housing Act of 1949.
Currently, there is no refinancing authority for the 502 loan
guarantees. Rep. Andrews' request is supported by a General
Accounting Office report, ``Shift to Guaranteed Program Can
Benefit Borrowers and Reduce Government Exposure'' (GAO/RCED/
ALMD-95/63). We are informed that a change could possibly be
moved on the suspension calendar.
HAC earlier responded favorably to the GAO report in a
letter to Associate Administer Czerwinski. We believe that
the issue is one that should be addressed by Congress and can
be done with very little budget impact. The adversely
affected families now have higher incomes and can afford
payments at current market rates, but are trapped in a
situation not foreseen when the legislation was enacted, and
which is beyond their control. It is difficult to justify
interest payments to the government at rates up to 13 percent
when private market rates are so much lower. The affected
families had low incomes when RHS helped them attain home
ownership. The very program which once helped them now causes
them to make excessive mortgage payments.
It is our opinion that mitigating this problem is the right
thing for the government to do and that the issue is not
partisan in nature. We urge you to include a corrective
amendment in legislation you may be developing which
includes, or can include, Title V rural housing additions or
changes.
Sincerely,
Moises Loza,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3834, the Homeowners Financing
Protection Act, and I pay particular attention and give particular
credit to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for highlighting
this difficulty for the Congress and for initiating legislative action
on this bill.
The bill gives homeowners with existing Rural Housing Service
guaranteed and direct single-family loans the opportunity to refinance
such loans under the RHS guaranteed loan program.
Permitting such loans would enable homeowners with high interest-rate
mortgage loans, in some cases as high as 13.5 percent, to lower
mortgage rates and therefore their monthly mortgage payments by a
substantial amount.
This is also good for the Federal Government since reduced mortgage
payments reduce the default risk on such loans, thereby reducing the
risk of foreclosure and payout by the Federal Government.
The bill is drafted with a number of protections for both the
homeowner and for the Government. For example, the amount of the
refinanced loan cannot be increased except by the cost necessary for
the refinancing. This avoids over-leveraging the home. The interest
rate on the refinanced loan cannot be higher than the mortgage rate on
the existing loan. And the bill limits the Secretary's authority to
guarantee refinanced loans to the extent provided in appropriation
acts.
Finally, I would note that, with passage of this bill, it is not the
intent in the future that this new refinanced loan authority crowd out
the issuance of new loan authority. The concern is that, if interest
rates were to fall dramatically, homeowners could rush to utilize this
new refinance authority, eating into loan authority for new guaranteed
loans.
However, this concern can easily be addressed in future
appropriations bills through different approaches, including the simple
act of providing a sufficient dollar amount of loan authority.
In conclusion, I would again like to commend the very fine work of
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), and I urge adoption of
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
I rise in strong support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of this Congress will be the
bipartisan cooperation and achievements of the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
I want to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach), the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the subcommittee chairman, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), and the ranking member, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). They have left their mark on
this Congress in some significant and bipartisan ways; and it is a
pleasure to serve with each of them. I thank them for their cooperation
and the cooperation of the staff in bringing this bill to the floor in
the spirit in which the committee has proceeded throughout this
Congress.
To understand the importance of this bill, we need to understand what
it would be like to be a family with an income of $26,000 or $27,000 a
year living in a modest home in a rural area of the United States
struggling to pay the bills, struggling to keep up, and confronting a
mortgage payment each month that reflects a mortgage of 11 or 12
percent.
Many people in those circumstances would take advantage of recent
changes in financial conditions and refinance their mortgage. They
would go out and get a loan and pay off their existing mortgage, and
they would replace it with one that requires lower monthly payments.
There are a lot of significant reasons why the citizens that I talk
about cannot do that. First of all, they probably have a very low
income, as I said; and secondly, they build up very little equity in
their home, because the way they build up equity is to either live in a
house that is appreciating regularly in value or by making early
payments against their mortgage that would pay down the principle more
quickly than they would interest.
Neither of those happy developments is happening for many of the
people who we are talking about affected by this bill.
Presently, the law does not permit the United States Department of
Agriculture to issue a loan guarantee or a direct loan in order to
facilitate the refinancing of that mortgage loan. This bill changes
that. It says that the United States Department of Agriculture can step
in and, subject to its guidelines and to the other conditions set forth
by the ranking member, can issue a loan guarantee or, where
appropriate, a direct loan.
What does that mean to the family that I talked about at the outset
of my remarks? Well, it may mean up to about $100 a month in lower
mortgage payments, $100 a month more for health care or for education
or to meet the other demands of the household. This is a sensible,
bipartisan approach to a problem that is affecting a lot of people.
As we heard previously, there are 65,000 borrowers across the country
who are paying interest rates in excess of 9\1/2\ percent, and there
are 9,100 of those borrowers paying interest rates in excess of 13
percent. This is a modest measure that will help those families in a
significant way.
I would like to express my appreciation to the staff on both the
majority and minority side for their cooperation, to the United States
Department
[[Page 18463]]
of Agriculture for their steadfast support of this, to Geoff Plague of
my office for his outstanding work.
Let me again say to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter), and, in his absence, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Lazio), and also the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that I
appreciate their cooperation.
I urge the adoption of the bill.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who has spent so much of his time in this
Congress on the housing issues.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman
Leach) for yielding me this time and for his kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the
Homeowners Financing Protection Act which is being considered under
suspension of the rules.
First this Member would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach), the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio),
the distinguished chairman of the House Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity, for their collective role in bringing this
legislation to the floor today.
In addition, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce), the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), the ranking minority member of the House Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Opportunity, for their efforts on this measure.
{time} 1045
Furthermore, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) deserves
particular attention, commendation and congratulations for introducing
this important legislation. It is important to American homeowners of
modest or average income. The gentleman from New Jersey has just given
us, very specifically, some of the reasons why it is important to the
homeowners and how it affects their pocketbook.
Among other important provisions, this legislation amends section
502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 to allow borrowers of the Rural
Housing Service single-family loans to refinance either an existing
section 502 direct or guaranteed loan to a new section 502 guaranteed
loan, provided the interest rate is at least equal or lower than the
current interest rate being refinanced and the same house is used as
security.
This Member supports the legislation because it facilitates the use
of the RHS section 502 single family loan guarantee program. In fact,
this loan program, which was first authorized with this Member's
initiative, with the strong support of now the chairman of the Banking
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), some
years ago and with the support of the distinguished gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce), has been very effective in nonmetropolitan
communities by guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to low-
moderate to moderate-income households. The program provides a
guarantee for 30-year fixed rate mortgages for the purchase of an
existing home or construction of a new home. It has been very good news
for the taxpayer. Further the program operates with a minimum of red
tape. The examples from my home State of Nebraska, where the program
was slow to start, are illustrative of how popular and how important it
is for low-moderate and moderate-income Americans.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, for the aforementioned reasons and many
others, this Member would encourage support for H.R. 3834 which is
being considered today.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Bereuter). I would again stress what an extraordinary role he has
played in this House on housing matters.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3834, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 3834, the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
____________________
CHANDLER PUMPING PLANT WATER EXCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3986) to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility
of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping
Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3986
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHANDLER PUMPING PLANT AND POWERPLANT OPERATIONS
AT PROSSER DIVERSION DAM, WASHINGTON.
Section 1208 of Public Law 103-434 (108 Stat. 4562) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``or Water
Exchange'' after ``Electrification'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and indenting
appropriately;
(C) by striking ``In order to'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) Electrification.--In order to''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Water exchange alternative.--
``(A) In general.--As an alternative to the measures
authorized under paragraph (1) for electrification, the
Secretary is authorized to use not more than $4,000,000 of
sums appropriated under paragraph (1) to study the
engineering feasibility of exchanging water from the Columbia
River for water historically diverted from the Yakima River.
``(B) Requirements.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the
Secretary, in coordination with the Kennewick Irrigation
District and in consultation with the Bonneville Power
Administration, shall--
``(i) prepare a report that describes project benefits and
contains feasibility level designs and cost estimates;
``(ii) secure the critical right-of-way areas for the
pipeline alignment;
``(iii) prepare an environmental assessment; and
``(iv) conduct such other studies or investigations as are
necessary to develop a water exchange.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or water exchange''
after ``electrification''; and
(B) in the second sentence of paragraph (2)(A), by
inserting ``or the equivalent of the rate'' before the
period;
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``electrification,''
each place it appears and inserting ``electrification or
water exchange''; and
(4) in subsection (d), by striking ``of the two'' and
inserting ``thereof''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
General Leave
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3986.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3986 authorizes a study of the feasibility of
exchanging
[[Page 18464]]
water diverted from the Yakima River for use by two irrigation
districts for water from the Columbia River. The study would be
conducted as part of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.
The legislation will promote salmon recovery in the Yakima River
without reducing the amount of water available to irrigators.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 3986. I thank the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, as Members know, the preservation of salmon in the
Pacific Northwest is one of my top priorities in this Congress. I am
convinced that we can save this national treasure while also preserving
the jobs and quality of life of Pacific Northwest residents. My
legislation is just one example of the benefits that could be attained
for salmon by interested parties working together at the local level.
Very simply, Mr. Speaker, my legislation authorizes a study of the
feasibility of exchanging water diverted from the Yakima River for use
by the Kennewick and Columbia Irrigation Districts for water from the
Columbia River. The study would be conducted as part of the Bureau of
Reclamation's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, a series of
projects authorized by Congress to improve water quality and quantity
in the Yakima River. These two systems currently take their water from
the lower Yakima River where flows have already been decreased because
of upriver diversions. By taking water from the much larger volume of
the Columbia River, the impact on threatened and endangered species
would be significantly reduced.
Specifically, this project provides the opportunity to increase
Yakima River flows at Prosser Dam during critical low flow periods by
up to 750 cubic feet per second. This approach will provide over twice
as much flow augmentation as the previously approved electrification
project and could completely eliminate the Yakima River diversion for
the Kennewick Irrigation District. A new pump station and pressure
pipeline from the Columbia River will be the cornerstone of a more
salmon-friendly Kennewick Irrigation District.
This project is a winner for both fish and water users. It balances
the need to improve habitat for threatened species while protecting
water rights. Preliminary results from a lower reach habitat study
indicate that these increased flows would greatly help salmon and bull
trout. In addition, this proposal would provide substantial water
quality improvements in the Yakima River.
It is important to note that a change in the diversion for the
Kennewick Irrigation District from the Yakima River to the Columbia
River will completely change the current operational philosophy for the
district. It will evolve from a relatively simple gravity system to one
of significant complexity involving a major pump station and pressure
pipeline to the major feeder canals. This remodeling will have a
significant impact on the existing system and its users during
construction, start-up and transition. That is why it is essential for
the Kennewick Irrigation District to be in a position to develop these
facilities in the way that best fits its current and future operational
goals and causes the least disruption to district water users. That is
why this legislation requires the Bureau of Reclamation to give the
Kennewick Irrigation District substantial control over the planning and
design work in this study with the Bureau having the final approval.
This approach will ensure continued involvement and support which is
vital to the success of this project.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that this bill has been going through the
process on both the Republican and Democrat side. When you talk about
water issues in the Pacific Northwest, you tend to polarize people in
different approaches. This bill and what it tries to do is unique in
that it has broad support from virtually everybody involved in water
issues in the Northwest. From the Bureau of Reclamation to the American
Rivers, National Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Yakima Nation,
the Department of Ecology within Washington State, the Northwest Power
Planning Council, the Washington State Water Resources Council, the
Yakima Basin Joint Board of Irrigation. If we put all of these people
together in a room on any other water issues, we would be bound to have
polarization. But on this one because it does have the potential of
augmenting flows in a river that needs more flows and saving salmon, to
me it seems it is the right thing to do.
I urge my colleagues to support this. I want to thank the Committee
on Resources for their work and support in getting this bill out of
committee in a unanimous, bipartisan way.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington I think has properly
explained the legislation and the purposes of the legislation and the
intent with which it is offered before the House. I do not disagree
with that. I, however, will ask Members to vote against this
legislation, especially Members of our caucus. I do so not because of
the content of the bill but because of the manner in which Democratic
Members of the committee and of our caucus have been treated in this
committee in terms of the scheduling of legislation that has been
offered by Democratic Members of the House. Much of that legislation is
essentially noncontroversial but important in those particular
districts, and we continue to have a gross disparity both in the
treatment in the committee and on the floor of the House.
As I have noticed and the leadership has agreed to, we would ask
Members to vote against this legislation until such time as we can get
a fairer treatment of pending legislation as we come to the closing
days of this session. We have asked continuously, we have sent numerous
letters to the chairman asking for hearings on various pieces of
legislation. Those hearings have not been granted. Again many of those
bills are noncontroversial. Then we are told because they do not have
hearings, they cannot come to the floor. Yet we constantly are
considering bills from the other side, without hearings on the floor,
many of which have not even been heard in the committee.
Last week, 18 Republican bills were scheduled and no House bills, one
Senate Democratic bill was scheduled and dealt with. Tomorrow there are
scheduled to be 15 Republican bills and six Democratic bills. It is
very clear that if we continue this, there will be many members of the
Democratic Caucus who have matters pending before the committee and the
House that simply will not be considered before the clock runs out. I
think we can do better. We have done better in past sessions of the
Congress. I would encourage at least the members of our caucus to vote
against the consideration of this and the next bill on the suspension
calendar later today when we have a recorded vote on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I find it interesting that the gentleman from California urges his
Members to vote against a bill which he considers to be a good bill
simply because he disagrees with the procedure and the proportion of
bills that have been presented on the floor from each party. He calls
that a gross disparity. Yesterday, there were five bills considered on
this floor that were Republican bills out of the Committee on Resources
and four bills that were Democratic bills that were considered on this
floor out of the Committee on Resources.
I would point out to the gentleman from California that in this
Congress, we have had more than twice as many Democratic bills on this
floor under the suspension rule as there were the last time his party
controlled this body. More than twice as many. I think that we have
been more than fair with the minority party under the suspension rule
and the number of bills that
[[Page 18465]]
come out. In fact, the gentleman recognizes that tomorrow over a third
of the bills on the agenda in the Committee on Resources are from the
minority party. So while the gentleman raises an issue which is always
of concern to the minority party, and rightfully of concern to the
minority party, I think he makes a fallacy in his argument that we have
not been fair to the minority party. I wish he would reconsider and
look at the merits of the bills rather than the procedures by which
they get here.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Just in quick response, I would say that obviously the number of
suspension bills is greater because this committee really only does
business by suspension and that is obviously their prerogative. I would
also say that I appreciate yesterday's schedule. That was negotiated.
That was negotiated with notice. However, amendments were offered
without notice. Last week it was 16-zip. Obviously we continue to fall
further and further behind. I appreciate it is a third of the bills and
the gentleman is contending that is fair. We represent half of the
Congress, half of the people in the Nation, and we are put in the
position now as this session comes to a close as I said before that
many members of this caucus had bills that were important to them and
their district, not of great controversy, not of great ideological
battle and to date we have not been able to get those matters put
before the House.
I would again urge the members of our caucus to oppose the two bills
offered by the Committee on Resources. This does not go to other
matters on the suspension calendar, because that is the purview of
those committees. But with respect to these two matters from the
Committee on Resources, I would urge a no vote so that we can get
consideration of the members of the caucus's bills that are still
pending.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again I would point out, the gentleman raises an issue which ought to
always be of concern from the minority side of the aisle, whoever is in
the minority. But again I would point out that bills under
consideration by this Congress, 23.4 percent have been Democratic
bills. The last time his party controlled this body, 11.8 percent of
the bills were Republican bills. I think that we have been more than
fair. He said that last week there were 16 bills and none of them were
Democratic. I would remind the Member that one of them was from the
minority leader in the Senate, Senator Daschle. I believe that that is
a member of his party.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman will yield, I said
that that bill had been dealt with, a Senate bill, a Democratic bill.
That does not solve the problem for Members of the House.
{time} 1100
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that these bills
ought to be based on their merits. This is a good bill. The gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) has recognized that this is a good
bill, and we ought to consider it and not vote against it simply
because he does not like the procedure by which the bills have come to
the floor.
Last week we have, as I understand it, in the Committee on Resources
asked the minority party for bills they would like to have put on the
agenda, no bills were proposed from the minority party to put on the
agenda, and, consequently, none were.
As I said earlier, we have five Republican bills tomorrow. A third of
the bills that are on the agenda are Democratic bills, and I am glad
that the gentleman forwarded those to us so we could consider them
tomorrow, and they will be considered in a fair and appropriate manner.
Mr. Speaker, we will not reject them simply because they come from
the minority party. We will look at them on the merits of the bill
itself, so I would urge the Members not to get into this debate of
killing bills simply because they are from one party or the other, but
look at the bills on the merits of the bills.
I do not think the people of this country expect us to get into these
types of partisan debates about whose bill it is. I expect that they
expect us to look at the merits of the legislation and pass them if
they are good bills, and this is a good bill, as admitted by the
gentleman from California.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2
minutes to continue this dialogue.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the speech that the gentleman just gave
with respect to this bill and other bills about being considered on the
merit is the reason we are asking Members to vote against these bills
so that the Democratic Members can have their bills heard on the
merits, marked up on the merits and voted up or down on the merits in
the full House, that has not happened.
The gentleman can go on and on about 23 percent of the bills. The
fact of the matter is we are half of the Congress, and there is a good
number of Democratic bills that are languishing for no other reason
than I guess that they are Democratic bills. I do not know how that
determination is made, but obviously they have not been allowed to be
considered on the merits.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Members would understand that there is
very little else we can do other than to refuse to pass these bills
until we get that kind of consideration to protect the rights of the
minority Members of the House of Representatives, and I think it is
important that we do that.
I think those Members were elected by the same number of people that
others were elected by and their bills ought to be considered on the
merit. Again, these are not great controversial bills. These are bills
that are important to local districts, just as the ones before us today
are, but they have not been accorded the same rights and privileges
and, therefore, I would ask the members of the caucus and others, if
they would like, to join us to vote against these two bills from the
Committee on Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased to listen to the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and his change of heart
from being 6 years in the minority, because it did not appear this way
when he was in the majority, as I mentioned earlier, and I will
continue to mention, that more than twice as many bills of the minority
have come up under this Congress than came up the last time his body
controlled the House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I find this argument rather interesting, and I
understand inside-the-Beltway politics, as far as getting your time on
the floor, but on this bill particularly, I just want to make a point
to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller),
because I know that he worked very hard on the original bill when it
passed back in 1993 and 1994, and in my time in this Congress, I have
heard the gentleman from California say it once and I probably dare to
say I heard him say it a million times that we need to save the salmon,
we cannot wait, we have to do it, time is of the essence on all of
these issues.
Mr. Speaker, here we have a situation where we clearly have a
potential answer, and the remark I would say is that I do not think the
salmon really care about inside-the-Beltway politics, but I do know
that this issue has to be dealt with, and this is a proper way to deal
with it.
So notwithstanding the request on the other side, I would urge my
colleagues to support this bill, because on its merits, from the
standpoint of the environment, from the standpoint of saving fish, from
the standpoint of expanding water quality, this meets to
[[Page 18466]]
the ``T'' with strong bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this is a good piece of
legislation, and I think both sides recognize that this is a good piece
of legislation. We can wrap all the rhetoric around this that we would
like, we need to pass this bill and do what we can to help save the
salmon. I hope the Members will support this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3986, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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.
____________________
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING NEED FOR CATALOGING AND MAINTAINING PUBLIC
MEMORIALS COMMEMORATING MILITARY CONFLICTS AND SERVICE OF INDIVIDUALS
IN ARMED FORCES
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 345) expressing the sense of the
Congress regarding the need for cataloging and maintaining public
memorials commemorating military conflicts of the United States and the
service of individuals in the Armed Forces.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 345
Whereas there are many thousands of public memorials
scattered throughout the United States and abroad that
commemorate military conflicts of the United States and the
service of individuals in the Armed Forces;
Whereas these memorials have never been comprehensively
cataloged;
Whereas many of these memorials suffer from neglect and
disrepair, and many have been relocated or stored in
facilities where they are unavailable to the public and
subject to further neglect and damage;
Whereas there exists a need to collect and centralize
information regarding the location, status, and description
of these memorials;
Whereas the Federal Government maintains information on
memorials only if they are Federally funded; and
Whereas Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their Stripes (a
nonprofit corporation established as RVETS, Inc. under the
laws of the State of Nevada) has undertaken a self-funded
program to catalogue the memorials located in the United
States that commemorate military conflicts of the United
States and the service of individuals in the Armed Forces,
and has already obtained information on more than 7,000
memorials in 50 States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the people of the United States owe a debt of gratitude
to veterans for their sacrifices in defending the Nation
during times of war and peace;
(2) public memorials that commemorate military conflicts of
the United States and the service of individuals in the Armed
Forces should be maintained in good condition, so that future
generations may know of the burdens borne by these
individuals;
(3) Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for the
construction and maintenance of these memorials should
cooperate in cataloging these memorials and providing the
resulting information to the Department of the Interior; and
(4) the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the National Park Service, should--
(A) collect and maintain information on public memorials
that commemorate military conflicts of the United States and
the service of individuals in the Armed Forces;
(B) coordinate efforts at collecting and maintaining this
information with similar efforts by other entities, such as
Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their Stripes (a nonprofit
corporation established as RVETS, Inc. under the laws of the
State of Nevada); and
(C) make this information available to the public.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H. Con. Res. 345 introduced by the gentleman rom California (Mr.
Rogan) addresses the need for a cataloged list of the many different
public war memorials of the United States. Thousands of public
memorials dealing with the United States' involvement in military
conflicts exist throughout the world. However, there is no index or
record as to their location nor is there a cataloged assessment as to
their condition.
Unfortunately, many of these memorials suffer from neglect, disrepair
or have been relocated or stored in facilities where they are not
accessible to the public.
Currently, the Federal Government only keeps track of those memorials
that are federally funded; however, nonprofit organizations such as
Remembering Veterans Who Earned Their Stripes have undertaken self-
funded programs in an attempt to catalog these memorials.
H. Con. Res. 345 urges the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the National Park Service, to collect and maintain information on
public memorials commemorating military conflicts of the United States.
The resolution also urges a coordinated effort between the Federal
Government and other organizations like Remembering Veterans Who Earned
Their Stripes and collecting and maintaining this information which
would then be available to the public.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is ready to move forward, and I urge my
colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 345.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), a Member who is the author of
this legislation.
Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my dear friend, the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished chairman, for
yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 345, which addresses
the need to create a cataloged list of the thousands of public war
memorials in the United States. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the
product of over a decade-long effort by Vietnam War veteran Brian
Rooney and the nonprofit organization he founded, Remembering Veterans
Who Earned Their Stripes, otherwise known as RVETS based in North
Ridge, California.
Mr. Rooney believed that war memorials preserve the memories of our
veteran's sacrifices and serve as a reminder of America's history. He
discovered that today there is no detailed index or record of the
thousands of public memorials dedicated to America's involvement in
military conflicts, more importantly, dedicated to those who gave their
lives for freedom.
Mr. Rooney investigated conditions for years. He found that these
memorials suffer from neglect, disrepair and have been relocated or
stored in facilities where they are not accessible to the public.
Currently, the Federal Government monitors only those memorials that
are federally funded. We have relied on the hard work of individuals
like Mr. Rooney who have conducted this arduous task.
H. Con. Res. 345 urges the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the National Park Service, to collect and maintain information on
public memorials commemorating military conflicts of the United States.
It urges a coordinated effort between the Federal Government and
other entities like RVETS in collecting and maintaining this
information which would then be made available to the public. RVETS
already has cataloged over 7,000 monuments. They already have done most
of the work needed to establish the database.
[[Page 18467]]
H. Con. Res. 345 is a bipartisan effort to honor our veterans. I want
to thank Brian Rooney for his dedication not just to the country as a
Vietnam war veteran, but for the decade he has spent conducting this
search so that veterans could be honored.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this morning there has been some
partisan bickering going on with respect to some of these resolutions,
but I would just urge all of my colleagues to put that aside today so
that we can appropriately honor veterans who have served our country
and who have given their life and service for our country, and vote to
support this bipartisan resolution.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.
Con. Res. 345, and I urge its adoption by the House, and I commend the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rogan) for helping to bring this matter to the floor at this time.
This legislation which urges the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Park Service, to gather and maintain information on public
memorials commemorating U.S. military conflicts and to make that
information available to the public, which will be very useful to the
entire nation. It further urges that the Federal Government cooperate
with private entities in accomplishing that important goal.
Mr. Speaker, there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of
memorials and monuments dedicated to our fighting men and women of our
Nation's military. These include monuments commissioned and dedicated
by the Federal Government, State governments and various localities.
Over time, their number has grown to the point where it has become
difficult to keep track of all of the monuments that are now in
existence.
This legislation will help simplify matters by requesting the
Interior Department to initiate action to collect and disseminate
information, a step they have undertaken on all of these monuments. The
end result will be helpful to both tourists and researchers alike, but
particularly to all of our veterans organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to lend this bill their full
support, and I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 345.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CONCERNING THE EMANCIPATION OF IRANIAN BAHA'I COMMUNITY
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 257) concerning the emancipation of
the Iranian Baha'i community.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Con. Res. 257
Whereas in 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996,
Congress, by concurrent resolution, declared that it holds
the Government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights
of all its nationals, including members of the Baha'i Faith,
Iran's largest religious minority;
Whereas Congress has deplored the Government of Iran's
religious persecution of the Baha'i community in such
resolutions and in numerous other appeals, and has condemned
Iran's execution of more than 200 Baha'is and the
imprisonment of thousands of others solely on account of
their religious beliefs;
Whereas in July 1998 a Baha'i, Mr. Ruhollah Rowhani, was
executed by hanging in Mashhad after being held in solitary
confinement for 9 months on the charge of converting a Muslim
woman to the Baha'i Faith, a charge the woman herself
refuted;
Whereas 2 Baha'is remain on death row in Iran, 2 on charges
on apostasy, and 10 others are serving prison terms on
charges arising solely from their religious beliefs or
activities;
Whereas the Government of Iran continues to deny individual
Baha'is access to higher education and government employment
and denies recognition and religious rights to the Baha'i
community, according to the policy set forth in a
confidential Iranian Government document which was revealed
by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1993;
Whereas Baha'is have been banned from teaching and studying
at Iranian universities since the Islamic Revolution and
therefore created the Baha'i Institute of Higher Education,
or Baha'i Open University, to provide educational
opportunities to Baha'i youth using volunteer faculty and a
network of classrooms, libraries, and laboratories in private
homes and buildings throughout Iran;
Whereas in September and October 1998, Iranian authorities
arrested 36 faculty members of the Open University, 4 of whom
have been given prison sentences ranging between 3 to 10
years, even though the law makes no mention of religious
instruction within one's own religious community as being an
illegal activity;
Whereas Iranian intelligence officers looted classroom
equipment, textbooks, computers, and other personal property
from 532 Baha'i homes in an attempt to close down the Open
University;
Whereas all Baha'i community properties in Iran have been
confiscated by the government, and Iranian Baha'is are not
permitted to elect their leaders, organize as a community,
operate religious schools, or conduct other religious
community activities guaranteed by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights;
Whereas on February 22, 1993, the United Nations Commission
on Human Rights published a formerly confidential Iranian
government document that constitutes a blueprint for the
destruction of the Baha'i community and reveals that these
repressive actions are the result of a deliberate policy
designed and approved by the highest officials of the
Government of Iran; and
Whereas in 1998 the United Nations Special Representative
for Human Rights, Maurice Copithorne, was denied entry into
Iran: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) continues to hold the Government of Iran responsible
for upholding the rights of all its nationals, including
members of the Baha'i community, in a manner consistent with
Iran's obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and other international agreements guaranteeing the
civil and political rights of its citizens;
(2) condemns the repressive anti-Baha'i policies and
actions of the Government of Iran, including the denial of
legal recognition to the Baha'i community and the basic
rights to organize, elect its leaders, educate its youth, and
conduct the normal activities of a law-abiding religious
community;
(3) expresses concern that individual Baha'is continue to
suffer from severely repressive and discriminatory government
actions, including executions and death sentences, solely on
account of their religion;
(4) urges the Government of Iran to permit Baha'i students
to attend Iranian universities and Baha'i faculty to teach at
Iranian universities, to return the property confiscated from
the Baha'i Open University, to free the imprisoned faculty
members of the Open University, and to permit the Open
University to continue to function;
(5) urges the Government of Iran to implement fully the
conclusions and recommendations on the emancipation of the
Iranian Baha'i community made by the United Nations Special
Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance, Professor Abdelfattah
Amor, in his report of March 1996 to the United Nations
Commission of Human Rights;
(6) urges the Government of Iran to extend to the Baha'i
community the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the international covenants of human
rights, including the freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion, and equal protection of the law; and
(7) calls upon the President to continue--
(A) to assert the United States Government's concern
regarding Iran's violations of the rights of its citizens,
including members of the Baha'i community, along with
expressions of its concern regarding the Iranian Government's
support for international terrorism and its efforts to
acquire weapons of mass destruction;
(B) to emphasize that the United States regards the human
rights practices of the Government of Iran, particularly its
treatment of the Baha'i community and other religious
minorities, as a significant factor in the development of the
United States Government's relations with the Government of
Iran;
(C) to emphasize the need for the United Nations Special
Representative for Human Rights to be granted permission to
enter Iran;
[[Page 18468]]
(D) to urge the Government of Iran to emancipate the Baha'i
community by granting those rights guaranteed by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international
covenants on human rights; and
(E) to encourage other governments to continue to appeal to
the Government of Iran, and to cooperate with other
governments and international organizations, including the
United Nations and its agencies, in efforts to protect the
religious rights of the Baha'is and other minorities through
joint appeals to the Government of Iran and through other
appropriate actions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) 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 H. Con. Res. 257.
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, today we are considering a resolution to call once again
for the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i community.
{time} 1115
We have passed similar resolutions seven times since 1982, yet the
Baha'is in that country continue to be deprived of their basic rights
by their government, by the Iranian government. Despite the fact that
they are committed to nonviolence, tolerance and loyalty to government,
the Baha'is continue to suffer deprivations and harassment from the
fanatical elements of Iranian society, ranging from local clergy and
their uneducated followers to highly placed government officials.
Eleven Baha'is continue to languish in Iranian prisons; arrested, tried
and sentenced as a result of their personal religious beliefs and
peaceful religious activity.
Baha'i religious gatherings and administrative institutions were
banned in 1983. A 1991 government document calls for the continued
obstruction of the economic and social development of the Baha'i
community. The Iranian constitution recognizes only four religions:
Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism; and official rhetoric
continues to name those as the only religions whose members may enjoy
full rights.
Baha'is continue to be denied government employment, denied
university employment, denied legitimately earned pensions, denied
admission to Iranian universities, denied access to the legal system,
denied access to decent places to bury their dead, and a host of other
civil liberties that we in our Nation have come to take for granted as
basic elements of a free and just society.
The election of President Khatami in Iran and the subsequent
relaxation of the clerical dictatorship have brought hope that the rule
of law will eventually prevail in that nation, and that full rights
will be granted to all of its citizens, including the Baha'is. We have
seen some improvement in the treatment of individual Baha'is. In the
last 2 years, Baha'is have been granted passports for travel abroad
more frequently and some have been granted business licenses again. A
significant concession to the Baha'is was a recent modification of the
rules of registration of marriages that now omits references to
religion, allowing Baha'is to register marriages and legitimize their
children for the first time in many years.
Those steps are significant and they should be acknowledged as signs
of promise for full emancipation to come in the future. Yet those
actions have been taken silently and come far short of granting Baha'is
the recognition under the constitution, the Iranian constitution, that
would improve their situation and protect them from fanaticism.
We look to President Khatami to stand behind his promise of Iran for
all Iranians and to take steps to extend the protection of his
constitution to the Baha'is by granting those rights guaranteed by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants
on Human Rights. We cannot remain silent when a community of 300,000
people continues to suffer the effects of persecution and deprivation
while their government proclaims its support of human rights for all.
The passage of this resolution will voice once again that the United
States finds the situation of the Baha'is in Iran intolerable and will
not rest until that community wins full and complete emancipation.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H. Con.
Res. 257.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Mr.
Speaker, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) for introducing this resolution and thank thegentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) for moving it through the legislative process.
This important resolution concerns the continued persecution of the
Baha'i community in Iran.
The resolution states that the Congress continues to hold the
government of Iran responsible for upholding the rights of all its
nationals, including members of the Baha'i community.
The resolution also condemns the repressive anti-Baha'i policies and
actions of the government of Iran. These policies include, first, the
denial of legal recognition of the Baha'i community; preventing the
community from organizing and electing its leaders; stopping the
education of Baha'i youth; and stopping the Baha'is from conducting the
normal activities of a law-abiding religious community.
The Porter resolution also urges the government of Iran to permit
Baha'i students to attend Iranian universities and to permit the Baha'i
Open University to reopen.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls on President Clinton to
continue to make Iran's treatment of the Baha'i community a significant
factor in the development of U.S. relations with Iran; to emphasize the
need for the U.N. Special Representative for Human Rights to be allowed
to enter Iran, and to urge the government of Iran to emancipate the
Baha'i community; and finally, to encourage other governments to appeal
to Iran to protect the rights of Baha'is.
Mr. Speaker, the Baha'is in Iran have been persecuted far too long.
Congress has gone on record since the early 1980s against harsh Iranian
treatment of the Baha'is, and it is important that we do so again.
Iran's leaders must understand that their anti-Baha'i policies are
being closely watched by the international community. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 257.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin
Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.
Con. Res. 257, concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i
community. Mr. Speaker, the Baha'i faith is the most recent world
religion. Its founder, a Persian nobleman, declared his mission in
1863, proclaiming he was the promised one of all religions who would
usher in a new age of peace for all mankind. Among Bahaullah's most
fundamental teachings are oneness of God, oneness of the foundation of
all religions, oneness of mankind and all peoples are equal in the
sight of God.
The Baha'i faith was established in my district, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, in 1954, with the settlement of pioneers on St. Thomas. The
first local spiritual assembly of the Baha'i of St. Thomas was
incorporated in 1965. The Baha'i of the Virgin Islands have been and
are active in, among other things, providing education and enrichment
programs for young children and adults, working with the Interfaith
Coalitions on St. Thomas and St. Croix, as well as assisting in
hurricane recovery efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the Baha'i community of the Virgin Islands strongly
supports House Concurrent Resolution 257 because it would condemn the
repressive
[[Page 18469]]
anti-Baha'i policies and actions of the government of Iran, and
expresses concern that individual Baha'i continue to suffer from
severely repressive and discriminatory government actions, including
executions and death sentences, solely on account of their religion.
I thank my colleagues for supporting this important resolution.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support H. Con. Res. 257,
concerning the emancipation of the Iranian Baha'i community.
Thousands of human rights abuses take place around the world on a
daily basis. Almost all go unnoticed by the U.S. media. The Baha'is of
Iran are one such group.
Many in Congress have worked closely with the National Spiritual
Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States to bring attention to this
situation. The Baha'i faith was founded in what was Persia in the
1840's and has grown to the largest religious minority in Iran. In the
United States today, there are approximately 300,000 Baha'is. More than
90 percent are native born, and many of the remainder are refugees from
Iran who have fled persecution.
One of these refugees is Firuz Kazemzadeh, who for over 30 years was
the elected leader of the Baha'is in the United States, until he
stepped down 2 years ago. Dr. Kazemzadeh immigrated to the United
States from Iran in the 1950's and became a professor of history at
Yale University. He has devoted a great deal of his time and efforts to
improving the condition of his fellow Baha'is in Iran. He has quietly,
in his way, been a tremendously effective fighter for his fellow
Baha'is and has clearly saved many Bahai lives and much Bahai
suffering. I would like to specifically commend Dr. Kazemzadeh for his
decades of work helping the Baha'is.
Baha'is have suffered persecution since their religion was founded,
but the situation gravely worsened in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic
Revolution. Many of the leaders of the Baha'i community were jailed at
that time and many were executed solely for their religious beliefs.
The fact the Baha'i community has survived in Iran over the past 20
years is a testament to the Baha'i people and their commitment to their
faith.
This adverse situation for the Baha'i community could be completely
reversed by the Iranian Government at any time. The repression of the
Baha'is is spearheaded by the religious government of Iran in the form
of laws and regulations that explicitly deny Baha'i basic rights
accorded to other citizens of Iran, including other religious
minorities. Religious intolerance has caused the world's people untold
suffering and its presence is felt across the entire world. But in Iran
it is institutionalized and written in law. And it is not only
discrimination. In Iran it can mean torture, imprisonment, and death.
H. Con. Res. 157, similar to ones passed in previous sessions of
Congress, calls on the Government of Iran to emancipate the Baha'is and
afford to them in practice rights which should be inalienable to any
human being which they are being denied. Before this administration
speaks about opening relations with Iran and the positive reforms which
are supposed to be taking place in that country, the Baha'is must be
granted the same rights and privileges as all other Iranian citizens.
I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his dedication
to human rights and to the Baha'is and to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New Jersey (Chris Smith) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for again playing a leading role in
bringing this resolution to the floor. Each of them have been dedicated
leaders for the basic human rights of every person on earth. One of the
real privileges and honors of being a Member of this body has been to
serve side by side and work for human rights with these outstanding
leaders. I urge Members to support this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, the repression of the Baha'i community in
Iran is one of the most egregious ongoing violations of human rights,
and I am very pleased that we are calling attention to it today. I
first want to commend the gentleman from New York, the Chairman of the
International Relations Committee, (Mr. Gilman) for his bringing this
important resolution to the floor today.
I also want to thank particularly the sponsor of the bill, my good
friend and colleagues from Illinois, Mr. Porter. I have had the very
good fortune over the past 20 years of working very closely with John
Porter on a vast number of human rights issues, and I commend him for
his outstanding dedication to human rights. He has unwaveringly worked
to alleviate the suffering of people around the world, and thanks to
his efforts we can honestly say that the world today is a better place.
Mr. Speaker, one of the human rights issues that John Porter has
championed since the day he was elected to the Congress is the
situation of the Baha'is in Iran. The Baha'i has suffered greatly since
Iran's Revolution in 1979. The constitution created by the Ayatollahs
establishes Islam as the state religion of Iran. It also recognizes
Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians--religions that flourished in Persia
before Islam--as ``protected religious minorities'' which are afforded
legal rights. Iran's 350,000 Baha'i however, are not afforded these
protections, and they enjoy no legal rights whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, this blatant, officially sanctioned discriminations has
far-reaching and inhuman consequences. until recently, Baha'i marriages
have not been recognized in Iran. As a consequence, no Baha'i couple
married according to their own religious rites since 1980 are legally
married in the eyes of the Iranian government. The women have been
liable to charges of prostitution and Baha'i children are considered
illegitimate. It is not legal for property to be passed within Baha'i
families. Baha'is cannot enroll in universities. Baha'is cannot hold
government jobs, and those that once did are denied state pensions.
Baha'is cannot sue in the country's court, and they are not legally
recognized to defend themselves even if they are sued. Baha'is
generally cannot receive Iranian passports, which note the holder's
religion. Baha'is are denied the right to assembly or to maintain
administrative institutions. Since the Baha'i faith has no clergy, the
inability to meet and elect officers threaten the very existence of the
faithin Iran. Baha'is cannot teach or practice their faith or maintain
contacts with their coreligionists abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on listing the abuses and atrocities to which
the Baha'i in Iran are subjected, but these obvious violations of the
most basic of human rights are a clear indication of the magnitude of
the abuses that Baha'is in Iran face daily. I strongly support this
resolution, which highlights these abuses and calls on the Government
of Iran to emancipate the Baha'i community. I urge my colleagues to
support this resolution, and I call on the Government of Iran to
recognize the rights of Baha'is and afford them the rights by other
Iranian citizens.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). 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 concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
257.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RWANDAN WAR CRIMES WITNESS REWARD PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 2460) to authorize the payment of rewards to
individuals furnishing information relating to persons subject to
indictment for serious violations of international humanitarian law in
Rwanda, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2460
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF REWARDS PROGRAM TO INCLUDE RWANDA.
Section 102 of the Act of October 30, 1998 (Public Law 105-
323) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by inserting ``or rwanda''
after ``yugoslavia'';
(2) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting ``OR THE
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA'' after
``YUGOSLAVIA''; and
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``Reference.--
''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) For the purposes of subsection (a), the statute of
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda means the
statute contained in the annex to Security Council Resolution
955 of November 8, 1994.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard) 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
[[Page 18470]]
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on S. 2460.
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, on April 6, 1994, a massive genocide began in Rwanda.
There was no mention of Rwanda in any of our papers on that day, but
soon horrific accounts of a bloody and well-planned massacre filled the
pages of our newspapers. A month later, 200,000 were dead and more were
being killed each and every day, but White House spokesmen still
quibbled with reporters about the definition of genocide.
Too many of the masterminds of that ugly chapter in human history are
still at large. An international criminal tribunal for Rwanda exists,
but it has failed to bring to justice all of the leaders. Rwanda needs
reconciliation, but without accountability there will be no
reconciliation.
Congress extended the rewards program to those providing information
leading to the indictment of Yugoslavian war criminals 2 years ago. It
is now time to place a generous bounty in U.S. dollars on the heads of
all who seek power through extermination. The killers have fled to
Paris, to Brussels, to Kinshasa and else where. With the passage of
this measure, their havens will be less safe and their sleep will be
less easy.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker I rise in strong support of this bill. First of all, let
me commend the chairman in moving this bill through the Committee on
International Relations and bringing it to the floor today. Rwanda is
one of the great humanitarian disasters of this century. An estimated
800,000 people were slaughtered there earlier this decade, and only
because of their ethnic identity. Expanding the State Department's
reward program to persons having information leading to the conviction
of persons responsible for the atrocities in Rwanda will enhance the
prospect for justice for the victims.
I commend Senator Feingold for moving this bill forward in the other
body, and I urge my colleagues to support Senate bill 2460.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama (Mr.
Hilliard) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman and my colleague for
rising to introduce this bill, S. 2460, which would authorize the
payments of rewards to individuals furnishing information relating to
persons subject to indictment for serious violations of international
humanitarian law in Rwanda. I commend them both for presenting that
bill today.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. 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 New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 2460.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SUPPORT FOR OVERSEAS COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT ACT
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4673) to assist in the enhancement of the development and
expansion of international economic assistance programs that utilize
cooperatives and credit unions, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4673
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 ``Support for Overseas
Cooperative Development Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the mutual economic interest of the United
States and peoples in developing and transitional countries
to promote cooperatives and credit unions.
(2) Self-help institutions, including cooperatives and
credit unions, provide enhanced opportunities for people to
participate directly in democratic decision-making for their
economic and social benefit through ownership and control of
business enterprises and through the mobilization of local
capital and savings and such organizations should be fully
utilized in fostering free market principles and the adoption
of self-help approaches to development.
(3) The United States seeks to encourage broad-based
economic and social development by creating and supporting--
(A) agricultural cooperatives that provide a means to lift
low income farmers and rural people out of poverty and to
better integrate them into national economies;
(B) credit union networks that serve people of limited
means through safe savings and by extending credit to
families and microenterprises;
(C) electric and telephone cooperatives that provide rural
customers with power and telecommunications services
essential to economic development;
(D) housing and community-based cooperatives that provide
low income shelter and work opportunities for the urban poor;
and
(E) mutual and cooperative insurance companies that provide
risk protection for life and property to under-served
populations often through group policies.
SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(a) Declarations of Policy.--The Congress supports the
development and expansion of economic assistance programs
that fully utilize cooperatives and credit unions,
particularly those programs committed to--
(1) international cooperative principles, democratic
governance and involvement of women and ethnic minorities for
economic and social development;
(2) self-help mobilization of member savings and equity,
retention of profits in the community, except those programs
that are dependent on donor financing;
(3) market-oriented and value-added activities with the
potential to reach large numbers of low income people and
help them enter into the mainstream economy;
(4) strengthening the participation of rural and urban poor
to contribute to their country's economic development; and
(5) utilization of technical assistance and training to
better serve the member-owners.
(b) Development Priorities.--Section 111 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``In meeting the requirement of the
preceding sentence, specific priority shall be given to the
following:
``(1) Agriculture.--Technical assistance to low income
farmers who form and develop member-owned cooperatives for
farm supplies, marketing and value-added processing.
``(2) Financial systems.--The promotion of national credit
union systems through credit union-to-credit union technical
assistance that strengthens the ability of low income people
and micro-entrepreneurs to save and to have access to credit
for their own economic advancement.
``(3) Infrastructure.--The establishment of rural electric
and telecommunication cooperatives for universal access for
rural people and villages that lack reliable electric and
telecommunications services.
``(4) Housing and community services.--The promotion of
community-based cooperatives which provide employment
opportunities and important services such as health clinics,
self-help shelter, environmental improvements, group-owned
businesses, and other activities.''.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the United States Agency for
International Development, in consultation with the heads of
other appropriate agencies, shall prepare and submit to
Congress a report on the implementation of section 111 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151i), as amended
by section 3 of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Hilliard)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
General Leave
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 4673.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nebraska?
[[Page 18471]]
There was no objection.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in support of H.R. 4673, the Support
for Overseas Cooperative Development Act. This Member introduced H.R.
4673, along with the distinguished Member from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy), to recognize the importance of and the strengthened support
for cooperatives as an international development tool.
This Member would also like to thank the distinguished gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the Committee on
International Relations; the distinguished gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Asia and the
Pacific; the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English);
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor); and the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Burr), for their cosponsorship of this measure.
{time} 1130
Indeed, this measure is a bipartisan effort and it certainly enjoys
bipartisan interest and support.
Finally and very importantly, this Member wants to thank the chairman
of the Committee on International Relations, the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), for cooperating in the
advancements of H.R. 4673 through the committee and for his support.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation enhances language currently provided in
Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act which authorizes the use of
cooperatives in international development programs.
Specifically, this bill will give priority to funding overseas
cooperatives working in the following areas: agriculture, financial
systems, rural electric and telecommunications infrastructure, housing,
and health. Importantly, H.R. 4673 does not provide for additional
appropriations. While the administration does not routinely take
positions on such matters, the Agency for International Development has
not raised any objections to H.R. 4673 and I believe it is quite
supportive and sympathetic.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, cooperatives are voluntary organizations
formed to share the mutual economic and self-help interests of their
members. In the United States, cooperatives have existed, of course,
for many years and in many forms, including agriculturally based
cooperatives, electrical cooperatives, and credit unions. The common
thread among all cooperatives is that they allow their members who, for
a variety of reasons, might not otherwise be served by traditional
institutions, to mobilize resources available to them, and to reap the
benefits of association.
Since the 1960s, overseas cooperative projects have proven successful
in providing assistance and compassionate assistance, I might
emphasize, to low-income people in developing and transitional
countries. Today, people in 60 countries are benefiting from U.S.
cooperatives working abroad through projects which can be completed at
very little cost to U.S. taxpayers. The low costs are possible because
the money used for the projects is spent on technical and managerial
expertise, not on extensive bureaucracy and direct foreign assistance
payments.
Mr. Speaker, the benefits of cooperatives as a development tool are
numerous. This Member would like to mention examples of democratic and
economic results from the fostering of cooperatives working overseas.
Building economic infrastructure is a key role of overseas
development cooperatives. Through representatives from the U.S.
cooperatives, people who have traditionally been underserved in their
countries, especially in rural areas and especially women, receive
technical training never before available to them. Such training in
accounting, marketing, entrepreneurialship and strategic planning
prepares them to effectively compete for the first time in their
country's economy.
For example, agricultural cooperatives in El Salvador helped to
rebuild the once war-ravaged country by providing a venue for farmers
to pool their scarce resources and scarce experience in capitalism so
that they can market and sell the fruits and vegetables they grow.
In rural Macedonia, a small country whose neighbors are immersed in
ethnic conflict, credit unions provide their members a way to build
lines of credit and savings for the future.
In rural Bangladesh during the early 1990s, cooperative members
bought equipment for an electrification project which now supplies 5
million people with electrical power. Cooperatives lay the foundation
then for future economic stability.
Mr. Speaker, when reviewing the impact of overseas cooperatives, one
simply cannot ignore the impact they have had in assisting people in
transitional countries to build democratic habits and traditions. In
supporting cooperatives, people who have had no previous experience
with democracy create an opportunity to routinely vote for leadership,
to set goals, to write policies and to implement those policies.
Cooperative members learn to expect results from their decisions and
that their decisions can and do, in fact, have an impact on their
lives.
In conclusion, this Member would like to thank the Overseas
Cooperative Development Council, the OCDC, for its contributions to
this measure. The OCDC represents eight cooperative development
organizations which have been very active in building cooperatives
worldwide. The Credit Union National Association, CUNA, has been very
supportive of this legislation and, as a member of the World Council on
Credit Unions, has contributed technical assistance to aid the growth
of credit unions in key transitional countries such as the former
Yugoslav, Republic of Macedonia and Bolivia.
Again, Mr. Speaker, overseas cooperative projects are simply a good
investment towards building good economic stability and democratic
habits in developing countries, and this Member urges his colleagues in
this body to support H.R. 4673.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I would first
like to commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Bereuter), the
subcommittee chairman, for introducing this important piece of
legislation, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman
of the committee, for moving it through the legislative process so
quickly.
Mr. Speaker, credit unions and cooperatives give people more
opportunity to help themselves. By promoting business enterprises and
financial institutions which operate through a democratic
decisionmaking process, the Congress can play a critical role in
encouraging broad-based economic and social development, both at home
and abroad.
The legislation before the House today will ensure that our foreign
aid money adequately promotes credit unions and cooperatives overseas.
The legislation states that priority must be given first to technical
assistance to local-income farmers who farm, who form and develop
cooperatives for farm supplies, marketing and value-added processing;
the promotion of national credit union systems that strengthen the
ability of low-income people and small businesses to have access to
credit. It also establishes a rural electric and telecommunications
cooperative for universal access for rural people and villages; and,
finally, the promotion of community-based cooperatives which provide
employment opportunities and other important services.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the legislation requires the Agency for
International Development to report to Congress every 6 months on the
implementation of this important program.
Mr. Speaker, cooperatives and credit unions allow communities to pool
their financial resources, spread risk, and keep money in local
circulation for the economic well-being of the constituency and
localities they serve. This legislation, by promoting cooperatives
[[Page 18472]]
and credit unions overseas, will ensure that Americans get the most
bang for their buck in foreign aid money.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4673.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I want to again express my
appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy) for his outstanding cooperation, his assistance, and for being
a full partner in drafting this legislation. I appreciate his effort.
With that said, I urge support of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4673, a bill introduced by our
Committee Members, Mr. Bereuter, the gentleman from Nebraska, and
cosponsored by Mr. Pomeroy, the gentleman from North Dakota, would
serve to enhance and expand international economic assistance programs
that utilize cooperatives and credit unions. This bill encourages the
formation of credit unions and grassroots financial institutions as a
way to promote democratic decision-making while concurrently fostering
free market principles and self-help approaches to development in some
of the world's poorest and neediest countries.
The bill's purpose is multi-faceted. It encourages the creation of
agricultural and urban cooperatives in the electrical,
telecommunications, and housing fields as well as the establishment of
base-level credit unions. By doing so, the bill also promotes the
adoption of international cooperative principles and practices in our
foreign assistance programs and encourages the incorporation of market-
oriented principles into these programs. By ensuring that small
businessmen and women as well as small-scale farmers have access to
credit, and also a stake in their own financial institutions, the
United States will foster the key values of self-reliance, community
participation, and democratic decision-making in programs that directly
affect their lives.
The bill amends Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
the section of the Act that concerns the development and promotion of
cooperatives, by adding specific language that promotes agricultural
cooperatives, the establishment of credit unions and financial systems,
and the creation of rural electric and telecommunications and housing
cooperatives. The bill lists these increasingly critical areas of
development as priorities for foreign assistance programs and requires
the Administrator of the Agency for International Development to
prepare and submit a report to the Congress on the implementation of
Section 111 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 as amended.
I commend my colleagues for drafting this bill that also strengthens
the intent and spirit of H.R. 1143, the Microenterprise for Self-
Reliance Act of 1999 that the International Relations Committee
reported and the House passed last year. Although strides have been
made to increase access to credit for those who need it most, it is
clear to me that much more needs to be done to enhance micro credit
institutions and credit unions as well as agricultural cooperatives in
the developing world to ensure that sound fiscal practices are applied
in both rural and urban areas of the world's poorest countries.
I commend the bill's sponsors for their efforts to promote the
formation of more and better managed cooperatives as well as the
establishment of credit unions that are managed by the poor themselves
to address agricultural, housing, and health care needs.
Accordingly, I urge passage of this worthy measure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4673.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG POST OFFICE AND COURTHOUSE
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4975) to designate the post office and courthouse
located at 2 Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey, as the ``Frank R.
Lautenberg Post Office and Courthouse''.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4975
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF FRANK R. LAUTENBERG POST OFFICE AND
COURTHOUSE.
The post office and courthouse located at 2 Federal Square,
Newark, New Jersey, shall be known and designated as the
``Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office and Courthouse''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,
or other record of the United States to the post office and
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a
reference to the Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office and
Courthouse.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
General Leave
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 4975.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 4975, was introduced by our
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo)
and was originally cosponsored by all members of the House delegation
of the State of New Jersey on July 26, this year. This legislation
designates the Post Office and courthouse located at 2 Federal Square
in Newark, New Jersey as the Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office and
Courthouse.
This legislation was referred to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. The committee then discharged the
bill and it was subsequently rereferred to the House Committee on
Government Reform. The building located at 2 Federal Square in Newark,
New Jersey is wholly owned by the United States Postal Service.
The Senator from New Jersey after whom the building will be named
under this legislation was born in Paterson, New Jersey in 1924, the
son of an immigrant silk mill worker. He graduated from Nutley High
School in Nutley, New Jersey in 1941 and served with distinction in the
United States Army Signal Corps from 1942 until 1946. Mr. Lautenberg
received his B.S. degree from Columbia University School of Business in
New York in 1949. He served as commissioner of the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey from 1978 to 1982 for a 6-year term. He was
subsequently appointed by the governor to complete the unexpired term
of Senator Brady and was reelected in 1988 and 1994 for the term ending
January 3, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to name a postal
facility in Newark, New Jersey after our colleague in the other House,
Senator Lautenberg.
I want to just reference his work in the United States Senate since
1982 on a whole range of items, but I want to particularly point out
and commend to all of my colleagues his work in the area of education,
his sponsorship of the $1,500 HOPE scholarship credit, and his support
for the largest increase in Pell grant assistance in the history of the
Pell grant program. He has been a strong supporter of environmental
legislation and other very important pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is entirely appropriate to join my colleague
from the great State of Georgia in commending to the House this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding to me, and I rise in very strong support of this legislation.
Senator Lautenberg has been a great ally and friend to the citizens
of
[[Page 18473]]
New Jersey, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), and I all join in urging this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before the House today in support
of H.R. 4975, a bill designating the Post Office and Courthouse at 2
Federal Square in Newark, New Jersey the ``Frank R. Lautenberg Post
Office and Courthouse.''
As many of you may know, Senator Lautenberg is retiring at the end of
this year after 18 years of distinguished service in the United States
Senate on behalf of the state and the citizens of New Jersey.
Since I came to Congress in 1995, I have had the pleasure of working
with Senator Lautenberg on several occasions. We have been able to work
together in a bipartisan fashion on many issues of importance to my
district--such as aviation funding, beach replenishment projects,
protecting the interests of the coast guard and his work on behalf of
the Coastal Heritage Trail. These are just some of the issues that we
have been able to roll-up our sleeves on and make a meaningful
difference that will benefit the lives of those who live in South
Jersey.
I would like to pay special attention to the Senator's work on
protecting the New Jersey shore from erosion and the ocean water from
contamination. As the Representative of the Second District in New
Jersey, which has hundreds of miles of shoreline, protecting the shore
is one of my highest legislative priorities.
Recently, I had the opportunity to join with the Senator and the
Mayor of Atlantic City, James Whelan, in urging the Senate to pass
legislation that would require the EPA to use the latest technology
available to sample and test ocean water at our beaches to ensure the
public's health. I cosponsored and voted in favor of companion
legislation, which passed the House in April of last year.
In fact, there hasn't been an issue that the Senator and I have
worked together on since 1995 that we haven't achieved results. We have
been able to come together on numerous occasions to protect the
interests of South Jersey residents. Although the Senator and I don't
necessarily agree on every issue, I agree that naming the post office
and courthouse in Newark after Senator Lautenberg is an excellent way
to pay tribute to him on the eve of his retirement from public service.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4975 has gained the support of the entire New
Jersey Congressional delegation, who have come together in a bipartisan
fashion to support this bill and honor a distinguished public servant
for the state of New Jersey. I would also like to thank the Majority
Leader, Mr. Armey, for bringing this legislation before the full House
today for consideration and my colleague Mr. Payne.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania
and the gentleman from Georgia for allowing me to have a few words to
say on H.R. 4975, the Frank R. Lautenberg Post Office and Courthouse
designation.
As we know, this is a very important and proud day for us in New
Jersey and, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a sponsor of the bill to name
the post office in my hometown of Newark, New Jersey, after one of our
State's most accomplished and dedicated public servants, my friend and
colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg is well known throughout New Jersey and the Nation
for his prolific legislative achievements, but even before his election
to the United States Senate, he worked tirelessly in pursuit of the
American dream.
His is indeed a classic American success story. Born to immigrant
parents who were forced to move constantly in search of work, he set
goals for himself early in life and never wavered in his quest to
fulfill his aspirations.
After completing high school in Nutly, New Jersey, he enlisted in the
United States Army, serving in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during
World War II. And he is very proud of his war record.
After World War II, he earned a degree with the great GI Bill of
Rights, which gave opportunities to people who fought to preserve
democracy and opportunity for higher education. And he earned a degree
from Columbia University.
Then, in the spirit of American entrepreneurship, which he fought so
hard to defend, he joined with two boyhood friends in establishing a
payroll service company, Automatic Data Processing, which now has grown
to be one of the largest companies in the world. This started in a
basement with two fellows saying, we have an idea.
It is especially fitting that this post office we are naming for
Senator Lautenberg in his honor is located in Newark because he has
been a champion of the revitalization efforts in our city.
From the day I was elected to the House of Representatives back in
1988, I have been able to count on Senator Lautenberg as an advocate of
major economic development efforts, including the world-class
Performing Arts Center, the development of the waterfront, millions of
dollars in funding for Urban Core mass transit projects, including the
Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link.
Senator Lautenberg has gained a national reputation as a powerful
voice for environmental protection, fighting for safe drinking water,
clean air, a ban on ocean dumping of sewage, clean beaches, prevention
of oil spills, and a strong supporter of Superfund legislation to clean
up toxic sites.
His legislation to ban smoking on airplanes will go to save many,
many lives in this country and in the world because this has been taken
up by everyone in the world.
So as I conclude, Senator Lautenberg has worked to improve
educational opportunities in our Nation so that coming generations will
have a chance to live the American dream as we all see it.
Senator Lautenberg helped author the HOPE scholarship, which provides
a $1,500 tax credit for students going to college. He fought to improve
our public schools. He fought to have new computers in our high
schools.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the
Senator.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 4975, the bill that is
sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Newark (Mr. Payne), to
honor Senator Lautenberg with the naming of the post office in Newark
in his honor.
I cannot say enough about Frank Lautenberg. There is no more
effective Member of the United States Senate or of the United States
Congress than Frank Lautenberg.
Let me say that over his three terms in office, and I suppose it adds
up to 18 years as a Member of the United States Senate, I do not think
anyone would suggest that anybody but Frank Lautenberg was the most
effective advocate for our concerns in the State of New Jersey. He is
the Senator that get things done.
My colleague, the gentleman from Newark (Mr. Payne), talked about the
various things that Senator Lautenberg has done over the years,
legislatively. But I just wanted to focus briefly on the environmental
issues, because my district in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties has a
heightened concern with regard to the environment.
In Middlesex County, the northern county, we have a number of
Superfund sites. And over the 12 years or so that I have been in
Congress, I have seen Senator Lautenberg constantly out there helping
me and helping my constituents to clean up the Superfund sites, to
improve the program, to get citizens involved in the process. That is
his hallmark. He is a grassroots person that gets the money and gets
things done.
In Monmouth County, which is the county where I live along the shore,
we have had concern for many years about ocean dumping, about the need
for shore protection, about water quality. And if there is any area
where Senator Lautenberg has shined and worked hard in this Congress,
it is with regard to the need for clean water and improving our water
quality.
[[Page 18474]]
I would say that our economy would not exist in the strong state that
we have now along the Jersey shore were it not for Senator Lautenberg's
efforts to provide funding for beach renourishment, to stop all the
various ocean dumping sites that existed when he was first elected to
the Senate. There were about 12 sites for dumping of toxic dredge
materials, sludge materials, acid materials, wood burning. All these
things have now passed and all these sites have been closed because of
the efforts of Senator Lautenberg.
It is an amazing achievement over 18 years in the Senate. I only hope
that this legislation, this naming of the post office, is just the
first of many opportunities that we will have after he retires this
year to name things after him and to make designations in his honor.
Because he truly deserves it. I appreciate the fact that we here in the
House have been the first to start the process with the naming of this
post office today.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support this
legislation which honors my friend and senior Senator from New Jersey,
Frank Lautenberg.
I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and applaud my
colleagues, Congressman Payne and Congressman LoBiondo, for bringing
this important measure to the floor.
Senator Lautenberg is a great American and a son of my hometown of
Paterson, New Jersey. Good things and great people hail from Paterson!
The son of immigrants, Frank Lautenberg came from a working-class
background. In fact, his father worked in the silk mills in Paterson,
located around the same area where I grew up.
After graduating high school, he served the United States citizens by
joining the Army Signal Corps in Europe. Upon his return, Senator
Lautenberg began a life of public service to the citizens of the Garden
State.
Along with two friends, Senator Lautenberg started a company that
served as one of the largest employers of New Jersey workers, and
helped shape the way business is conducted in America.
Automated Data Processing was and still is one of the foremost
computing services companies in the world. It provides employer
services to hundreds of thousands of businesses by providing the
paychecks to more than 29 million wage earners each payday.
In 1982, I joined the majority of New Jersey residents in voting for
Frank Lautenberg to the office of Senator. We were impressed by his
dedication to providing work and service in New Jersey and trusted that
he would represent us well in the United States Congress.
Our gut and our vote proved right.
The impact he has had on our nation's health, safety and security is
significant, and that is why we honor him today.
He is the author of laws that have shaped the lives and enriched the
health and safety of Americans.
We can thank Senator Lautenberg for establishing 21 as the national
legal drinking age, for banning smoking on airplanes and for making it
illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence to own a gun.
A strong environmental leader, Senator Lautenberg also helped write
the Superfund, Clean Air and Safe Drinking Water Acts.
As Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg has consistently
supported sound investment in our nation's infrastructure.
Furthermore, he has worked tirelessly to secure hundreds of millions
of dollars for New Jersey's highways, mass transit systems, airports
and ports.
The Garden State has known this about Senator Lautenberg for 18
years, and I am proud to share his accomplishments with colleagues and
fellow Americans who may not realize the impact that he has had on
American policy and life.
So, as the great city of Newark continues to rise, it is more than
appropriate that Frank Lautenberg should be honored in name and
reputation in this manner.
I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 4975, and am proud to
join with others in recognizing the hard work and immeasurable
contributions he made to the economy, quality of life, and safety for
the citizens of New Jersey and America.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers on this
side, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4975.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GERTRUDE A. BARBER POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4625) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2108 East 38th Street in Erie,
Pennsylvania, as the ``Gertrude A. Barber Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4625
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GERTRUDE A. BARBER POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 2108 East 38th Street in Erie,
Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated as the ``Gertrude
A. Barber Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Gertrude A. Barber Post Office
Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
General Leave
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 4625.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 4625, was introduced by the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English). The
legislation designates the facility of the United States Postal Service
Building located at 2108 East 38th Street in Erie, Pennsylvania as the
Gertrude A. Barber Post Office Building. The House delegation from the
State of Pennsylvania has cosponsored this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, this is a great privilege. Let me, first of
all, thank the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah),
the distinguished ranking member, who helped me shepherd this
legislation through the committee and through the House of
Representatives, with the unanimous support of the entire Pennsylvania
delegation, because the person we are honoring today really enjoyed a
Statewide reputation in Pennsylvania as an advocate of those with
special needs.
With every handshake, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Gertrude Barber left an
indelible mark, reflective of her compassion and caring not only for
those with special needs, but everyone. This native of Erie, a
community that I have lived in all of my life and which I represent,
touched so many individuals. Her special gift and passion was reserved
for the mentally disabled, but through that, she touched the lives of
an entire community and reached out and touched many people throughout
the State of Pennsylvania.
{time} 1145
For years, she gave all that she had and more, and she asked no less
of the community in which she lived. Even when one met Dr. Gertrude
Barber just once, that encounter lasted for a lifetime.
For these reasons, we as a community have decided to name the post
office in Erie, on East 38th Street, the Gertrude A. Barber Post Office
Building. I can again proudly say that every
[[Page 18475]]
member of the Pennsylvania delegation has cosponsored this bill.
Dr. Barber died April 29 at the age of 88. During her life, she
impacted not only Erie but our entire Nation. Her influence stretched
outside of Erie into neighboring counties, States and everywhere in her
path. It is inconceivable for Erie to imagine a life without Dr.
Barber. There was something about this extraordinary individual that
made one think that she would be around forever. To quote the Erie
Times, who eulogized Dr. Barber, ``She was a legend whose name and
works will be with us for years to come.''
Dr. Barber served more than 2,850 developmentally disabled clients
not only in Erie but throughout the State of Pennsylvania. She knew
everyone by name, whether it was a client, volunteer, or staff person.
She knew about their lives and the challenges they faced and she truly
cared.
For those of us who visited her in her office and visited her at the
Dr. Gertrude Barber Center, we saw that caring very much in action. The
disabled children and adults always came first with her. Whether she
was walking with the Governor or even a Member of Congress, Dr. Barber
would always take the time to talk to her children. After all, they
were every bit as important to her and maybe even more so.
A member of a prominent and respected family in Erie, Dr. Barber
became a special education teacher in 1933. Focusing on a need in our
community, she opened the center that now bears her name in 1952. The
Barber Center has since blossomed and flourished under her strong and
thoughtful and watchful hand. The Center has dramatically improved the
lives of the developmentally disabled. The Center has facilities for
autistic and Down syndrome children, classrooms, a library, and many
satellite sites. It has sponsored adult literacy and adult job training
programs. She and her staff have worked with mental health
professionals from 33 countries, many coming to see the methodologies
and accomplishments of this Center.
As Dr. Barber's dream continued to expand, so did the Center. During
her 48 years of service, she established many satellite sites
throughout Pennsylvania, including group homes in Philadelphia and in
Pittsburgh. She started with a small staff, which grew to 60 in the
1970s, and more than 1,650 across the State today.
During her lifetime she was recognized by world leaders, including
Pope John Paul II, and Presidents Kennedy and Bush. President Kennedy
appointed Dr. Barber as a delegate to the White House Conference on
Children and Youth. She was also a member of his Task Force on Mental
Retardation. She testified many times before Congress about the needs
of people with disabilities and mental retardation. National figures
sought out her advice, and she gladly guided them.
This is the 10th anniversary of the year that the Americans With
Disabilities Act was passed by Congress; and in July, 10 years ago,
when President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act
into law, he invited Dr. Barber to attend the ceremony. Her invitation
was in recognition of the work she put into the caring for the
disabled.
In 1981, she was on the planning committee for the International Year
of Disabled Persons and was a delegate to the White House Conference on
Education. Not only did Dr. Barber serve on countless local, State, and
Federal committees, but she even established a number of local branches
of national advocacy groups for people with mental retardation and
related developmental disabilities.
She founded the Division of Mental Retardation within the
Pennsylvania Federation Council for Exceptional Citizens, the Northwest
Council for Exceptional Children and, in Erie County, the ARC. She also
served as president of the Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Citizens, the Pennsylvania Federation Council for Exceptional Citizens,
and the Polk State School Board of Trustees.
In her honor, scholarships have been established at Penn State
University, Gannon University, Mercyhurst College, and the University
of Notre Dame. She was one of the most recognized advocates of people
with special needs for generations and she made this her mission.
Dr. Barber was truly called to her life's work. She dedicated her
life to the thousands of children and adults whom others often treated
with disregard. She believed strongly in her dream to transform the
lives of the developmentally disabled. Her dream was just one small
seed planted in the broad fields of life, but she loved it and
protected it. She believed in her dream until it grew and blossomed and
gave great joy. She proved without doubt that one person, one
extraordinary person, can make a difference.
In the new testament, Mr. Speaker, Matthew wrote, ``The house fell,
for it was not founded upon a rock.'' Dr. Gertrude Barber was the rock
on which her centers for the disabled were built and, in fact, she was
the rock on which the disability community in Erie and even throughout
the United States could lean. Though she has died, her ideals and her
goals live on.
It is my great honor to sponsor this legislation to name a post
office after her. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring a
remarkable woman who has taught so much to so many with her message of
caring.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Barr) for managing this bill on the floor, and I would also like to
thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from New
York (Mr. McHugh), and the ranking member, as I said, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for their efforts in committee to make
sure that this bill passes and becomes a reality.
I hope all my colleagues will support H.R. 4625 in recognition of
this remarkable woman.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me congratulate my colleague and my good friend from the great
State and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. English). He is responsible
for this legislation. And appropriately so, because in his home
district, in the City of Erie, the person who we honor has been so well
known. But also throughout our State her work has been documented, even
in the area of Philadelphia, and it is obvious that this is the type of
person that a Federal facility, like a postal facility, should
appropriately be named, and will in this case be named, after her.
I want to thank my colleague for introducing this legislation and ask
all to support H.R. 4625.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my the
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4625.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SAMUEL P. ROBERTS POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4786) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 110 Postal Way in Carrollton, Georgia,
as the ``Samuel P. Roberts Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4786
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SAMUEL P. ROBERTS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 110 Postal Way in Carrollton, Georgia,
shall be known and designated as the ``Samuel P. Roberts Post
Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Samuel P. Roberts Post Office
Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
[[Page 18476]]
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
General Leave
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 4786.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise today in support of the bill to rename the post
office located in Carrollton, Georgia, after the Honorable Sam Roberts.
Sam Roberts was not just a community leader, not just a husband, not
just a father, he was a friend to all of us in the Seventh District of
Georgia. Sam lost his battle against cancer on January 3 of this year.
Sam was a distinguished member of the Georgia State Senate whose
district laid within the Seventh Congressional District of Georgia. He
won his Senate seat to represent State Senate District 30 in 1986 and
was reelected in 1998. His second term was tragically cut short after
his untimely death earlier this year.
Born April 10, 1937 in Rome, Georgia, after obtaining a degree in
insurance and risk management from Georgia State University in 1963,
Sam Roberts maintained a long career in management heading Roberts
Insurance Agency. Sam Roberts received numerous community and civic
awards such as ``Who's Who'' in Georgia and Small Businessperson of the
Year from the Douglas County Chamber of Commerce. He was also Associate
of the Year for the Douglas County Home Builders Association. Sam was
admitted to the Carrollton High School Trojan Hall of Fame and was a
Jaycees International Senator.
Throughout his life, Senator Sam, as we knew him, was involved in
countless community organizations and activities and civic clubs,
including President of the Sertoma Club and the Douglas County Rotary
Club, National Director of the U.S. Jaycees, in government affairs, and
State Vice President of the Georgia Jaycees.
Sam Roberts also served on the Board of Directors of the American
Cancer Society and the March of Dimes. He was the Chaplain of the Flint
Hill Masonic Lodge. Sam was a member of the Douglas County Development
Authority and the Douglas County Chamber of Commerce. He was also a
youth football coach for 20 years.
While serving in the Georgia State Senate, Sam Roberts worked
extremely hard for swift and strong punishment of criminals, to improve
education for children, and to make our State government more
efficient.
Sam Roberts was a resident of Douglas County for more than 30 years.
He was a member of Heritage Baptist Church with his wife Sue. Sam is
also survived by three wonderful children, Sherrie, Beau and Amber.
Mr. Speaker, the career of Georgia State Senator Sam Roberts as a
professional, as a legislator, as a community leader, and as a family
man clearly demonstrates why we should name this post office in his
community, in our community, in his honor. I ask my colleagues to join
me in renaming the U.S. Post Office in Carrollton, Georgia, after the
Honorable Sam Roberts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4786, which names a post office after Samuel P.
Roberts, was introduced by Representative Barr on June 29, 2000.
Mr. Roberts was born on April 10, 1937, in Rome, GA. He obtained a
degree in insurance and risk management from Georgia State University
and went on to head the Roberts Insurance Agency. He decided to enter
politics and in 1996 he ran for the Georgia State Senate, representing
District 30.
Tragically, his second term was cut short when he lost his battle
with cancer and died on January 3, 2000, in Douglasville, GA. Naming a
post office in his honor is a fitting way to honor his commitment to
his community and family. I urge the swift adoption of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate my support for the bill
at hand. I thank the gentleman from the great State of Georgia (Mr.
Barr) for his comments.
Since Mr. Roberts formerly served as a member of the State Senate in
his State and as a former member of the State Senate of Pennsylvania, I
again want to thank the gentleman for recognizing that those who serve
our public and other legislative bodies deserve recognition in this
way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very kind remarks
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4786.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
JUDGE HARRY AUGUSTUS COLE POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4450) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 900 East Fayette Street in Baltimore,
Maryland, as the ``Judge Harry Augustus Cole Post Office Building.''
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4450
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JUDGE HARRY AUGUSTUS COLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 900 East Fayette Street in Baltimore,
Maryland, shall be known and designated as the ``Judge Harry
Augustus Cole Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Judge Harry Augustus Cole Post Office
Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
General Leave
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 4450.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 4450, was introduced by the
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). This legislation
designates the post office located at 900 East Fayette Street in
Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Harry Augustus Cole Post Office.''
H.R. 4450 is cosponsored by the entire House delegation of the State of
Maryland.
Harry Augustus Cole was educated in the Baltimore City Public School
System and graduated from Morgan State University in 1943. He served
our Nation with distinction during World War II and then graduated from
the University of Maryland School of Law, after which he practiced
criminal and civil rights law.
Judge Cole is a man of many firsts. He was the first African American
assistant attorney general in Baltimore City, the first African
American to be elected to the State Senate of Maryland, the first
chairman of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the United States Civil
Rights Commission, and the first African American to be named to the
Maryland Court of Appeals.
[[Page 18477]]
Mr. Speaker, Judge Cole is most deserving of being honored by having
a post office named after him in the city to which he has contributed
so much for so long and where he has spent much of his life.
I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 4450, and I commend the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for introducing this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4450. This legislation is the
product of the work of my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings), who represents both the State of Maryland and the City of
Baltimore.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the prime sponsor of this legislation, to
allow him to articulate to the House his reasons to commend it for
passage.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York
(Chairman McHugh) and certainly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah), the ranking member, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), and
to all those on the Subcommittee on Postal Service for their support in
bringing this bill to the floor of the House.
I believe that persons who have made meaningful contributions to
society should be recognized. The naming of a postal building in one's
honor is truly a salute to the accomplishments and public service of an
individual.
H.R. 4450 designates the United States Post Office building located
at 900 East Fayette Street in Baltimore, Maryland, as the ``Judge Harry
Augustus Cole Post Office Building.''
Judge Harry Augustus Cole was a man of many firsts. Judge Cole was
the first African American assistant attorney general in Maryland, the
first African American to be elected to the State Senate of Maryland,
the first chairman of the Maryland Advisory Committee to the United
States Civil Rights Commission, and the first African American to be
named to Maryland's highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Educated in Baltimore City Public Schools, Judge Cole graduated from
Morgan State University in 1943. I might add that he later served as
the chairman of the Board of Regents of that institution. While at
Morgan, however, he served as the president of the student council and
the founder and the first editor in chief of the Spokesman College
Newspaper.
A World War II veteran, Judge Cole graduated from the University of
Maryland Law School, my alma mater, and practiced criminal and civil
rights law for many years. He was a member of the Alpha Phi Alpha
Fraternity, the oldest African American fraternity in the country.
Unfortunately, he passed away on February 14, 1999.
Harry Cole, who is one of my role models, is fondly remembered for
his quick wit and sharp sense of humor. He was a man who always helped
those in need and was always there for the indigent. He offered his
services free of charge and was not looking for any kind of fame or
thanks. Judge Cole extended his hand without ever seeking
acknowledgment. I think it is time he is honored for the contributions
he gave not only to the City of Baltimore, but to the State of Maryland
and to this country.
He was also a distinguished veteran and served proudly in our United
States Army. He is survived by his wife, Doris, and his three
daughters, Susan, Harriette and Stephanie.
I urge my colleagues to support this postal naming bill that salutes
a person from my district who was an outstanding veteran, an
outstanding jurist, and spent his life providing service to others.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 4450.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess for 10 minutes.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess for 10 minutes.
____________________
{time} 1230
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) at 12 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.
____________________
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS--CHILDREN'S EQUITY ACT OF 2000
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2842) to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code,
concerning the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, to
enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee and his or her
family in the FEHB Program when a State court orders the employee to
provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee but the
employee fails to provide the coverage, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2842
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Health
Benefits Children's Equity Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN.
Section 8905 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) An unenrolled employee who is required by a court
or administrative order to provide health insurance coverage
for a child who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may
enroll for self and family coverage in a health benefits plan
under this chapter. If such employee fails to enroll for self
and family coverage in a health benefits plan that provides
full benefits and services in the location in which the child
resides, and the employee does not provide documentation
showing that such coverage has been provided through other
health insurance, the employing agency shall enroll the
employee in a self and family enrollment in the option which
provides the lower level of coverage under the Service
Benefit Plan.
``(2) An employee who is enrolled as an individual in a
health benefits plan under this chapter and who is required
by a court or administrative order to provide health
insurance coverage for a child who meets the requirements of
section 8901(5) may change to a self and family enrollment in
the same or another health benefits plan under this chapter.
If such employee fails to change to a self and family
enrollment and the employee does not provide documentation
showing that such coverage has been provided through other
health insurance, the employing agency shall change the
enrollment of the employee to a self and family enrollment in
the plan in which the employee is enrolled if that plan
provides full benefits and services in the location where the
child resides. If the plan in which the employee is enrolled
does not provide full benefits and services in the location
in which the child resides, or, if the employee fails to
change to a self and family enrollment in a plan that
provides full benefits and services in the location where the
child resides, the employing agency shall change the coverage
of the employee to a self and family enrollment in the option
which provides the lower level of coverage under the Service
Benefits Plan.
``(3) The employee may not discontinue the self and family
enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits and services
in the location in which the child resides for so long as the
court or administrative order remains in effect and the child
continues to meet the requirements of section 8901(5), unless
the employee provides documentation showing that such
coverage has been provided through other health insurance.''.
SEC. 3. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 8421a(b) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (4), the
reduction required by subsection (a) shall be effective with
respect to the annuity
[[Page 18478]]
supplement payable for each month in the 12-month period
beginning on the first day of the seventh month after the end
of the calendar year in which the excess earnings were
earned.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to reductions required to be made in
calendar years beginning after the date of enactment of this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
General Leave
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 2842.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill accomplishes two objectives. First, it
protects children who are entitled to health insurance under a court
order. Second, the bill changes the timing of certain adjustments to
annunities to allow OPM, that is the Office of Personnel Management, to
make more accurate calculations.
Federal agencies currently cannot guarantee that a Federal employee's
child is covered in accordance with a court or administrative order.
Ironically, Mr. Speaker, Federal law already requires that protection
for children whose parents work for an employer other than the Federal
Government. Current law provides that Federal employees may enroll in
an FEHBP plan, that is the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, either
as an individual or for self and family coverage. They are under no
obligation to do so however.
This important legislation will enable the Federal Government to
enroll an employee in a self and family plan in the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Program when a State court orders the employee to
provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee but the
employee fails to provide the coverage.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill delays adjustments to annunity
supplementals received by certain FERS retirees. No one will be denied
a benefit as a result of this delay, but the additional time will
permit OPM to calculate these annunity supplements more accurately and
ensure that the correct level of benefits is being paid.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of this
bill, it was introduced by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I and the children who will receive health care under
this bill, thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman); the ranking member, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough); and also we extend our
appreciation to the members of our Subcommittee on Civil Service, the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who
have affirmed their commitment to children by cosponsoring this
legislation.
H.R. 2842 also enjoys the support of Senator Levin who introduced the
companion Senate bill, S. 1688, in the Senate.
According to the 1990 United States Census, 78 percent of
noncustodial parents had health coverage available through their
employers, but only 23 percent had their children covered voluntarily.
The legal right to health care was denied to children by absentee
parents, even though they had the option to include them in their
medical insurance plan for little or no cost.
The Department of Agriculture estimates that in 1998, over 10 million
children had no health care coverage. H.R. 2842 will allow the Federal
agencies to join States and provide health insurance for children of
its employees.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 required States to
enact legislation requiring employers to enroll a child in an
employee's group health plan when a court orders the employee to
provide health insurance for the child but the employee fails to do so.
The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program law provided that a
Federal employee may enroll in a FEHB Plan. The law does not allow an
employing agency to elect coverage on the employee's behalf.
Further, FEHB law generally preempts State law with regards to
coverage and benefits; therefore, a Federal agency is unable to ensure
that a child is covered in accordance with a court order.
To correct this inequity, H.R. 2842, would enable the Federal
Government to enroll an employee in his or her family in the FEHB
program when a State court orders the employee to provide health
insurance coverage for a child of the employee.
If the affected employee is already enrolled for self-only coverage,
the employing agency would be authorized to change the enrollment to
self and family. If the affected employee is not enrolled in the FEHB
Program, the employing agency would be required to enroll him or her
under the standard option of the service benefit plan Blue Cross/Blue
Shield.
Finally, the employee would be barred from discontinuing the self and
family enrollment as long as the court order remains in effect, the
child meets the statutory definition of family member, and the employee
cannot show that the child has other insurance.
I am pleased that H.R. 2842 is supported by the Association for
Children for Enforcement of Support. ACES is the largest child support
organization dedicated to assisting disadvantaged families entitled to
support.
Mr. Speaker, someone once said that children are the living messages
we send to a future we may never see, and when we think about what we
are doing here, it is a very important deed providing children with
health care coverage. I have often said it is not the deed, but it is
the memory, and if we can have children that can gain health care when
they need it and can look back on their lives and had access to doctors
and could get well throughout their lives, I think they will be able to
look back, not only on pleasant memories, but they will be able to look
back on a healthy life.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and by
doing so, we send a very powerful message to this future that we may
never see.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my distinguished colleague and
one who has been at the forefront of issues regarding Federal employees
and children.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished
gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding the time
to me and, Mr. Speaker, I also want to join with my other friend, the
distinguished gentlewoman from Montgomery County, Maryland (Mrs.
Morella) in strong support of this Federal Employee Health Benefits
Equity Act of 2000.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) have explained very well the purposes of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to, perhaps, discuss this in a little different
perspective, but I think an important one. Many pieces of legislation
come to this floor and we focus on them because they seek to focus on
personal responsibility. Unfortunately, in America today too many
people believe that having children is not a personal responsibility.
They believe that perhaps it is biologically their child, but somehow
not their responsibility.
We have passed legislation and the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary is
on the floor,
[[Page 18479]]
and he and I have cosponsored legislation which seeks to ensure that
once somebody is blessed with a child that they will meet their
responsibilities to that child. We passed legislation, as the gentleman
from Baltimore pointed out, in 1993 which said that we were going to
ensure that children would be covered under the health care policies of
their parents. However, we did not also include Federal employees, the
Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, under that provision. We thought
we had.
I think that was our concept but we had not and this legislation
seeks to cure that defect in the language.
Now, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and I are unreserved supporters of Federal
employees; but Federal employees, like every other individual in our
country, need to meet their responsibilities. I believe that I had and
continue to have a personal responsibility for my children. It is not
the responsibility of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) or the
responsibility of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), it is
my responsibility. They are my children. Now, they are all adults now,
but I view them as a blessing. I view it as a blessing that I have the
opportunity and the wherewithal, very frankly, to help them.
I would hope every parent would do that; not only would I hope they
would do it, it is my expectation that they would do it. And this
legislation simply says, as the gentleman has pointed out in correct
detail, that if a court orders you to carry your child on your policy
and provide them with health care coverage, critical to every child in
America, then the Federal employer, like every other employer, will
comply with the law in making sure that you meet that personal
responsibility.
So I rise in very strong support of that. Some will say it is an
additional burden on Federal employees; I say it is not. It is an
equitable treatment of Federal employees as we want every other
employee in America to be treated so that children in America will be
better cared for and will grow up more secure and safe and better
citizens.
Although this bill will not get national publicity, it is a very
important bill, not only for the children that it will immediately
affect, but for the principle that it adopts of responsibility of
parents for the welfare and well-being of their children.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
for his comments, because his comments really go to the crux of why we
are doing what we are doing. I think all of us, all of us in this
Congress accept the fact that we have to do everything in our power to
make sure children have an opportunity to grow up so that they can be
the best that they can be.
And when we think about something like health care, a child able to
be taken care of if he has the measles or the mumps or has some kind of
problem, health problem, just to know that that custodial parent is
placed in a position where he or she can take that child to a health
care provider and have that child taken care of is so very, very
important.
As the gentleman said, this bill may not reach the headlines of our
papers; but I can tell my colleagues one thing, it will reach the
headlines of a lot of families, a lot of custodial parents who merely
want their children to be healthy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very important
legislation. I again, thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella). I want to thank all of the members of our subcommittee for
the bipartisan effort in our quest to uplift the children of our great
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a little bill that goes a long way, a long way
as we have heard in terms of helping those children who are most
vulnerable to make sure that they are provided health insurance. It is
going to enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee in a self
and family plan in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program when a
State court orders the employee to provide health insurance coverage
for a child of the employee, but the employee fails to provide the
coverage.
I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for
sponsoring this bill, for recognizing its importance. I want to thank
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Scarborough), for helping this bill come forward; the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the full Committee
on Government Reform; the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the
ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform; the cosponsors
and those who have spoken today, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), in effect.
I do want to ask that the Members of this House unanimously, I hope,
support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2842, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:
``A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States
Code, concerning the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB)
Program, to enable the Federal Government to enroll an
employee and his or her family in the FEHB Program when a
State court orders the employee to provide health insurance
coverage for a child of the employee but the employee fails
to provide the coverage, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4870) to make technical corrections in patent, copyright, and
trademark laws.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4870
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 ``Intellectual Property
Technical Amendments Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.
(a) Renaming of Officers.--(1) Title 35, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``Director'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Commissioner''; and
(B) by striking ``Director's'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Commissioner's''.
(2) The Act of July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the
``Trademark Act of 1946''; 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) is amended
by striking ``Director'' each place it appears and inserting
``Commissioner''.
(3)(A) Title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Commissioner for Patents'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Assistant Commissioner for Patents''.
(B) Section 3(b)(2) of title 35, United States Code, is
amended--
(i) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Commissioners''
and inserting ``Assistant commissioners'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), in the last sentence--
(I) by striking ``a Commissioner'' and inserting ``an
Assistant Commissioner''; and
(II) by striking ``the Commissioner'' and inserting ``the
Assistant Commissioner'';
(iii) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``Commissioners'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Assistant Commissioners'';
(II) by striking ``Commissioners' '' each place it appears
and inserting ``Assistant Commissioners' ''; and
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``Commissioners''
and inserting ``Assistant Commissioners''.
(C) Section 3(f) of title 35, United States Code, is
amended in paragraphs (2) and (3), by striking ``the
Commissioner'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
Assistant Commissioner''.
(D) Section 13 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page 18480]]
(i) by striking ``Commissioner of'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Assistant Commissioner for''; and
(ii) by striking ``Commissioners'' and inserting
``Assistant Commissioners''.
(E) Chapter 17 of title 35, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``Commissioner of Patents'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Assistant Commissioner for Patents''.
(F) Section 297 of title 35, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``Commissioner of Patents'' each place it appears
and inserting ``Commissioner''.
(4) Title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Commissioner for Trademarks'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks''.
(5) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by striking
``Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.''
and inserting
``Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office.''.
(6)(A) Section 303 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended--
(i) in the section heading by striking ``Director '' and
inserting ``Commissioner''; and
(ii) by striking ``Director's'' and inserting
``Commissioner's''.
(B) The item relating to section 303 in the table of
sections for chapter 30 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``Director'' and inserting
``Commissioner''.
(b) Additional Clerical Amendments.--
(1) The following provisions of law are amended by striking
``Director'' each place it appears and inserting
``Commissioner''.
(A) Section 9(p)(1)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
638(p)(1)(B).
(B) Section 19 of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of
1933 (16 U.S.C. 831r).
(C) Section 182(b)(2)(A) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2242(b)(2)(A)).
(D) Section 302(b)(2)(D) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2412(b)(2)(D)).
(E) Section 702(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 372(d)).
(F) Section 1295(a)(4)(B) of title 28, United States Code.
(G) Section 1744 of title 28, United States Code.
(H) Section 151 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2181).
(I) Section 152 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2182).
(J) Section 305 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act
of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2457).
(K) Section 12(a) of the Solar Heating and Cooling
Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5510(a)).
(L) Section 10(i) of the Trading with the enemy Act (50
U.S.C. App. 10(i)).
(M) Section 4203 of the Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, as enacted by
section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law 106-113.
(2) The item relating to section 1744 in the table of
sections for chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``generally'' and inserting ``,
generally''.
(c) References.--Any reference in any other Federal law,
Executive order, rule, regulation, or delegation of
authority, or any document of or pertaining to the Patent and
Trademark Office--
(1) to the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office or to the Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks is deemed to refer to the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Commissioner of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office;
(2) to the Commissioner for Patents is deemed to refer to
the Assistant Commissioner for Patents; and
(3) to the Commissioner for Trademarks is deemed to refer
to the Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks.
SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF REEXAMINATION PROCEDURE ACT OF 1999;
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedures.--Title
35, United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 311 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``person'' and inserting
``third-party requester''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``Unless the requesting
person is the owner of the patent, the'' and inserting
``The''.
(2) Section 312 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking the last sentence; and
(B) by striking ``, if any''.
(3) Section 314(b)(1) is amended--
(A) by striking ``(1) This'' and all that follows through
``(2)'' and inserting ``(1)'';
(B) by striking ``the third-party requester shall receive a
copy'' and inserting ``the Office shall send to the third-
party requester a copy''; and
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(4) Section 315(c) is amended by striking ``United States
Code,''.
(5) Section 317 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``patent owner nor the
third-party requester, if any, nor privies of either'' and
inserting ``third-party requester nor its privies'', and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``United States Code,''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Appeal to the board of patent appeals and
interferences.--Subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 134
of title 35, United States Code, are each amended by striking
``administrative patent judge'' each place it appears and
inserting ``primary examiner''.
(2) Proceeding on appeal.--Section 143 of title 35, United
States Code, is amended by amending the third sentence to
read as follows: ``In an ex parte case or any reexamination
case, the Commissioner shall submit to the court in writing
the grounds for the decision of the Patent and Trademark
Office, addressing all the issues involved in the appeal. The
court shall, before hearing an appeal, give notice of the
time and place of the hearing to the Commissioner and the
parties in the appeal.''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Section 4604(a) of the Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, is amended by
striking ``Part 3'' and inserting ``Part III''.
(2) Section 4604(b) of that Act is amended by striking
``title 25'' and inserting ``title 35''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by sections
4605(c) and 4605(e) of the Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act, as enacted by section
1000(a)(9) of Public Law 106-113, shall apply to any
reexamination filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on or after the date of the enactment of Public Law
106-113.
SEC. 4. PATENT AND TRADEMARK EFFICIENCY ACT AMENDMENTS.
(a) Deputy Commissioner.--
(1) Section 17(b) of the Act of July 5, 1946 (commonly
referred to as the ``Trademark Act of 1946'') (15 U.S.C.
1067(b)), is amended by inserting ``the Deputy
Commissioner,'' after ``Commissioner,''.
(2) Section 6(a) of title 35, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``the Deputy Commissioner,'' after
``Commissioner,''.
(b) Public Advisory Committees.--Section 5 of title 35,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (i), by inserting ``, privileged,'' after
``personnel''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(j) Inapplicability of Patent Prohibition.--Section 4
shall not apply to voting members of the Advisory
Committees.''.
(c) Miscellaneous.--Section 153 of title 35, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``and attested by an officer of
the Patent and Trademark Office designated by the
Commissioner,''.
SEC. 5. DOMESTIC PUBLICATION OF FOREIGN FILED PATENT
APPLICATIONS ACT OF 1999 AMENDMENTS.
Section 154(d)(4)(A) of title 35, United States Code, as in
effect on November 29, 2000, is amended--
(1) by striking ``on which the Patent and Trademark Office
receives a copy of the'' and inserting ``of''; and
(2) by striking ``international application'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``publication''.
SEC. 6. DOMESTIC PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS PUBLISHED
ABROAD.
Subtitle E of title IV of the Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, as enacted by
section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law 106-113, is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 4505 is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 4505. PRIOR ART EFFECT OF PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS.
``Section 102(e) of title 35, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
`` `(e) the invention was described in (1) an application
for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed
in the United States before the invention by the applicant
for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for
patent by another filed in the United States before the
invention by the applicant for patent, except that an
international application filed under the treaty defined in
section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of
this subsection of an application filed in the United States
if and only if the international application designated the
United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such
treaty in the English language; or' ''.
(2) Section 4507 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Section 11'' and
inserting ``Section 10'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Section 12'' and
inserting ``Section 11''.
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Section 13'' and
inserting ``Section 12'';
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``12 and 13'' and
inserting ``11 and 12'';
(E) in section 374 of title 35, United States Code, as
amended by paragraph (10), by striking ``confer the same
rights and shall have the same effect under this title as an
application for patent published'' and inserting ``be deemed
a publication''; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) The item relating to section 374 in the table of
contents for chapter 37 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``374. Publication of international application.''.
(3) Section 4508 is amended to read as follows:
[[Page 18481]]
``SEC. 4508. EFFECTIVE DATE.
``Except as otherwise provided in this section, sections
4502 through 4507, and the amendments made by such sections,
shall take effect on November 29, 2000, and shall apply only
to applications (including international applications
designating the United States) filed on or after that date.
The amendments made by sections 4504 and 4505 shall
additionally apply to any pending application filed before
November 29, 2000, if such pending application is published
pursuant to a request of the applicant under such procedures
as may be established by the Director. If an application is
filed on or after November 29, 2000, or is published pursuant
to a request from the applicant, and the application claims
the benefit of one or more prior-filed applications under
section 119(e), 120, or 365(c) of title 35, United States
Code, then the provisions of section 4505 shallapply to the
prior-filed application in determining the filing date in the
United States of the application.''.
SEC. 7. MISCELLANEOUS CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Amendments to Title 35.--The following provisions of
title 35, United States Code, are amended:
(1) Section 2(b) is amended in paragraphs (2)(B) and
(4)(B), by striking ``, United States Code''.
(2) Section 3 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``United States
Code,'';
(B) in subsection (b)(2)--
(i) in the first sentence of subparagraph (A), by striking
``, United States Code'';
(ii) in the first sentence of subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``United States Code,''; and
(II) by striking ``, United States Code'';
(iii) in the second sentence of subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``United States Code,''; and
(II) by striking ``, United States Code.'' and inserting a
period;
(iv) in the last sentence of subparagraph (B), by striking
``, United States Code''; and
(v) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``, United States
Code''; and
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) in the subsection caption, by striking ``, United
States Code''; and
(ii) by striking ``United States Code,''.
(3) Section 5 is amended in subsections (e) and (g), by
striking ``, United States Code'' each place it appears.
(4) The table of chapters for part I is amended in the item
relating to chapter 3, by striking ``before'' and inserting
``Before''.
(5) The item relating to section 21 in the table of
contents for chapter 2 is amended to read as follows:
``21. Filing date and day for taking action.''.
(6) The item relating to chapter 12 in the table of
chapters for part II is amended to read as follows:
``12. Examination of Application.................................131''.
(7) The item relating to section 116 in the table of
contents for chapter 11 is amended to read as follows:
``116. Inventors.''.
(8) Section 154(b)(4) is amended by striking ``, United
States Code,''.
(9) Section 156 is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ``paragraphs'' and
inserting ``paragraph'';
(B) in subsection (d)(2)(B)(i), by striking ``below the
office'' and inserting ``below the Office''; and
(C) in subsection (g)(6)(B)(iii), by striking
``submittted'' and inserting ``submitted''.
(10) The item relating to section 183 in the table of
contents for chapter 17 is amended by striking ``of'' and
inserting ``to''.
(11) Section 185 is amended by striking the second period
at the end of the section.
(12) Section 201(a) is amended--
(A) by striking ``United States Code,''; and
(B) by striking ``5, United States Code.'' and inserting
``5.''.
(13) Section 202 is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``last paragraph of
section 203(2)'' and inserting ``section 203(b)''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (4) by striking ``rights;'' and inserting
``rights,''; and
(ii) in paragraph (5) by striking ``of the United States
Code''.
(14) Section 203 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``(2)'' and inserting ``(b)'';
(ii) by striking the quotation marks and comma before ``as
appropriate''; and
(iii) by striking ``paragraphs (a) and (c)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a)''; and
(B) in the first paragraph--
(i) by striking ``(a)'', ``(b)'', ``(c)'', and (d)'' and
inserting ``(1)'', ``(2)'', ``(3)'', and (4)'', respectively;
and
(ii) by striking ``(1.'' and inserting ``(a)''.
(15) Section 209 is amended in subsections (a) and (f)(1),
by striking ``of the United States Code''.
(16) Section 210 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (11), by striking ``5901'' and inserting
``5908''; and
(ii) in paragraph (20) by striking ``178(j)'' and inserting
``178j''; and
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``paragraph 202(c)(4)'' and inserting
``section 202(c)(4)''; and
(ii) by striking ``title..'' and inserting ``title.''.
(17) The item relating to chapter 29 in the table of
chapters for part III is amended by inserting a comma after
``Patent''.
(18) The item relating to section 256 in the table of
contents for chapter 25 is amended to read as follows:
``256. Correction of named inventor.''.
(19) Section 294 is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``United States Code,'';
and
(B) in subsection (c), in the second sentence by striking
``court to'' and inserting ``court of''.
(20)(A) The item relating to section 374 in the table of
contents for chapter 37 is amended to read as follows:
``374. Publication of international application.''.
(B) The amendment made by subparagraph (A) shall take
effect on November 29, 2000.
(21) Section 371(b) is amended by adding at the end a
period.
(22) Section 371(d) is amended by adding at the end a
period.
(23) Paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 376(a) are
each amended by striking the semicolon and inserting a
period.
(b) Other Amendments.--
(1) Section 4732(a) of the Intellectual Property and
Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (9)(A)(ii), by inserting ``in subsection
(b),'' after ``(ii)''; and
(B) in paragraph (10)(A), by inserting after ``title 35,
United States Code,'' the following: ``other than sections 1
through 6 (as amended by chapter 1 of this subtitle),''.
(2) Section 4802(1) of that Act is amended by inserting
``to'' before ``citizens''.
(3) Section 4804 of that Act is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``11(a)'' and inserting
``10(a)''; and
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``13'' and inserting
``12''.
(4) Section 4402(b)(1) of that Act is amended by striking
``in the fourth paragraph''.
SEC. 8. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS IN TRADEMARK LAW.
(a) Award of Damages.--Section 35(a) of the Act of July 5,
1946 (commonly referred to as the ``Trademark Act of 1946'')
(15 U.S.C. 1117(a)), is amended by striking ``a violation
under section 43(a), (c), or (d),'' and inserting ``a
violation under section 43(a) or (d),''.
(b) Additional Technical Amendments.--The Trademark Act of
1946 is further amended as follows:
(1) Section 1(d)(1) (15 U.S.C. 1051(d)(1)) is amended in
the first sentence by striking ``specifying the date of the
applicant's first use'' and all that follows through the end
of the sentence and inserting ``specifying the date of the
applicant's first use of the mark in commerce and those goods
or services specified in the notice of allowance on or in
connection with which the mark is used in commerce.''.
(2) Section 1(e) (15 U.S.C. 1051(e)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(e) If the applicant is not domiciled in the United
States the applicant may designate, by a document filed in
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may
be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the
mark. Such notices or process may be served upon the person
so designated by leaving with that person or mailing to that
person a copy thereof at the address specified in the last
designation so filed. If the person so designated cannot be
found at the address given in the last designation, or if the
registrant does not designate by a document filed in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may
be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the
mark, such notices or process may be served on the
Commissioner.'';
(3) Section 8(f) (15 U.S.C. 1058(f)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(f) If the registrant is not domiciled in the United
States, the registrant may designate, by a document filed in
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may
be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the
mark. Such notices or process may be served upon the person
so designated by leaving with that person or mailing to that
person a copy thereof at the address specified in the last
designation so filed. If the person so designated cannot be
found at the address given in the last designation, or if the
registrant does not designate by a document filed in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may
be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the
mark, such notices or process may be served on the
Commissioner.'';
(4) Section 9(c) (15 U.S.C. 1059(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) If the registrant is not domiciled in the United
States the registrant may designate, by a document filed in
the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may
be served notices or process in proceedings affecting the
mark. Such notices or process may be served
[[Page 18482]]
upon the person so designated by leaving with that person or
mailing to that person a copy thereof at the address
specified in the last designation so filed. If the person so
designated cannot be found at the address given in the last
designation, or if the registrant does not designate by a
document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
Office the name and address of a person resident in the
United States on whom may be served notices or process in
proceedings affecting the mark, such notices or process may
be served on the Commissioner.'';
(5) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 10 (15 U.S.C.
1060(a) and (b)) are amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) A registered mark or a mark for which an
application to register has been filed shall be assignable
with the good will of the business in which the mark is used,
or with that part of the good will of the business connected
with the use of and symbolized by the mark. Notwithstanding
the preceding sentence, no application to register a mark
under section 1(b) shall be assignable prior to the filing of
an amendment under section 1(c) to bring the application into
conformity with section 1(a) or the filing of the verified
statement of use under section 1(d), except for an assignment
to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion
there of, to which the mark pertains, if that business is
ongoing and existing.
``(2) In any assignment authorized by this section, it
shall not be necessary to include the good will of the
business connected with the use of and symbolized by any
other mark used in the business or by the name or style under
which the business is conducted.
``(3) Assignments shall be by instruments in writing duly
executed. Acknowledgment shall be prima facie evidence of the
execution of an assignment, and when the prescribed
information reporting the assignment is recorded in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, the record shall
be prima facie evidence of execution.
``(4) An assignment shall be void against any subsequent
purchaser for valuable consideration without notice, unless
the prescribed information reporting the assignment is
recorded in the United States Patent and Trademark Office
within 3 months after the date of the assignment or prior to
the subsequent purchase.
``(5) The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall
maintain a record of information on assignments, in such form
as may be prescribed by the Director.
``(b) An assignee not domiciled in the United States may
designate by a document filed in the United States Patent and
Trademark Office the name and address of a person resident in
the United States on whom may be served notices or process in
proceedings affecting the mark. Such notices or process may
be served upon the person so designated by leaving with that
person or mailing to that person a copy thereof at the
address specified in the last designation so filed. If the
person so designated cannot be found at the address given in
the last designation, or if the assignee does not designate
by a document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark
Office the name and address of a person resident in the
United States on whom may be served notices or process in
proceedings affecting the mark, such notices or process may
be served upon the Commissioner.'';
(7) Section 23(c) (15 U.S.C. 1091(c)) is amended by
striking the second comma after ``numeral''.
(8) Section 33(b)(8) (15 U.S.C. 1115(b)(8)) is amended by
aligning the text with paragraph (7).
(9) Section 34(d)(1)(A) (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)(1)(A)) is
amended by striking ``section 110'' and all that follows
through ``(36 U.S.C. 380)'' and inserting ``section 220506 of
title 36, United States Code,''.
(10) Section 34(d)(1)(B)(ii) (15 U.S.C. 1116(d)(1)(B)(ii))
is amended by striking ``section 110'' and all that follows
through ``(36 U.S.C. 380)'' and inserting ``section 220506 of
title 36, United States Code''.
(11) Section 34(d)(11) is amended by striking ``6621 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954'' and inserting ``6621(a)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986''.
(12) Section 35(b) (15 U.S.C. 1117(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``section 110'' and all that follows
through ``(36 U.S.C. 380)'' and inserting ``section 220506 of
title 36, United States Code,''; and
(B) by striking ``6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954'' and inserting ``6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986''.
(13) Section 44(e) (15 U.S.C. 1126(e)) is amended by
striking ``a certification'' and inserting ``a true copy, a
photocopy, a certification,''.
SEC. 9. ADDITIONAL CLERICAL AMENDMENT.
The Patent and Trademark Fee Fairness Act of 1999 (113
Stat. 1537-546 et seq.), as enacted by section 1000(a)(9) of
Public Law 106-113, is amended in section 4203, by striking
``111(a)'' and inserting ``1113(a)''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
General Leave
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 4870, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4870, the Intellectual
Property Technical Amendments Act of 2000. As my colleagues may well
know, the benefits of the modern economy and promise for future
prosperity are strongly related to our intellectual property laws. We
are relying upon the proper functioning of our country's patent and
trademark systems. These laws are not a casual accident, but a result
of constant refinement by the Congress.
Last year, the Congress passed landmark patent reform in the American
Inventors Protection Act in the final days of the session. As we all
know in the hurly-burly to pass such a large bill, it is usually the
case that there are often many oversights and errors which require a
follow-up technical corrections bill.
I am pleased to report that the bulk of today's bill is clerical and
technical in nature. It removes semicolons, aligns paragraphs, and
makes other housekeeping changes. It changes some titles of key offices
at the PTO. It also includes some noncontroversial changes to make
certain that reexamination and the status of patent applications go as
anticipated.
It advances the Congress' goal of making the PTO a more responsible
government department. Most importantly, it preserves the protections
for the American inventor that we designed and implemented last year.
In closing, I am pleased that the efforts of the progress on H.R.
4870 reunited me with my friend and colleague, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who is a tireless advocate for the
American innovator. Likewise, I want to extend my remarks and thanks to
the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), for his
valuable assistance in preparing this bill for consideration. The
Members will realize that a strong and well-functioning patent and
trademark system plays an integral part in our economic prosperity,
should feel confident that the legislation before us plays a small,
however important, role in continuing our efforts.
I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble), for shepherding this bill forward. As the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) indicated, last year Congress
enacted substantial reforms to the patent system. After the enactment
last year of the American Inventors Protection Act and the intervening
months of implementation, it has become apparent that several minor
adjustments to the law are needed. Most of the corrections within the
manager's amendment and the underlying H.R. 4870, the Intellectual
Property Technical Amendments Act, are truly technical, correcting
punctuation and the like.
There are some minor substantive changes that are needed to implement
last year's legislation. H.R. 4870, as reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary and the manager's amendment, address several such issues. I
want to thank the legislative counsel's office and those at the Patent
and Trademark Office and the patent and trademark communities who have
assisted us in identifying the problems with this bill that it
addresses, and I urge the body's vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. 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 North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the
[[Page 18483]]
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4870, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ESTABLISHING THE ELIGIBILITY OF ALIENS ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 5062) to establish the eligibility of certain aliens lawfully
admitted for permanent residence for cancellation of removal under
section 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5062
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LIMITING DISQUALIFICATION FROM CANCELLATION OF
REMOVAL FOR CERTAIN PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS.
(a) Termination of Period of Continuous Residence.--
(1) In general.--Section 240A(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, in determining
under such sentence whether a period of continuous residence
described in subsection (a)(2) has ended, any offense
committed on or before September 30, 1996, shall be
disregarded.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-587).
(b) Treatment of Particular Crimes as Aggravated
Felonies.--
(1) In general.--Section 304 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (as contained
in title III of division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-587) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Transition Rule for Cancellation of Removal for
Certain Permanent Residents.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
notwithstanding section 321 or 322 of this Act, section 440
of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1101 note), or any other provision of law
(including any effective date), in applying section
240A(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1229b(a)(3)) to a criminal offense committed on or before
September 30, 1996, the term `aggravated felony' shall not be
construed to include the offense if the offense--
``(A) was not considered to be within the meaning of that
term (as defined in section 101(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) on the date on which the
offense was committed; and
``(B) is considered to be within the meaning of that term
(as so defined) by reason of the enactment of--
``(i) this Act, in the case of an offense committed during
the period beginning on April 25, 1996, and ending on
September 30, 1996; or
``(ii) this Act or the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, in the case of an offense committed on
or before April 24, 1996.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
offense of rape or sexual abuse of a minor. The amendment
made by section 321(a)(1) of this Act shall not be affected
by such paragraph.
``(3) Course of conduct.--In the case in which a course of
conduct is an element of a criminal offense, for purposes of
paragraph (1), the date on which the last act or omission of
that course of conduct occurs shall be considered to be the
date on which the offense is committed.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
304 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-587).
SEC. 2. POST-PROCEEDING RELIEF FOR AFFECTED ALIENS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 240(c)(6) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(6)) or any
other limitation imposed by law on motions to reopen removal
proceedings, the Attorney General shall establish a process
(whether through permitting the reopening of a removal
proceeding or otherwise) under which an alien--
(1) who is (or was) in removal proceedings before the date
of the enactment of this Act (whether or not the alien has
been removed as of such date); and
(2) whose eligibility for cancellation of removal has been
established by section 1 of this Act;
may apply (or reapply) for cancellation of removal under
section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1229b(a)) as a beneficiary of the relief provided
under section 1 of this Act.
(b) Parole.--The Attorney General should exercise the
parole authority under section 212(d)(5)(A) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)) for
the purpose of permitting aliens removed from the United
States to participate in the process established under
subsection (a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5062, the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 made long-needed reforms to our laws
governing the deportation of criminal aliens. The act put an end to
criminal aliens' indefinitely delaying their deportations through
endless appeals and put an end to serious criminals such as rapists
being granted relief from deportation. The results are clear and
gratifying. The number of criminal aliens deported by the INS has gone
up dramatically since enactment of the act. Our neighborhoods are
safer, especially immigrant neighborhoods, which have always borne the
brunt of crime committed by aliens.
One aspect of the 1996 act has, however, led to a number of
deportations that strike many, including myself, as unfair. The act
broadened the definition of crimes which are considered aggravated
felonies for which no relief from deportation is available. The
hardship has come about because this change was made retroactively. The
new definition of aggravated felony applies to crimes whenever
committed. Thus, aliens who committed crimes years before enactment of
the 1996 act, crimes not considered aggravated felonies when committed,
have become deportable as aggravated felons.
Now, retroactive application of the law is the exception and not the
rule, in the Committee on the Judiciary, for obvious reasons of notice
and fairness. In addition, in some cases aliens have clearly
rehabilitated themselves in the intervening years since committing
their crimes, are no longer a threat to society and have started
families. In these cases deportation seems an extreme remedy. Now,
these hardship cases, in my opinion, could have been resolved if the
INS had utilized its inherent power of prosecutorial discretion. The
INS could have decided not to pursue deportation where the facts called
out for forbearance. However, the INS has failed to do so. In fact,
until recently the agency refused to admit it even had prosecutorial
discretion.
Given this reality, it seems wise for Congress to step in and take
action. H.R. 5062, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), does so in
a prudent and responsible manner. Under current law, legal permanent
residents may apply for cancellation of removal if they have committed
deportable acts. To ask for such relief, they must have been legal
permanent residents for 5 years, have continuously resided in the U.S.
for 7 years and not have committed any offense classified as an
aggravated felony.
H.R. 5062 provides that offenses committed before 1996 that became
classified as aggravated felonies in 1996, except for rape or sexual
abuse of a minor, would not bar cancellation of removal. Under the
bill, legal permanent residents already removed because of such
offenses could reopen their removal proceedings to apply for
cancellation of removal. It is in the Attorney General's sole and
unreviewable discretion whether to grant cancellation of removal in
particular cases.
H.R. 5062 makes one more change in the law to carry out our intent.
For the
[[Page 18484]]
purpose of qualifying for cancellation of removal, the 1996 reforms
terminated periods of continuous residence as of the date of commission
of a deportable offense. Legal permanent residents who have been here
for many years thus could not benefit from cancellation of removal,
even if it was otherwise available to them, because deportable offenses
they committed in past years now prevent them from accumulating the
required residence time.
H.R. 5062 provides that deportable offenses committed before the 1996
reforms no longer terminate periods of continuous residence for legal
permanent residents. Legal permanent residents already removed because
of retroactive application of the stop time rule could reopen their
removal proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal. I urge my
colleagues to vote for H.R. 5062. Enactment of this bill will make a
meritorious correction without endangering the success of the 1996
bill's thrust against crime.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if one can imagine this scenario, a contributing member
of this community, it could be in Massachusetts or the State of Texas
or in New York, a young man, newly married with a young family,
working,contributing, and legislation then rises up and ensnares him
into a net dealing with the whole question of a potential or a juvenile
offense that might have occurred that did not even result in jail time.
Either that individual is deported or the individual finds himself or
herself at home in their country burying a loved one and cannot get
back into the country. Their family is separated. All that they have is
lost: homes, apartments, cars. This is the reason for H.R. 5062.
I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde); and ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers);
my chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), for working through
this; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and
his leadership; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart); the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen); the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner); the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray);
the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan); and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Ose) for working with us on a very important piece of
legislation.
{time} 1300
It is by nature a technical bill, but it will eliminate the technical
obstacles to applying for cancellation of removal under section 240(a)
of the Immigration Nationality Act.
The effects of the bill, however, are not just technical in nature,
and I have given my colleagues a scenario of a divided family,
painfulness, the spouse now detained because of some minor offense that
some judge early in their life felt that they were not even warranted
jail time. It will have very real consequences in the lives of many
longtime lawful, permanent residents of the United States who have been
unfairly deprived of relief by the retroactive changes of the 1996
immigration bill.
First, it will eliminate retroactive application of the so-called
stop-time rule by which an alien's lawful permanent resident status is
taken away for eligibility purposes when proceedings are instituted by
the issuance of a notice of to appear. No crime committed before
September 30, 1996 would bar an immigrant from accruing the period of
residency required for cancellation of removal.
It would also address the injustice caused by declaring longtime,
permanent residents ineligible for relief, residents with families and
roots in the community, on the basis of a retroactive change in the
definition of an aggravated felony. The 1996 immigration law made
people ineligible for cancellation of removal as aggravated felons on
the basis of criminal offenses that were not aggravated felonies when
they were committed.
For example, prior to 1996, a theft offense was treated as an
aggravated felony only if a sentence of 5 years or more was imposed.
Say, for example, Mr. X entered the U.S. as a lawful, permanent
resident in 1970. He was convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to a 1-
year suspended sentence in 1985. The harsh provision of the 1996 law
made Mr. X statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal despite
the fact that he did not commit a serious crime and never again in life
ever committed a serious crime. The judge who presided over that case
did not think that the offense warranted even a single day of
incarceration. But under H.R. 5062, Mr. X would no longer be barred
from applying for cancellation of removal.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062 requires the Attorney General to establish a
process of reopening removal proceedings for aliens who were in removal
proceedings before the enactment date of H.R. 5062 and who will now be
eligible for cancellation of removal because of H.R. 5062. This will
allow these aliens to reapply for cancellation relief. The bill
specifies that the Attorney General should parole such aliens into the
United States, give them an opportunity to apply to regain their lawful
permanent residence status, and will cover those individuals who are
left wandering and in a complete state of confusion, having gone to
bury a loved one or attend to a sick loved one and cannot now restore
their status in the United States to seek reunification with their
families.
Mr. Speaker, these changes will permit long-term, lawful permanent
residents who have been affected by the retroactive changes unfairly in
the law to have their day in court, families will be reunited, children
will have fathers, children will have mothers, and I believe it is the
right thing. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in favor of H.R. 5062. It is by
nature a very technical bill. It will eliminate technical obstacles to
applying for cancellation of removal under section 240A of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. The effects of the bill, however, are
not just technical in nature. It will have very real consequences in
the lives of many long-time, lawful permanent residents of the United
States who have been unfairly deprived of relief by the retroactive
changes of the 1996 Immigration bill.
First, it will eliminate retroactive application of the so called
``stop-time rule'' by which an alien's lawful permanent resident status
is taken away from eligibility purposes when proceedings are instituted
by the issuance of a ``notice to appear.'' No crime committed before
September 30, 1996, would bar an immigrant from accruing the period of
residency required for cancellation of removal.
It also would also address the injustice caused by declaring long-
term permanent residents ineligible for relief on the basis of a
retroactive change in the definition of an ``aggravated felony.'' The
1996 Immigration law made people ineligible for cancellation of removal
as aggravated felons on the basis of criminal offenses that were not
aggravated felonies when they were committed.
For example, prior to 1996, a theft offense was treated as an
aggravated felon only if a sentence of 5 years or more was imposed. Mr.
X entered the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1970. He
was convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to a 1-year suspended
sentence in 1985. The harsh provisions of the 96 law make Mr. X
statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal despite the fact
that he did not commit a serious crime. The judge who presided over the
case did not think that the offense warranted even a single day of
incarceration. Under H.R. 5062, Mr. X would no longer be barred from
applying for cancellation of removal.
H.R. 5062 requires the Attorney General to establish a process for
reopening removal proceedings for aliens who were in removal
proceedings before the enactment date of H.R. 5062 and who will now be
eligible for cancellation of removal because of H.R. 5062. This will
allow these aliens to apply for cancellation relief. the bill specifies
that the Attorney General should parole such aliens into the United
States go give them an opportunity to apply to regain their lawful
permanent resident status.
These changes will permit long-time lawful permanent residents who
have been affected by retroactive changes in the law to have their day
in court. I urge you to vote for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 18485]]
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, with great pleasure I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the very
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration of the House
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary and my friend from Illinois for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, the 1996 immigration reforms improve public safety by
facilitating deportation of dangerous criminals. Since 1996, the number
of criminal aliens deported annually has almost doubled from 36,000 in
1996 to 67,000 projected for this year. Increased deportations benefit
public safety in the United States because the recidivism rate for
criminal aliens is high. Justice Department statistics show that half
of all criminal aliens released from prison are convicted of another
serious offense within 3 years.
Since 1996, cancellation of removal has been the primary relief from
deportation available to aliens. Legal permanent residents are likely
to receive cancellation of removal if they have continuously resided in
the U.S. for 7 years and have not committed any crimes classified as
aggravated felonies.
Some hardship cases have arisen where deportation may not be
appropriate. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have urged the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to ensure that deportation
proceedings are not prosecuted in inappropriate cases. However, the INS
has been slow to respond.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062, introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), makes two
changes in existing law. The 1996 reforms expanded the aggravated
felony definition and provided that aggravated felons are ineligible
for cancellation of removal. The 1996 amendments that have resulted in
hardship claims were added by Senate conferees late in the legislative
process. While there is justification for deporting noncitizens
convicted of serious crimes, applying a new standard retroactively
arguably is unfair.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062 provides that offenses committed before 1996
that were not aggravated felonies when committed, except for rape or
sexual abuse of a minor, would not bar cancellation of removal. Legal
permanent residents already removed because of sexual offenses could
reopen proceedings to apply for cancellation of removal.
Second, the 1996 reforms terminated an alien's continuous residence
on the date of commission of a deportable offense. For some legal
permanent residents, offenses committed in past years now prevent them
from accumulating the required residents time to apply for cancellation
of removal.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5062 provides that deportable offenses committed
before 1996 no longer terminate periods of continuous residence for
legal permanent residents. Legal permanent residents already removed
because of that provision could reopen their proceedings to apply for
cancellation of removal.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support H.R. 5062.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member
of the Committee on the Judiciary, and thank him for his assistance in
this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a product of the intense
negotiations between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank); the
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee), and is a product of how far we have been able to go with
the Frank-Frost original legislation, the gentleman from Texas has been
in this in a very important way.
So we are proud of what we have been able to do in terms of
deportable, minor offenses, which prior to the 1996 law, were pretty
outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have come a great distance. We have another
larger bill on this list waiting to be dealt with, the Fix 96 bill, so
I am hopeful that spirit of the negotiations that brought us to this
point on H.R. 5062 will move forward.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), a major guiding force of this legislation who has worked in a
determined and persistent and conciliatory manner to bring this
legislation to the floor of the House, and a distinguished member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
her helpful efforts in bringing this bill to the floor.
I want to thank a number of members of the committee on both sides of
the aisle, particularly the chairman of the full committee who put a
lot into mediating this. It is an important step forward.
I want to say at the outset, I intend, if I am back here next year,
and the early polls are good, to push for more changes than we now
have. But this represents what we were able to agree on this late in
this session, and while it is not everything I would like to see, it is
a very significant improvement very worth passing. I hope that this
bill does become law and that we are able to work with the other body
and with the administration to put these provisions into law.
Some people have been puzzled and have asked me, well, how come there
was retroactivity they thought constitutionally we could not do that,
and I think it is an important point for people to understand. One
cannot, under our Constitution, pass what the Constitution calls an ex
post facto law if one is increasing the criminal penalty. But the right
of a noncitizen with regard to deportation is not of the same
constitutional order. So this is a policy judgment by the Congress to
say that with regard to deportation, there should not be a difference,
even though it would be constitutionally permissible of a retroactive
sort. This leaves the effect of this bill on people who committed
crimes on or after the date of enactment. That is one of the subjects
that I hope we will address next year.
However, what this bill says that if one committed an offense on or
before the date of the enactment of this bill, essentially one will now
be treated as if the old law was in effect and there will be no element
of retroactivity.
One of the things we should stress is, none of the offenses here
affected now become nondeportable. We are not talking about people not
being subject to deportation if, in a particular case, they ought to be
deported. It increases the amount of discretion. It reduces the extent
to which there was kind of an automaticity,but it does not say that
people cannot be deported.
Not every offense is covered. I will be urging the Immigration
Service, if we pass this, to read the intent of Congress here and in
the discretion which they have and Members of this body had to recall
to them the fact that no matter what, there is still prosecutorial
discretion, that they will be guided by the spirit here of
nonretroactivity in their administration of the bill and, in fact,
focus on people who are genuinely dangerous and a threat to the
community as they have the authority to do. But fundamentally, this is
a time to feel good about making something better.
There are just two other points I want to make. One, I do want to
stress, and I appreciate the gentleman from Texas including this and
the gentleman from Illinois and others on the majority side; this is
retroactively doing away with retroactivity, to some extent. That is,
there are people who are already deported. Under this bill, people who
are already deported will be able, because we instruct the Immigration
Service to set up a procedure whereby they can apply to come back. The
criteria I assume would be, to the extent that it can be reconstructed,
if they would not have been deported in the first place, they should
not be deported. It does not mean that everybody who is deported
automatically
[[Page 18486]]
comes back. There is a process, and they will have to show that if it
was not for this change in the law, they would not have been deported.
The last point I want to make is this, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the
indulgence of my colleagues. It is a general point, not about this
bill. We hear much too much today from people who are critics of our
political system who tell us that only big money dominates politics,
who tell us that we cannot get anything done in Congress unless there
are huge campaign contributions.
Is this a very significant piece of legislation. This is an
acknowledgment that a piece of legislation in 1996 had some flaws, it
is a correction of those flaws. It will mean a great deal to many
people; and to my knowledge, there are not a lot of campaign
contributors among them. The people who have been victimized by this
who, on the whole, have been people of limited economic circumstances.
So for those who are quick to kind of argue that political
participation by citizens is worthless, that only big money counts, I
would ask them to look at the example of this bill. This is a bill that
has come to the floor today because of broad support by average
citizens, most of whom, as I said, are not people of enormous economic
wealth. No campaign contributions brought this bill to the floor. This
bill was lobbied by citizens all across the country. Members from
Sacramento and San Diego and Texas and Massachusetts and Florida, all
over the country came together, because we all had constituents who
were caught in a device that maybe nobody intended, maybe they did, but
it was clearly working out more harshly than we thought appropriate. So
I am very grateful to the majority for bringing this bill forward. I do
want to stress again, this is an example of how citizens can get
together and use their rights as citizens to get legislation changed.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for his words. It is a broad-based effort,
and we are delighted that the effort was led by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr.Frost), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, a member of
the Committee on Rules. He is an original cosponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), and I thank him for his leadership on this matter.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support legislation that restores some
sanity and common sense to our Nation's immigration policy. Many of us
in Congress never intended for the 1996 immigration reforms to lead to
the senseless deportation of those who have paid for their minor crimes
and are now productive members of society. I have personally met with
many families in my district that are now dealing with the trauma of
the unwarranted deportation of a family member. These families will
stay in America, but are often reliant on the care and financial
support of the person facing deportation. These families may be forced
to go on welfare or their children may be put into foster homes.
Clearly, our communities are not made safer by breaking up these
families.
With this legislation, Congress is beginning to address those
provisions in the 1996 law that went too far. H.R. 5062 is the first
step in the right direction of fixing the 1996 immigration legislation.
{time} 1315
Under current law, many legal residents can be deported for minor
offenses that were not deportable offenses when they pled guilty to
them. The bill will bring sensible relief to those who have paid for
past infractions and will give people a chance to remain in the
country. In addition, people who have already been deported under the
retroactive provision of this law will be allowed to apply for
readmission to the United States. This will allow families who were
previously torn apart to reunite and regain the opportunity of the
American Dream.
The bill does not fix all of the harsh provisions of the 1996
immigration legislation but it will bring some relief to those who have
dealt with the tragedy of a deported family member.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume just to add to the importance of this legislation the
bipartisanship that is evident. In addition to a lack of campaign
contributions, many of these individuals who will ultimately seek
citizenship are not voters as well. I think the fairness of this issue
has risen so high that we can see this bipartisan effort today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5062, and
I want to thank the chairman and ranking members of the Committee on
the Judiciary, and especially my colleague, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for all their work in bringing this bill
before the House.
In 1996, the Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Responsibility Act. Now, nearly 4 years later, this Nation, built by
immigrants, has witnessed broken families, devastated U.S. citizens,
and people unjustly deported and jailed because of unjust provisions
included in this bill.
In the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts, which I
represent, there are large concentrations of immigrant families; from
Portugal, especially the Azores, Cambodia, Cape Verde, and other
regions. I have listened to the anguished stories of these families.
Some families have members facing deportation for felony convictions
committed years ago, and the person responsible has served time and
made restitution to this community.
H.R. 5062 gives new hope to these desperate families. It does not fix
all the problems, but it is an important step in the right direction.
Again, I want to thank all those involved for bringing it to the
floor. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5062.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair the
amount of time remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 6 minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), a gentleman who has worked very
hard on these issues, and these issues are particularly important to
his constituents.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I also rise in support of H.R. 5062.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
McCollum) for offering this legislation; the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith), the chairman of the subcommittee for bringing it to us; and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the full committee;
and their counterparts, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for working so hard on this bill. All of them
have graciously given me time to point out the situation that this has
caused in San Diego, California, where we have hundreds of families
affected by the legislation that was passed in 1996.
Like my colleagues, I rise to say that we must stop deporting hard-
working legal immigrants only because they committed a minor infraction
years or even decades ago. We must stop hauling parents away in the
middle of the night in front of their children and denying these
people, now in detention, the most basic constitutional rights that we
in America believe everyone should have.
That is exactly what the 1996 law did. It redefined the term
aggravated felony to cover virtually every crime ever committed. It was
retroactive, covering misdemeanor crimes decades ago, and denied basic
constitutional protections, such as bail and visitation rights. I
repeat, we are talking about legal immigrants, immigrants residing in
this country in legal fashion, who
[[Page 18487]]
have paid their debt, if appropriate, to our society.
So we are now rolling back several of the provisions of the 1996 law
and allowing those who have been deported to appeal to return to the
United States. This is a great and positive step. It will mean much to
hundreds and hundreds of families in San Diego, California, and it
means a lot to all Americans that we are restoring liberty and justice
for all.
I urge everyone to support this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Chicago, Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). We have worked
together on battered immigrant legislation, and I appreciate her work
on these matters.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
I represent a district, and I am proud to, that is probably one of
the most diverse in the Nation. It is really a gateway to the United
States for people from every part of the globe. They embrace our
country in a way that demonstrates their willingness to play by the
rules.
We are talking about people affected by this bill who are legally in
the United States and, in the case of those people who have been
impacted specifically by the provisions of the 1996 law, if they have
committed some sort of infraction, have paid for that. They have
already done that.
What this bill has done is cause pain to so many families because the
rules have been changed, which in some ways is not really a very
American idea, saying that now, even though they have paid the price,
they are going to be deported because we have redefined that infraction
that they have committed and they are going to be out. It means that
they have to leave their families, and the pain that it has caused can
be corrected by supporting H.R. 5062.
I urge that support, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to once again ask for support of this legislation. I would
hope that this is painless so that we can rid the pain to others.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was touted as legislation that
would control illegal immigration. It actually has many provisions that
significantly affect American families, legal immigration and others
seeking to enter the United States legally. Among other things, the
1996 law subjectslong-time lawful permanent residents to deportation
for minor offenses committed prior to the enactment of the 1996 law.
H.R. 5062 is the product of negotiations between Representative
Barney Frank, Henry Hyde and Bill McCollum:
It applies only to eliminating mandatory deportation of legal
permanent residents who committed offenses that were not deportable
prior to enactment of the 1996 law.
Mandatory deportation will not be required for persons who were
convicted prior to September 30, 1996, of ``aggravated felonies'' that
were not deportable offenses at the time of the conviction. Such
persons will be eligible to apply for cancellation of removal.
People who have already been deported under the retroactive
provisions of this law will be allowed to apply for readmission to this
country, thus providing an avenue for the reunification of families
that were split apart by the retroactive impact of the 1996 law.
A technical provision known as the ``stop-time rule'' also will be
eliminated for those offenses committed on or before enactment of the
1996 law. This provision enables persons to take advantage of
cancellation of removal.
This bill is only a modest bill--merely a first step toward the
reforms needed to address the injustices of the overly harsh 1996 law.
With regard to retroactivity, persons who are deportable under the 1996
law remain deportable. Though they can apply for cancellation of
removal, they may be ineligible for other benefits such as
naturalization. Moreover, the bill applies only to convictions--rather
than offenses--that occurred prior to the 1996 law.
More broadly, the harshness of the 1996 immigration law must be
mitigated in future bills as seen in Representative John Conyers' H.R.
4966 (Fix '96 bill). The 1996 law must be changed to restore judicial
review and discretion to the Attorney General and the courts, eliminate
mandatory detention, and revoke retroactive enforcement of the 1996 law
on a more comprehensive basis.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5062 and
urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects an injustice in our laws. In 1996,
Congress made several modifications to the nation's immigration law
that had a harsh and unintended impact on many permanent resident
aliens who live in the United States. Under these modifications, legal
aliens who had lived in the United States for many years, and who may
have entered a plea for a burglary or simple assault years ago,
suddenly were subject to automatic deportation with no right to seek a
waiver from the Attorney General, as had been the law. This retroactive
feature was a creation of the other body and was something I opposed in
1996. It is wrong and bad law.
The House intention under the 1996 act was to deport those immigrants
who were guilty of a dangerous aggravated felony. However, a House/
Senate Conference significantly expanded the definition of such
felonies to include relatively minor crimes, and then applied the law
retroactively. As a consequence, individuals who had committed
comparatively minor crimes would be deported, even if the crime was
committed 30 or 40 years ago.
The result, Mr. Speaker, was a manifest injustice.
I will cite one example: Olufoake Olaleye, a legal permanent
immigrant originally from Nigeria and mother to two American born
children had lived in the United States for a number of years and had
supported her family without ever having taken a nickel of public
assistance. She was hard working, dedicated to her family, and in 1993
she was charged with shoplifting $14.99 worth of baby clothes after she
attempted to return several items to an Atlanta clothing store without
a receipt.
Olufoake, not unreasonably, wanted the matter resolved quickly and so
appeared in court with a lawyer where she pled guilty, paid a fine, and
was given a 12 month suspended sentence. There the matter would have
rested. Unfortunately, under the 1996 law, her crime was considered an
aggravated felony, and because the '96 bill included retroactivity
provisions, the I.N.S. reopened her case and ordered her deported.
Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to retroactively deport a hard working
immigrant for stealing $14.99 worth of baby clothes and to equate
shoplifting with murder, rape and armed robbery. This Congress, with
the best of intentions, went too far. H.R. 5062 will go a long way
towards correcting this by eliminating retroactivity.
Mr. Speaker, we are a just and fair nation and must strike a just and
fair balance in our immigration codes. H.R. 5062 does just that and I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. 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 Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5062.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COPYRIGHT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2000
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 5106) to make technical corrections in copyright law, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5106
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 ``Copyright Technical
Corrections Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. CORRECTIONS TO 1999 ACT.
Title I of the Intellectual Property and Communications
Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, as enacted by section 1000(a)(9)
of Public Law 106-113, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1007 is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)(A)''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``1005(e)'' and inserting
``1005(d)''.
(2) Section 1006(b) is amended by striking
``119(b)(1)(B)(iii)'' and inserting ``119(b)(1)(B)(ii)''.
(3)(A) Section 1006(a) is amended--
[[Page 18488]]
(i) in paragraph (1), by adding ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(ii) by striking paragraph (2); and
(iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
(B) Section 1011(b)(2)(A) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) in paragraph (1), by striking `primary transmission
made by a superstation and embodying a performance or display
of a work' and inserting `performance or display of a work
embodied in a primary transmission made by a superstation or
by the Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed';''.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.
Title 17, United States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 119(a)(6) is amended by striking ``of
performance'' and inserting ``of a performance''.
(2)(A) The section heading for section 122 is amended by
striking ``rights; secondary'' and inserting ``rights:
Secondary''.
(B) The item relating to section 122 in the table of
contents for chapter 1 is amended to read as follows:
``122. Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions by
satellite carriers within local markets.''.
(3)(A) The section heading for section 121 is amended by
striking ``reproduction'' and inserting ``Reproduction''.
(B) The item relating to section 121 in the table of
contents for chapter 1 is amended by striking
``reproduction'' and inserting ``Reproduction''.
(4)(A) Section 106 is amended by striking ``107 through
121'' and inserting ``107 through 122''.
(B) Section 501(a) is amended by striking ``106 through
121'' and inserting ``106 through 122''.
(C) Section 511(a) is amended by striking ``106 through
121'' and inserting ``106 through 122''.
(5) Section 101 is amended--
(A) by moving the definition of ``computer program'' so
that it appears after the definition of ``compilation''; and
(B) by moving the definition of ``registration'' so that it
appears after the definition of ``publicly''.
(6) Section 110(4)(B) is amended in the matter preceding
clause (i) by striking ``conditions;'' and inserting
``conditions:''.
(7) Section 118(b)(1) is amended in the second sentence by
striking ``to it''.
(8) Section 119(b)(1)(A) is amended--
(A) by striking ``transmitted'' and inserting
``retransmitted''; and
(B) by striking ``transmissions'' and inserting
``retransmissions''.
(9) Section 203(a)(2) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``(A) the'' and inserting ``(A) The''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``(B) the'' and inserting ``(B) The''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(C) the'' and
inserting ``(C) The''.
(10) Section 304(c)(2) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``(A) the'' and inserting ``(A) The''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period;
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``(B) the'' and inserting ``(B) The''; and
(ii) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(C) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``(C) the'' and
inserting ``(C) The''.
(11) The item relating to section 903 in the table of
contents for chapter 9 is amended by striking ``licensure''
and inserting ``licensing''.
SEC. 4. OTHER AMENDMENTS.
(a) Amendment to Title 18.--Section 2319(e)(2) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``107 through
120'' and inserting ``107 through 122''.
(b) Standard Reference Data.--(1) Section 105(f) of Public
Law 94-553 is amended by striking ``section 290(e) of title
15'' and inserting ``section 6 of the Standard Reference Data
Act (15 U.S.C. 290e)''.
(2) Section 6(a) of the Standard Reference Data Act (15
U.S.C. 290e) is amended by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and
all that follows through ``United States Code,'' and
inserting ``Notwithstanding the limitations under section 105
of title 17, United States Code,''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) will each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
General Leave
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 5106, the bill under consideration, and to insert extraneous
material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I rise today in support of H.R. 5106, the Copyright Technical
Corrections Act of 2000 and urge the House to adopt the measure.
H.R. 5106 makes purely technical amendments to Title I of the
Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 and
Title 17. H.R. 5106 corrects errors in references, spelling and
punctuation, conforms the table of contents with section headings,
restores the definitions in chapter 1 to alphabetical order, deletes an
expired paragraph, and creates continuity in the grammatical style
used.
This legislation makes necessary improvements to the Copyright Act.
The Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property and the Committee
on the Judiciary support H.R. 5106 in a bipartisan manner and I urge
its adoption today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Coble) once again for his able leadership in moving this bill forward
expeditiously.
H.R. 5106, the Copyright Technical Corrections Act of 2000, which I
introduced with the chairman earlier this month, makes a number of
technical corrections which merely change punctuation, correct cross
references or paragraph numbering or correct editorial style in
copyright law.
I want to join the chairman in thanking the Copyright Office and the
legislative counsel for their assistance in the drafting of this bill,
along with the staffs to the majority and my own subcommittee minority
staff as well.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the goals
targeted by H.R. 5106, the ``Copyright Technical Corrections Act of
2000. This bill will make a number of technical corrections to the
Amendments to Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform
Act of 1999, which was passed and signed into law by the first session
of the 106th Congress.
These corrections will allow for clarification of the intent and
scope of the 1999 legislation and provide this Congress with an
opportunity to correct errors, which have been identified in the
current copyright law that have been identified.
The copyright laws of the United States provide legal rights to
exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary,
musical, or artistic work, which also includes computer software
programs. These laws provide security for those are engaged commercial
transactions of every description. A few of these forms of commercial
transaction are television, and radio programming, newspaper, and
magazine publication as well as electronic commercial transactions that
involve the commercial exchange of information.
It is my hope that the work we do today relating to copyright law
will ensure the protection of artist's work well into this new century.
I would like to thank my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee
for their work in bringing this legislation to be considered by the
Full House.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. 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 North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5106, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
WORK MADE FOR HIRE AND COPYRIGHT CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2000
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
[[Page 18489]]
(H.R. 5107) to make certain corrections in copyright law, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5107
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 ``Work Made For Hire and
Copyright Corrections Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. WORK MADE FOR HIRE.
(a) Definition.--The definition of ``work made for hire''
contained in section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``as a sound
recording,''; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``In determining whether any work is eligible to be
considered a work made for hire under paragraph (2), neither
the amendment contained in section 1011(d) of the
Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act
of 1999, as enacted by section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law 106-
113, nor the deletion of the words added by that amendment--
``(A) shall be considered or otherwise given any legal
significance, or
``(B) shall be interpreted to indicate congressional
approval or disapproval of, or acquiescence in, any judicial
determination,
by the courts or the Copyright Office. Paragraph (2) shall be
interpreted as if both section 2(a)(1) of the Work Made For
Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of 2000 and section
1011(d) of the Intellectual Property and Communications
Omnibus Reform Act of 1999, as enacted by section 1000(a)(9)
of Public Law 106-113, were never enacted, and without regard
to any inaction or awareness by the Congress at any time of
any judicial determinations.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective as of November 29, 1999.
(2) Severability.--If the provisions of paragraph (1), or
any application of such provisions to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this
section, the amendments made by this section, and the
application of this section to any other person or
circumstance shall not be affected by such invalidation.
SEC. 3. OTHER AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE.
(a) Amendments to Chapter 7.--Chapter 7 of title 17, United
States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 710, and the item relating to that section in
the table of contents for chapter 7, are repealed.
(2) Section 705(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) The Register of Copyrights shall ensure that records
of deposits, registrations, recordations, and other actions
taken under this title are maintained, and that indexes of
such records are prepared.''.
(3)(A) Section 708(a) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Fees.--Fees shall be paid to the Register of
Copyrights--
``(1) on filing each application under section 408 for
registration of a copyright claim or for a supplementary
registration, including the issuance of a certificate of
registration if registration is made;
``(2) on filing each application for registration of a
claim for renewal of a subsisting copyright under section
304(a), including the issuance of a certificate of
registration if registration is made;
``(3) for the issuance of a receipt for a deposit under
section 407;
``(4) for the recordation, as provided by section 205, of a
transfer of copyright ownership or other document;
``(5) for the filing, under section 115(b), of a notice of
intention to obtain a compulsory license;
``(6) for the recordation, under section 302(c), of a
statement revealing the identityof an author of an anonymous
or pseudonymous work, or for the recordation, under section
302(d), of a statement relating to the death of an author;
``(7) for the issuance, under section 706, of an additional
certificate of registration;
``(8) for the issuance of any other certification; and
``(9) for the making and reporting of a search as provided
by section 705, and for any related services.
The Register is authorized to fix fees for other services,
including the cost of preparing copies of Copyright Office
records, whether or not such copies are certified, based on
the cost of providing the service.''.
(B) Section 708(b) is amended--
(i) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(b) Adjustment of Fees.--The Register of Copyrights may,
by regulation, adjust the fees for the services specified in
paragraphs (1) through (9) of subsection (a) in the following
manner:'';
(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``increase'' and
inserting ``adjustment'';
(iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``increase'' the first
place it appears and inserting ``adjust''; and
(iv) in paragraph (5), by striking ``increased'' and
inserting ``adjusted''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 121(a) of title, 17,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``sections 106 and
710'' and inserting ``section 106''.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In General.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Carry-Over of Existing Fees.--The fees under section
708(a) of title 17, United States Code, on the date of the
enactment of this Act shall be the fees in effect under
section 708(a) of such title on the day before such date of
enactment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
General Leave
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 5107, the bill under consideration, and to insert extraneous
material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Work Made for Hire and
Copyright Technical Corrections Act of 2000 and urge the House to adopt
this measure.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5107 is noncontroversial. It repealed an amendment
in the Intellectual Property and Communication Omnibus Reform Act of
1999, IPCORA, which inserted sound recordings as a type of work that is
eligible for work-made-for-hire status.
Following passage of the amendment in 1999, some recording artists
argued that the change was not a mere clarification of the law and that
it had substantively affected their rights. After the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman) and I had several meetings and agreed that a
hearing was in order, the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property subsequently conducted a hearing on the issue of sound
recordings as works made for hire on May 25, 2000.
A compromise solution was reached and H.R. 5107 implements that
solution. It repeals the amendment in question without prejudice. In
other words, it restores any person or entity to the same legal
position they occupied prior to the enactment of the amendment in
November 1999.
H.R. 5107 states that in determining whether any work is eligible for
work-made-for-hire-status, neither the amendment in IPCORA nor the
deletion of the amendment through H.R. 5107 shall be considered or
otherwise given any legal significance or shall be interpreted to
indicate congressional approval or disapproval of any judicial
determination by the courts or the Copyright Office.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman), the ranking member of the subcommittee; the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee; the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the full committee; and
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) on our committee. There are
others who will speak to this issue who also were helpful.
H.R. 5107 also includes other noncontroversial corrections to the
Copyright Act. These amendments remove expired sections and clarify
miscellaneous provisions governing fees and recordkeeping procedures.
They will improve the operation of the Copyright Office and clarify
United States copyright law.
The manager's amendment to H.R. 5107 that we are voting on today
makes purely technical and noncontroversial changes to the text of H.R.
5107 as it was reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. The
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property and the Committee on
the Judiciary support H.R. 5107 in a bipartisan manner, and I urge its
adoption today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleagues, this is a great day for musicians who create their own
music
[[Page 18490]]
and musicians that perform, and so I am pleased to rise in support as a
cosponsor of H.R. 5107 because it strikes sound recordings from the
definition of work made for hire in section 101 of the Copyright Act.
{time} 1330
The bill undoes an unfortunate amendment to the Copyright Act made
last November which changed the act to treat sound recordings as
``works made for hire.''
Without the benefit of committee hearings or other debate, the change
terminated any future interest that artists might have in their sound
recordings and turned them over permanently to the record companies. We
have since learned that we should never do business this way.
After hearing testimony at the subcommittee level, all of the
interested parties, I am glad to say, the subcommittee members, the
recording artists and the recording industry itself, agreed that the
provision was a substantive change in law and should be struck so that
the law could be returned to the status quo ante. That is what brings
us here today.
Returning the law to where it was before November of 1999 will ensure
that any and all artists' authorship rights are preserved. Fortunately,
the recording industry has worked diligently with the recording artists
for the past several months to arrive at mutually agreed language.
While slightly awkward in its legislative construction, I nevertheless
want to compliment both parties in their efforts to reach compromise.
Now, the digital era lends to creators great opportunities for
marketing their works of authorship and, at the same time, great perils
of theft of those works. As we try in other legislative contexts to
protect intellectual property rights in an open system of the Internet,
we should not be changing the rules of such property rights in the
middle of the night without hearings or proper committee consideration,
as happened last year when this provision was first inserted.
I express my appreciation that we are undoing this unwise change, and
I thank all of my colleagues that participated in bringing this measure
to the floor and ask all of the Members of the House to give an aye
vote on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a very important member of the
committee that worked on this legislation. He has been in this area for
many years, and he did very important work in this area.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend and the
ranking member of the committee, for yielding me a generous amount of
time. I would like to do several things in that time.
First, I would like to commend a number of colleagues who have played
pivotal roles in moving this important legislation, most specially the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of our
judiciary subcommittee. He deserves particular praise for his open-
mindedness and his perseverance on this issue. There were times when
people sought to impugn his motives. Notwithstanding that and the total
lack of basis for that, he rose above the human tendency to
retaliateand proceeded ahead, I think, very fairly and in wonderful
fashion to help us come to this kind of conclusion. Without his
efforts, this bill would not have had a chance of passing.
I also want to recognize several colleagues who have played pivotal
roles: the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of
the Committee on the Judiciary, who has been a champion for the rights
of recording artists; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher); the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren); the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Wexler); the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt); as well
as two individuals, one on the majority side, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Bono), who we spent a lot of time on airplanes to
California discussing this issue, and a non-member of the committee who
is particularly interested in this issue and the rights of recording
artists, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy).
Section 2 of H.R. 5107 fulfills an important objective. It returns
the law on the eligibility of sound recordings as ``works made for
hire'' to its state prior to November 29, 1999. Equally important, it
restores the state of the law without prejudicing the rights of any
affected parties.
Finally, section 3 of H.R. 5107 makes certain unrelated changes to
the Copyright Act to improve the operations of the U.S. Copyright
Office. H.R. 5107 is strongly supported by both Democrats and
Republicans. The bipartisan support for this bill is not surprising. It
is wholly nonpartisan in nature.
H.R. 5107 is also supported by all affected private parties of whom I
am aware. In fact, the language of H.R. 5107 is the successful outcome
of several months of negotiations between representatives of the
recording artists and the reporting industry.
For this accomplishment we owe a special note of gratitude to Jay
Cooper and Cary Sherman, who represent the recording artists and
recording industry, respectively. These gentlemen did yeoman's work and
sacrificed many hours when they were supposed to be on vacation to
craft acceptable language under often difficult circumstances and time
constraints.
I would also like to thank the recording artists and record companies
who worked so diligently to build this consensus.
The substance of H.R. 5107 is relatively easy to explain, while its
impact is more difficult to express.
Section 2(a)(1) of this bill would remove the words ``as a sound
recording'' from paragraph (2) of the definition of ``works made for
hire'' in section 101 of the Copyright Act, words that this Congress
added less than a year ago through section 1000(a)(9) of Public Law
Number 106-113. When Congress enacted section 1000(a)(9) last year, we
believed it was a non-controversial, technical change that merely
clarified current law. However, since that time, we have been contacted
by many organizations, legal scholars, and recording artists who take
strong issue with section 1000(a)(9), asserting that it constitutes a
significant, substantive change in law.
We have discovered that there exists a serious debate about whether
sound recordings always, usually, sometimes, or never fell within the
nine pre-existing categories of works eligible to be considered ``works
made for hire.''
By mandating that all sound recordings are eligible to be ``works
made for hire,'' section 1000(a)(9) effectively resolved this debate
and impaired the ability of creators of sound recordings that argue
that particular sound recordings and sound recordings in general cannot
be made ``works made for hire.'' This, in turn, effectively prevents
creators of sound recordings from attempting to exercise termination
rights under section 203 of title 17, thus reclaiming their copyrights
35 years after an assignment of those rights.
By undoing section 1000(a)(9), section 2(a)(1) of this bill will
prevent any prejudice to the legal arguments of creators of sound
recordings. However, we are sensitive that, in undoing that amendment
made by section 1000(a)(9), we must be careful not to adversely affect
or prejudice the rights of other interested parties.
Specifically, we do not want the removal of the words ``as a sound
recording'' from the definition of ``works made for hire'' to be
interpreted to preclude or prejudice the argument that sound recordings
are eligible to be ``works made for hire'' within the nine preexisting
categories. In essence, we want the removal of the words ``as a sound
recording'' from section 101 of the Copyright Act to return the law to
the status quo ante so that all affected parties have the same rights
and legal arguments that they had prior to enactment of section
1000(a)(9).
It is for these reasons that we were convinced of the need to include
section 2(a)(2) within this statute, which is intended to ensure that
the removal
[[Page 18491]]
of the words ``as a sound recording'' will have no legal effect other
than returning the law to the exact state existing prior to the
enactment of section 1000(a)(9). With the inclusion of section 2(a)(2)
in this bill, we ensure that courts will interpret section 101 exactly
as they would have interpreted it if neither section 1000(a)(9) nor
section 2(a)(1) of this bill were ever enacted.
In short, and in conclusion, we believe passage of this bill is vital
to ensure that whatever rights the authors of sound recordings may have
had previously are restored and that such restoration is achieved in a
way that does not unfairly impair the rights of others.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Bono).
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand before my colleagues today to
speak in favor of H.R. 5107, the Work Made for Hire and Copyright
Corrections Act of 2000. I am pleased that H.R. 5107 is being
considered on the floor today, and I support this legislation.
This bill not only levels the playing field for both artists and the
recording industry, but it also reverses the 1999 amendment to the
Copyright Act that would have taken advantage of young artists who are
not emotionally or financially prepared to sign their recording lives
away.
As a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary, which considered
this legislation, I am pleased that both sides of this debate were
willing to sit down and draft a proposal that ensures that both the
authors and the recording industry both benefit from such a well-
conceived compromise.
I would like to thank the House Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Coble), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for their hard
work, persistence, and wisdom in pursuing a mutual understanding that
reflects the thoughts and desires of both sides on this issue.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Kansas City, Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). No one has worked harder in the
committee and in the negotiations than she.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
5107, the Works Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act, a
resolution to rectify a complex and contentious copyright issue for
recording artists and record companies.
Just prior to adjournment last year, four seemingly innocuous words
were added to the Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act: ``as a sound
recording.'' But these words were inordinately powerful. Their
insertion threatened one of our most precious rights, the right to
claim ownership of one's artistic creations. By inserting ``as a sound
recording'' into the bill, the work for hire provision of U.S.
copyright law (revised in 1976) was fundamentally changed to prohibit
the ownership of a sound recording by its creator after 35 years of
sometimes onerous exploitation by a record company.
Typically, after the 35-year term, ownership of these works returned
automatically to the creator. But these four words denied forever the
rights of recording artists to own their creative and deeply personal
expression of themselves they so generously share with the rest of us.
The words also revised existing law and industry practice and did not
merely clarify it.
The measure before us today corrects this injustice and repeals
without prejudice the change made to U.S. copyright law last year.
I commend Jay Cooper, counsel to the artists groups, and Cary
Sherman, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the
Recording Industry Association of America, for their resolute
commitment to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
I would also like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the
recording artists who made Congress aware of the need to restore their
rights, in particular Don Henley and Sheryl Crow, cofounders of the
Recording Artists Coalition.
I also applaud the tireless efforts of the members of the Recording
Academy, Adam Sandler, and in particular, the Academy's president and
CEO, Michael Greene. Without their perseverance and tenacity, this
resolution would not have been reached. I also want to recognize the
work of Margaret Cone and Susan Riley with the American Federation of
Television and Radio Artists for their help.
From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the gentleman from North
Carolina (Chairman Coble), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman),
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) of the Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property for their active involvement and
commitment to resolving this work-for-hire issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join with members of the Committee on
the Judiciary as a cosponsor of the legislation and especially with
three of my colleagues on the subcommittee who also have been an
integral part of this process: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Boucher), and the gentlewomen from California (Ms. Lofgren) and (Mrs.
Bono). I applaud the Committee for working together in a spirit of
bipartisanship.
I urge Members of the House to vote yes on this resolution, and I
urge the Senate to work together as we did for swift passage this
session.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to add, while this in some way seems
like a simple and straightforward proposition, it took a huge amount of
time. I think it is worth paying special note to the staff, to Debbie
Rose Aaron Blain, and Sampak Garg, Alec French of the subcommittee
staff, and Stacy Baird and all the other staffers who worked on this,
because they did invest a great deal of time; and I think they should
be commended for that.
{time} 1345
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to support the
observations of the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and to
single out Alec French and Sampak Garg on our judiciary staff who were
so excellent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) was very
generous in his remarks to me. I want to remind my colleagues, there
were two mules pulling that wagon, and the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren) referred to the two Howards. I refer to us as the two
mules because it became heavy lifting at times. As has already been
mentioned, I mentioned the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). They were both helpful to us.
The recording industry and the artist community were both helpful.
Mr. Speaker, there was no ill intent involved with this. The
Committee on the Judiciary submitted, or dispatched, six conferees,
three Democrats and three Republicans. All six of us signed the
conference report. It was my belief that we were merely codifying
accepted practice, but that is subject to interpretation. With the
passage of this bill today, I think that both parties, that is, the
recording industry and the artist community, will both breathe easier,
particularly the artist community. I too want to thank the staffers.
Both Democrat and Republican staffers worked very diligently on this
matter.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer comment
on H.R. 5107, the Work Made for Hire and Copyright Corrections Act of
2000, for consideration. Under 17 United States Code 203, authors of
copyrighted works have the right to terminate assignments of their
copyrights thirty-five years after an assignment. Section 203 is
designed to ensure that authors, who may have received very little
compensation for the initial
[[Page 18492]]
assignment of their copyrights, get a ``second bite at the apple'' if
those copyrights have value after thirty-five years.
Unfortunately, the right to termination cannot be exercised by those
creators of copyrighted works that are defined as ``works made for
hire,'' under 17 U.S.C. 101. Under Section 101, a work made for hire
may be defined as: a work prepared by an employee within the scope of
employment, or a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as one
of ten, or in the case of statutorily specified categories of works.
Statutorily specified work under the condition of a written agreement
specifying the work shall be considered made for hire then it is
considered under the conditions of section 101.
After the enactment of the new copyright law many organizations,
legal scholars, and recording artists took strong issue with it,
asserting that it constitutes a significant, substantive change in law.
However, representatives of record companies and some legal scholars
strongly disagreed with this position, and insisted that the new
copyright law merely clarified prior law. The core of the disagreement
between the opposing sides centers around pre-existing categories of
works made for hire, and thus the extent to which sound recordings were
previously eligible to be works made for hire.
This bill only attempts to return the law regarding copyrighted work
that was created as ``work made for hire'' to its original state before
the passage of the 1999 copyright legislation.
It is my hope that in the next Congress we will have an opportunity
for hearing and full deliberation in this matter so that artists and
commercial interest in copyrighted work can both be served by the
copyright laws of our nation. I support this legislation and urge my
colleagues to pass this.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5107, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CHILD CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 2000
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 2883) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
confer United States citizenship automatically and retroactively on
certain foreign-born children adopted by citizens of the United States,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2883
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 ``Child Citizenship Act of
2000''.
TITLE I--CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES
SEC. 101. AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP FOR CERTAIN
CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 320 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as
follows:
``children born outside the united states and residing permanently in
the united states; conditions under which citizenship automatically
acquired
``Sec. 320. (a) A child born outside of the United States
automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all
of the following conditions have been fulfilled:
``(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the
United States, whether by birth or naturalization.
``(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
``(3) The child is residing in the United States in the
legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to
a lawful admission for permanent residence.
``(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to a child adopted by a
United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the
requirements applicable to adopted children under section
101(b)(1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such Act
is amended by striking the item relating to section 320 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 320. Children born outside the United States and residing
permanently in the United States; conditions under which
citizenship automatically acquired.''.
SEC. 102. ACQUISITION OF CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP FOR
CERTAIN CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED
STATES.
(a) In General.--Section 322 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1433) is amended to read as
follows:
``children born and residing outside the united states; conditions for
acquiring certificate of citizenship
``Sec. 322. (a) A parent who is a citizen of the United
States may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born
outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship
automatically under section 320. The Attorney General shall
issue a certificate of citizenship to such parent upon proof,
to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that the
following conditions have been fulfilled:
``(1) At least one parent is a citizen of the United
States, whether by birth or naturalization.
``(2) The United States citizen parent--
``(A) has been physically present in the United States or
its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not
less than five years, at least two of which were after
attaining the age of fourteen years; or
``(B) has a citizen parent who has been physically present
in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period
or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of
which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.
``(3) The child is under the age of eighteen years.
``(4) The child is residing outside of the United States in
the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent, is
temporarily present in the United States pursuant to a lawful
admission, and is maintaining such lawful status.
``(b) Upon approval of the application (which may be filed
from abroad) and, except as provided in the last sentence of
section 337(a), upon taking and subscribing before an officer
of the Service within the United States to the oath of
allegiance required by this Act of an applicant for
naturalization, the child shall become a citizen of the
United States and shall be furnished by the Attorney General
with a certificate of citizenship.
``(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to a child
adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child
satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children
under section 101(b)(1).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such Act
is amended by striking the item relating to section 322 and
inserting the following:
``Sec. 322. Children born and residing outside the United States;
conditions for acquiring certificate of citizenship.''.
SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 321 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1432) is repealed.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of such Act
is amended by striking the item relating to section 321.
SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by this title shall take effect 120
days after the date of the enactment of this Act and shall
apply to individuals who satisfy the requirements of section
320 or 322 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as in
effect on such effective date.
TITLE II--PROTECTIONS FOR CERTAIN ALIENS VOTING BASED ON REASONABLE
BELIEF OF CITIZENSHIP
SEC. 201. PROTECTIONS FROM FINDING OF BAD MORAL CHARACTER,
REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES, AND CRIMINAL
PENALTIES.
(a) Protection From Being Considered Not of Good Moral
Character.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(f) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``In the case of an alien who makes a false statement or
claim of citizenship, or who registers to vote or votes in a
Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative,
recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction
of such registration or voting to citizens, if each natural
parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien,
each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen
(whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently
resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of
16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such
statement, claim, or violation that he or she was a citizen,
no finding that the alien is, or was, not of good moral
character may be made based on it.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546) and shall
apply to individuals having an application for a benefit
under the Immigration and Nationality Act pending on or after
September 30, 1996.
(b) Protection From Being Considered Inadmissible.--
(1) Unlawful voting.--Section 212(a)(10)(D) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(D)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D) Unlawful voters.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien who has voted in violation of
any Federal, State, or local
[[Page 18493]]
constitutional provision, statute, ordinance, or regulation
is inadmissible.
``(ii) Exception.--In the case of an alien who voted in a
Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative,
recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction
of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien
(or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of
the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or
naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United
States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien
reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or
she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be
inadmissible under any provision of this subsection based on
such violation.''.
(2) Falsely claiming citizenship.--Section 212(a)(6)(C)(ii)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(ii) Falsely claiming citizenship.--
``(I) In general.--Any alien who falsely represents, or has
falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of
the United States for any purpose or benefit under this Act
(including section 274A) or any other Federal or State law is
inadmissible.
``(II) Exception.--In the case of an alien making a
representation described in subclause (I), if each natural
parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien,
each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen
(whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently
resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of
16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making
such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien
shall not be considered to be inadmissible under any
provision of this subsection based on such representation.''.
(3) Effective dates.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
347 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-638) and shall apply to voting occurring before, on, or
after September 30, 1996. The amendment made by paragraph (2)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
344 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-637) and shall apply to representations made on or after
September 30, 1996. Such amendments shall apply to
individuals in proceedings under the Immigration and
Nationality Act on or after September 30, 1996.
(c) Protection From Being Considered Deportable.--
(1) Unlawful voting.--Section 237(a)(6) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(6)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(6) Unlawful voters.--
``(A) In general.--Any alien who has voted in violation of
any Federal, State, or local constitutional provision,
statute, ordinance, or regulation is deportable.
``(B) Exception.--In the case of an alien who voted in a
Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative,
recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction
of voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien
(or, in the case of an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of
the alien) is or was a citizen (whether by birth or
naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United
States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien
reasonably believed at the time of such violation that he or
she was a citizen, the alien shall not be considered to be
deportable under any provision of this subsection based on
such violation.''.
(2) Falsely claiming citizenship.--Section 237(a)(3)(D) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(D))
is amended to read as follows:
``(D) Falsely claiming citizenship.--
``(i) In general.--Any alien who falsely represents, or has
falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United
States for any purpose or benefit under this Act (including
section 274A) or any Federal or State law is deportable.
``(ii) Exception.--In the case of an alien making a
representation described in clause (i), if each natural
parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien,
each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen
(whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently
resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of
16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making
such representation that he or she was a citizen, the alien
shall not be considered to be deportable under any provision
of this subsection based on such representation.''.
(3) Effective dates.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
347 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-638) and shall apply to voting occurring before, on, or
after September 30, 1996. The amendment made by paragraph (2)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
344 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-637) and shall apply to representations made on or after
September 30, 1996. Such amendments shall apply to
individuals in proceedings under the Immigration
andNationality Act on or after September 30, 1996.
(d) Protection From Criminal Penalties.--
(1) Criminal penalty for voting by aliens in federal
election.--Section 611 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Subsection (a) does not apply to an alien if--
``(1) each natural parent of the alien (or, in the case of
an adopted alien, each adoptive parent of the alien) is or
was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization);
``(2) the alien permanently resided in the United States
prior to attaining the age of 16; and
``(3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting
in violation of such subsection that he or she was a citizen
of the United States.''.
(2) Criminal penalty for false claim to citizenship.--
Section 1015 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``Subsection (f) does not apply to an alien if each natural
parent of the alien (or, in the case of an adopted alien,
each adoptive parent of the alien) is or was a citizen
(whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently
resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of
16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of making
the false statement or claim that he or she was a citizen of
the United States.''.
(3) Effective dates.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall be effective as if included in the enactment of section
216 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat.
3009-572). The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall be
effective as if included in the enactment of section 215 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-572). The
amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to an
alien prosecuted on or after September 30, 1996, except in
the case of an alien whose criminal proceeding (including
judicial review thereof) has been finally concluded before
the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
General Leave
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act, is
designed to streamline the acquisition of United States citizenship by
foreign children after they are adopted by American citizens. The bill
makes the Federal Government a partner with parents who, with great
compassion, adopt children from overseas.
The original bill was improved by an amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I want to thank him for
suggesting the changes made in the amendment. He speaks with great
credibility since he and his wife adopted a daughter from Vietnam at
the end of the Vietnam War.
Under current law, when U.S. citizens adopt a child from another
country, the child does not automatically become an American citizen.
The parents have to apply to the Attorney General for a certificate of
citizenship and the child then has to take the oath of allegiance
required of naturalized citizens. This process can take years because
of the naturalization backlog at the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
There is no reason to make adoptive parents and their new children to
have to go through this laborious process.
After an adoption takes place and the child is brought to the United
States consistent with United States immigration law, the child should
automatically be considered a citizen.
This bill provides that internationally adopted children, and those
children born to U.S. citizens overseas who are not considered citizens
at birth, will become citizens as of the time they come to reside in
the United States.
I should point out that it two U.S. citizens have a child overseas,
the child is not considered a citizen at birth if neither parent has
had a residence in the United States. Also, if a
[[Page 18494]]
U.S. citizen and an alien have a child overseas, the child is not
considered a citizen at birth if the citizen parent has not lived in
the United States for five years, at least two of which were after the
age of 14. Under current law, such individuals have to go through a
petition process in order to obtain citizenship.
The adopted children covered in this bill will be considered citizens
automatically when certain conditions have been met.
First, at least one parent has to be a U.S. citizen. Second, the
child must be under 18. Third, the child must be residing in the United
States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent.
H.R. 2883's grant of citizenship will also apply to qualifying
children who arrived in the United States prior to its enactment and
have not yet obtained citizenship pursuant to the Immigration and
Nationality Act (as it existed before enactment).
The manager's amendment to the bill addresses the situation of aliens
who have improperly voted in federal, state or local elections, or
represented themselves as citizens for the purpose of registering to
vote or to procure benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act
or any other federal or state laws. The amendment is intended to
provide a limited class of aliens with exemptions from the penalties in
the Immigration and Nationality Act and title 18 governing illegal
voting and false claims of citizenship.
In some cases, individuals had a reasonable--if mistaken--belief that
they were citizens of the United States. This can occur among foreign-
born children brought to the United States at a young age if their
parents did not realize that the children did not become citizens
automatically. Of course, the enactment of H.R. 2883 and its expansion
of automatic citizenship to more foreign-born children of U.S. citizens
will greatly reduce the number of cases in which such a mistake can be
made.
One such case is that of a Korean orphan adopted at the age of four
months by an American Air Force Master Sergeant and his American wife
while they were stationed overseas. That orphan entered the U.S. with
her adoptive parents when she was two years old and has spent the rest
of her life in this country. it was only after she became an adult that
it became known to her that her parents had never filed the necessary
papers to naturalize her prior to her eighteenth birthday.
Consequently, under current law, she is subject to potential
deportation and even prosecution because she mistakenly voted, thinking
she already was a U.S. citizen. It simply would not be fair to subject
such an individual to penalties under the immigration law for genuinely
innocent acts.
The protections in the managers' amendment (title II of the bill) are
granted to an alien if: (1) each natural or adoptive parent of the
alien is or was a citizen of the United States; (2) the alien
permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of
16; and (3) the alien reasonably believed at the time of voting or
falsely claiming citizenship (to obtain an immigration or other benefit
under federal or state law) that he or she was a citizen of the United
States.
An alien who meets this standard is protected against a finding that
the alien was not of good moral character (among other things, a bar to
naturalization), and is protected against being considered inadmissible
or deportable. In addition, an alien who meets this standard shall not
be subject to prosecution under sections 611 and 1015 of title 18.
All of these amendments are effective as if they were included in the
relevant sections of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996.
I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2883.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his work. Let me as
well add my support for this legislation and thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for his leadership. This simply clearly
allows an adopted child as we all believe in this country has equal
status with our own birth children, this adopted child that is adopted
by a citizen of the United States will now have the same rights as a
child born overseas to a citizen parent. I believe this legislation
clearly promotes children's interests and puts children first.
Finally, I think it is important to note that we protect those
individuals who vote, who believed because of their status with a
citizenship parent that they had in fact citizenship, did not
intentionally vote incorrectly inasmuch as they may not have had
citizenship. It protects them from criminal prosecution so that the
matter can be remedied and protects the voting privileges of the United
States but also protects those who are well intended.
Again, let me applaud both the chairman and the ranking member of
thefull committee, again the chairman of this committee and as well
indicate that I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, H.R.
2883.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000,
H.R. 2883. This bill would amend section 320 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the ``INA,'' to include adopted children within its
provision for automatic acquisition of citizenship in the case of
certain children born outside of the United States who have a citizen
parent. It also would amend section 320 of the INA to include adopted
children within its provision for citizenship through the
naturalization process for children born outside of the United States
to a citizen parent who cannot under current law qualify for automatic
citizenship.
Including adopted children within the provision for automatic
citizenship would greatly reduce the time and paperwork required for
adoptive parents to procure citizenship for their children. I think it
is very important to do away with unnecessary distinctions between
children by birth and children by adoption, particularly with respect
to such things as paperwork requirements. The United States citizens
who adopt foreign born children have enough paperwork to do in the
adoption process.
The Child Citizenship Act also provides protections for certain
aliens who vote in a United States election on the basis of a
reasonable belief that they are citizens of the United States. It would
protect them from being precluded from a finding of ``good moral
character,'' which is necessary for a number of important benefits
under the INA, such as naturalization. It also would protect them from
being considered inadmissible or deportable for voting in the election,
and from certain criminal sanctions.
Voting in a United States election is one of the most precious rights
of citizenship. I agree that people who vote knowing that they are not
eligible for this privilege should be subjected to removal proceedings
and in some cases to criminal prosecution, but I do not want this to
happen in the case of a person who has a good faith belief that he is a
citizen of the United States and has a right to vote. The law on
automatic citizenship is difficult even for lawyers to understand. I am
not at all surprised that people make mistakes when they interpret
these provisions.
I urge you to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the moving person of this
legislation and one with a direct and very special interest and thank
him for his leadership.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to join my good friend from
Texas, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, in
support of this amended bill. I want to express my truly profound
gratitude to him for his willingness to address the concerns that were
raised by the administration and others regarding the bill as
originally introduced. The bill before us is a consensus effort. In
this time of cynicism about government and the sometimes strident
debate we hear, this kind of bipartisan effort should remind the
American people that Members with different perspectives who work hard
and act in good faith can accomplish an excellent and bipartisan
result. Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership.
I also want to acknowledge the critical involvement of Senator Don
Nickles, the author of the companion bill in the Senate, as well as
Senators Kennedy and Landrieu who worked so closely with us to get this
measure, hopefully, to the President's desk.
Finally, let me express my appreciation to a number of key staff
members without whom we would not be here today. I notice George
Fishman, counsel to the subcommittee, and Peter Levinson of the full
committee staff also played a key role. I would be remiss not to note
the contribution of a Senate staffer, McLane Layton of Senator Nickles'
staff, who has not only been a major force behind this legislation but
is herself the parent of children adopted from Latvia. Her concern and
passion to remedy discrimination
[[Page 18495]]
against adopted children is truly remarkable. I would also be remiss
not to mention my own legislative director who has poured his heart and
soul into this effort, Mark Agrast.
Mr. Speaker, today is truly a good day, a day that has been long in
coming for adoptive parents like myself who feel deeply that their
children who were born overseas have been treated differently, as if
they were less American than are children who were born in the United
States. For the law currently provides that our foreign-born sons and
daughters are aliens. They do not have the benefits of citizenship when
they arrive on our shores, come into our homes and fill up our lives
with joy and love. No, we must petition for naturalization on their
behalf, as if we, their parents, were not American citizens. That is
unacceptable to Americans who have adopted and particularly for those
who are considering adoption. That lengthy process of naturalization
requires them to deal with a bureaucracy that is already overburdened
and lacking in resources, for no valid reason. It is insulting to
parents who have already overcome innumerable administrative obstacles
to adopt our children and to bring them home. And more importantly, it
is disrespectful to our children.
This bill would change all that. Under the bill, citizenship would be
conferred automatically on all adopted children once they are in the
United States. Parents will no longer be required to submit an
application to have their children naturalized. Adopted children will
no longer be the subject of discrimination. And parents will no longer
need to worry about whether their children are citizens or not. And, of
course, the INS will be relieved of the need to spend its limited
resources on some 16,000 naturalization cases for the past year alone,
and that number is expected to increase.
Furthermore, this bill would avoid some heartbreaking injustices that
have sometimes tragically occurred. Some parents have discovered to
their horror that their failure to complete the paperwork in time can
result in their forced separation from their children under the summary
deportation provisions Congress enacted back in 1996.
That was the experience of the Gaul family of Florida who adopted
their son John at the age of 4. Though he was born in Thailand, he
speaks no Thai, has no Thai relatives, knows nothing of Thai culture
and has never been back to Thailand, until the U.S. Government deported
him last year as a criminal alien at the age of 25 for property
offenses that he had committed when he was a teenager.
One may ask how this could happen. The Gauls had obtained an American
birth certificate for John shortly after adopting him and did not
realize until he applied for a passport at age 17 that he had never
been naturalized. They immediately filed the papers; but due to INS
delays, his application was not processed before he turned 18. An
immigration judge ruled that the agency had taken too long to process
the application, but that did not make any difference. The 1996 law
allowed him no discretion to halt the deportation. At least that is how
the INS interpreted it.
In another recent incident, Joao Herbert, a 22-year-old Ohioan
adopted as a young boy from Brazil, was ordered deported because as a
teenager he sold several ounces of marijuana to a police informant. It
was his first criminal offense, for which he was sentenced only to
probation and community treatment. But under the law he was an
aggravated felon subject to deportation because he had never been
naturalized. He has now been in detention for a year and a half because
the Brazilians consider his adoption irrevocable and refuse to accept
him. And were they to do so, it is uncertain how he would get by. Like
John Gaul, he knows no one in his native country and no longer
understands his native tongue.
No one condones criminal acts, Mr. Speaker; but the terrible price
these young people and their families have paid is out of proportion to
their misdeeds. Whatever they did, they should be treated like any
other American kid. They are our children, and we are responsible for
them.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides relief from deportation to
one particular group of noncitizens who are subject to deportation
under the 1996 law, namely, those who voted or registered to vote in
U.S. elections in the reasonable mistaken belief that they were
citizens at the time. This is a modest but important change that will
correct a glaring injustice in our immigration laws.
The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 enjoys bipartisan and bicameral
support and the full support of the administration. Again, I want to
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and his staff and our
colleagues at INS for their cooperation and hard work in enabling us to
reach this result. I urge all of my colleagues to join in support of
this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation to remedy this important flaw in our
immigration laws.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) for his generous comments.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my good friend from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and other members of the Judiciary
Committee in support of H.R. 2883, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000,
as amended. And I want to thank all Members who worked together to find
common ground so that this legislation could move forward in a way that
was acceptable to the Administration as well as the House and the
Senate.
Over the course of the last year and more, the Committee on
International Relations has been working on implementing legislation
for the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption, which this House
took up and passed last night. This brought to my attention once again
the difficult, and what must sometimes seem endless, procedures faced
by U.S. citizens in adopting foreign-born children. We have all had
constituents who have called our offices, desperate for help in solving
last minute difficulties that have arisen in their search to build
their family. After all the exhausting paperwork, extensive travel, and
sometimes heart-wrenching experiences associated with so many
international adoptions, it is unfortunate that U.S. families must
negotiate yet another paper maze to obtain U.S. citizenship for their
children. This additional hurdle is particularly difficult because upon
their return many parents look forward to settling down to the joy of
family life and its new challenges; they are not seeking yet more forms
to fill out and move through the Immigration and Nationalization
Service.
It was for this reason that I was the original co-sponsor of H.R.
3667, introduced by my good friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt,
which has now been combined with the measure the House is taking up
today. Once these children arrive in the United States, and the
adoption is finalized, these children should be U.S. citizens, without
going through a further naturalization process. And that is what H.R.
2883 does.
But we should remember that this is not just to avoid paperwork or
ease mental discomfort. H.R. 2883 will end the occasional instance of
injustice perpetrated by our immigration system. As mentioned by
colleagues, there are tragic cases where children of U.S. parents,
never naturalized because of inadvertence, are facing deportation
because of a crime they have committed. While these children must face
their punishment, to deport them to countries with which they have no
contact, no ability to speak the language, and no family known to them
is needlessly cruel. We must be sure that this never happens again.
I once again commend the sponsors of this legislation on both sides
of the aisle and hope for its expedited consideration in the Senate.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleagues have
passed H.R. 2883, the Adopted Orphans Citizenship Act, and I wish to
add my strong support for this long overdue legislation. H.R. 2883
would restore fairness to our immigration law by removing the
burdensome requirement that U.S. citizen parents apply for
naturalization for their foreign-born adopted children.
What our current immigration policy says to parents is that adopted
foreign-born children are not equal to their biological siblings and
are not worthy of automatic U.S. citizenship. Requiring
[[Page 18496]]
foreign-born adopted children to apply for naturalization is insulting
and it's wrong. with the passage of H.R. 2883, we are sending a clear
message to American parents that, should they choose to adopt a child
from another country, U.S. citizenship will be awaiting that child once
he or she sets foot on U.S. soil. As the aunt of Korean-born Jamie and
Natalie, I strongly identify with this issue.
The birthright of all children of U.S. citizen parents, whether they
are biological or adopted should be automatic U.S. citizenship. This
bill will simplify the already complicated and complex process parents
undertake when they embark on an international adoption and I applaud
its passage.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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 Texas (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 2883, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend
the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify the provisions governing
acquisition of citizenship by children born outside of the United
States, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1400
RELIGIOUS WORKERS ACT OF 2000
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4068) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to extend for
an additional 3 years the special immigrant religious worker program.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4068
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 ``Religious Workers Act of
2000''.
SEC. 2. 3-YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RELIGIOUS
WORKER PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii))
is amended by striking ``2000,'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2003,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2000.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
General Leave
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4068.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a program
exists which authorizes religious denominations throughout the United
States to sponsor nonminister workers in religious vocations and
religious occupations, such as lay workers, to enter the United States
as permanent residents.
This program also authorizes visas for temporary nonimmigrant
religious workers who will serve for a period not exceeding 5 years.
This program was created by Congress in 1990 and has been extended
several times. The nonminister religious worker programs will expire
September 30th of this year; therefore, an extension of the existing
program is necessary and must be accomplished with expediency.
As it exists, the legislation requires that an immigrant religious
worker has been carrying on such vocation continuously for at least the
2-year period immediately preceding the time of application. This
requirement was thought to reduce the likelihood of fraudulent
applications; however, the Department of Justice and the INS have
raised concerns regarding suspected fraud existent in the program.
Because of a vague definition of religious worker and the inability
to require other precise definitions of religion, there has been
suggestion of fraudulent applications in both the temporary and
permanent categories.
In opposition to the views of the Department of Justice and the INS,
religious institutions assert that a quantity of fraudulent
applications has not been verified. The religious institutions hold the
view that the limited number of visas granted per year for the
nonminister aliens, which is not to exceed 5,000 persons, does not
demand the addition of antifraud provisions to the existing programs.
In order to accommodate the interests of both the administration and
the religious institutions, provisions to prevent fraudulent
applications were discussed. Despite numerous attempts to find a
resolution to these concerns and extend the program permanently, there
remains disagreement as to the suggested antifraud provisions.
Therefore, this bill will extend the existing Religious Worker Visa
program for an additional 3 years.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that within that time, Congress will
develop an acceptable program which reduces potential fraud, yet not
require excessive administrative demands on the religious institutions
which utilize this program.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4068 and thereby
approve a 3-year extension of the existing important program.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Pease), my friend, for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to play a part in the creation of the
Religious Worker Program in 1990. I support these visas since they
allow American religious denominations, large and small, to benefit by
the addition of committed religious workers from overseas.
The visa program expires at the end of the fiscal year September 30.
H.R. 4068, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pease), extends the program for 3 additional years until October 2003.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for all the good work he
has done on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add my accolades and appreciation to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) for H.R. 4068, and also note the
great work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) on this
matter and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for his work on the
Religious Workers Act of 2000.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the support of the U.S. Catholic
Conference, the Lutheran Immigration Service and many other religious
organizations. It is a vital piece of legislation that again raises its
head in unity of Republicans and Democrats.
This legislation allows religious organizations to sponsor
nonminister religious workers from abroad to perform service in the
United States. Examples of nonminister related work are included, but
not limited to nuns, religious brothers, catechists, cantors, pastoral
service workers, missionaries, and religious broadcasters. Such
individuals make important contributions to the United States by caring
for the sick, the aged, providing shelter and nutrition to the most
needy, supporting families in crisis and working with the religious
leaders.
Mr. Speaker, this country has always had a history of involving the
religious
[[Page 18497]]
community in public service or voluntaryism, helping the most needy of
our community, and this legislation allows this to happen.
I would have liked this legislation to have been permanent, but it
extends it for 3 years. I hope during this time frame we will be able
to see the value of these religious workers and ensure that we work to
keep them. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program,
originally enacted as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1990, allows religious organizations to sponsor non-minister religious
workers from abroad to perform service in the United States. Examples
of non-minister religious workers include but are not limited to: nuns,
religious brothers, catechists, cantors, pastoral service workers,
missionaries, and religious broadcasters. Such individuals make
important contributions to the United States by: caring for the sick
and aged, providing shelter and nutrition to the most needy, supporting
families in crisis, and working with religious leaders.
The program is composed of two parts. Part one, the Special
Immigration provision, provides for up to 5,000 Special Immigrant visas
per year. Once granted, this type of visa allows religious workers to
permanently immigrant to the United States. Under current law, this
part of the program will expire on September 30, 2000. While this bill
will extend the program for an additional 3 years, we really need a
bill that makes the program permanent.
The Executive Director of the Lutheran Immigration Service has stated
that, ``Foreign lay religious workers admitted to the United States
under this provision serve very important and traditional religious
functions in the congregations and the communities where they work and
live . . . in many communities, there is an increasing need for
religious workers who can help develop or start congregations for
certain ethnic or language groups . . . and Congress should extend the
provision permanently so that religious denominations may implement,
without any trepidation, long-term strategic plans that rely on lay
foreign workers.'' However, I support this bill as it does extend the
program for 3 years.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren), who has worked very hard on this
legislation. I thank her for her leadership on it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of extending the
religious worker visa program. I applaud my colleagues for recognizing
the importance of this provision to religious communities across
America.
My only reservation to the passage of this bill is the temporary
nature of the extension. I believe that Congress should extend the
religious worker program permanently. I believe that the Catholic
Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Christian
Science Church, the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints and
other churches, synagogues, temples and mosques across America have
much worthier work to accomplish than lobbying politicians every 3
years to allow a few thousand nuns, monks, sisters, brothers, cantors
and other religious workers to enter this country.
Religious workers are among the most valuable members of our American
society. They come to America at the call of their church and expect
only the opportunity to serve. The services they provide to the
communities they become a part of are immeasurable. For example,
religious workers are involved in caring and ministering to the sick
and elderly. Think about the hospitals and local hospice care
facilities across the country and the comfort those who offer spiritual
solace provide.
These facilities and their patients are all the better for our
religious workers. Religious workers work with adolescents and young
adults offering them spiritual guidance and counsel at a critical time
in their lives.
Religious workers are involved in helping refugees adjust to a new
way of life. Think of how frightening it must be to come to a new land
and how welcoming it must be to know that you still have a church,
where someone can lead a prayer in the language of your parents.
Most importantly, religious workers help our poor. Mr. Speaker, 3
years ago, in 1997, I read a letter from Mother Teresa urging Congress
to extend this program. She said ``my sisters serve the poor in Detroit
where we have a soup kitchen and a night shelter for women. Let us all
thank God for this chance to serve his poor.''
That letter moved me and many of my colleagues to create legislation
that would extend this provision permanently. While I applaud Congress
for bringing this H.R. 4068 to the floor, I wish with all my heart that
I could make this extension a permanent one.
I thank all of my colleagues who have worked with me on this issue,
and I especially want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease)
for his willingness to reach across the aisle to work with me on this
important issue and for his successful struggle to bring a good
resolution, although not a perfect one, to the floor today. I thank the
gentleman and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can fix this, as we can fix other
immigration issues, and I ask my colleagues to support this
legislation. And I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) for his
leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the work of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims; the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the ranking
member of the subcommittee; and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lofgren) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), all of whom spent a
great deal of time with us and with staff and with representatives of
the religious denominations trying to meet the objections that were
raised by the Department of Justice and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Mr. Speaker, it was the most candid, open, honest, effort that I have
seen during my time here to reach a consensus; everyone operating in
good faith. We have before us what I believe is a good bill. It is not
a perfect bill. But under the circumstances and given the urgency of
time, I believe it is the best we can do for the most. I would
encourage all my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scarborough). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4068.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
DEBT RELIEF AND RETIREMENT SECURITY RECONCILIATION ACT
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 5203) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to sections
103(a)(2), 103(b)(2), and 213(b)(2)(C) of the concurrent resolution on
the budget for fiscal year 2001 to reduce the public debt and decrease
the statutory limit on the public debt, and to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for retirement security.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5203
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Debt
Relief and Retirement Security Reconciliation Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title, etc.
DIVISION A--DEBT RELIEF
Sec. 100. Findings and purpose.
TITLE I--DEBT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX
Sec. 101. Establishment of Public Debt Reduction Payment Account.
Sec. 102. Reduction of statutory limit on the public debt.
[[Page 18498]]
Sec. 103. Off-budget status of Public Debt Reduction Payment Account.
Sec. 104. Removing Public Debt Reduction Payment Account from budget
pronouncements.
Sec. 105. Reports to Congress.
TITLE II--SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX
Sec. 201. Protection of Social Security and Medicare surpluses.
Sec. 202. Removing Social Security from budget pronouncements.
DIVISION B--RETIREMENT SECURITY
TITLE XI--INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS
Sec. 1100. References.
Sec. 1101. Modification of IRA contribution limits.
TITLE XII--EXPANDING COVERAGE
Sec. 1201. Increase in benefit and contribution limits.
Sec. 1202. Plan loans for subchapter S owners, partners, and sole
proprietors.
Sec. 1203. Modification of top-heavy rules.
Sec. 1204. Elective deferrals not taken into account for purposes of
deduction limits.
Sec. 1205. Repeal of coordination requirements for deferred
compensation plans of State and local governments and
tax-exempt organizations.
Sec. 1206. Elimination of user fee for requests to irs regarding
pension plans.
Sec. 1207. Deduction limits.
Sec. 1208. Option to treat elective deferrals as after-tax
contributions.
TITLE XIII--ENHANCING FAIRNESS FOR WOMEN
Sec. 1301. Catch-up contributions for individuals age 50 or over.
Sec. 1302. Equitable treatment for contributions of employees to
defined contribution plans.
Sec. 1303. Faster vesting of certain employer matching contributions.
Sec. 1304. Simplify and update the minimum distribution rules.
Sec. 1305. Clarification of tax treatment of division of section 457
plan benefits upon divorce.
Sec. 1306. Modification of safe harbor relief for hardship withdrawals
from cash or deferred arrangements.
TITLE XIV--INCREASING PORTABILITY FOR PARTICIPANTS
Sec. 1401. Rollovers allowed among various types of plans.
Sec. 1402. Rollovers of IRAs into workplace retirement plans.
Sec. 1403. Rollovers of after-tax contributions.
Sec. 1404. Hardship exception to 60-day rule.
Sec. 1405. Treatment of forms of distribution.
Sec. 1406. Rationalization of restrictions on distributions.
Sec. 1407. Purchase of service credit in governmental defined benefit
plans.
Sec. 1408. Employers may disregard rollovers for purposes of cash-out
amounts.
Sec. 1409. Minimum distribution and inclusion requirements for section
457 plans.
TITLE XV--STRENGTHENING PENSION SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 1501. Repeal of 150 percent of current liability funding limit.
Sec. 1502. Maximum contribution deduction rules modified and applied to
all defined benefit plans.
Sec. 1503. Excise tax relief for sound pension funding.
Sec. 1504. Excise tax on failure to provide notice by defined benefit
plans significantly reducing future benefit accruals.
Sec. 1505. Treatment of multiemployer plans under section 415.
Sec. 1506. Prohibited allocations of stock in S corporation ESOP.
TITLE XVI--REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS
Sec. 1601. Modification of timing of plan valuations.
Sec. 1602. ESOP dividends may be reinvested without loss of dividend
deduction.
Sec. 1603. Repeal of transition rule relating to certain highly
compensated employees.
Sec. 1604. Employees of tax-exempt entities.
Sec. 1605. Clarification of treatment of employer-provided retirement
advice.
Sec. 1606. Reporting simplification.
Sec. 1607. Improvement of employee plans compliance resolution system.
Sec. 1608. Repeal of the multiple use test.
Sec. 1609. Flexibility in nondiscrimination, coverage, and line of
business rules.
Sec. 1610. Extension to all governmental plans of moratorium on
application of certain nondiscrimination rules applicable
to State and local plans.
Sec. 1611. Notice and consent period regarding distributions.
TITLE XVII--PLAN AMENDMENTS
Sec. 1701. Provisions relating to plan amendments.
DIVISION A--DEBT RELIEF
SEC. 100. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) fiscal discipline, resulting from the Balanced Budget
Act of 1997, and strong economic growth have ended decades of
deficit spending and have produced budget surpluses without
using the social security surplus;
(2) fiscal pressures will mount in the future as the aging
of the population increases budget obligations;
(3) until Congress and the President agree to legislation
that saves social security and medicare, the social security
and medicare surpluses should be used to reduce the debt held
by the public;
(4) until Congress and the President agree on significant
tax reductions, amounts dedicated for that purpose shall be
used to reduce the debt held by the public;
(5) strengthening the Government's fiscal position through
public debt reduction increases national savings, promotes
economic growth, reduces interest costs, and is a
constructive way to prepare for the Government's future
budget obligations; and
(6) it is fiscally responsible and in the long-term
national economic interest to use a portion of the nonsocial
security and nonmedicare surpluses to reduce the debt held by
the public.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this division to--
(1) reduce the debt held by the public by $240,000,000,000
in fiscal year 2001 with the goal of eliminating this debt by
2012;
(2) decrease the statutory limit on the public debt; and
(3) ensure that the social security and hospital insurance
trust funds shall not be used for other purposes.
TITLE I--DEBT REDUCTION LOCK-BOX
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT
ACCOUNT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 31 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 3114. Public debt reduction payment account
``(a) There is established in the Treasury of the United
States an account to be known as the Public Debt Reduction
Payment Account (hereinafter in this section referred to as
the `account').
``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall use amounts in
the account to pay at maturity, or to redeem or buy before
maturity, any obligation of the Government held by the public
and included in the public debt. Any obligation which is
paid, redeemed, or bought with amounts from the account shall
be canceled and retired and may not be reissued. Amounts
deposited in the account are appropriated and may only be
expended to carry out this section.
``(c) There is hereby appropriated into the account on
October 1, 2000, or the date of enactment of this section,
whichever is later, out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $42,000,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001. The funds appropriated to this
account shall remain available until expended.
``(d) The appropriation made under subsection (c) shall not
be considered direct spending for purposes of section 252 of
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
``(e) Establishment of and appropriations to the account
shall not affect trust fund transfers that may be authorized
under any other provision of law.
``(f) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall each take such actions
as may be necessary to promptly carry out this section in
accordance with sound debt management policies.
``(g) Reducing the debt pursuant to this section shall not
interfere with the debt management policies or goals of the
Secretary of the Treasury.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
31 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 3113 the following:
``3114. Public debt reduction payment account.''.
SEC. 102. REDUCTION OF STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT.
Section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``minus the amount appropriated into the Public
Debt Reduction Payment Account pursuant to section 3114(c)''
after ``$5,950,000,000,000''.
SEC. 103. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT
ACCOUNT.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts
and disbursements of the Public Debt Reduction Payment
Account established by section 3114 of title 31, United
States Code, shall not be counted as new budget authority,
outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
(1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted
by the President,
(2) the congressional budget, or
(3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985.
SEC. 104. REMOVING PUBLIC DEBT REDUCTION PAYMENT ACCOUNT FROM
BUDGET PRONOUNCEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any official statement issued by the
Office of Management and
[[Page 18499]]
Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, or any other agency
or instrumentality of the Federal Government of surplus or
deficit totals of the budget of the United States Government
as submitted by the President or of the surplus or deficit
totals of the congressional budget, and any description of,
or reference to, such totals in any official publication or
material issued by either of such Offices or any other such
agency or instrumentality, shall exclude the outlays and
receipts of the Public Debt Reduction Payment Account
established by section 3114 of title 31, United States Code.
(b) Separate Public Debt Reduction Payment Account Budget
Documents.--The excluded outlays and receipts of the Public
Debt Reduction Payment Account established by section 3114 of
title 31, United States Code, shall be submitted in separate
budget documents.
SEC. 105. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury.--(1) Within
30 days after the appropriation is deposited into the Public
Debt Reduction Payment Account under section 3114 of title
31, United States Code, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
submit a report to the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate confirming that such account has been established and
the amount and date of such deposit. Such report shall also
include a description of the Secretary's plan for using such
money to reduce debt held by the public.
(2) Not later than October 31, 2002, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall submit a report to the Committee on Ways and
Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Finance of the Senate setting forth the amount of money
deposited into the Public Debt Reduction Payment Account, the
amount of debt held by the public that was reduced, and a
description of the actual debt instruments that were redeemed
with such money.
(b) Report of the Comptroller General of the United
States.--Not later than November 15, 2002, the Comptroller
General of the United States shall submit a report to the
Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Finance of the Senate verifying all of
the information set forth in the reports submitted under
subsection (a).
TITLE II--SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE LOCK-BOX
SEC. 201. PROTECTION OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE
SURPLUSES.
(a) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
Section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2001 (H. Con. Res. 290, 106th Congress) is
amended as follows:
(1) In the section heading, by inserting ``AND MEDICARE''
before ``SURPLUSES''.
(2) By striking subsection (c) and inserting the following
new subsection:
``(c) Lock-box for Social Security and Hospital Insurance
Surpluses.--
``(1) Concurrent resolutions on the budget.--It shall not
be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to
consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or
conference report thereon or amendment thereto, that would
set forth a surplus for any fiscal year that is less than the
surplus of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for that
fiscal year.
``(2) Subsequent legislation.--(A) Except as provided by
subparagraph (B), it shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report if--
``(i) the enactment of that bill or resolution as reported;
``(ii) the adoption and enactment of that amendment; or
``(iii) the enactment of that bill or resolution in the
form recommended in that conference report,
would cause the on-budget surplus for any fiscal year to be
less than the projected surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund (as assumed in the most recently agreed
to concurrent resolution on the budget) for that fiscal year
or increase the amount by which the on-budget surplus for any
fiscal year would be less than such trust fund surplus for
that fiscal year.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to social security
reform legislation or medicare reform legislation.''.
(3) By redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively, and inserting after subsection (d)
the following new subsections:
``(e) Content of Concurrent Resolution on the Budget.--The
concurrent resolution on the budget for each fiscal year
shall set forth appropriate levels for the fiscal year
beginning on October 1 of such year and for at least each of
the 4 ensuing fiscal years of the surplus or deficit in the
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.
``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
``(1) The term `medicare reform legislation' means a bill
or a joint resolution to save Medicare that includes a
provision stating the following: `For purposes of section
201(c) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2001, this Act constitutes medicare reform
legislation.'.
``(2) The term `social security reform legislation' means a
bill or a joint resolution to save social security that
includes a provision stating the following: `For purposes of
section 201(c) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2001, this Act constitutes social security reform
legislation.'.''.
(4) In the first sentence of subsection (h) (as
redesignated), by striking ``(1)''.
(5) At the end, by adding the following new subsection:
``(i) Effective Date.--This section shall cease to have
any force or effect upon the enactment of social security
reform legislation and medicare reform legislation.''.
(b) Protection of Social Security and Medicare Surpluses.--
(1) If the budget of the United States Government submitted
by the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, recommends an on-budget surplus for any fiscal
year that is less than the surplus of the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund for that fiscal year, then it shall
include proposed legislative language for social security
reform legislation or medicare reform legislation.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall cease to have any force or effect
upon the enactment of social security reform legislation and
medicare reform legislation as defined by section 201(g) of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001
(H. Con. Res 290, 106th Congress).
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 201
in the table of contents set forth in section 1(b) of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 (H.
Con. Res 290, 106th Congress) is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 201. Protection of social security and medicare surpluses.''.
SEC. 202. REMOVING SOCIAL SECURITY FROM BUDGET
PRONOUNCEMENTS.
(a) In General.--Any official statement issued by the
Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget
Office, or any other agency or instrumentality of the Federal
Government of surplus or deficit totals of the budget of the
United States Government as submitted by the President or of
the surplus or deficit totals of the congressional budget,
and any description of, or reference to, such totals in any
official publication or material issued by either of such
Offices or any other such agency or instrumentality, shall
exclude the outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors,
and disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act (including the Federal Old-Age and Survivors
Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund) and the related provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) Separate Social Security Budget Documents.--The
excluded outlays and receipts of the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program under title II of the Social
Security Act shall be submitted in separate Social Security
budget documents.
DIVISION B--RETIREMENT SECURITY
TITLE XI--INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS
SEC. 1100. REFERENCES.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
division an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
SEC. 1101. MODIFICATION OF IRA CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
(a) Increase in Contribution Limit.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1)(A) of section 219(b)
(relating to maximum amount of deduction) is amended by
striking ``$2,000'' and inserting ``the deductible amount''.
(2) Deductible amount.--Section 219(b) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Deductible amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A)--
``(A) In general.--The deductible amount shall be
determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The deductible
beginning in: amount is:
2001..................................................$3,000 .
2002..................................................$4,000 .
2003 and thereafter...................................$5,000..
``(B) Catch-up contributions for individuals 50 or older.--
In the case of an individual who has attained the age of 50
before the close of the taxable year, the deductible amount
for taxable years beginning in 2001 or 2002 shall be $5,000.
``(C) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 2003, the $5,000 amount
under subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal
to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f )(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2002'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding rules.--If any amount after adjustment
under clause (i) is not a multiple of $500, such amount shall
be rounded to the next lower multiple of $500.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
[[Page 18500]]
(1) Section 408(a)(1) is amended by striking ``in excess of
$2,000 on behalf of any individual'' and inserting ``on
behalf of any individual in excess of the amount in effect
for such taxable year under section 219(b)(1)(A)''.
(2) Section 408(b)(2)(B) is amended by striking ``$2,000''
and inserting ``the dollar amount in effect under section
219(b)(1)(A)''.
(3) Section 408(b) is amended by striking ``$2,000'' in the
matter following paragraph (4) and inserting ``the dollar
amount in effect under section 219(b)(1)(A)''.
(4) Section 408( j) is amended by striking ``$2,000''.
(5) Section 408(p)(8) is amended by striking ``$2,000'' and
inserting ``the dollar amount in effect under section
219(b)(1)(A)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
TITLE XII--EXPANDING COVERAGE
SEC. 1201. INCREASE IN BENEFIT AND CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.
(a) Defined Benefit Plans.--
(1) Dollar limit.--
(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 415(b)(1) (relating to
limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended by striking
``$90,000'' and inserting ``$160,000''.
(B) Subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 415(b)(2) are each
amended by striking ``$90,000'' each place it appears in the
headings and the text and inserting ``$160,000''.
(C) Paragraph (7) of section 415(b) (relating to benefits
under certain collectively bargained plans) is amended by
striking ``the greater of $68,212 or one-half the amount
otherwise applicable for such year under paragraph (1)(A) for
`$90,000' '' and inserting ``one-half the amount otherwise
applicable for such year under paragraph (1)(A) for
`$160,000' ''.
(2) Limit reduced when benefit begins before age 62.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking
``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears
in the heading and text and inserting ``age 62''.
(3) Limit increased when benefit begins after age 65.--
Subparagraph (D) of section 415(b)(2) is amended by striking
``the social security retirement age'' each place it appears
in the heading and text and inserting ``age 65''.
(4) Cost-of-living adjustments.--Subsection (d) of section
415 (related to cost-of-living adjustments) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$90,000'' in paragraph (1)(A) and
inserting ``$160,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)--
(i) by striking ``$90,000'' in the heading and inserting
``$160,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``October 1, 1986'' and inserting ``July
1, 2000''.
(5) Conforming amendment.--Section 415(b)(2) is amended by
striking subparagraph (F).
(b) Defined Contribution Plans.--
(1) Dollar limit.--Subparagraph (A) of section 415(c)(1)
(relating to limitation for defined contribution plans) is
amended by striking ``$30,000'' and inserting ``$40,000''.
(2) Cost-of-living adjustments.--Subsection (d) of section
415 (related to cost-of-living adjustments) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$30,000'' in paragraph (1)(C) and
inserting ``$40,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (3)(D)--
(i) by striking ``$30,000'' in the heading and inserting
``$40,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``October 1, 1993'' and inserting ``July
1, 2000''.
(c) Qualified Trusts.--
(1) Compensation limit.--Sections 401(a)(17), 404(l),
408(k), and 505(b)(7) are each amended by striking
``$150,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$200,000''.
(2) Base period and rounding of cost-of-living
adjustment.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(a)(17) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``October 1, 1993'' and inserting ``July 1,
2000''; and
(B) by striking ``$10,000'' both places it appears and
inserting ``$5,000''.
(d) Elective Deferrals.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 402(g) (relating
to limitation on exclusion for elective deferrals) is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsections (e)(3) and
(h)(1)(B), the elective deferrals of any individual for any
taxable year shall be included in such individual's gross
income to the extent the amount of such deferrals for the
taxable year exceeds the applicable dollar amount.
``(B) Applicable dollar amount.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the applicable dollar amount shall be the
amount determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001.....................................................$11,000
2002.....................................................$12,000
2003.....................................................$13,000
2004.....................................................$14,000
2005 or thereafter....................................$15,000.''.
(2) Cost-of-living adjustment.--Paragraph (5) of section
402(g) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall
adjust the $15,000 amount under paragraph (1)(B) at the same
time and in the same manner as under section 415(d), except
that the base period shall be the calendar quarter beginning
July 1, 2004, and any increase under this paragraph which is
not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded to the next lowest
multiple of $500.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 402(g) (relating to limitation on exclusion for
elective deferrals), as amended by paragraphs (1) and (2), is
further amended by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating
paragraphs (5), (6), (7), (8), and (9) as paragraphs (4),
(5), (6), (7), and (8), respectively.
(B) Paragraph (2) of section 457(c) is amended by striking
``402(g)(8)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``402(g)(7)(A)(iii)''.
(C) Clause (iii) of section 501(c)(18)(D) is amended by
striking ``(other than paragraph (4) thereof)''.
(e) Deferred Compensation Plans of State and Local
Governments and Tax-Exempt Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Section 457 (relating to deferred
compensation plans of State and local governments and tax-
exempt organizations) is amended--
(A) in subsections (b)(2)(A) and (c)(1) by striking
``$7,500'' each place it appears and inserting ``the
applicable dollar amount''; and
(B) in subsection (b)(3)(A) by striking ``$15,000'' and
inserting ``twice the dollar amount in effect under
subsection (b)(2)(A)''.
(2) Applicable dollar amount; cost-of-living adjustment.--
Paragraph (15) of section 457(e) is amended to read as
follows:
``(15) Applicable dollar amount.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable dollar amount shall be
the amount determined in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001.....................................................$11,000
2002.....................................................$12,000
2003.....................................................$13,000
2004.....................................................$14,000
2005 or thereafter.......................................$15,000.
``(B) Cost-of-living adjustments.--In the case of taxable
years beginning after December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall
adjust the $15,000 amount specified in the table in
subparagraph (A) at the same time and in the same manner as
under section 415(d), except that the base period shall be
the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2004, and any increase
under this paragraph which is not a multiple of $500 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $500.''.
(f) Simple Retirement Accounts.--
(1) Limitation.--Clause (ii) of section 408(p)(2)(A)
(relating to general rule for qualified salary reduction
arrangement) is amended by striking ``$6,000'' and inserting
``the applicable dollar amount''.
(2) Applicable dollar amount.--Subparagraph (E) of
408(p)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(E) Applicable dollar amount; cost-of-living
adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii),
the applicable dollar amount shall be the amount determined
in accordance with the following table:
``For taxable years The applicable
beginning in dollar amount:
calendar year:
2001....................................................$7,000
2002....................................................$8,000
2003....................................................$9,000
2004 or thereafter.....................................$10,000.
``(ii) Cost-of-living adjustment.--In the case of a year
beginning after December 31, 2004, the Secretary shall adjust
the $10,000 amount under clause (i) at the same time and in
the same manner as under section 415(d), except that the base
period taken into account shall be the calendar quarter
beginning July 1, 2003, and any increase under this
subparagraph which is not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded
to the next lower multiple of $500.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Clause (I) of section 401(k)(11)(B)(i) is amended by
striking ``$6,000'' and inserting ``the amount in effect
under section 408(p)(2)(A)(ii)''.
(B) Section 401(k)(11) is amended by striking subparagraph
(E).
(g) Rounding Rule Relating to Defined Benefit Plans and
Defined Contribution Plans.--Paragraph (4) of section 415(d)
is amended to read as follows:
``(4) Rounding.--
``(A) $160,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
``(B) $40,000 amount.--Any increase under subparagraph (C)
of paragraph (1) which is not a multiple of $1,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $1,000.''.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1202. PLAN LOANS FOR SUBCHAPTER S OWNERS, PARTNERS, AND
SOLE PROPRIETORS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 4975(f)(6)
(relating to exemptions not to apply to certain transactions)
is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Loan exception.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i), the term `owner-employee' shall only include a person
described in subclause (II) or (III) of clause (i).''.
[[Page 18501]]
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to loans made after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1203. MODIFICATION OF TOP-HEAVY RULES.
(a) Simplification of Definition of Key Employee.--
(1) In general.--Section 416(i)(1)(A) (defining key
employee) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or any of the 4 preceding plan years'' in
the matter preceding clause (i);
(B) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) an officer of the employer having an annual
compensation greater than $150,000,'';
(C) by striking clause (ii) and redesignating clauses (iii)
and (iv) as clauses (ii) and (iii), respectively; and
(D) by striking the second sentence in the matter following
clause (iii), as redesignated by subparagraph (C).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 416(i)(1)(B)(iii) is
amended by striking ``and subparagraph (A)(ii)''.
(b) Matching Contributions Taken Into Account for Minimum
Contribution Requirements.--Section 416(c)(2)(A) (relating to
defined contribution plans) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``Employer matching contributions (as defined
in section 401(m)(4)(A)) shall be taken into account for
purposes of this subparagraph.''.
(c) Distributions During Last Year Before Determination
Date Taken Into Account.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 416(g) is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) Distributions during last year before determination
date taken into account.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of determining--
``(i) the present value of the cumulative accrued benefit
for any employee, or
``(ii) the amount of the account of any employee,
such present value or amount shall be increased by the
aggregate distributions made with respect to such employee
under the plan during the 1-year period ending on the
determination date. The preceding sentence shall also apply
to distributions under a terminated plan which if it had not
been terminated would have been required to be included in an
aggregation group.
``(B) 5-year period in case of in-service distribution.--In
the case of any distribution made for a reason other than
separation from service, death, or disability, subparagraph
(A) shall be applied by substituting `5-year period' for `1-
year period'.''.
(2) Benefits not taken into account.--Subparagraph (E) of
section 416(g)(4) is amended--
(A) by striking ``last 5 years'' in the heading and
inserting ``last year before determination date''; and
(B) by striking ``5-year period'' and inserting ``1-year
period''.
(d) Definition of Top-Heavy Plans.--Paragraph (4) of
section 416(g) (relating to other special rules for top-heavy
plans) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) Cash or deferred arrangements using alternative
methods of meeting nondiscrimination requirements.--The term
`top-heavy plan' shall not include a plan which consists
solely of--
``(i) a cash or deferred arrangement which meets the
requirements of section 401(k)(12), and
``(ii) matching contributions with respect to which the
requirements of section 401(m)(11) are met.
If, but for this subparagraph, a plan would be treated as a
top-heavy plan because it is a member of an aggregation group
which is a top-heavy group, contributions under the plan may
be taken into account in determining whether any other plan
in the group meets the requirements of subsection (c)(2).''.
(e) Frozen Plan Exempt From Minimum Benefit Requirement.--
Subparagraph (C) of section 416(c)(1) (relating to defined
benefit plans) is amended--
(A) by striking ``clause (ii)'' in clause (i) and inserting
``clause (ii) or (iii)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Exception for frozen plan.--For purposes of
determining an employee's years of service with the employer,
any service with the employer shall be disregarded to the
extent that such service occurs during a plan year when the
plan benefits (within the meaning of section 410(b)) no
employee or former employee.''.
(f) Elimination of Family Attribution.--Section
416(i)(1)(B) (defining 5-percent owner) is amended by adding
at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) Family attribution disregarded.--Solely for purposes
of applying this paragraph (and not for purposes of any
provision of this title which incorporates by reference the
definition of a key employee or 5-percent owner under this
paragraph), section 318 shall be applied without regard to
subsection (a)(1) thereof in determining whether any person
is a 5-percent owner.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1204. ELECTIVE DEFERRALS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR
PURPOSES OF DEDUCTION LIMITS.
(a) In General.--Section 404 (relating to deduction for
contributions of an employer to an employees' trust or
annuity plan and compensation under a deferred payment plan)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Elective Deferrals Not Taken Into Account for
Purposes of Deduction Limits.--Elective deferrals (as defined
in section 402(g)(3)) shall not be subject to any limitation
contained in paragraph (3), (7), or (9) of subsection (a),
and such elective deferrals shall not be taken into account
in applying any such limitation to any other
contributions.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1205. REPEAL OF COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLANS OF STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 457 (relating to
deferred compensation plans of State and local governments
and tax-exempt organizations), as amended by section 1201, is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Limitation.--The maximum amount of the compensation
of any one individual which may be deferred under subsection
(a) during any taxable year shall not exceed the amount in
effect under subsection (b)(2)(A) (as modified by any
adjustment provided under subsection (b)(3)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1206. ELIMINATION OF USER FEE FOR REQUESTS TO IRS
REGARDING PENSION PLANS.
(a) Elimination of Certain User Fees.--The Secretary of the
Treasury or the Secretary's delegate shall not require
payment of user fees under the program established under
section 7527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for
requests to the Internal Revenue Service for determination
letters with respect to the qualified status of a pension
benefit plan maintained solely by one or more eligible
employers or any trust which is part of the plan. The
preceding sentence shall not apply to any request--
(1) made after the fifth plan year the pension benefit plan
is in existence; or
(2) made by the sponsor of any prototype or similar plan
which the sponsor intends to market to participating
employers.
(b) Pension Benefit Plan.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``pension benefit plan'' means a pension, profit-
sharing, stock bonus, annuity, or employee stock ownership
plan.
(c) Eligible Employer.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``eligible employer'' has the same meaning given such
term in section 408(p)(2)(C)(i)(I) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. The determination of whether an employer is an
eligible employer under this section shall be made as of the
date of the request described in subsection (a).
(d) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
apply with respect to requests made after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1207. DEDUCTION LIMITS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Stock bonus and profit sharing trusts.--Subclause (I)
of section 404(a)(3)(A)(i) (relating to stock bonus and
profit sharing trusts) is amended by striking ``15 percent''
and inserting ``20 percent''.
(2) Compensation.--Section 404(a) (relating to general
rule) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Definition of compensation.--For purposes of
paragraphs (3), (7), (8), and (9), the term `compensation
otherwise paid or accrued during the taxable year' shall
include amounts treated as `participant's compensation' under
subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 415(c)(3).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (B) of section 404(a)(3) is amended by
striking the last sentence thereof.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 404(h)(1) is amended by
striking ``15 percent'' each place it appears and inserting
``20 percent''.
(3) Clause (i) of section 4972(c)(6)(B) is amended by
striking ``(within the meaning of section 404(a))'' and
inserting ``(within the meaning of section 404(a) and as
adjusted under section 404(a)(12))''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1208. OPTION TO TREAT ELECTIVE DEFERRALS AS AFTER-TAX
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part I of subchapter D of
chapter 1 (relating to deferred compensation, etc.) is
amended by inserting after section 402 the following new
section:
``SEC. 402A. OPTIONAL TREATMENT OF ELECTIVE DEFERRALS AS PLUS
CONTRIBUTIONS.
``(a) General Rule.--If an applicable retirement plan
includes a qualified plus contribution program--
``(1) any designated plus contribution made by an employee
pursuant to the program shall be treated as an elective
deferral for purposes of this chapter, except that such
contribution shall not be excludable from gross income, and
[[Page 18502]]
``(2) such plan (and any arrangement which is part of such
plan) shall not be treated as failing to meet any requirement
of this chapter solely by reason of including such program.
``(b) Qualified Plus Contribution Program.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified plus contribution
program' means a program under which an employee may elect to
make designated plus contributions in lieu of all or a
portion of elective deferrals the employee is otherwise
eligible to make under the applicable retirement plan.
``(2) Separate accounting required.--A program shall not be
treated as a qualified plus contribution program unless the
applicable retirement plan--
``(A) establishes separate accounts (`designated plus
accounts') for the designated plus contributions of each
employee and any earnings properly allocable to the
contributions, and
``(B) maintains separate recordkeeping with respect to each
account.
``(c) Definitions and Rules Relating to Designated Plus
Contributions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Designated plus contribution.--The term `designated
plus contribution' means any elective deferral which--
``(A) is excludable from gross income of an employee
without regard to this section, and
``(B) the employee designates (at such time and in such
manner as the Secretary may prescribe) as not being so
excludable.
``(2) Designation limits.--The amount of elective deferrals
which an employee may designate under paragraph (1) shall not
exceed the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the maximum amount of elective deferrals excludable
from gross income of the employee for the taxable year
(without regard to this section), over
``(B) the aggregate amount of elective deferrals of the
employee for the taxable year which the employee does not
designate under paragraph (1).
``(3) Rollover contributions.--
``(A) In general.--A rollover contribution of any payment
or distribution from a designated plus account which is
otherwise allowable under this chapter may be made only if
the contribution is to--
``(i) another designated plus account of the individual
from whose account the payment or distribution was made, or
``(ii) a Roth IRA of such individual.
``(B) Coordination with limit.--Any rollover contribution
to a designated plus account under subparagraph (A) shall not
be taken into account for purposes of paragraph (1).
``(d) Distribution Rules.--For purposes of this title--
``(1) Exclusion.--Any qualified distribution from a
designated plus account shall not be includible in gross
income.
``(2) Qualified distribution.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified distribution' has
the meaning given such term by section 408A(d)(2)(A) (without
regard to clause (iv) thereof).
``(B) Distributions within nonexclusion period.--A payment
or distribution from a designated plus account shall not be
treated as a qualified distribution if such payment or
distribution is made within the 5-taxable-year period
beginning with the earlier of--
``(i) the first taxable year for which the individual made
a designated plus contribution to any designated plus account
established for such individual under the same applicable
retirement plan, or
``(ii) if a rollover contribution was made to such
designated plus account from a designated plus account
previously established for such individual under another
applicable retirement plan, the first taxable year for which
the individual made a designated plus contribution to such
previously established account.
``(C) Distributions of excess deferrals and earnings.--The
term `qualified distribution' shall not include any
distribution of any excess deferral under section 402(g)(2)
and any income on the excess deferral.
``(3) Aggregation rules.--Section 72 shall be applied
separately with respect to distributions and payments from a
designated plus account and other distributions and payments
from the plan.
``(e) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Applicable retirement plan.--The term `applicable
retirement plan' means--
``(A) an employees' trust described in section 401(a) which
is exempt from tax under section 501(a), and
``(B) a plan under which amounts are contributed by an
individual's employer for an annuity contract described in
section 403(b).
``(2) Elective deferral.--The term `elective deferral'
means any elective deferral described in subparagraph (A) or
(C) of section 402(g)(3).''.
(b) Excess Deferrals.--Section 402(g) (relating to
limitation on exclusion for elective deferrals) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of paragraph (1) the following new
sentence: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to so much
of such excess as does not exceed the designated plus
contributions of the individual for the taxable year.''; and
(2) by inserting ``(or would be included but for the last
sentence thereof)'' after ``paragraph (1)'' in paragraph
(2)(A).
(c) Rollovers.--Subparagraph (B) of section 402(c)(8) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``If any portion of an eligible rollover distribution is
attributable to payments or distributions from a designated
plus account (as defined in section 402A), an eligible
retirement plan with respect to such portion shall include
only another designated plus account and a Roth IRA.''.
(d) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) W-2 information.--Section 6051(a)(8) is amended by
inserting ``, including the amount of designated plus
contributions (as defined in section 402A)'' before the comma
at the end.
(2) Information.--Section 6047 is amended by redesignating
subsection (f) as subsection (g) and by inserting after
subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Designated Plus Contributions.--The Secretary shall
require the plan administrator of each applicable retirement
plan (as defined in section 402A) to make such returns and
reports regarding designated plus contributions (as so
defined) to the Secretary, participants and beneficiaries of
the plan, and such other persons as the Secretary may
prescribe.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 408A(e) is amended by adding after the first
sentence the following new sentence: ``Such term includes a
rollover contribution described in section 402A(c)(3)(A).''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part I of
subchapter D of chapter 1 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 402 the following new item:
``Sec. 402A. Optional treatment of elective deferrals as plus
contributions.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
TITLE XIII--ENHANCING FAIRNESS FOR WOMEN
SEC. 1301. CATCH-UP CONTRIBUTIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS AGE 50 OR
OVER.
(a) In General.--Section 414 (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(v) Catch-up Contributions for Individuals Age 50 or
Over.--
``(1) In general.--An applicable employer plan shall not be
treated as failing to meet any requirement of this title
solely because the plan permits an eligible participant to
make additional elective deferrals in any plan year.
``(2) Limitation on amount of additional deferrals.--A plan
shall not permit additional elective deferrals under
paragraph (1) for any year in an amount greater than the
lesser of--
``(A) $5,000, or
``(B) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the participant's compensation for the year, over
``(ii) any other elective deferrals of the participant for
such year which are made without regard to this subsection.
``(3) Treatment of contributions.--In the case of any
contribution to a plan under paragraph (1), such contribution
shall not, with respect to the year in which the contribution
is made--
``(A) be subject to any otherwise applicable limitation
contained in section 402(g), 402(h)(2), 404(a), 404(h),
408(p)(2)(A)(ii), 415, or 457, or
``(B) be taken into account in applying such limitations to
other contributions or benefits under such plan or any other
such plan.
``(4) Eligible participant.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `eligible participant' means, with
respect to any plan year, a participant in a plan--
``(A) who has attained the age of 50 before the close of
the plan year, and
``(B) with respect to whom no other elective deferrals may
(without regard to this subsection) be made to the plan for
the plan year by reason of the application of any limitation
or other restriction described in paragraph (3) or comparable
limitation contained in the terms of the plan.
``(5) Other definitions and rules.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) Applicable employer plan.--The term `applicable
employer plan' means--
``(i) an employees' trust described in section 401(a) which
is exempt from tax under section 501(a),
``(ii) a plan under which amounts are contributed by an
individual's employer for an annuity contract described in
section 403(b),
``(iii) an eligible deferred compensation plan under
section 457 of an eligible employer as defined in section
457(e)(1)(A), and
``(iv) an arrangement meeting the requirements of section
408 (k) or (p).
``(B) Elective deferral.--The term `elective deferral' has
the meaning given such term by subsection (u)(2)(C).
``(C) Exception for section 457 plans.--This subsection
shall not apply to an applicable employer plan described in
subparagraph (A)(iii) for any year to which section 457(b)(3)
applies.
[[Page 18503]]
``(D) Cost-of-living adjustment.--For years beginning after
December 31, 2005, the Secretary shall adjust annually the
$5,000 amount in subparagraph (A) for increases in the cost-
of-living at the same time and in the same manner as
adjustments under section 415(d); except that the base period
shall be the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2004, and any
increase which is not a multiple of $500 shall be rounded to
the next lowest multiple of $500.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions in taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1302. EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYEES
TO DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS.
(a) Equitable Treatment.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 415(c)(1)
(relating to limitation for defined contribution plans) is
amended by striking ``25 percent'' and inserting ``100
percent''.
(2) Application to section 403(b).--Section 403(b) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``the exclusion allowance for such taxable
year'' in paragraph (1) and inserting ``the applicable limit
under section 415'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2); and
(C) by inserting ``or any amount received by a former
employee after the fifth taxable year following the taxable
year in which such employee was terminated'' before the
period at the end of the second sentence of paragraph (3).
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Subsection (f) of section 72 is amended by striking
``section 403(b)(2)(D)(iii))'' and inserting ``section
403(b)(2)(D)(iii), as in effect before the enactment of the
Debt Relief and Retirement Security Reconciliation Act)''.
(B) Section 404(a)(10)(B) is amended by striking ``, the
exclusion allowance under section 403(b)(2),''.
(C) Section 415(a)(2) is amended by striking ``, and the
amount of the contribution for such portion shall reduce the
exclusion allowance as provided in section 403(b)(2)''.
(D) Section 415(c)(3) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(E) Annuity contracts.--In the case of an annuity
contract described in section 403(b), the term `participant's
compensation' means the participant's includible compensation
determined under section 403(b)(3).''.
(E) Section 415(c) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
(F) Section 415(c)(7) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Certain contributions by church plans not treated as
exceeding limit.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection, at the election of a participant who is an
employee of a church or a convention or association of
churches, including an organization described in section
414(e)(3)(B)(ii), contributions and other additions for an
annuity contract or retirement income account described in
section 403(b) with respect to such participant, when
expressed as an annual addition to such participant's
account, shall be treated as not exceeding the limitation of
paragraph (1) if such annual addition is not in excess of
$10,000.
``(B) $40,000 aggregate limitation.--The total amount of
additions with respect to any participant which may be taken
into account for purposes of this subparagraph for all years
may not exceed $40,000.
``(C) Annual addition.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
term `annual addition' has the meaning given such term by
paragraph (2).''.
(G) Subparagraph (B) of section 402(g)(7) (as redesignated
by section 211) is amended by inserting before the period at
the end the following: ``(as in effect before the enactment
of the Debt Relief and Retirement Security Reconciliation
Act)''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(b) Special Rules for Sections 403(b) and 408.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (k) of section 415 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Special rules for sections 403(b) and 408.--For
purposes of this section, any annuity contract described in
section 403(b) for the benefit of a participant shall be
treated as a defined contribution plan maintained by each
employer with respect to which the participant has the
control required under subsection (b) or (c) of section 414
(as modified by subsection (h)). For purposes of this
section, any contribution by an employer to a simplified
employee pension plan for an individual for a taxable year
shall be treated as an employer contribution to a defined
contribution plan for such individual for such year.''.
(2) Effective date.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to limitation years beginning after December 31, 1999.
(B) Exclusion allowance.--Effective for limitation years
beginning in 2000, in the case of any annuity contract
described in section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, the amount of the contribution disqualified by reason
of section 415(g) of such Code shall reduce the exclusion
allowance as provided in section 403(b)(2) of such Code.
(3) Modification of 403(b) exclusion allowance to conform
to 415 modification.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
modify the regulations regarding the exclusion allowance
under section 403(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to render void the requirement that contributions to a
defined benefit pension plan be treated as previously
excluded amounts for purposes of the exclusion allowance. For
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999, such
regulations shall be applied as if such requirement were
void.
(c) Deferred Compensation Plans of State and Local
Governments and Tax-Exempt Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 457(b)(2)
(relating to salary limitation on eligible deferred
compensation plans) is amended by striking ``33\1/3\
percent'' and inserting ``100 percent''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1303. FASTER VESTING OF CERTAIN EMPLOYER MATCHING
CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 411(a) (relating to minimum
vesting standards) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``A plan'' and inserting
``Except as provided in paragraph (12), a plan''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Faster vesting for matching contributions.--In the
case of matching contributions (as defined in section
401(m)(4)(A)), paragraph (2) shall be applied--
``(A) by substituting `3 years' for `5 years' in
subparagraph (A), and
``(B) by substituting the following table for the table
contained in subparagraph (B):
The nonforfeitable
``Years of service: percentage is:
2............................................................20
3............................................................40
4............................................................60
5............................................................80
6.........................................................100.''.
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to contributions
for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(2) Collective bargaining agreements.--In the case of a
plan maintained pursuant to one or more collective bargaining
agreements between employee representatives and one or more
employers ratified by the date of the enactment of this Act,
the amendments made by this section shall not apply to
contributions on behalf of employees covered by any such
agreement for plan years beginning before the earlier of--
(A) the later of--
(i) the date on which the last of such collective
bargaining agreements terminates (determined without regard
to any extension thereof on or after such date of the
enactment); or
(ii) January 1, 2001; or
(B) January 1, 2005.
(3) Service required.--With respect to any plan, the
amendments made by this section shall not apply to any
employee before the date that such employee has 1 hour of
service under such plan in any plan year to which the
amendments made by this section apply.
SEC. 1304. SIMPLIFY AND UPDATE THE MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION
RULES.
(a) Simplification and Finalization of Minimum Distribution
Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall--
(A) simplify and finalize the regulations relating to
minimum distribution requirements under sections 401(a)(9),
408(a)(6) and (b)(3), 403(b)(10), and 457(d)(2) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) modify such regulations to--
(i) reflect current life expectancy; and
(ii) revise the required distribution methods so that,
under reasonable assumptions, the amount of the required
minimum distribution does not decrease over a participant's
life expectancy.
(2) Fresh start.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (D) of
section 401(a)(9) of such Code, during the first year that
regulations are in effect under this subsection, required
distributions for future years may be redetermined to reflect
changes under such regulations. Such redetermination shall
include the opportunity to choose a new designated
beneficiary and to elect a new method of calculating life
expectancy.
(3) Effective date for regulations.--Regulations referred
to in paragraph (1) shall be effective for years beginning
after December 31, 2000, and shall apply in such years
without regard to whether an individual had previously begun
receiving minimum distributions.
(b) Repeal of Rule Where Distributions Had Begun Before
Death Occurs.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(a)(9) is
amended by striking clause (i) and redesignating clauses
(ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii),
respectively.
(2) Conforming changes.--
(A) Clause (i) of section 401(a)(9)(B) (as so redesignated)
is amended--
(i) by striking ``for other cases'' in the heading; and
(ii) by striking ``the distribution of the employee's
interest has begun in accordance
[[Page 18504]]
with subparagraph (A)(ii)'' and inserting ``his entire
interest has been distributed to him''.
(B) Clause (ii) of section 401(a)(9)(B) (as so
redesignated) is amended by striking ``clause (ii)'' and
inserting ``clause (i)''.
(C) Clause (iii) of section 401(a)(9)(B) (as so
redesignated) is amended--
(i) by striking ``clause (iii)(I)'' and inserting ``clause
(ii)(I)'';
(ii) by striking ``clause (iii)(III)'' in subclause (I) and
inserting ``clause (ii)(III)'';
(iii) by striking ``the date on which the employee would
have attained age 70\1/2\,'' in subclause (I) and inserting
``April 1 of the calendar year following the calendar year in
which the spouse attains 70\1/2\,''; and
(iv) by striking ``the distributions to such spouse
begin,'' in subclause (II) and inserting ``his entire
interest has been distributed to him,''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(c) Reduction in Excise Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 4974 is amended
by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``10 percent''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1305. CLARIFICATION OF TAX TREATMENT OF DIVISION OF
SECTION 457 PLAN BENEFITS UPON DIVORCE.
(a) In General.--Section 414(p)(11) (relating to
application of rules to governmental and church plans) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or an eligible deferred compensation
plan (within the meaning of section 457(b))'' after
``subsection (e))''; and
(2) in the heading, by striking ``governmental and church
plans'' and inserting ``certain other plans''.
(b) Waiver of Certain Distribution Requirements.--Paragraph
(10) of section 414(p) is amended by striking ``and section
409(d)'' and inserting ``section 409(d), and section
457(d)''.
(c) Tax Treatment of Payments From a Section 457 Plan.--
Subsection (p) of section 414 is amended by redesignating
paragraph (12) as paragraph (13) and inserting after
paragraph (11) the following new paragraph:
``(12) Tax treatment of payments from a section 457 plan.--
If a distribution or payment from an eligible deferred
compensation plan described in section 457(b) is made
pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order, rules
similar to the rules of section 402(e)(1)(A) shall apply to
such distribution or payment.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transfers, distributions, and payments made
after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1306. MODIFICATION OF SAFE HARBOR RELIEF FOR HARDSHIP
WITHDRAWALS FROM CASH OR DEFERRED ARRANGEMENTS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall revise
the regulations relating to hardship distributions under
section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(IV) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide that the period an employee is prohibited
from making elective and employee contributions in order for
a distribution to be deemed necessary to satisfy financial
need shall be equal to 6 months.
(b) Effective Date.--The revised regulations under
subsection (a) shall apply to years beginning after December
31, 2000.
TITLE XIV--INCREASING PORTABILITY FOR PARTICIPANTS
SEC. 1401. ROLLOVERS ALLOWED AMONG VARIOUS TYPES OF PLANS.
(a) Rollovers From and to Section 457 Plans.--
(1) Rollovers from section 457 plans.--
(A) In general.--Section 457(e) (relating to other
definitions and special rules) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(16) Rollover amounts.--
``(A) General rule.--In the case of an eligible deferred
compensation plan established and maintained by an employer
described in subsection (e)(1)(A), if--
``(i) any portion of the balance to the credit of an
employee in such plan is paid to such employee in an eligible
rollover distribution (within the meaning of section
402(c)(4) without regard to subparagraph (C) thereof),
``(ii) the employee transfers any portion of the property
such employee receives in such distribution to an eligible
retirement plan described in section 402(c)(8)(B), and
``(iii) in the case of a distribution of property other
than money, the amount so transferred consists of the
property distributed,
then such distribution (to the extent so transferred) shall
not be includible in gross income for the taxable year in
which paid.
``(B) Certain rules made applicable.--The rules of
paragraphs (2) through (7) (other than paragraph (4)(C)) and
(9) of section 402(c) and section 402(f) shall apply for
purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Reporting.--Rollovers under this paragraph shall be
reported to the Secretary in the same manner as rollovers
from qualified retirement plans (as defined in section
4974(c)).''.
(B) Deferral limit determined without regard to rollover
amounts.--Section 457(b)(2) (defining eligible deferred
compensation plan) is amended by inserting ``(other than
rollover amounts)'' after ``taxable year''.
(C) Direct rollover.--Paragraph (1) of section 457(d) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after subparagraph (B)
the following:
``(C) in the case of a plan maintained by an employer
described in subsection (e)(1)(A), the plan meets
requirements similar to the requirements of section
401(a)(31).
Any amount transferred in a direct trustee-to-trustee
transfer in accordance with section 401(a)(31) shall not be
includible in gross income for the taxable year of
transfer.''.
(D) Withholding.--
(i) Paragraph (12) of section 3401(a) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(E) under or to an eligible deferred compensation plan
which, at the time of such payment, is a plan described in
section 457(b) maintained by an employer described in section
457(e)(1)(A); or''.
(ii) Paragraph (3) of section 3405(c) is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Eligible rollover distribution.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `eligible rollover distribution' has the
meaning given such term by section 402(f)(2)(A).''.
(iii) Liability for withholding.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 3405(d)(2) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end
of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iii) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) section 457(b).''.
(2) Rollovers to section 457 plans.--
(A) In general.--Section 402(c)(8)(B) (defining eligible
retirement plan) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
clause (iii), by striking the period at the end of clause
(iv) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after clause
(iv) the following new clause:
``(v) an eligible deferred compensation plan described in
section 457(b) of an employer described in section
457(e)(1)(A).''.
(B) Separate accounting.--Section 402(c) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Separate accounting.--Unless a plan described in
clause (v) of paragraph (8)(B) agrees to separately account
for amounts rolled into such plan from eligible retirement
plans not described in such clause, the plan described in
such clause may not accept transfers or rollovers from such
retirement plans.''.
(C) 10 percent additional tax.--Subsection (t) of section
72 (relating to 10-percent additional tax on early
distributions from qualified retirement plans) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Special rule for rollovers to section 457 plans.--For
purposes of this subsection, a distribution from an eligible
deferred compensation plan (as defined in section 457(b)) of
an employer described in section 457(e)(1)(A) shall be
treated as a distribution from a qualified retirement plan
described in 4974(c)(1) to the extent that such distribution
is attributable to an amount transferred to an eligible
deferred compensation plan from a qualified retirement plan
(as defined in section 4974(c)).''.
(b) Allowance of Rollovers From and to 403(b) Plans.--
(1) Rollovers from section 403(b) plans.--Section
403(b)(8)(A)(ii) (relating to rollover amounts) is amended by
striking ``such distribution'' and all that follows and
inserting ``such distribution to an eligible retirement plan
described in section 402(c)(8)(B), and''.
(2) Rollovers to section 403(b) plans.--Section
402(c)(8)(B) (defining eligible retirement plan), as amended
by subsection (a), is amended by striking ``and'' at the end
of clause (iv), by striking the period at the end of clause
(v) and inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after clause
(v) the following new clause:
``(vi) an annuity contract described in section 403(b).''.
(c) Expanded Explanation to Recipients of Rollover
Distributions.--Paragraph (1) of section 402(f) (relating to
written explanation to recipients of distributions eligible
for rollover treatment) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) of the provisions under which distributions from the
eligible retirement plan receiving the distribution may be
subject to restrictions and tax consequences which are
different from those applicable to distributions from the
plan making such distribution.''.
(d) Spousal Rollovers.--Section 402(c)(9) (relating to
rollover where spouse receives distribution after death of
employee) is amended by striking ``; except that'' and all
that follows up to the end period.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 72(o)(4) is amended by striking ``and
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), and
457(e)(16)''.
(2) Section 219(d)(2) is amended by striking ``or
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16)''.
[[Page 18505]]
(3) Section 401(a)(31)(B) is amended by striking ``and
403(a)(4)'' and inserting ``, 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), and
457(e)(16)''.
(4) Subparagraph (A) of section 402(f)(2) is amended by
striking ``or paragraph (4) of section 403(a)'' and inserting
``, paragraph (4) of section 403(a), subparagraph (A) of
section 403(b)(8), or subparagraph (A) of section
457(e)(16)''.
(5) Paragraph (1) of section 402(f) is amended by striking
``from an eligible retirement plan''.
(6) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 402(f)(1) are
amended by striking ``another eligible retirement plan'' and
inserting ``an eligible retirement plan''.
(7) Subparagraph (B) of section 403(b)(8) is amended to
read as follows:
``(B) Certain rules made applicable.--The rules of
paragraphs (2) through (7) and (9) of section 402(c) and
section 402(f) shall apply for purposes of subparagraph (A),
except that section 402(f) shall be applied to the payor in
lieu of the plan administrator.''.
(8) Section 408(a)(1) is amended by striking ``or
403(b)(8),'' and inserting ``403(b)(8), or 457(e)(16)''.
(9) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 415(b)(2) are each
amended by striking ``and 408(d)(3)'' and inserting
``403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), and 457(e)(16)''.
(10) Section 415(c)(2) is amended by striking ``and
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``408(d)(3), and 457(e)(16)''.
(11) Section 4973(b)(1)(A) is amended by striking ``or
408(d)(3)'' and inserting ``408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16)''.
(f) Effective Date; Special Rule.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, subsections (h)(3) and (h)(5) of section 1122 of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986 shall not apply to any distribution from
an eligible retirement plan (as defined in clause (iii) or
(iv) of section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) on behalf of an individual if there was a rollover to
such plan on behalf of such individual which is permitted
solely by reason of any amendment made by this section.
SEC. 1402. ROLLOVERS OF IRAS INTO WORKPLACE RETIREMENT PLANS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 408(d)(3)
(relating to rollover amounts) is amended by adding ``or'' at
the end of clause (i), by striking clauses (ii) and (iii),
and by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) the entire amount received (including money and any
other property) is paid into an eligible retirement plan for
the benefit of such individual not later than the 60th day
after the date on which the payment or distribution is
received, except that the maximum amount which may be paid
into such plan may not exceed the portion of the amount
received which is includible in gross income (determined
without regard to this paragraph).
For purposes of clause (ii), the term `eligible retirement
plan' means an eligible retirement plan described in clause
(iii), (iv), (v), or (vi) of section 402(c)(8)(B).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 403(b) is amended by striking
``section 408(d)(3)(A)(iii)'' and inserting ``section
408(d)(3)(A)(ii)''.
(2) Clause (i) of section 408(d)(3)(D) is amended by
striking ``(i), (ii), or (iii)'' and inserting ``(i) or
(ii)''.
(3) Subparagraph (G) of section 408(d)(3) is amended to
read as follows:
``(G) Simple retirement accounts.--In the case of any
payment or distribution out of a simple retirement account
(as defined in subsection (p)) to which section 72(t)(6)
applies, this paragraph shall not apply unless such payment
or distribution is paid into another simple retirement
account.''.
(c) Effective Date; Special Rule.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
(2) Special rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, subsections (h)(3) and (h)(5) of section 1122 of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986 shall not apply to any distribution from
an eligible retirement plan (as defined in clause (iii) or
(iv) of section 402(c)(8)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986) on behalf of an individual if there was a rollover to
such plan on behalf of such individual which is permitted
solely by reason of the amendments made by this section.
SEC. 1403. ROLLOVERS OF AFTER-TAX CONTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Rollovers From Exempt Trusts.--Paragraph (2) of section
402(c) (relating to maximum amount which may be rolled over)
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
preceding sentence shall not apply to such distribution to
the extent--
``(A) such portion is transferred in a direct trustee-to-
trustee transfer to a qualified trust which is part of a plan
which is a defined contribution plan and which agrees to
separately account for amounts so transferred, including
separately accounting for the portion of such distribution
which is includible in gross income and the portion of such
distribution which is not so includible, or
``(B) such portion is transferred to an eligible retirement
plan described in clause (i) or (ii) of paragraph (8)(B).''.
(b) Optional Direct Transfer of Eligible Rollover
Distributions.--Subparagraph (B) of section 401(a)(31)
(relating to limitation) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The preceding sentence shall not apply to such
distribution if the plan to which such distribution is
transferred--
``(i) agrees to separately account for amounts so
transferred, including separately accounting for the portion
of such distribution which is includible in gross income and
the portion of such distribution which is not so includible,
or
``(ii) is an eligible retirement plan described in clause
(i) or (ii) of section 402(c)(8)(B).''.
(c) Rules for Applying Section 72 to IRAs.--Paragraph (3)
of section 408(d) (relating to special rules for applying
section 72) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``(H) Application of section 72.--
``(i) In general.--If--
``(I) a distribution is made from an individual retirement
plan, and
``(II) a rollover contribution is made to an eligible
retirement plan described in section 402(c)(8)(B)(iii), (iv),
(v), or (vi) with respect to all or part of such
distribution,
then, notwithstanding paragraph (2), the rules of clause (ii)
shall apply for purposes of applying section 72.
``(ii) Applicable rules.--In the case of a distribution
described in clause (i)--
``(I) section 72 shall be applied separately to such
distribution,
``(II) notwithstanding the pro rata allocation of income
on, and investment in, the contract to distributions under
section 72, the portion of such distribution rolled over to
an eligible retirement plan described in clause (i) shall be
treated as from income on the contract (to the extent of the
aggregate income on the contract from all individual
retirement plans of the distributee), and
``(III) appropriate adjustments shall be made in applying
section 72 to other distributions in such taxable year and
subsequent taxable years.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions made after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1404. HARDSHIP EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY RULE.
(a) Exempt Trusts.--Paragraph (3) of section 402(c)
(relating to transfer must be made within 60 days of receipt)
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Transfer must be made within 60 days of receipt.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
paragraph (1) shall not apply to any transfer of a
distribution made after the 60th day following the day on
which the distributee received the property distributed.
``(B) Hardship exception.--The Secretary may waive the 60-
day requirement under subparagraph (A) where the failure to
waive such requirement would be against equity or good
conscience, including casualty, disaster, or other events
beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject to
such requirement.''.
(b) IRAs.--Paragraph (3) of section 408(d) (relating to
rollover contributions), as amended by section 1403, is
amended by adding after subparagraph (H) the following new
subparagraph:
``(I) Waiver of 60-day requirement.--The Secretary may
waive the 60-day requirement under subparagraphs (A) and (D)
where the failure to waive such requirement would be against
equity or good conscience, including casualty, disaster, or
other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual
subject to such requirement.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1405. TREATMENT OF FORMS OF DISTRIBUTION.
(a) Plan Transfers.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (6) of section 411(d) (relating
to accrued benefit not to be decreased by amendment) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Plan transfers.--
``(i) In general.--A defined contribution plan (in this
subparagraph referred to as the `transferee plan') shall not
be treated as failing to meet the requirements of this
subsection merely because the transferee plan does not
provide some or all of the forms of distribution previously
available under another defined contribution plan (in this
subparagraph referred to as the `transferor plan') to the
extent that--
``(I) the forms of distribution previously available under
the transferor plan applied to the account of a participant
or beneficiary under the transferor plan that was transferred
from the transferor plan to the transferee plan pursuant to a
direct transfer rather than pursuant to a distribution from
the transferor plan,
``(II) the terms of both the transferor plan and the
transferee plan authorize the transfer described in subclause
(I),
``(III) the transfer described in subclause (I) was made
pursuant to a voluntary election by the participant or
beneficiary whose account was transferred to the transferee
plan,
``(IV) the election described in subclause (III) was made
after the participant or beneficiary received a notice
describing the consequences of making the election,
[[Page 18506]]
``(V) if the transferor plan provides for an annuity as the
normal form of distribution under the plan in accordance with
section 417, the transfer is made with the consent of the
participant's spouse (if any), and such consent meets
requirements similar to the requirements imposed by section
417(a)(2), and
``(VI) the transferee plan allows the participant or
beneficiary described in subclause (III) to receive any
distribution to which the participant or beneficiary is
entitled under the transferee plan in the form of a single
sum distribution.
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) shall apply to plan mergers
and other transactions having the effect of a direct
transfer, including consolidations of benefits attributable
to different employers within a multiple employer plan.
``(E) Elimination of form of distribution.--Except to the
extent provided in regulations, a defined contribution plan
shall not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
this section merely because of the elimination of a form of
distribution previously available thereunder. This
subparagraph shall not apply to the elimination of a form of
distribution with respect to any participant unless--
``(i) a single sum payment is available to such participant
at the same time or times as the form of distribution being
eliminated, and
``(ii) such single sum payment is based on the same or
greater portion of the participant's account as the form of
distribution being eliminated.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(b) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The last sentence of paragraph (6)(B) of
section 411(d) (relating to accrued benefit not to be
decreased by amendment) is amended to read as follows: ``The
Secretary shall by regulations provide that this subparagraph
shall not apply to any plan amendment that does not adversely
affect the rights of participants in a material manner.''.
(2) Secretary directed.--Not later than December 31, 2001,
the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to issue final
regulations under section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, including the regulations required by the
amendments made by this subsection. Such regulations shall
apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001, or
such earlier date as is specified by the Secretary of the
Treasury.
SEC. 1406. RATIONALIZATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON DISTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Modification of Same Desk Exception.--
(1) Section 401(k).--
(A) Section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(I) (relating to qualified cash
or deferred arrangements) is amended by striking ``separation
from service'' and inserting ``severance from employment''.
(B) Subparagraph (A) of section 401(k)(10) (relating to
distributions upon termination of plan or disposition of
assets or subsidiary) is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--An event described in this subparagraph
is the termination of the plan without establishment or
maintenance of another defined contribution plan (other than
an employee stock ownership plan as defined in section
4975(e)(7)).''.
(C) Section 401(k)(10) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (B)--
(I) by striking ``An event'' in clause (i) and inserting
``A termination''; and
(II) by striking ``the event'' in clause (i) and inserting
``the termination'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(iii) by striking ``or disposition of assets or
subsidiary'' in the heading.
(2) Section 403(b).--
(A) Paragraphs (7)(A)(ii) and (11)(A) of section 403(b) are
each amended by striking ``separates from service'' and
inserting ``has a severance from employment''.
(B) The heading for paragraph (11) of section 403(b) is
amended by striking ``separation from service'' and inserting
``severance from employment''.
(3) Section 457.--Clause (ii) of section 457(d)(1)(A) is
amended by striking ``is separated from service'' and
inserting ``has a severance from employment''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1407. PURCHASE OF SERVICE CREDIT IN GOVERNMENTAL DEFINED
BENEFIT PLANS.
(a) 403(b) Plans.--Subsection (b) of section 403 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) Trustee-to-trustee transfers to purchase permissive
service credit.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a
defined benefit governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d)) if such transfer is--
``(A) for the purchase of permissive service credit (as
defined in section 415(n)(3)(A)) under such plan, or
``(B) a repayment to which section 415 does not apply by
reason of subsection (k)(3) thereof.''.
(b) 457 Plans.--Subsection (e) of section 457 is amended by
adding after paragraph (16) the following new paragraph:
``(17) Trustee-to-trustee transfers to purchase permissive
service credit.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income by reason of a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a
defined benefit governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d)) if such transfer is--
``(A) for the purchase of permissive service credit (as
defined in section 415(n)(3)(A)) under such plan, or
``(B) a repayment to which section 415 does not apply by
reason of subsection (k)(3) thereof.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to trustee-to-trustee transfers after December
31, 2000.
SEC. 1408. EMPLOYERS MAY DISREGARD ROLLOVERS FOR PURPOSES OF
CASH-OUT AMOUNTS.
(a) Qualified Plans.--Section 411(a)(11) (relating to
restrictions on certain mandatory distributions) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Special rule for rollover contributions.--A plan
shall not fail to meet the requirements of this paragraph if,
under the terms of the plan, the present value of the
nonforfeitable accrued benefit is determined without regard
to that portion of such benefit which is attributable to
rollover contributions (and earnings allocable thereto). For
purposes of this subparagraph, the term `rollover
contributions' means any rollover contribution under sections
402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 408(d)(3)(A)(ii), and
457(e)(16).''.
(b) Eligible Deferred Compensation Plans.--Clause (i) of
section 457(e)(9)(A) is amended by striking ``such amount''
and inserting ``the portion of such amount which is not
attributable to rollover contributions (as defined in section
411(a)(11)(D))''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1409. MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION AND INCLUSION REQUIREMENTS
FOR SECTION 457 PLANS.
(a) Minimum Distribution Requirements.--Paragraph (2) of
section 457(d) (relating to distribution requirements) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Minimum distribution requirements.--A plan meets the
minimum distribution requirements of this paragraph if such
plan meets the requirements of section 401(a)(9).''.
(b) Inclusion in Gross Income.--
(1) Year of inclusion.--Subsection (a) of section 457
(relating to year of inclusion in gross income) is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Year of inclusion in gross income.--
``(1) In general.--Any amount of compensation deferred
under an eligible deferred compensation plan, and any income
attributable to the amounts so deferred, shall be includible
in gross income only for the taxable year in which such
compensation or other income--
``(A) is paid to the participant or other beneficiary, in
the case of a plan of an eligible employer described in
subsection (e)(1)(A), and
``(B) is paid or otherwise made available to the
participant or other beneficiary, in the case of a plan of an
eligible employer described in subsection (e)(1)(B).
``(2) Special rule for rollover amounts.--To the extent
provided in section 72(t)(9), section 72(t) shall apply to
any amount includible in gross income under this
subsection.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) So much of paragraph (9) of section 457(e) as precedes
subparagraph (A) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) Benefits of tax exempt organization plans not treated
as made available by reason of certain elections, etc.--In
the case of an eligible deferred compensation plan of an
employer described in subsection (e)(1)(B)--''.
(B) Section 457(d) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rule for government plan.--An eligible
deferred compensation plan of an employer described in
subsection (e)(1)(A) shall not be treated as failing to meet
the requirements of this subsection solely by reason of
making a distribution described in subsection (e)(9)(A).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions after December 31, 2000.
TITLE XV--STRENGTHENING PENSION SECURITY AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 1501. REPEAL OF 150 PERCENT OF CURRENT LIABILITY FUNDING
LIMIT.
(a) In General.--Section 412(c)(7) (relating to full-
funding limitation) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the applicable percentage'' in
subparagraph (A)(i)(I) and inserting ``in the case of plan
years beginning before January 1, 2004, the applicable
percentage''; and
(2) by amending subparagraph (F) to read as follows:
``(F) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)(i)(I), the applicable percentage shall be determined in
accordance with the following table:
``In the case of any plan year beginning The applicable percentage is--
2001........................................................160
2002........................................................165
2003......................................................170.''.
[[Page 18507]]
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1502. MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTION RULES MODIFIED AND
APPLIED TO ALL DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (D) of section 404(a)(1)
(relating to special rule in case of certain plans) is
amended to read as follows:
``(D) Special rule in case of certain plans.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of any defined benefit plan,
except as provided in regulations, the maximum amount
deductible under the limitations of this paragraph shall not
be less than the unfunded termination liability (determined
as if the proposed termination date referred to in section
4041(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 were the last day of the plan year).
``(ii) Plans with less than 100 participants.--For purposes
of this subparagraph, in the case of a plan which has less
than 100 participants for the plan year, termination
liability shall not include the liability attributable to
benefit increases for highly compensated employees (as
defined in section 414(q)) resulting from a plan amendment
which is made or becomes effective, whichever is later,
within the last 2 years before the termination date.
``(iii) Rule for determining number of participants.--For
purposes of determining whether a plan has more than 100
participants, all defined benefit plans maintained by the
same employer (or any member of such employer's controlled
group (within the meaning of section 412(l)(8)(C))) shall be
treated as one plan, but only employees of such member or
employer shall be taken into account.
``(iv) Plans established and maintain by professional
service employers.--Clause (i) shall not apply to a plan
described in section 4021(b)(13) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (6) of section 4972(c)
is amended to read as follows:
``(6) Exceptions.--In determining the amount of
nondeductible contributions for any taxable year, there shall
not be taken into account so much of the contributions to one
or more defined contribution plans which are not deductible
when contributed solely because of section 404(a)(7) as does
not exceed the greater of--
``(A) the amount of contributions not in excess of 6
percent of compensation (within the meaning of section
404(a)) paid or accrued (during the taxable year for which
the contributions were made) to beneficiaries under the
plans, or
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the amount of contributions described in section
401(m)(4)(A), plus
``(ii) the amount of contributions described in section
402(g)(3)(A).
For purposes of this paragraph, the deductible limits under
section 404(a)(7) shall first be applied to amounts
contributed to a defined benefit plan and then to amounts
described in subparagraph (B).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1503. EXCISE TAX RELIEF FOR SOUND PENSION FUNDING.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 4972 (relating
to nondeductible contributions) is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Defined benefit plan exception.--In determining the
amount of nondeductible contributions for any taxable year,
an employer may elect for such year not to take into account
any contributions to a defined benefit plan except to the
extent that such contributions exceed the full-funding
limitation (as defined in section 412(c)(7), determined
without regard to subparagraph (A)(i)(I) thereof). For
purposes of this paragraph, the deductible limits under
section 404(a)(7) shall first be applied to amounts
contributed to defined contribution plans and then to amounts
described in this paragraph. If an employer makes an election
under this paragraph for a taxable year, paragraph (6) shall
not apply to such employer for such taxable year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1504. EXCISE TAX ON FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE BY DEFINED
BENEFIT PLANS SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING FUTURE
BENEFIT ACCRUALS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 43 (relating to qualified pension,
etc., plans) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 4980F. FAILURE OF APPLICABLE PLANS REDUCING BENEFIT
ACCRUALS TO SATISFY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) Imposition of Tax.--There is hereby imposed a tax on
the failure of any applicable pension plan to meet the
requirements of subsection (e) with respect to any applicable
individual.
``(b) Amount of Tax.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the tax imposed by
subsection (a) on any failure with respect to any applicable
individual shall be $100 for each day in the noncompliance
period with respect to such failure.
``(2) Noncompliance period.--For purposes of this section,
the term `noncompliance period' means, with respect to any
failure, the period beginning on the date the failure first
occurs and ending on the date the failure is corrected.
``(c) Limitations on Amount of Tax.--
``(1) Overall limitation for unintentional failures.--In
the case of failures that are due to reasonable cause and not
to willful neglect, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for
failures during the taxable year of the employer (or, in the
case of a multiemployer plan, the taxable year of the trust
forming part of the plan) shall not exceed $500,000. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, all multiemployer plans
of which the same trust forms a part shall be treated as one
plan. For purposes of this paragraph, if not all persons who
are treated as a single employer for purposes of this section
have the same taxable year, the taxable years taken into
account shall be determined under principles similar to the
principles of section 1561.
``(2) Waiver by secretary.--In the case of a failure which
is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the
Secretary may waive part or all of the tax imposed by
subsection (a) to the extent that the payment of such tax
would be excessive relative to the failure involved.
``(d) Liability for Tax.--The following shall be liable for
the tax imposed by subsection (a):
``(1) In the case of a plan other than a multiemployer
plan, the employer.
``(2) In the case of a multiemployer plan, the plan.
``(e) Notice Requirements for Plans Significantly Reducing
Benefit Accruals.--
``(1) In general.--If an applicable pension plan is amended
to provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future
benefit accrual, the plan administrator shall provide written
notice to each applicable individual (and to each employee
organization representing applicable individuals).
``(2) Notice.--The notice required by paragraph (1) shall
be written in a manner calculated to be understood by the
average plan participant and shall provide sufficient
information (as determined in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary) to allow applicable individuals
to understand the effect of the plan amendment.
``(3) Timing of notice.--Except as provided in regulations,
the notice required by paragraph (1) shall be provided within
a reasonable time before the effective date of the plan
amendment.
``(4) Designees.--Any notice under paragraph (1) may be
provided to a person designated, in writing, by the person to
which it would otherwise be provided.
``(5) Notice before adoption of amendment.--A plan shall
not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of
paragraph (1) merely because notice is provided before the
adoption of the plan amendment if no material modification of
the amendment occurs before the amendment is adopted.
``(f) Applicable Individual; Applicable Pension Plan.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) Applicable individual.--The term `applicable
individual' means, with respect to any plan amendment--
``(A) any participant in the plan, and
``(B) any beneficiary who is an alternate payee (within the
meaning of section 414(p)(8)) under an applicable qualified
domestic relations order (within the meaning of section
414(p)(1)(A)),
who may reasonably be expected to be affected by such plan
amendment.
``(2) Applicable pension plan.--The term `applicable
pension plan' means--
``(A) any defined benefit plan, or
``(B) an individual account plan which is subject to the
funding standards of section 412,
which had 100 or more participants who had accrued a benefit,
or with respect to whom contributions were made, under the
plan (whether or not vested) as of the last day of the plan
year preceding the plan year in which the plan amendment
becomes effective. Such term shall not include a governmental
plan (within the meaning of section 414(d)) or a church plan
(within the meaning of section 414(e)) with respect to which
the election provided by section 410(d) has not been made.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
43 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 4980F. Failure of applicable plans reducing benefit accruals to
satisfy notice requirements.''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan amendments taking effect on or after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition.--Until such time as the Secretary of the
Treasury issues regulations under sections 4980F(e)(2) and
(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by the
amendments made by this section), a plan shall be treated as
meeting the requirements of such sections if it makes a good
faith effort to comply with such requirements.
(3) Special rule.--The period for providing any notice
required by the amendments made by this section shall not end
before the
[[Page 18508]]
date which is 3 months after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(d) Study.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall prepare a
report on the effects of conversions of traditional defined
benefit plans to cash balance or hybrid formula plans. Such
study shall examine the effect of such conversions on longer
service participants, including the incidence and effects of
``wear away'' provisions under which participants earn no
additional benefits for a period of time after the
conversion. As soon as practicable, but not later than 60
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit such report, together with
recommendations thereon, to the Committee on Ways and Means
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance
of the Senate.
SEC. 1505. TREATMENT OF MULTIEMPLOYER PLANS UNDER SECTION
415.
(a) Compensation Limit.--Paragraph (11) of section 415(b)
(relating to limitation for defined benefit plans) is amended
to read as follows:
``(11) Special limitation rule for governmental and
multiemployer plans.--In the case of a governmental plan (as
defined in section 414(d)) or a multiemployer plan (as
defined in section 414(f)), subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1)
shall not apply.''.
(b) Combining and Aggregation of Plans.--
(1) Combining of plans.--Subsection (f) of section 415
(relating to combining of plans) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Exception for multiemployer plans.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1) and subsection (g), a multiemployer plan (as
defined in section 414(f)) shall not be combined or
aggregated with any other plan maintained by an employer for
purposes of applying the limitations established in this
section, except that such plan shall be combined or
aggregated with another plan which is not such a
multiemployer plan solely for purposes of determining whether
such other plan meets the requirements of subsections
(b)(1)(A) and (c).''.
(2) Conforming amendment for aggregation of plans.--
Subsection (g) of section 415 (relating to aggregation of
plans) is amended by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting
``Except as provided in subsection (f)(3), the Secretary''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1506. PROHIBITED ALLOCATIONS OF STOCK IN S CORPORATION
ESOP.
(a) In General.--Section 409 (relating to qualifications
for tax credit employee stock ownership plans) is amended by
redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and by
inserting after subsection (o) the following new subsection:
``(p) Prohibited Allocations of Securities in an S
Corporation.--
``(1) In general.--An employee stock ownership plan holding
employer securities consisting of stock in an S corporation
shall provide that no portion of the assets of the plan
attributable to (or allocable in lieu of) such employer
securities may, during a nonallocation year, accrue (or be
allocated directly or indirectly under any plan of the
employer meeting the requirements of section 401(a)) for the
benefit of any disqualified person.
``(2) Failure to meet requirements.--
``(A) In general.--If a plan fails to meet the requirements
of paragraph (1), the plan shall be treated as having
distributed to any disqualified person the amount allocated
to the account of such person in violation of paragraph (1)
at the time of such allocation.
``(B) Cross reference.--
``For excise tax relating to violations of paragraph (1) and
ownership of synthetic equity, see section 4979A.
``(3) Nonallocation year.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `nonallocation year' means any
plan year of an employee stock ownership plan if, at any time
during such plan year--
``(i) such plan holds employer securities consisting of
stock in an S corporation, and
``(ii) disqualified persons own at least 50 percent of the
number of shares of stock in the S corporation.
``(B) Attribution rules.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) In general.--The rules of section 318(a) shall apply
for purposes of determining ownership, except that--
``(I) in applying paragraph (1) thereof, the members of an
individual's family shall include members of the family
described in paragraph (4)(D), and
``(II) paragraph (4) thereof shall not apply.
``(ii) Deemed-owned shares.--Notwithstanding the employee
trust exception in section 318(a)(2)(B)(i), individual shall
be treated as owning deemed-owned shares of the individual.
Solely for purposes of applying paragraph (5), this
subparagraph shall be applied after the attribution rules of
paragraph (5) have been applied.
``(4) Disqualified person.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `disqualified person' means any
person if--
``(i) the aggregate number of deemed-owned shares of such
person and the members of such person's family is at least 20
percent of the number of deemed-owned shares of stock in the
S corporation, or
``(ii) in the case of a person not described in clause (i),
the number of deemed-owned shares of such person is at least
10 percent of the number of deemed-owned shares of stock in
such corporation.
``(B) Treatment of family members.--In the case of a
disqualified person described in subparagraph (A)(i), any
member of such person's family with deemed-owned shares shall
be treated as a disqualified person if not otherwise treated
as a disqualified person under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Deemed-owned shares.--
``(i) In general.--The term `deemed-owned shares' means,
with respect to any person--
``(I) the stock in the S corporation constituting employer
securities of an employee stock ownership plan which is
allocated to such person under the plan, and
``(II) such person's share of the stock in such corporation
which is held by such plan but which is not allocated under
the plan to participants.
``(ii) Person's share of unallocated stock.--For purposes
of clause (i)(II), a person's share of unallocated S
corporation stock held by such plan is the amount of the
unallocated stock which would be allocated to such person if
the unallocated stock were allocated to all participants in
the same proportions as the most recent stock allocation
under the plan.
``(D) Member of family.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `member of the family' means, with respect to any
individual--
``(i) the spouse of the individual,
``(ii) an ancestor or lineal descendant of the individual
or the individual's spouse,
``(iii) a brother or sister of the individual or the
individual's spouse and any lineal descendant of the brother
or sister, and
``(iv) the spouse of any individual described in clause
(ii) or (iii).
A spouse of an individual who is legally separated from such
individual under a decree of divorce or separate maintenance
shall not be treated as such individual's spouse for purposes
of this subparagraph.
``(5) Treatment of synthetic equity.--For purposes of
paragraphs (3) and (4), in the case of a person who owns
synthetic equity in the S corporation, except to the extent
provided in regulations, the shares of stock in such
corporation on which such synthetic equity is based shall be
treated as outstanding stock in such corporation and deemed-
owned shares of such person if such treatment of synthetic
equity of 1 or more such persons results in--
``(A) the treatment of any person as a disqualified person,
or
``(B) the treatment of any year as a nonallocation year.
For purposes of this paragraph, synthetic equity shall be
treated as owned by a person in the same manner as stock is
treated as owned by a person under the rules of paragraphs
(2) and (3) of section 318(a). If, without regard to this
paragraph, a person is treated as a disqualified person or a
year is treated as a nonallocation year, this paragraph shall
not be construed to result in the person or year not being so
treated.
``(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Employee stock ownership plan.--The term `employee
stock ownership plan' has the meaning given such term by
section 4975(e)(7).
``(B) Employer securities.--The term `employer security'
has the meaning given such term by section 409(l).
``(C) Synthetic equity.--The term `synthetic equity' means
any stock option, warrant, restricted stock, deferred
issuance stock right, or similar interest or right that gives
the holder the right to acquire or receive stock of the S
corporation in the future. Except to the extent provided in
regulations, synthetic equity also includes a stock
appreciation right, phantom stock unit, or similar right to a
future cash payment based on the value of such stock or
appreciation in such value.
``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection.''.
(b) Coordination With Section 4975(e)(7).--The last
sentence of section 4975(e)(7) (defining employee stock
ownership plan) is amended by inserting ``, section 409(p),''
after ``409(n)''.
(c) Excise Tax.--
(1) Application of tax.--Subsection (a) of section 4979A
(relating to tax on certain prohibited allocations of
employer securities) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1), and
(B) by striking all that follows paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(3) there is any allocation of employer securities which
violates the provisions of section 409(p), or a nonallocation
year described in subsection (e)(2)(C) with respect to an
employee stock ownership plan, or
``(4) any synthetic equity is owned by a disqualified
person in any nonallocation year,
there is hereby imposed a tax on such allocation or ownership
equal to 50 percent of the amount involved.''.
[[Page 18509]]
(2) Liability.--Section 4979A(c) (defining liability for
tax) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Liability for Tax.--The tax imposed by this section
shall be paid--
``(1) in the case of an allocation referred to in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a), by--
``(A) the employer sponsoring such plan, or
``(B) the eligible worker-owned cooperative,
which made the written statement described in section
664(g)(1)(E) or in section 1042(b)(3)(B) (as the case may
be), and
``(2) in the case of an allocation or ownership referred to
in paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a), by the S
corporation the stock in which was so allocated or owned.''.
(3) Definitions.--Section 4979A(e) (relating to
definitions) is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Definitions.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
terms used in this section have the same respective meanings
as when used in sections 409 and 4978.
``(2) Special rules relating to tax imposed by reason of
paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a).--
``(A) Prohibited allocations.--The amount involved with
respect to any tax imposed by reason of subsection (a)(3) is
the amount allocated to the account of any person in
violation of section 409(p)(1).
``(B) Synthetic equity.--The amount involved with respect
to any tax imposed by reason of subsection (a)(4) is the
value of the shares on which the synthetic equity is based.
``(C) Special rule during first nonallocation year.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), the amount involved for the
first nonallocation year of any employee stock ownership plan
shall be determined by taking into account the total value of
all the deemed-owned shares of all disqualified persons with
respect to such plan.
``(D) Statute of limitations.--The statutory period for the
assessment of any tax imposed by this section by reason of
paragraph (3) or (4) of subsection (a) shall not expire
before the date which is 3 years from the later of--
``(i) the allocation or ownership referred to in such
paragraph giving rise to such tax, or
``(ii) the date on which the Secretary is notified of such
allocation or ownership.''.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2001.
(2) Exception for certain plans.--In the case of any--
(A) employee stock ownership plan established after July
11, 2000, or
(B) employee stock ownership plan established on or before
such date if employer securities held by the plan consist of
stock in a corporation with respect to which an election
under section 1362(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
not in effect on such date,
the amendments made by this section shall apply to plan years
ending after July 11, 2000.
TITLE XVI--REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS
SEC. 1601. MODIFICATION OF TIMING OF PLAN VALUATIONS.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (9) of section 412(c)(9)
(relating to annual valuation) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) Annual valuation.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, a
determination of experience gains and losses and a valuation
of the plan's liability shall be made not less frequently
than once every year, except that such determination shall be
made more frequently to the extent required in particular
cases under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(B) Valuation date.--
``(i) Current year.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
valuation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be made as of
a date within the plan year to which the valuation refers or
within one month prior to the beginning of such year.
``(ii) Election to use prior year valuation.--The valuation
referred to in subparagraph (A) may be made as of a date
within the plan year prior to the year to which the valuation
refers if--
``(I) an election is in effect under this clause with
respect to the plan, and
``(II) as of such date, the value of the assets of the plan
are not less than 125 percent of the plan's current liability
(as defined in paragraph (7)(B)).
``(iii) Adjustments.--Information under clause (ii) shall,
in accordance with regulations, be actuarially adjusted to
reflect significant differences in participants.
``(iv) Election.--An election under clause (ii), once made,
shall be irrevocable without the consent of the Secretary.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1602. ESOP DIVIDENDS MAY BE REINVESTED WITHOUT LOSS OF
DIVIDEND DEDUCTION.
(a) In General.--Section 404(k)(2)(A) (defining applicable
dividends) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause
(ii), by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv), and by
inserting after clause (ii) the following new clause:
``(iii) is, at the election of such participants or their
beneficiaries--
``(I) payable as provided in clause (i) or (ii), or
``(II) paid to the plan and reinvested in qualifying
employer securities, or''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
SEC. 1603. REPEAL OF TRANSITION RULE RELATING TO CERTAIN
HIGHLY COMPENSATED EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 1114(c) of the
Tax Reform Act of 1986 is hereby repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a)
shall apply to plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1604. EMPLOYEES OF TAX-EXEMPT ENTITIES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall modify
Treasury Regulations section 1.410(b)-6(g) to provide that
employees of an organization described in section
403(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 who are
eligible to make contributions under section 403(b) of such
Code pursuant to a salary reduction agreement may be treated
as excludable with respect to a plan under section 401(k) or
(m) of such Code that is provided under the same general
arrangement as a plan under such section 401(k), if--
(1) no employee of an organization described in section
403(b)(1)(A)(i) of such Code is eligible to participate in
such section 401(k) plan or section 401(m) plan; and
(2) 95 percent of the employees who are not employees of an
organization described in section 403(b)(1)(A)(i) of such
Code are eligible to participate in such plan under such
section 401(k) or (m).
(b) Effective Date.--The modification required by
subsection (a) shall apply as of the same date set forth in
section 1426(b) of the Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996.
SEC. 1605. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED
RETIREMENT ADVICE.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 132 (relating to
exclusion from gross income) is amended by striking ``or'' at
the end of paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end
of paragraph (6) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(7) qualified retirement planning services.''.
(b) Qualified Retirement Planning Services Defined.--
Section 132 is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as
subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the
following:
``(m) Qualified Retirement Planning Services.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified retirement planning services' means any retirement
planning service provided to an employee and his spouse by an
employer maintaining a qualified employer plan.
``(2) Nondiscrimination rule.--Subsection (a)(7) shall
apply in the case of highly compensated employees only if
such services are available on substantially the same terms
to each member of the group of employees normally provided
education and information regarding the employer's qualified
employer plan.
``(3) Qualified employer plan.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified employer plan' means a plan,
contract, pension, or account described in section
219(g)(5).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1606. REPORTING SIMPLIFICATION.
(a) Simplified Annual Filing Requirement for Owners and
Their Spouses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall modify
the requirements for filing annual returns with respect to
one-participant retirement plans to ensure that such plans
with assets of $250,000 or less as of the close of the plan
year need not file a return for that year.
(2) One-participant retirement plan defined.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term ``one-participant retirement
plan'' means a retirement plan that--
(A) on the first day of the plan year--
(i) covered only the employer (and the employer's spouse)
and the employer owned the entire business (whether or not
incorporated); or
(ii) covered only one or more partners (and their spouses)
in a business partnership (including partners in an S or C
corporation);
(B) meets the minimum coverage requirements of section
410(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 without being
combined with any other plan of the business that covers the
employees of the business;
(C) does not provide benefits to anyone except the employer
(and the employer's spouse) or the partners (and their
spouses);
(D) does not cover a business that is a member of an
affiliated service group, a controlled group of corporations,
or a group of businesses under common control; and
(E) does not cover a business that leases employees.
(3) Other definitions.--Terms used in paragraph (2) which
are also used in section 414 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 shall
[[Page 18510]]
have the respective meanings given such terms by such
section.
(b) Simplified Annual Filing Requirement for Plans With
Fewer Than 25 Employees.--In the case of a retirement plan
which covers less than 25 employees on the first day of the
plan year and meets the requirements described in
subparagraphs (B), (D), and (E) of subsection (a)(2), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall provide for the filing of a
simplified annual return that is substantially similar to the
annual return required to be filed by a one-participant
retirement plan.
(c) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall
take effect on January 1, 2001.
SEC. 1607. IMPROVEMENT OF EMPLOYEE PLANS COMPLIANCE
RESOLUTION SYSTEM.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall continue to update and
improve the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (or
any successor program) giving special attention to--
(1) increasing the awareness and knowledge of small
employers concerning the availability and use of the program;
(2) taking into account special concerns and circumstances
that small employers face with respect to compliance and
correction of compliance failures;
(3) extending the duration of the self-correction period
under the Administrative Policy Regarding Self-Correction for
significant compliance failures;
(4) expanding the availability to correct insignificant
compliance failures under the Administrative Policy Regarding
Self-Correction during audit; and
(5) assuring that any tax, penalty, or sanction that is
imposed by reason of a compliance failure is not excessive
and bears a reasonable relationship to the nature, extent,
and severity of the failure.
SEC. 1608. REPEAL OF THE MULTIPLE USE TEST.
(a) In General.--Paragraph (9) of section 401(m) is amended
to read as follows:
``(9) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this subsection and subsection (k), including regulations
permitting appropriate aggregation of plans and
contributions.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1609. FLEXIBILITY IN NONDISCRIMINATION, COVERAGE, AND
LINE OF BUSINESS RULES.
(a) Nondiscrimination.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall, by
regulation, provide that a plan shall be deemed to satisfy
the requirements of section 401(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 if such plan satisfies the facts and
circumstances test under section 401(a)(4) of such Code, as
in effect before January 1, 1994, but only if--
(A) the plan satisfies conditions prescribed by the
Secretary to appropriately limit the availability of such
test; and
(B) the plan is submitted to the Secretary for a
determination of whether it satisfies such test.
Subparagraph (B) shall only apply to the extent provided by
the Secretary.
(2) Effective dates.--
(A) Regulations.--The regulation required by paragraph (1)
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(B) Conditions of availability.--Any condition of
availability prescribed by the Secretary under paragraph
(1)(A) shall not apply before the first year beginning not
less than 120 days after the date on which such condition is
prescribed.
(b) Coverage Test.--
(1) In general.--Section 410(b)(1) (relating to minimum
coverage requirements) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) In the case that the plan fails to meet the
requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C), the plan--
``(i) satisfies subparagraph (B), as in effect immediately
before the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986,
``(ii) is submitted to the Secretary for a determination of
whether it satisfies the requirement described in clause (i),
and
``(iii) satisfies conditions prescribed by the Secretary by
regulation that appropriately limit the availability of this
subparagraph.
Clause (ii) shall apply only to the extent provided by the
Secretary.''.
(2) Effective dates.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall
apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(B) Conditions of availability.--Any condition of
availability prescribed by the Secretary under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary under section 410(b)(1)(D) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall not apply before the
first year beginning not less than 120 days after the date on
which such condition is prescribed.
(c) Line of Business Rules.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall, on or before December 31, 2000, modify the existing
regulations issued under section 414(r) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 in order to expand (to the extent that
the Secretary determines appropriate) the ability of a
pension plan to demonstrate compliance with the line of
business requirements based upon the facts and circumstances
surrounding the design and operation of the plan, even though
the plan is unable to satisfy the mechanical tests currently
used to determine compliance.
SEC. 1610. EXTENSION TO ALL GOVERNMENTAL PLANS OF MORATORIUM
ON APPLICATION OF CERTAIN NONDISCRIMINATION
RULES APPLICABLE TO STATE AND LOCAL PLANS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Subparagraph (G) of section 401(a)(5) and subparagraph
(H) of section 401(a)(26) are each amended by striking
``section 414(d))'' and all that follows and inserting
``section 414(d)).''.
(2) Subparagraph (G) of section 401(k)(3) and paragraph (2)
of section 1505(d) of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 are
each amended by striking ``maintained by a State or local
government or political subdivision thereof (or agency or
instrumentality thereof)''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for subparagraph (G) of section 401(a)(5)
is amended to read as follows: ``Governmental plans''.
(2) The heading for subparagraph (H) of section 401(a)(26)
is amended to read as follows: ``Exception for governmental
plans''.
(3) Subparagraph (G) of section 401(k)(3) is amended by
inserting ``Governmental plans.--'' after ``(G)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
SEC. 1611. NOTICE AND CONSENT PERIOD REGARDING DISTRIBUTIONS.
(a) Expansion of Period.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 417(a)(6) is
amended by striking ``90-day'' and inserting ``180-day''.
(2) Modification of regulations.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall modify the regulations under sections 402(f),
411(a)(11), and 417 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
substitute ``180 days'' for ``90 days'' each place it appears
in Treasury Regulations sections 1.402(f)-1, 1.411(a)-11(c),
and 1.417(e)-1(b).
(3) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
and the modifications required by paragraph (2) shall apply
to years beginning after December 31, 2000.
(b) Consent Regulation Inapplicable to Certain
Distributions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall modify
the regulations under section 411(a)(11) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the description of a
participant's right, if any, to defer receipt of a
distribution shall also describe the consequences of failing
to defer such receipt.
(2) Effective date.--The modifications required by
paragraph (1) shall apply to years beginning after December
31, 2000.
TITLE XVII--PLAN AMENDMENTS
SEC. 1701. PROVISIONS RELATING TO PLAN AMENDMENTS.
(a) In General.--If this section applies to any plan or
contract amendment--
(1) such plan or contract shall be treated as being
operated in accordance with the terms of the plan during the
period described in subsection (b)(2)(A); and
(2) such plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of
section 411(d)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by
reason of such amendment.
(b) Amendments to Which Section Applies.--
(1) In general.--This section shall apply to any amendment
to any plan or annuity contract which is made--
(A) pursuant to any amendment made by this Act, or pursuant
to any regulation issued under this Act, and
(B) on or before the last day of the first plan year
beginning on or after January 1, 2003.
In the case of a governmental plan (as defined in section
414(d) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), this paragraph
shall be applied by substituting ``2005'' for ``2003''.
(2) Conditions.--This section shall not apply to any
amendment unless--
(A) during the period--
(i) beginning on the date the legislative or regulatory
amendment described in paragraph (1)(A) takes effect (or in
the case of a plan or contract amendment not required by such
legislative or regulatory amendment, the effective date
specified by the plan); and
(ii) ending on the date described in paragraph (1)(B) (or,
if earlier, the date the plan or contract amendment is
adopted),
the plan or contract is operated as if such plan or contract
amendment were in effect; and
(B) such plan or contract amendment applies retroactively
for such period.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, is it within the rules of this House under
the suspension of the rules that we can bring legislation before us
that has already passed the House of Representatives?
We have two bills that have already passed the House and now they are
[[Page 18511]]
coming back. Is it within the rules of the House that we can repass
same bills, the same form without any changes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under suspension of the rules, there is no
prohibition against that.
Mr. RANGEL. No prohibition?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rules of the House, there is no
prohibition.
Mr. RANGEL. Okay, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
General Leave
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 5203.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps my statement might very well clarify
things for my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). One may
ask why we are bringing up and voting on a bill that includes the
legislation which so overwhelmingly passed this House yesterday under
suspension of the rules by a vote of 381 to 3, along with the popular
pension reform legislation which earlier passed by a vote of 401 to 25
and had at least 181 cosponsors including 81 House Democrats.
At a time when Washington reporters like to talk about partisan
maneuvering at the end of a season to get Members out of town and back
home to their districts, I would like to point out how hard the
sponsors of this bill are working, including the Democrats and
Republicans alike, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger), and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), we are working
towards bipartisan solutions to important issues on which we agree.
We are delivering this to the American people in these closing days
of this session of this Congress, but the reason we are taking a series
of votes on the same or similar legislation is it that we need to be
sure that some form of these important solutions get passed by the
other Chamber and get signed into law by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I know that a lot of negotiations are going on along
Pennsylvania Avenue on a variety of issues, but we are producing
results on these items that are most important to the people, the
people that I represent in the State of Florida; protecting Social
Security and Medicare, protecting and enhancing their retirement
security, and protecting our hard-earned money from wasteful Washington
spenders.
Make no mistake, over the last 6 years, the Republicans have done
most of the heavy lifting in cutting wasteful Washington spending and
bringing the budget into balance. Now, that there is a surplus,
Republicans have begun the process of responsibly paying down the
national debt, while protecting Social Security and Medicare and
keeping our economy strong so that future generations of Americans
inherit a Nation that is free of debt with a healthy thriving economy.
In accomplishing this major feat, which less than a decade ago,
seemed impossible, Republicans have adhered to some basic principles
which continue to guide us as we prepare to address the challenges
ahead of us, and that is saving Social Security and Medicare for future
generations.
These are our basic principles, one, payroll taxes belong to the
people who pay into the system, not to the government. Two, the best
way to keep Washington from spending more is to take surplus cash off
the table and store it in a lockbox that can only be used for Social
Security, Medicare or debt reduction. Three, long-term overpayments by
taxpayers should be given back to taxpayers in the form of tax relief
not co-opted by those in Washington who want to spend more.
So it is logical that as we try to keep our economy strong and keep
hard-earned dollars in the hands of the wage earners of this country,
we focus on pension reform and other components of this goal.
Increasing the savings stimulates the economic growth, reducing the
government's take on a person's savings and earnings encourages people
to save, leaving them more of their savings to keep them through their
retirement years.
{time} 1415
It is no wonder why both these bills are so popular. The question is,
why are we having trouble getting similar legislation moved through the
other Chamber and on to the President's desk? These are the specific
reasons we are bringing up this bill today.
First, we want to try again to break the logjam in the other body on
moving forward with the Social Security and Medicare lockbox.
Republicans have been pushing for this legislation since early last
year but have been stonewalled by the minority. Everyone from the
President to the Vice President says they want this but the minority in
the other body continues to block its consideration.
We hope that they are not part of some larger political game; that
they will finally agree to the lockbox and get this bill signed into
law.
Second, Republicans want to set aside $42 billion of the FY 2001
surplus right now for debt relief so that those funds cannot be spent
on more government programs. We should not use the surplus to make
government bigger; we should use it to make the national debt smaller.
We would invite the President and our colleagues in the other body to
join us in this historic effort to use 90 percent of the surplus for
debt relief.
Here is what our lockbox does, and, again, it is identical to the
legislation that we have previously passed: one, it sets aside $240
billion for debt reduction for FY 2001 alone. That is 90 percent of the
entire surplus in FY 2001 dedicated to paying down the publicly held
debt and putting us on to the path of eliminating the debt by the year
2012 or perhaps even sooner. It sets aside 100 percent of the Social
Security surplus to pay down the debt until we pass legislation that
actually saves Social Security. That is $165 billion of debt reduction
in fiscal year 2001 and $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years; $2.4
trillion.
It sets aside 100 percent of the Medicare surplus to pay down the
debt until we pass legislation that saves Medicare. That is another $32
billion of debt reduction in fiscal year 2001, and another $360 billion
over the next 10 years. It sets aside an additional $42 billion of the
non-Social Security and non-Medicare surplus for debt reduction. An
additional $42 billion of the on-budget surplus would be set aside for
debt reduction in a special account in Treasury.
The bill is good for millions of Americans, especially working women
who have no pension or have inadequate pension coverage today. As we
will hear from other speakers today describe in even more detail, we
raise the limit of IRAs from $2,000 to $5,000. As we all know, the IRAs
are one of the most popular and successful programs ever conceived. As
inflation has caught up with the value of the original amount people
can set aside, that is $1,500 in 1974 raised to $2,000 in 1981, it
makes sense to allow people to do more to save for retirement.
Our bill similarly updates 401(k) amounts and improves portability so
one can take their retirement nest egg with them when they move from
job to job, which is even a greater incentive for younger Americans to
start planning for their future earlier.
Only half of all private sector workers have any kind of pension and
only 20 percent of small business offer retirement plans. So the
ability to design an individual program and carry their savings with
them is as important as our effort to protect pension plans from the
burdens of overtaxation. But do not forget, every single individual in
this country stands to benefit from this bill because we will be
protecting future generations from debt. We will
[[Page 18512]]
be making retirement savings grow for workers of all ages, and we will
be helping keep hard-earned dollars in the hands of taxpayers rather
than sending them to Washington.
When given the choice to put dollars in the hands of Washington or
keeping them in the pockets of people living in Florida, I would choose
to trust my constituents any day.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and he
is my friend, has spent a lot of time talking about the merits of these
two bills that are before the House on the suspension calendar.
Throughout his support, he mentions Republicans a half a dozen times,
which I can understand, it is that time of the year and he needs all
the help he can get. My problem is, he would have us to believe that
these two bills that passed this House overwhelmingly in a bipartisan
way is just not enough to move his Republican leaders on the other side
of this building. And so if this is so, then we will be using the
suspension calendar for everything that we do not like the progress of
a piece of legislation to move Republicans that are not in this
Chamber, which I think is an abuse of the privilege of the suspension
calendar. But that is a political matter.
What I am concerned about, as a member of the Committee on Ways and
Means, is that there is a lot of talk about this new bill, H.R. 5203,
being the same as the House-passed bill, H.R. 5173. Since the new bill
is still warm in my hand as it comes off the press, and we saw it at
noontime, there may be a similarity in substance; but there is a heck
of a lot of difference in terms of language. There are changes in this
bill that may be technical, but there are 135 lines of the new bill
that is shorter than what we had in the old bill.
Now, I know that some Republican expert decided which was good and
which was bad, and the gentleman has a lot of time left, and I know he
will explain why we do have at least in terms of numbers and pages a
different bill. But another thing bothers me and that is if we do have
a very important piece of legislation and they both concern the
Committee on Ways and Means, and we did have an amendment to the bill
when it was in the House that would allow lower-income people to have
incentives for savings, why would not this bill, if it had to be
revisited, why would it bypass the Committee on Ways and Means? Why
would we have something that we have not even had our staffs to read,
since it has just been out a couple of hours? Why do we have this
urgency to get this thing done with such speed, in view of the fact
that our committee has no work before it?
We do not get a chance to have a motion to recommit on the suspension
calendar. We do not have a chance to see whether we can improve this
bill. It is not the identical bill that we passed here before. The
staff knows that. I am just saying that when one takes popular ideas
and believe that each time they find us supporting something they can
call it bipartisan, that it has to keep on getting passed, it is not
right.
Democrats have worked with my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle on the legislation, and we still think that it can be improved;
but since they have given up on tax cuts and have moved swiftly to
budget gimmicks, I thought we had really done all that we could the
last time this thing came up, where we are now doing by legislation
what President Clinton has been doing by making certain the Federal
debt is being paid down.
I do not know how far we have to go with this type of procedures on
the floor. Democratic support was gotten before. Democratic support has
to be gotten now. Since the parliamentarians indicated that this can be
brought up as often as the other side wants on the suspension calendar,
maybe we will have other bills that we have joined together in passing.
I might suggest, though, being in the minority, one of the ways that
action might be gotten from the other body is for Republicans here to
talk to Republicans there.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), he has known me long enough to know that I am a man
of my word; and I can assure him that these bills are exactly what the
gentleman has already supported in the committee and that he has
already supported on the floor.
I think the gentleman knows that when we get into the closing days,
perhaps he knows better than I do, the negotiations that are going on.
Two bills as important as these bills are, to merge them together,
gives us just another option in which to get these matters before the
Senate, to the conference, and to the President's desk for signature.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman), the author of the pension portion of this bill.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw), very much for yielding me this time; and I thank
him for bringing this bill, H.R. 5203, to the floor today.
It is the Debt Relief and Retirement Security Reconciliation Act of
2000, and it is designed to give reconciliation protection to
legislation we have already passed for the purpose of negotiating with
the Senate to move this process forward and to get these bills enacted
this year.
The first is the debt lockbox legislation that puts 90 percent of
this year's budget surplus projected for 2001 into debt relief, and
then second of course is the bipartisan retirement security legislation
that we have passed in this House by a vote of 401 to 25, which expands
and strengthens IRAs, 401(k)s and other pensions.
I would like to focus, if I could, this afternoon on the retirement
security package that is before us. This is bipartisan legislation that
my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and
I have worked on over the last 3 years. It is very important. It is
very important we get it enacted and do so this year. We need to do all
we can because there is a real retirement security crunch out there.
Seventy million Americans, about half the workforce, do not have any
kind of a pension at all today, not even a 401(k), nothing. The problem
is even worse among small businesses. We are told that less than 20
percent of small businesses, Mr. Speaker, that is with businesses of 25
or fewer employees, offer any kind of pension coverage today.
Now, this is at a time when private savings in this country is
dangerously low. In fact, last month we are told that our savings rate
in this country was actually negative. This, of course, hurts our
economy. It presents a real danger to our economy moving forward, but
it also hurts people; it hurts individuals. Experts tell us that older
baby-boomers, for instance, have put only 40 percent aside of what they
will need for a financially secure retirement. So it is time to take
action, and it is time to do it now.
Part of the problem we have had over the years is right here in
Congress. Over the last 20 years, Congress has made pensions less
generous by lowering the contribution of benefit levels, believe it or
not, and while making pension benefits lower they have also made
pensions more costly to offer by increasing the number of rules and
regulations on employers.
Let me say what kind of impact that has had. Let me give a specific
example. From 1982 to 1994, the limits on defined benefit plans were
repeatedly reduced by Congress and new restrictions were added,
primarily for the purpose of generating Federal revenue, by the way.
This was not a policy decision that had to do with pensions. It had to
do with at that time addressing the deficit. As these cutback from 1982
to 1994 took effect, the number of traditional defined benefit plans
insured by PBGC dropped from 114,000 plans in 1987 to 45,000 plans in
1997. These are the facts. They speak for themselves.
[[Page 18513]]
During the past 2 decades, overall pension coverage has remained
stagnant, even when the defined contribution side is included.
Obviously, it is past time for Congress to reverse these trends, and
the bill before us today does just that. It is a comprehensive
approach. It has been developed over the last 3 years with careful
consultation with small businesses, labor organizations like the
building trades department of the AFL-CIO. It has also been worked on
by pension law experts in the private sector, academia and the
administration. Most importantly, we have looked to and taken the
advice of workers themselves, folks who are in pension plans, to see
how they could be improved. They have been fully vetted. About 200
Members of this House, almost equally divided between Republicans and
Democrats, have cosponsored the bill and more than 85 outside groups
have endorsed it. The approach is fiscally responsible, and it is very
straightforward.
It falls in basically three categories. First, we allow all workers
to set aside more money for their retirement. That means setting aside
more money in a 401(k)-type plan, in a union, multiemployer-type plan,
a defined benefit plan and all other pensions. It also means setting
more money aside in an IRA. In most cases, very importantly, all we are
doing is trying to restore those limits to where they were before the
Congress reduced them.
For example, moving the IRA contribution levels from $2,000 to $5,000
is about where it would have been had it been indexed to inflation in
the 1970s. We also allow special catch-up contributions that help
workers over 50 set aside even more for retirement.
These accelerated contributions will allow older workers--especially
women returning to the workforce--the opportunity to build up a
retirement nest egg more quickly--at a time in their lives when their
earnings are relatively high and when they most need to save for
retirement.
Second, we're modernizing pension laws to adapt to what we've learned
about the realities of an increasingly mobile workforce. So, we make
defined contributions plans portable so workers can roll-over their
retirement nest egg between various types of qualified plans--including
401(k), 403(b) and 457 plans. And, we require employers to allow
workers to become vested in their pension plans more quickly--in 3
years rather than the current-law 5.
Finally, we listened to those in the trenches, and we responded to
the surveys that clearly demonstrate that we must reduce the
complexities and red tape in current law if we are going to expand
pension opportunities for those who work for small businesses. That's
why we make it easier for employers--particularly small businesses--to
establish and maintain pension plans by reducing costs and
liabilities--including modernizing outdated laws and streamlining
complex rules. Yet, we keep in place the important protections that
ensure families fairness in our pension system.
Despite the overwhelming and broad-based support for this
legislation, there are some in the Administration who call this package
a ``tax cut for the rich.'' That's wrong. Why should they tell working
Americans--who are struggling to save for retirement--that the $2,000
limit on IRA contributions established in 1981 makes sense today? Why
should they tell working Americans that they can save less in a 401(k)
plan than they could in the 1980s?
Remember who benefits here--77 percent of American workers currently
participating in a pension plan make less than $50,000 per year. By
expanding retirement savings options, we'll be helping those workers
who need the most help in saving for retirement.
I urge my colleagues to join us today in sending a strong bipartisan
message to the Senate--and to the White House--that we are committed to
helping all Americans have more peace of mind--and more financial
security--in their retirement years. Let's pass this package again.
{time} 1430
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means
and a member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, coming over here today, having been over
here yesterday when half of this bill passed the last time, I could not
help thinking of what, I think it was Groucho Marx said, that if you
are going to go into politics, the first thing you have to learn to do
is to act sincere. Because if we are going to come out here with this
kind of legislation, we really have to work pretty hard to keep a
straight face.
Yesterday we passed the bill on this lockbox on debt repayment, which
is a totally useless piece of legislation. It is not necessary; the
debt is being paid down without any such process now. But it was a
pretty good press release yesterday. So they thought, well, let us do
it again tomorrow. Since we are not doing anything worthwhile anyway,
we might as well have something to put into our press release machine
to fire out at the newspapers all over the country, and that is a good
one, and oh, yeah, there is that pension thing, we can pass that too.
Why do we not staple those bills together, because it will be
different. They cannot say we are bringing out the same bill as we
brought out yesterday; we are bringing out the same bill yesterday,
plus the same bill from July 19.
Now, you say, why do we pick July 19? Well, we think about it and we
say to ourselves, they must be bringing out the July 19 bill because
they did it in the middle of the summer and people have forgotten about
it, and today we are 49 days from election and we have to be sure and
remind the people of the good legislation we passed that the majority
in the other body killed, so we do not get blamed for it.
Mr. Speaker, the real irony of this thing is we have the majority
party in the House who cannot seem to get the majority party in the
other body to pay attention to them. We fire this nonsense over there
and they put it in a desk drawer and it never sees the light of day
again. This is an intra-party fight inside the majority party. That is
why we will probably be out here tomorrow with the debt reduction bill
and, let us see, we could marry it up to the estate tax removal. That
would be a good one to put out here. Then, on Thursday we can bring out
the debt reduction bill and the marriage tax penalty bill. Now, let me
think. I will sit down over here and come up with the list for next
week. Because we have not passed the appropriation acts, we have not
had any conference committees on the budget, so we have to come out
here and do these little shows.
Now, I think the American people are smarter than some people in this
place give them credit for. They will see this; they are not going to
forget that yesterday they read about the debt reduction bill and they
are going to think they got the same paper 2 days in a row. Right there
on the front pages, Republicans plan to spend 90 percent of the money
in the surplus on paying down the debt. They cannot do it, because they
already passed enough tax breaks to use up 22 percent; they cannot use
90 percent and 22 percent. If we add 90 and 22, that makes 112 percent
of the surplus.
Now, I am not quite sure who teaches math over in the other caucus,
but they need a new calculator, because it does not work. But, with a
very straight face and acting very sincere, people stand down here and
tell us that we can do it. I suppose if one believes that, one could
believe in buying the Brooklyn Bridge or a whole lot of other things.
The only things we have passed here in the last few days has been
naming new bridges and new courthouses and new highways and this kind
of stuff, part of which is legislative nonsense, and the other part is
a decent bill. But the people are not going to be fooled by this press
release.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
remind the gentleman from Washington that in the other body, it is the
other party that has been filibustering the lockbox legislation.
Perhaps this will break something loose over there. It is very good
bipartisan legislation in this body, but in the other body it has not
worked that way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger), the author of the lockbox legislation.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure.
This bill increases IRA contribution limits
[[Page 18514]]
from $2,000 to $5,000, making it easier for Americans to save. This
measure also includes two provisions I introduced, the Social Security
lockbox, which passed the House last year by a 416-to-12 vote, and the
Medicare lockbox, which I introduced in March and passed the House this
June by a 420-to-2 vote.
Mr. Speaker, for the first time, these lockboxes will protect 100
percent of trust fund surpluses from spending on other unrelated
government programs. Ending the raid on the Social Security and
Medicare trust funds is the right thing to do. This legislation also
creates another lockbox in which $42 billion additional surplus dollars
will be held only for debt reduction. All in all, this legislation will
use 90 percent, or $240 billion to pay down public debt this year
alone. Never in the history of our Nation has a Congress paid down this
much public debt in a single year.
Today, we made debt reduction the priority, not the afterthought.
This bill is the epitome of sound fiscal policy. For individual
Americans, we increase opportunities to save; for the government's
part, we protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for the
first time from raids and still pay down $240 billion in public debt.
This bill is a win-win for fiscal responsibility, a win-win for our
children, a win-win for our seniors, and a win-win for the best
interests of the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
measure.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and
Means.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this session is descending into utter
confusion, and if it is confusing here, we can imagine what the public
thinks.
The Republican majority here in the House has moved from pillar to
post. First a $900 billion tax cut, much of it for the very wealthy,
eating up a good portion of the nonSocial Security surplus. Well, that
did not fly, so now we have a proposal, 90 percent of the surplus for
debt retirement. So we go from $900 billion in an unworkable tax
proposal to 90 percent of that surplus, that would have been used up in
large measure by the tax bill, now for debt retirement.
Well, to add to the confusion, we now have this bill tied into
another bill, and what could be the reason for it? The gentleman from
Ohio talked about how it was necessary for budget reconciliation, he
used those terms. Let me just read a statement on this point that we
have worked on with the staff and I would like to have someone refute
it if it is wrong.
The debt reduction lockbox provisions in H.R. 5203 are in no way,
shape or form a reconciliation bill in the Senate. The Senate had no
budget reconciliation instructions for debt reduction. Among other
things, the debt reduction provisions violate the Byrd Rule in the
Senate and section 306 of the Budget Act which protects the
jurisdiction of the budget committees. As such, a motion to proceed to
consideration of such a bill under budget reconciliation rules could be
filibustered in the Senate. What the House is doing is converting the
House-passed pension IRA bill into a nonreconciliation bill for the
Senate. So this bill is not only confusing, it is counterproductive.
Well, what is the second reason given for combining these bills? It
is said it is to get the attention of the Senate. How about e-mail or
the telephone, or just walk across the rotunda and sit down with the
majority leader in the Senate and we will be glad to join with the
White House, and let us get busy and do some work and pass some
legislation.
What we are doing here is treading water while the session is
sinking. It just does not make any sense, as the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel) said. We Democrats are ready to work. We are ready to
move on. We are ready to pass legislation and not to add to an already
confusing situation.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is not confusing. The Republicans are committed to
empowering American families by returning power, money and choices to
the people. We do not believe that the Federal budget surplus belongs
to the government. It is the people's money, and it should be returned.
They earned it.
This is our constant and unchanging goal. That is why we proposed a
firm commitment that applies at least 90 percent of next year's Federal
budget surplus to paying off our debts. It turns out that a commitment
to paying off the debt is a popular position. Last night, we forged a
common sense coalition for debt relief. We drew support from both sides
of the aisle. We believe that the surplus must be returned to the
American people, if not through tax relief, then through debt
reduction.
Today, we take another important step. Members have another
opportunity to send a very clear message to the White House. The
American people demand greater fiscal discipline from their government.
An unrestrained wave of new Washington spending is not an acceptable
use for their surplus. Our latest initiative addresses this theme of
fiscal discipline by both expanding retirement security and paying off
the debt. We can again urge the President to join with us, but our
expectations are pretty low.
The President has already repeatedly blocked the bipartisan effort to
return the surplus to the American people. Just last week he said,
whether we can do debt reduction this year or not depends upon what the
various spending commitments are. Less than 24 hours ago, this House
voted overwhelmingly in favor of our debt reduction plan. Now every
Member, Republican and Democrat, who voted for that initiative should
support this common sense measure.
Mr. President, we have room for you in our common sense coalition to
refund the surplus, but you must first abandon any scheme to spend the
surplus on more Washington programs. If you can commit to using at
least 90 percent of next year's surplus to debt relief and only debt
relief, we would like to have you with us.
Mr. Speaker, members should support this bill. It will return power
to the American people and strengthen our Nation.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The majority whip has now confused me. I understood from the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means, that we were relegislating this old legislation to send
a message to the Republican leaders on the other side. However, now the
majority whip wants to send a message to the President of the United
States. This is really getting confusing. I mean have we given up all
methods of communication completely? I know it is bad, but we do not
have to legislate to talk to President Clinton. We can do these things
directly. We can sit down today or tomorrow and work out how we can get
some legislation passed and signed into law instead of getting out
these press releases.
The next speaker on this side is the coauthor of this bipartisan
piece of legislation that overwhelmingly passed the House, and he
worked closely with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I do not
know how many times we are going to drag out the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) here to show
that some people do talk with each other on the House side, but I hope
my Republican colleagues keep doing it until they get it right, because
some of us have to get out of here and get back home.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Let me assure our colleagues
that there is strong bipartisan support for the provisions that are
contained in this bill that is before us.
{time} 1445
Many of us, including this Member, is confused on the process. I
listened also
[[Page 18515]]
to the distinguished majority whip explain what this bill is intended
to do, and I do not believe that is included in the legislation before
us. So I am confused on the process that we are using, but I hope it is
an effort that will allow us to enact some very important legislation.
I listened to the explanation on the lockbox, and I must tell my
colleagues that I am confused on the explanation on the lockbox. As I
understand, it is a 1-year bill. And we are going to be judged by our
actions on the appropriation bills and on the tax bills, not on the
lockbox. Let us be clear about that.
I hope at the end of the day that we can say as Democrats and
Republicans that we have put as our first priority retiring our debt,
which is exactly what the President of the United States has asked us
to do, to make the top priority the reduction of our debt with the
surplus funds.
Let me speak for a moment, if I might, about the pension legislation.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is correct, this bill has been
worked very carefully on a bipartisan basis. I thank my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for his leadership on this.
Democrats and Republicans joined together in crafting this bill and in
passing this bill by 401 votes. I would hope that by bringing it up
again today it is a message that we intend to send to the President of
the United States a bill that deals with pensions and is not loaded up
with other issues that would make it impossible for us to get it
enacted this year.
As the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has pointed out, it is
important legislation because it is very comprehensive legislation that
will not only increase the limits but will help employers provide
employer-sponsored pension plans for their employees, which help lower-
wage workers because the employer puts the money on the table, making
it easier for low-wage workers to put money away for their own
retirement.
We deal with portability and the realization that the current
workforce holds people that will work for more than one employer in
their work life, so they need to be able to combine their funds. We
remove a lot of the obstacles that make it difficult for employers to
sponsor pension plans. We make it easier for individuals to put more
money away for themselves to address the critical need in this Nation
to increase the savings rates.
So I hope at the end of the day that we will be able to come together
with a bill that is enacted and sent to the President. And if we can
keep it to the pension issues alone, if we do not get confused with
some of the other politics around here, I think we can achieve that.
But I would urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to work
with us on the process issues. It is somewhat confusing to us to wake
up in the morning only to find legislation that we thought already was
completed in this body has once again been brought up for initial
action rather than being sent to the President for signature.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, encouraging savings and
investment and not leaving our kids and our grandkids with a huge
mortgage is a reasonable combination in this piece of legislation.
On September 13, the President said, in regard to paying down the
debt, and I quote from the New York Times, ``Whether we can do it this
year or not depends upon what the various spending commitments are.''
He may have very well said, ``I have other plans for this money.''
Today, this House makes spending commitments under this bill. We are
committed to paying down the debt. Maybe we could do more. I would have
liked to have done more. But the problem is that we have to make a
commitment to do it, otherwise the propensity to spend by the President
and by this Congress is too great.
Let us pass this legislation to help assure we don't simply increase
spending. The President sent us the Democrat budget proposal last
spring that increased spending $100 billion more than could be paid for
with projected revenues. That meant that without increased taxes and
increased revenues, it would have used the Social Security and the
Medicaid trust fund surpluses.
Let us pass this bill and move ahead. Let us make sure saving and
investment is easier for the American people and we do not leave our
kids with a bigger mortgage.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that we are
voting on today. I strongly support setting aside 90 percent of the
projected budget surplus to pay down the national debt. Of course, our
goal is not only to build on the $360 billion in debt retirement we
have already accomplished in the last 3 years, but to pay off the
national debt by the year 2010.
I also want to stand in strong support of this legislation which
locks away 100 percent of the Social Security Trust Fund for Social
Security and locks away 100 percent of the Medicare Trust Fund for
Medicare. That is an important commitment not only for today's seniors
but for future generations.
My colleagues, I also stand in strong support of this legislation
which makes it easier for America's workers and small businesses to set
aside money for their own retirement. Efforts to expand what Americans
can contribute to their IRAs and 401(k)s can make a big difference to
many millions of working Americans.
I also want to note that this legislation includes two very important
provisions: Catch-up provisions that allow individuals to make
additional contributions to 401(k)s or IRAs if they are over 50. That
helps working moms. And the repeal of 415 limits, which helps 10
million working Americans in the building trades.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
As we close the debate on this issue, quite a number of the majority
Members are concerned about the President of the United States getting
involved in spending programs. I would just want the Record to be clear
that the President will not be involved with any spending programs that
are not supported by the majority Members in this House and the
majority of the Members on the other side.
So if my colleagues do not want to support any of these programs,
then get together with the appropriation committees to see what we are
going to do, but let us not use the legislative process to send
messages to the other side or send messages to the President.
Now, this is a good piece of legislation, but some of us, even though
we supported the commitment to the reduction of the national debt,
thought that we should have included the President's retirement plan
that gave incentives for low-income workers to save. And the last time
this bill was on the floor, Members had a chance to participate because
it was not on the suspension calendar. The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Neal) had an amendment that would have improved upon this bill and
got over 200 votes, as I recall. Many of the Members who worked on this
piece of legislation that once again is before us wish that this could
have been a part of the package so that all of us, in a unanimous way,
could say that it helps all of the workers in different income
categories.
So even though I will not be supporting this in its present form,
since we do not have a chance to amend it or to work with the motion to
recommit, I do want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for showing that
in this House we can work together in a bipartisan way.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scarborough). The time of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Rangel) has expired. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher).
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
[[Page 18516]]
this time. It is a busy time of the year, but this past Sunday I was
able to spend some time with a new grandson, born July 22. His name is
Joshua.
And that is really what this is about up here. Joshua does not
understand partisan politics. He does not understand a lot of the games
that may go on here. He certainly does not understand why the minority
on the other side is blocking some legislation that would give him a
bright future and pay down the publicly held debt instead of handing
him a mortgage of $20,000. It would allow him, as he is growing up, to
save more, or his parents to save more to be able to afford a home in
the future. And he certainly does not understand the attitude of some
people that believe it is the government's money instead of the
people's money.
But one day he will appreciate what we are doing here today, because
this is really about Joshua and who Joshua represents: All the children
across this Nation. The future. And not only the debt that they have
that we have given them, or has been given to them due to 40 years of
minority rule when the debt was increased, but also the opportunity to
save and to be all that he can be.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Because of what we do here today, if it does pass the other body and
the President's desk, little Joshua will owe $240 billion less than he
does today on the national debt.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting bill.
It seems to combine an unnecessary bill on debt relief that passed the
House yesterday by a vote of 381-3, with a faulty bill on retirement
policy that passed the House on July 19 by a vote of 401-25. It is my
understanding that our side of the aisle learned about the contents of
the bill about 11:00 this morning, so there may be changes that we have
not discovered yet.
Since revenue that is not spent goes to deficit reduction
automatically, a statement that 90 percent of the surplus should go to
deficit reduction next year hardly seems momentous. However, it does no
great harm either, so I intend to vote for passage of this bill to
indicate my strong support for deficit reduction. In addition, I am
pleased that Members on the other side of the aisle have adopted the
Democratic position as articulated all year, and have finally made
deficit reduction a priority.
On the retirement bill, let me just say that I continue to believe
that H.R. 1102 is flawed and is in need of many improvements. I agree
with Jane Bryant Quinn when she wrote in the Business Section of the
Washington Post this past weekend that this and other bills are ``for
the upper-middle, investor class. There should be a companion tax
incentive bill that helps the workers, too.''
Just such a companion bill, I believe, was offered by myself on July
19, but that amendment failed by a vote of 200-216, with all
Republicans present and voting opposed, and all Democrats but three
present and voting in support. This amendment established a refundable
tax credit for contributions to pension plans by low and moderate
income workers, and tax credits to small businesses to establish and
contribute to pension plans. While not perfect, it at least made an
attempt to deal with the problem of access to retirement income for
those who can not save due to their low income, or can not save as much
as they should. But the House, as I indicated, adopted the narrow
approach.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I intend to vote for deficit reduction,
and to continue my effort to enact a comprehensive retirement bill that
helps all Americans save for retirement, not just the ``upper-middle,
investor class.''
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking up a bill which
would ensure that 90 percent of next year's budget surplus goes to
paying down debt. With this bill, over $600 billion of publicly held
debt would be paid down by the end of next year. It would be entirely
eliminated by 2013. This means lower interest rates on credit cards and
home mortgages for millions of Americans. I can't think of a better
gift for our children.
Unfortunately, this debt reduction measure has been attached to H.R.
1102, the Retirement Security Act. In my district, constituents have
voiced concern over certain pension provisions included in this bill.
Some recent pension conversions have been a grave injustice to American
workers, especially mid-career and older employees who have planned for
retirement based on the benefits built into their original pension
plans. While H.R. 1102 provides some much-needed disclosure
requirements, we need to be tougher on those companies who have taken
advantage of pension conversions to fatten their bottom lines. I will
continue to fight for those tougher provisions.
When H.R. 1102 was being considered, I fought to ensure that all
vested employees have the choice to remain in their current defined
benefit plans. I brought an amendment to the Rules Committee which
would have done just that. Unfortunately, I wasn't allowed to bring it
to the House floor for consideration. In the end, I cast a protest vote
against H.R. 1102 because it lacked this important provision.
Today, there is no opportunity to amend this bill. I wish that these
pension reform provisions had not been attached to debt relief, but it
has. The importance of this bill in locking in debt reduction and
increasing the ability of Americans to save for their own retirement
will carry the day for most Members of this House. I will support this
bill because it is critical that we offer our children a debt-free
future.
Mr. SHAW. 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 Florida (Mr. Shaw) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5203.
The question was taken.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
This is a 15-minute vote on H.R. 5203 and it will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on H.R. 3986.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 401,
nays 20, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 479]
YEAS--401
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
[[Page 18517]]
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
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
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--20
Clay
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Filner
Frank (MA)
Jackson (IL)
Kennedy
LaFalce
Lee
Matsui
McDermott
Mollohan
Nadler
Olver
Payne
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Stark
NOT VOTING--13
Campbell
Dooley
Franks (NJ)
Johnson (CT)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Nethercutt
Vento
Watkins
Wise
{time} 1517
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, FILNER, and NADLER changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 479 I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scarborough). Pursuant to clause 8 of
rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for
electronic voting on the additional motion to suspend the rules on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
____________________
CHANDLER PUMPING PLANT WATER EXCHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 3986, 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 Idaho (Mr. Simpson) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 3986, 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 218,
nays 201, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 480]
YEAS--218
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--201
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--14
Abercrombie
Buyer
Campbell
Dooley
Franks (NJ)
Houghton
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Nethercutt
Vento
Wise
{time} 1526
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. INSLEE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds not having voted in favor thereof) the motion was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________
[[Page 18518]]
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Ms. Wanda Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
GAO PERSONNEL FLEXIBILITY ACT OF 2000
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4642) to make certain personnel flexibilities
available with respect to the General Accounting Office, and for other
purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4642
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.
(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Effective for
purposes of the period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act and ending on December 31, 2003, paragraph (2) of
section 8336(d) of title 5, United States Code, shall, with
respect to officers and employees of the General Accounting
Office, be applied as if it had been amended to read as
follows:
``(2)(A) has been employed continuously by the General
Accounting Office for at least the 31-day period immediately
preceding the start of the period referred to in subparagraph
(D);
``(B) is serving under an appointment that is not time
limited;
``(C) has not received a notice of involuntary separation,
for misconduct or unacceptable performance, with respect to
which final action remains pending; and
``(D) is separated from the service voluntarily during a
period with respect to which the Comptroller General
determines that the application of this subsection is
necessary and appropriate for the purpose of--
``(i) realigning the General Accounting Office's workforce
in order to meet budgetary constraints or mission needs;
``(ii) correcting skill imbalances; or
``(iii) reducing high-grade, managerial, or supervisory
positions;''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Effective for
purposes of the period beginning on the date of enactment of
this Act and ending on December 31, 2003, subparagraph (B) of
section 8414(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, shall,
with respect to officers and employees of the General
Accounting Office, be applied as if it had been amended to
read as follows:
``(B)(i) has been employed continuously by the General
Accounting Office for at least the 31-day period immediately
preceding the start of the period referred to in clause (iv);
``(ii) is serving under an appointment that is not time
limited;
``(iii) has not received a notice of involuntary
separation, for misconduct or unacceptable performance, with
respect to which final action remains pending; and
``(iv) is separated from the service voluntarily during a
period with respect to which the Comptroller General
determines that the application of this subsection is
necessary and appropriate for the purpose of--
``(I) realigning the General Accounting Office's workforce
in order to meet budgetary constraints or mission needs;
``(II) correcting skill imbalances; or
``(III) reducing high-grade, managerial, or supervisory
positions;''.
(c) Numerical Limitation.--Not to exceed 10 percent of the
General Accounting Office's workforce (as of the start of a
fiscal year) shall be permitted to take voluntary early
retirement in such fiscal year pursuant to this section.
(d) Regulations.--The Comptroller General shall prescribe
any regulations necessary to carry out this section,
including regulations under which an early retirement offer
may be made to any employee or group of employees based on--
(1) geographic area, organizational unit, or occupational
series or level;
(2) skills, knowledge, or performance; or
(3) such other similar factors (or combination of factors
described in this or any other paragraph of this subsection)
as the Comptroller General considers necessary and
appropriate in order to achieve the purpose involved.
SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Effective for purposes of the period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on
December 31, 2003, the authority to provide voluntary
separation incentive payments shall be available to the
Comptroller General with respect to employees of the General
Accounting Office.
(b) Terms and Conditions.--The authority to provide
voluntary separation incentive payments under this section
shall be available in accordance with the provisions of
subsections (a)(2)-(e) of section 663 of the Treasury, Postal
Service, and General Government Appropriations Act, 1997, as
contained in Public Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 note), except
that--
(1) subsection (a)(2)(D) of such section shall be
disregarded;
(2) subsection (a)(2)(G) of such section shall be applied
by construing the citations therein to be references to the
appropriate authorities in connection with employees of the
General Accounting Office;
(3) subsection (b)(1) of such section shall be applied by
substituting ``Committee on Government Reform'' for
``Committee on Government Reform and Oversight'';
(4)(A) subsection (b)(2)(A) of such section shall be
applied by substituting ``eliminated (if any)'' for
``eliminated'';
(B) subsection (b)(2)(C) of such section shall be applied
by substituting ``such positions or functions as are to be
eliminated and such employees as are to be separated'' for
``the eliminated positions and functions''; and
(C) the agency strategic plan referred to in subsection (b)
of such section shall, in addition to the information
described in paragraph (2) thereof, contain the following:
the steps to be taken to realign the General Accounting
Office's workforce in order to meet budgetary constraints or
mission needs, correct skill imbalances, or reduce high-
grade, managerial, or supervisory positions;
(5) subsection (c)(1) of such section shall be applied by
substituting ``to the extent necessary (A) to realign the
General Accounting Office's workforce in order to meet
budgetary constraints or mission needs, (B) to correct skill
imbalances, or (C) to reduce high-grade, managerial, or
supervisory positions, in conformance with that agency's
strategic plan (as referred to in subsection (b)).'' for the
matter following ``only'';
(6) subsection (c)(2)(D) of such section shall be applied
by substituting ``December 31, 2003, or the end of the 3-
month period beginning on the date on which such payment is
offered to such employee, whichever is earlier'' for
``December 31, 1997''; and
(7) instead of the amount described in paragraph (1) of
subsection (d) of such section, the amount required under
such paragraph shall be determined in accordance with
subsection (c)(1) of this section.
(c) Additional Contribution to Retirement Fund.--
(1) Determination of amount required.--The amount required
under this paragraph shall be the amount determined under
subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is greater, for the fiscal
year involved.
(A) First method.--The amount required under this
subparagraph shall be determined as follows:
(i) First, determine the sum of the following:
(I) The amount equal to 19 percent of the final basic pay
of each employee described in paragraph (2) who takes early
retirement under section 8336(d) of title 5, United States
Code.
(II) The amount equal to 58 percent of the final basic pay
of each employee described in paragraph (2) who retires on an
immediate annuity under section 8336 of such title 5 (not
including any employee covered by subclause (I)).
(ii) Second, reduce the sum of the amounts determined under
clause (i) by the sum of the following (but not below zero):
(I) The amount equal to 419 percent of the final basic pay
of each employee described in paragraph (2), who is covered
by subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States
Code, and who resigns.
(II) The amount equal to 17 percent of the final basic pay
of each employee described in paragraph (2) who takes early
retirement under section 8414(b) of such title 5.
(III) The amount equal to 8 percent of the final basic pay
of each employee described in paragraph (2) who retires on an
immediate annuity under section 8412 of such title 5.
(IV) The amount equal to 211 percent of the final basic pay
of each employee described in paragraph (2), who is covered
by chapter 84 of such title 5, and who resigns.
(B) Second method.--The amount required under this
subparagraph shall be equal to 45 percent of the final basic
pay of each employee described in paragraph (2).
(2) Computations to be based on separations occurring in
the fiscal year involved.--The employees described in this
paragraph are those employees who receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment under this section based on
their separating from service during the fiscal year
involved.
(3) Regulations.--
(A) In general.--The Office of Personnel Management shall
prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out this
subsection, including provisions under which any additional
contribution determined under this subsection shall, at the
election of the General Accounting Office, be payable either
in a lump sum or through installment payments made over a
period of not to exceed 3 years.
(B) Interest.--The regulations shall include provisions
under which, if the installment method is chosen, interest
shall be
[[Page 18519]]
payable at the same rate as provided for under section
8348(f) of title 5, United States Code.
(4) Rule of construction.--As used in this subsection, the
term ``resign'' shall not be considered to include early
retirement or a separation giving rise to an immediate
annuity.
(d) Definitions.--
(1) Final basic pay.--As used in this section, the term
``final basic pay'' has the same meaning as under section
663(d)(2) of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1997, as contained in Public
Law 104-208 (5 U.S.C. 5597 note).
(2) Employee.--As used in this section and, for purposes of
this section, the provisions of law cited in subsection (b),
the term ``employee'' shall be considered to refer to an
officer or employee of the General Accounting Office.
(e) Numerical Limitation.--Not to exceed 5 percent of the
General Accounting Office's workforce (as of the start of a
fiscal year) shall be permitted to receive a voluntary
separation incentive payment under this section based on
their separating from service in such fiscal year.
(f) Regulations.--The Comptroller General shall prescribe
any regulations necessary to carry out this section,
excluding subsection (c). Such regulations shall include
provisions under which a voluntary separation incentive
payment may be offered to any employee or group of employees
based on--
(1) geographic area, organizational unit, or occupational
series or level;
(2) skills, knowledge, or performance; or
(3) such other similar factors (or combination of factors
described in this or any other paragraph of this subsection)
as the Comptroller General considers necessary and
appropriate in order to achieve the purpose involved.
SEC. 3. REDUCTIONS IN FORCE.
(a) Modified Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (h) of section 732 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(h)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Comptroller General shall prescribe regulations, consistent
with regulations issued by the Office of Personnel Management
under authority of section 3502(a) of title 5 for the
separation of employees of the General Accounting Office
during a reduction in force or other adjustment in force.
``(B) The regulations must give effect to the following
factors in descending order of priority--
``(i) tenure of employment;
``(ii) military preference subject to section 3501(a)(3) of
title 5;
``(iii) veterans' preference under sections 3502(b) and
3502(c) of title 5;
``(iv) performance ratings;
``(v) length of service computed in accordance with the
second sentence of section 3502(a) of title 5; and
``(vi) other objective factors such as skills and knowledge
that the Comptroller General considers necessary and
appropriate to realign the agency's workforce in order to
meet current and future mission needs, to correct skill
imbalances, or to reduce high-grade, managerial, or
supervisory positions.
``(C) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the regulations
relating to removal from the General Accounting Office Senior
Executive Service in a reduction in force or other adjustment
in force shall be consistent with section 3595(a) of title 5.
``(2)(A) The regulations shall provide a right of appeal to
the General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board
regarding a personnel action under the regulations,
consistent with section 753 of this title.
``(B) The regulations shall provide that final decision by
the General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board may be
reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit consistent with section 755 of this title.
``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an
employee may not be released, due to a reduction force,
unless such employee is given written notice at least 60 days
before such employee is so released. Such notice shall
include--
``(i) the personnel action to be taken with respect to the
employee involved;
``(ii) the effective date of the action;
``(iii) a description of the procedures applicable in
identifying employees for release;
``(iv) the employee's ranking relative to other competing
employees, and how that ranking was determined; and
``(v) a description of any appeal or other rights which may
be available.
``(B) The Comptroller General may, in writing, shorten the
period of advance notice required under subparagraph (A) with
respect to a particular reduction in force, if necessary
because of circumstances not reasonably foreseeable, except
that such period may not be less than 30 days.''.
(2) Effective date.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to
all reduction-in-force actions taking effect on or after--
(A) the 180th day following the date of enactment of this
Act; or
(B) if earlier, the date the Comptroller General issues the
regulations required under such amendment.
(3) Savings provisions.--If, before the effective date
determined under paragraph (2), specific notice of a
reduction-in-force action is given to an individual in
accordance with section 1 of chapter 5 of GAO Order 2351.1
(dated February 28, 1996), then, for purposes of determining
such individual's rights in connection with such action, the
amendment made by paragraph (1) shall be treated as if it had
never been enacted.
(b) Authority To Permit Voluntary Separations To Avoid
Reductions in Force.--
(1) In general.--Section 732 of title 31, United States
Code (as amended by subsection (a)), is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(i) The regulations under subsection (h) shall include
provisions under which, at the discretion of the Comptroller
General, the opportunity to separate voluntarily (in order to
permit the retention of an individual occupying a similar
position) shall, with respect to the General Accounting
Office, be available to the same extent and in the same
manner as described in subsection (f)(1)-(4) of section 3502
of title 5 (with respect to the Department of Defense or a
military department).''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. SENIOR-LEVEL POSITIONS.
(a) Critical Positions.--
(1) In general.--Title 31, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after section 732 the following:
``Sec. 732a. Critical positions
``(a) The Comptroller General may establish senior-level
positions to meet critical scientific, technical or
professional needs of the General Accounting Office. An
individual serving in such a position shall--
``(1) be subject to the laws and regulations applicable to
the General Accounting Office Senior Executive Service under
section 733 of this title, with respect to rates of basic
pay, performance awards, ranks, carry over of annual leave,
benefits, performance appraisals, removal or suspension, and
reductions in force;
``(2) have the same rights of appeal to the General
Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board as are provided to
the Office Senior Executive Service;
``(3) be exempt from the same provisions of law as are made
inapplicable to the Office Senior Executive Service under
section 733(d) of this title, except for section 732(e) of
this title;
``(4) be entitled to discontinued service retirement under
chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 as if a member of the Office
Senior Executive Service; and
``(5) be subject to reassignment by the Comptroller General
to any position in the Office Senior Executive Service under
section 733 of this title, as the Comptroller General
determines necessary and appropriate.
``(b) Senior-level positions under this section may include
positions referred to in section 731(d), (e)(1), or (e)(2) of
this title.''.
(2) Numerical limitation applies.--Section 732(c)(4) of
title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(including senior-level positions under
section 732a of this title)'' after ``129 positions''; and
(B) by striking ``title);'' and inserting ``title and
senior-level positions described in section 732a(b) of this
title);''.
(3) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
7 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 732 the following:
``732a. Critical positions.''.
(b) Reassignment to Senior-Level Positions.--Section 733(a)
of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
``(7) allowing the Comptroller General to reassign an
officer or employee in the Office Senior Executive Service to
any senior-level position established under section 732a of
this title, as the Comptroller General determines necessary
and appropriate; and''.
SEC. 5. EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.
Section 731(e) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``not more than 3 years''
and inserting ``terms of not more than 3 years, but which
shall be renewable''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``level V'' and inserting
``level IV''.
SEC. 6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Annual Reports.--The Comptroller General shall include
in each report submitted to Congress under section 719(a) of
title 31, United States Code, during the 5-year period
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act--
(1) a review of all actions taken pursuant to sections 1
through 3 of this Act during the period covered by the
report, including--
(A) the number of officers or employees who separated from
service pursuant to section 1 or 2, or who were released
pursuant to a reduction in force conducted under the
amendment made by section 3, during such period;
[[Page 18520]]
(B) an assessment of the effectiveness and usefulness of
those sections in contributing to the agency's ability to
carry out its mission, meet its performance goals, and
fulfill its strategic plan; and
(C) with respect to the amendment made by section 3, an
assessment of the impact such amendment has had with respect
to preference eligibles, including--
(i) whether a disproportionate number or percentage of
preference eligibles were included among those who became
subject to reduction-in-force actions as a result of such
amendment;
(ii) whether a disproportionate number or percentage of
preference eligibles were in fact released pursuant to
reductions in force under such amendment; and
(iii) to the extent that either of the foregoing is
answered in the affirmative, the reasons for the
disproportionate impact involved (particularly, whether such
amendment caused or contributed to the disproportionate
impact involved); and
(2) recommendations for any legislation which the
Comptroller General considers appropriate with respect to any
of those sections.
(b) Three-Year Assessment.--Not later than 3 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit to the Congress a report concerning the
implementation and effectiveness of this Act. Such report
shall include--
(1) a summary of the portions of the annual reports
required under subsection (a);
(2) recommendations for continuation of section 1 or 2 or
any legislative changes to section 1 or 2 or the amendment
made by section 3; and
(3) any assessment or recommendations of the General
Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board or of any
interested groups or associations representing officers or
employees of the General Accounting Office.
(c) Preference Eligible Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``preference eligible'' has the meaning
given such term under section 2108(3) of title 5, United
States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
{time} 1530
General Leave
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 4642.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 4642, a bill to
improve the effectiveness of the General Accounting Office through
improvement to its personnel system. I would like to thank my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), chairman of
the Subcommittee on Civil Service for his work and efforts on this
legislation.
The General Accounting Office sometimes referred to as the
``watchdog'' of Congress or the ``investigative arm'' of Congress today
faces many of the same personnel problems confronting other Federal
agencies. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government is nearing a
crisis in its ability to recruit, retain and reward a skilled, trained,
and knowledgeable workforce for the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, like the rest of the government, GAO is fundamentally
constrained by personnel issues in its ability to meet future
obligations to Congress and the country. It is to ensure that GAO can
successfully confront these personnel problems and secure its future
that I rise in support of this very important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I can safely speak for all Members on both
sides of the aisle in saying that GAO makes many contributions to
helping us improve the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of
government and in pointing out waste and abuse in government programs.
Not a week goes by without a major GAO report about some important
aspect of government operations.
From my own perspective and experience, I know that the Committee on
Government Reform has a unique relationship with GAO, not only does the
committee authorize GAO, but under House rules, it also officially
receives every GAO record that is sent to Congress. The Committee on
Government Reform also receives more GAO testimony than any other
committee in Congress.
The agency is invaluable to the entire congressional community. All
Members of Congress, including myself, rely upon GAO for briefings,
testimony, oversight, information and review of executive operations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for GAO
to ensure that our watchdog can continue to effectively do its job for
Congress in the future.
As my colleagues know, we have a new Comptroller General at GAO,
David M. Walker, who was confirmed about 19 months ago. Mr. Walker is
committed to making sure that the agency can successfully meet its
mission. Mr. Walker has developed a new strategic plan to keep aligned
with our needs on the Hill. He has embarked on a reorganization
designed to streamline operations and remove redundancies and he has
determined to meet personnel crises head on.
As Mr. Walker seeks to make constructive changes, continue
improvements in GAO, he faces a personnel quandary that has been many
years in the making, a series of budget cuts in the last decade forced
GAO to undergo a severe downsizing and a hiring freeze which resulted
in a 39 percent staff reduction and significant imbalances among the
staff remaining.
The impact of these cuts and freezes continues to hamper the agency.
GAO also faces one of the government's most significant problems of the
next few years. The anticipated retirement of many mid-level and
senior-level employees who have been with the government for decades
and who represent the greatest source of knowledge and experience in
the Federal sector.
For example, nearly 55 percent of GAO's senior executive service are
eligible to retire in the next 4 years and 34 percent of the agency's
total workforce will be eligible to leave government.
This potential mass exodus has the ability to undermine GAO's
effectiveness to an unprecedented loss of institutional memory that
could directly impact its products and services to Congress. These
executives and personnel have provided such long service to the
government and have a storehouse of knowledge and experience that
cannot be duplicated or easily replaced.
In the case of GAO, because of the wide variety of issues they
handle, this is a loss of expertise across many, many areas of
government. The expected loss of so many seasoned executives and
supervisors, combined with the massive downsizing experienced during
the past decades, when taken together, is at the core of GAO's current
and future personnel problems.
Indeed, it is this one-two punch of recent and expected personnel
departures that Mr. Walker and the GAO are now trying to confront, in
part through the legislation now before us.
In his efforts to more effectively focus GAO on the needs of Congress
in the 21st century, the Comptroller General has also recognized that
the skills GAO employees have today may not always be suited for the
agency's needs in the future. GAO has undertaken a number of
initiatives from the new strategic plan to a skills and knowledge
database of its employees.
These efforts will help the agency to ascertain both the current
skill set and future skills gap of its work force. The legislation will
also help to remedy this problem by providing flexibility in filling
the gaps.
Mr. Speaker, as I think my comments have proved, GAO urgently needs
this important legislation to help it face the future and by doing so
help us here in the Congress. This bill will allow GAO to overcome its
pressing personnel problems by providing the Comptroller General with
the ability to correct workforce skill imbalances to successfully
handle current and future issues, and to help achieve a more balanced,
productive and focused workforce.
H.R. 4642 provides the agency with a set of tools so that it can
better fulfill
[[Page 18521]]
its mission to support Congress. The bill will help GAO build a
workforce for the future to implement its strategic plan and be
positioned to serve the varied important needs of the Congress.
The bill has three main provisions, which I will address very
briefly. First, the legislation will allow the Comptroller General to
hire scientific and technical experts who will have the same pay and
benefits as the SES and reclassify senior executives without loss of
pay. This creates a new career path for selected technical positions
and helps to redress the loss of institutional memory so critical to
the agency's work.
Second, the Comptroller General will be able to offer voluntary early
retirement and cash buyouts to employees in jobs deemed surplus. This
tool which the Comptroller General would use judiciously can help to
realign the agency in ways to improve its focus in critical areas.
The final provision addresses the Comptroller General's ability to
run a reduction in force or a RIF. The Comptroller General already has
the authority to conduct a RIF; but under existing rules, a RIF would
be based largely on a person's length of service but also would rely
upon tenure and military preference.
Under this legislation, a RIF would be based on a person's skills,
performance, and knowledge, as well as length of service and tenure,
while retaining the statutory preference for military veterans, which I
strongly support.
This is an important change because, absent this provision, efforts
to reshape the agency to better serve Congress in the future could be
hampered by continued loss of employees critical to implementing
strategic plans, goals, and objectives.
This legislation gives GAO the flexibility it needs to maximize its
performance and focus on the future. It helps rebalance the agency's
personnel structure after years of budget and personnel cuts, and it
continues efforts to sustain an environment in which performance in
government matters.
I have been pleased to sponsor this legislation with my good friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Scarborough) of the Subcommittee
on Civil Service; and we have been supported by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) in the legislation that has been discussed in
several hearings in which the Comptroller General outlined the
importance of the bill and the reasons why it was necessary to take
this action.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of this bill's progress in Congress, there
is considerable Member support and recognition of the need for this
important legislation. The legislation is also supported by Mr.
Walker's two predecessors in office, Comptrollers General, Elmer Staats
and Charles Browser, who together represent 30 years of GAO leadership
supported it.
I would further note that the administration does not oppose this
bill as it only affects the agency of the legislative branch. It is
important to highlight that the provisions of this bill will not have
an impact on executive branch agencies or their employees.
I know that several of my colleagues initially objected to this bill
because they believed it might have an impact on some of their
constituents. Let me reiterate that this legislation will only affect
the GAO and does not have any application to the executive branch of
the Federal Government.
Furthermore, I hope that my colleagues recognize that the legislation
before them now includes several changes from the original bill which
are designed to ensure that the provisions, if they are implemented,
are done so in an equitable and responsible manner.
This includes a requirement that GAO must issue regulations on RIF
selection criteria after a public comment period. GAO must also report
back to the Congress on how it implemented the law.
I believe these and other safeguards will help to satisfy any
concerns of the local delegation.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill so
that GAO can achieve its goal of being a model Federal agency of
sustaining a strong and effective workforce and of meeting its mission
to Congress and to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a legislative history of GAO's
personnel legislation.
Legislation Authorizing GAO To Take Certain Personnel Actions
I. Purpose
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has requested these
personnel authorities to enable the agency to effectively
address human capital challenges in order to more effectively
fulfill its mission. GAO explained that it recently completed
a thorough evaluation of its workforce needs and resources
and found that they do not match up. This arose in part
because of the severe downsizing and hiring freezes from
1992-1997. Also, the kinds of skills, knowledge, and
performance needed by GAO in its workforce are changing with
the impact of information technology, globalization, and
other trends in the broader society. Finally, these kinds of
imbalances threaten to become worse, because the retirement
of many employees possessing necessary expertise are or are
close to being eligible for retirement.
GAO has said that it is doing what it can administratively
to correct these imbalances, e.g., by enhanced entry-level
recruitment, active management of promotion decisions, and
compilation of an inventory of the agency's human capital
needs and resources. The agency is also being restructured to
have less hierarchy and fewer field offices. GAO explained,
however, that its current law is designed for ``downsizing,''
not ``rightsizing,'' and prevents GAO from taking needed
management steps.
GAO has thus explained why this new legislative authority
is necessary to enable GAO to effectively address the
agency's human capital requirements. This legislation is
appropriate for GAO considering its role and responsibilities
in the legislative branch and its unique relationship to the
Congress, and also taking account of the specific, fact-based
demonstration that GAO has made explaining why the requested
authority is needed and appropriate.
II. Summary of provisions
The legislation provides narrowly tailored authority,
preserving due process protections, in four specific areas:
(1) to offer early retirement (early-outs) on a voluntary
basis to a limited number of qualified employees in each
fiscal year; (2) to offer separation pay (buyouts) on a
voluntary basis to a limited number of qualified employees in
each fiscal year for a five-year period after enactment of
the legislation; (3) to release officers and employees in a
reduction in force (RIF) or an adjustment in force carried
out for downsizing, realigning, or correcting skill
imbalances; and (4) to establish senior-level positions to
meet critical scientific, technical or professional needs and
to extend to those positions the rights and benefits of
Senior Executive Service employees. Regulations governing the
RIF provision must give effect to tenure, military
preference, veterans preference, performance, length of
service, and other factors such as skills and knowledge.
In addition, the legislation requires that the Comptroller
General report annually to the Congress on the use and
effectiveness of the legislation, and provide the Congress
with a report in three years summarizing the use and
effectiveness of the legislation and recommending whether it
should be continued or changed.
III. Employee Rights and Protections Under the New Authorities
First, as a general matter, it is essential that the
Comptroller General consult with employees concerning plans
for implementation of the legislation in advance of issuing
proposed orders or regulations for comment. GAO has described
the efforts taken by the Comptroller General to foster two-
way communication between the Office of the Comptroller
General and all agency officers and employees, including
extensive discussions regarding the need for and development
of this legislation. Broad consultation with officers and
employees should be continued at each stage of the
legislation's implementation. In addition, in developing
implementing regulations, GAO is obligated under existing law
to afford notice and opportunity for comment, and GAO has
said it will follow the best practices of regulatory agencies
in regards to summarizing and responding on the public record
to significant comments received.
The legislation itself contains a number of provisions and
preserves rights and protections under existing laws to
assure that employees will not be subject to arbitrary and
illegal action. Notably, this legislation in no way affects
existing laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and
disability, that forbid prohibited personnel practices, or
that require compliance with merit principles. GAO's
implementation of the authorities granted by this legislation
must continue to be in conformity with those existing laws.
This legislation requires that, to implement the provisions
authorizing early retirement, separation pay, and reductions
in
[[Page 18522]]
force, the agency must issue regulations that provide
criteria for, in effect, two levels of decision-making: the
decision to use the authorities and the decision regarding
which officers or employees shall be subject to actions under
the authorities.
GAO has stated that these regulations must set forth
clearly defined criteria and require consistent and well
documented application of those criteria. Any decisions based
upon individual data, such as skills/knowledge and
performance, will be based on identification and measurement
systems. Ratings from the agency's performance appraisal
systems will be the basis for measuring individual
performance, and GAO has stated that an individual's ratings
for three years will be used. Similarly, skills and knowledge
must be ascertained in a well-documented skills inventory.
GAO has explained that its staff will fill out such a skills
inventory, subject to supervisory review, which will be used
in conjunction with the agency's strategic plan to identify
any ``gaps'' or ``overages'' in workforce skills and
knowledge. If GAO finds it necessary to use the RIF authority
before a skills inventory is completed, the agency would use
existing organizational groups and units.
In giving effect to military preference, GAO must comply
with the requirements of its own Personnel Act, section
732(b)(5) of title 31, which requires GAO to provide a
preference to veterans in a way and to an extent consistent
with the system in the executive branch. In the executive
branch under section 3502(b) of title 5, a preference
eligible with a compensable service connected disability of
at least 30% and whose performance has not been rated
unacceptable is retained in preference to other preference
eligibles. Section 3502(c) of title 5 requires that all other
preference eligibles whose performance has not been rated
unacceptable be retained in preference to all other competing
employees. Therefore, these provisions would bind GAO, and
preference eligibles would be the last to be terminated in
their applicable unit/job or skill group under a reduction in
force.
The legislation allows the provisions authorizing early
retirement, separation pay, and reductions in force to be
exercised only for workforce realignment and other purposes
as specified in the legislation. Addressing individual
employee performance is not among these specified purposes,
and it is only for the specified purposes that the
Comptroller General may consider individual performance data
among the criteria for offering early retirement or
separation pay or for carrying out a reduction in force. For
example, GAO may not use these authorities for the purpose of
replacing lower-performing employees with higher-performing
employees or to address problems in individual employees'
performance. To address performance problems, GAO must
continue to use its performance management system under
existing law, which affords affected employees particular
procedural and substantive rights. Under this legislation as
under existing law, individuals are not subject to being
``targeted,'' i.e., reductions in force may not be carried
out for the purpose of removing a particular individual or
individuals.
The legislation requires that GAO regulations governing
RIFs be consistent with Office of Personnel Management
regulations. The use of the term ``consistent with''
recognizes that because of the form of GAO's personnel
system, GAO's organizational structure, and the authorities
granted under this and other legislation applicable to GAO,
the implementing GAO regulations may vary from the approach
taken by OPM. Nevertheless, the GAO regulations should follow
the OPM approach where such considerations do not apply.
GAO's Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) will serve as an
independent body to review and decide any cases arising out
of a reduction in force where individuals feel they have not
been treated in accordance with law or regulations. GAO has
stated that this review authority of the PAB is established
under existing statute and under provisions of GAO's existing
regulations that GAO will retain. If an action under the RIF
authority was unlawful, the individual employee shall be
restored to the grade or rate of pay to which the employee is
entitled, retroactively effective to the date of the improper
action.
As to the senior level positions established under the
legislation, employees appointed to those positions will
generally enjoy the same rights and privileges as members of
GAO's Senior Executive Service. Furthermore, except as
otherwise specified in the legislation, the employees
appointed to the new senior level positions will enjoy the
rights and protections that apply generally to professional
employees at GAO. Any employees transferred under this
provision from GAO's SES to a non-executive senior level
position will retain their current pay and will have an
equivalent pay system to what they had in the SES.
The new early-out authority will be in addition to, and
will not detract from, any rights to early retirement
established under existing law.
Finally, the legislation requires GAO to report on the
implementation of the new authorities both annually and in a
3-year assessment, and GAO has said that these reports will
include information about any impact upon employee attitudes
and opinions, as measured by employee feedback survey
responses. The 3-year assessment will include not only
recommendations of the Comptroller General for continuation
or change of the authorities granted by this legislation, but
also any assessments or recommendations of the GAO Personnel
Appeals Board and of any interested GAO employee groups.
I encourage all Members to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress are well acquainted with the General
Accounting Office. It is Congress' and the Nation's primary watchdog
agency responsible for providing credible, objective and nonpartisan
reports and evaluations of the programs and management of the executive
branch.
The GAO has for years provided Congress with invaluable assistance,
now it is asking us for assistance by providing GAO with needed human
capital authorities, and we should meet this request.
Mr. Speaker, from 1992 to 1997, GAO's budget was cut by one-third. In
order to achieve these reductions, the GAO was forced to reduce its
staff by almost 40 percent and close many field offices. Since then, it
has had to impose hiring freezes, cut training and suspend incentive
programs. During the same period, GAO has faced a problem common to
much of the Federal Government, an aging workforce.
By the end of fiscal year 2004, over one-third of the GAO's employees
would be eligible for retirement. As a result of these pressures, GAO's
workforce is out of shape. There are too many senior- and middle-level
employees and too few at the lower levels. These imbalances have been
well documented in a human capital profile completed by the Comptroller
General.
In addition, the types of skills, knowledge and performance needed by
GAO have changed over time as the world has been radically altered by
the information age technology. Major policy issues have also become
increasingly complex, requiring greater technical skill and
sophistication to support the needs of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, all of these trends have led to a human capital profile
at the General Accounting Office which does not currently operate in
the most efficient or effective manner. More seriously, it puts the GAO
at risk of being unable to meet the demands and needs of the Congress
in the future.
The legislation before us would provide GAO with authority to address
these concerns. For example, the bill would authorize the Comptroller
General to offer early retirement opportunities and separation pay to a
limited number of qualified personnel each of the next 3 fiscal years.
Under the legislation, the Comptroller could also establish senior-
level positions to meet critical scientific or technical needs.
Finally, the bill requires the Comptroller to report annually to the
Congress on the effect of this legislation and to submit a 3-year
assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of this act.
These and other flexibilities in the bill will bring the GAO closer
to the personnel policies of our legislative branch organizations such
as the Committees of Congress and the Congressional Budget Office.
However, this legislation should not be viewed as a precedent for
changes in executive branch personnel policy.
Mr. Speaker, we have an outstanding Comptroller General in Mr.
Walker. He is putting all of his efforts into making the GAO the kind
of agency that we will all be proud of.
{time} 1545
This legislation before us today is a result of an enormous amount of
effort that he has put into giving us recommendations to make GAO a
better organization. I think that we ought to join together in a
bipartisan move today in supporting this legislation and making sure
that the GAO will be there to serve the needs of the Congress and the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page 18523]]
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4642, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
2002 WINTER OLYMPIC COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3679) to provide for the minting of commemorative coins to
support the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter Games and the programs of the
United States Olympic Committee, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3679
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 ``2002 Winter Olympic
Commemorative Coin Act''.
SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) Denominations.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue the following coins:
(1) Five dollar gold coins.--Not more than 80,000 $5 coins,
which shall weigh 8.359 grams, have a diameter of 0.850
inches, and contain 90 percent gold and 10 percent alloy.
(2) One dollar silver coins.--Not more than 400,000 $1
coins, which shall weigh 26.73 grams, have a diameter of
1.500 inches, and contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent
copper.
(b) Design.--The design of the coins minted under this Act
shall be emblematic of the participation of American athletes
in the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. On each coin there shall be
a designation of the value of the coin, an inscription of the
year ``2002'', and inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'',
``In God We Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E
Pluribus Unum''.
(c) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(d) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 3. SOURCES OF BULLION.
(a) Gold.--The Secretary shall obtain gold for minting
coins under this Act pursuant to the authority of the
Secretary under other provisions of law.
(b) Silver.--The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting
coins under this Act from any available source, including
from stockpiles established under the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act.
SEC. 4. SELECTION OF DESIGN.
The design for the coins minted under this Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with--
(A) the Commission of Fine Arts;
(B) the United States Olympic Committee; and
(C) Olympic Properties of the United States--Salt Lake
2002, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company created
and owned by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the
Olympic Winter Games of 2002 (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as ``Olympic Properties of the United States'');
and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory
Committee.
SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Commencement of Issuance.--The Secretary may issue
coins minted under this Act beginning January 1, 2002, except
that the Secretary may initiate sales of such coins, without
issuance, before such date.
(c) Termination of Minting Authority.--No coins shall be
minted under this Act after December 31, 2002.
SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the coins issued under this Act shall be sold by the
Secretary at a price equal to the face value, plus the cost
of designing and issuing such coins (including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and
marketing).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders at a Discount.--The Secretary shall
accept prepaid orders for the coins minted under this Act
before the issuance of such coins. Sales under this
subsection shall be at a reasonable discount.
SEC. 7. SURCHARGES.
(a) Surcharge Required.--All sales shall include a
surcharge of $35 per coin for the $5 coins and $10 per coin
for the $1 coins.
(b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, all surcharges which are received by the
Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall
be promptly paid by the Secretary as follows:
(1) Salt lake organizing committee for the olympic winter
games of 2002.--One half to the Salt Lake Organizing
Committee for the Olympic Winter Games of 2002 for use in
staging and promoting the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Winter
Games.
(2) United states olympic committee.--One half to the
United States Olympic Committee for use by the Committee for
the objects and purposes of the Committee as established in
the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
(c) Audits.--Each organization that receives any payment
from the Secretary under this section shall be subject to the
audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United
States Code.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
General Leave
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 3679, the bill under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is particularly fitting that this legislation comes
before the House at this time, for the Summer Olympic Games in Sydney
have captured our attention. Those games began only 4 days ago and are
in full swing as we speak.
In less than 18 months, in February of 2002, our attention will be
focused on Salt Lake City, where the Winter Olympic Games will
commence. Anyone who has watched the Olympic competition is thrilled
with the tremendous athletic accomplishments of all the young people
involved; not only our young people but those throughout the world.
Anyone who buys a silver $1 coin or a $5 gold coin authorized by the
legislation under consideration will have the satisfaction of knowing
that the surcharge they pay on this coin will go to support our
American athletes as they train for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics.
The legislation under consideration is sponsored by the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cook). The legislation has widespread support. It is
cosponsored by 290 of his colleagues. A similar bill has been
introduced in the Senate. It has the requisite 67 cosponsors and, in
fact, has been marked up by the Senate Banking Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cook), the sponsor of the legislation.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Bachus) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his efforts in bringing H.R. 3679, the 2002
Winter Olympic Commemorative Coin Act, to the floor today. A
commemorative coin program has been a part of every U.S. Olympics Games
since 1952.
In fact, the Olympic coin has become an important Olympic tradition
in the United States and internationally as well. It is especially
timely that this bill should come to the House floor now as the world
watches the Summer Olympics in Sydney, Australia. I am sure many of us
have been glued to the television watching our young swimmers, like
Jenny Thompson, Megan Quann and Tom Dolan, break records and bring home
the gold. As America and my home State of Utah look forward to hosting
the Olympic Winter Games in 2002, passing this coin bill is a big step
toward preparing for that monumental international event in our own
country and preparing our athletes to compete.
Throughout the world, coin programs serve as national symbols of both
morale and financial support for the
[[Page 18524]]
games. The surcharges generated by this coin program will provide an
important source of revenue for the training and support of U.S.
athletes, as well as for hosting the Olympic Games.
Some of my colleagues may remember some of the problems connected
with the Atlanta Olympic Games coin program. I want to assure my
colleagues that H.R. 3679 has been thoughtfully and carefully crafted
to overcome and prevent those problems from occurring once again.
This coin program has been developed in conjunction with the U.S.
Mint and the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, which
represents the Nation's coin collectors, the main purchasers of
commemorative coins. With only 400,000 $1 silver coins and 80,000 $5
gold coins authorized, the program is expected to sell out and raise
over $4 million for our Olympic athletes at no cost to the taxpayers.
Finally, I would like to thank the 290 Members of this Congress who
joined me in celebrating the Olympic spirit by cosponsoring H.R. 3679.
Helping our Olympic athletes achieve their dreams is something I think
we can all be proud to support.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This bill provides for
the minting of commemorative coins to support the 2002 Salt Lake
Olympic Winter Games and the programs of the United States Olympic
Committee. As we witness the joy of watching the Summer Olympics in
Sydney, and the pride that our American athletes bring to our country,
I am pleased to support a commemorative coin for the Winter Games of
2002, which will be coming back to the United States.
An act of Congress to issue this coin is consistent with the long
tradition of issuing commemorative coins for the important events that
shape our Nation's history, as well as for our national heroes.
We have in the past issued commemorative coins for other Olympics
games held in the U.S., as well as for other 1994 soccer world cups
also held in 12 cities across the United States. As laid out in the
legislation, the design of the commemorative coin shall be emblematic
of the participation of American athletes in the 2002 Olympic Winter
Games. Each coin must have a designation of the value of the coin, an
inscription of the year 2002, and, following U.S. tradition,
inscriptions of the words: In God We Trust, United States of America,
and E Pluribus Unum.
Half of the coin proceeds will go to the Salt Lake Organizing
Committee for use in the staging and promotion of the games and the
other half to the U.S. Olympic Committee. I certainly urge adoption of
this bill.
I have one comment that I would like to add. I think the Olympic
Games are extremely important. Not only does it give us the opportunity
to compete with other very, very fine athletes from all around the
world, it is really a geography lesson that is learned as we watch the
competition in various parts of the world; and I would like for the
aborigines in Sydney to know that we are learning about them as we
watch the games in Sydney and that their plight is not unnoticed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cook) earlier said, and that this legislation is a far cry from that
which created the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games Coin program. That program
had multiple coins. It was overly ambitious. According to the General
Accounting Office, it lost several million dollars.
This legislation profited from those mistakes. The gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle), who was then chairman of the Subcommittee on
Domestic and International Monetary Policy, made several reforms on the
commemorative coin program. Those reforms are incorporated in this
bill. One important reform is that no surcharges from a commemorative
program may be paid to a beneficiary organization until the taxpayer
has been made whole for the cost of designing and producing the coin.
That is done in this series.
The sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook),
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and the Salt Lake Committee, all
worked with the U.S. Olympic Committee and with the Senate and House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, recognizing this recent
history and this legislation contains several changes from that
previous commemorative coin legislation aimed at increasing the
integrity of the program.
The most important change, one which has been praised by the coin
collectors, is reduction in the standard maximum mintage level, which
should make these coins retain its value for collectors, which
traditionally buy about 90 percent of these coins. The Olympic
committees have also worked closely with the Mint, with the Citizens
Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee to devise this program. I would
like to commend both the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) and the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for their efforts, along with the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce) for their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), for his
efforts to bring this bill to the floor, and also my colleague from
Utah (Mr. Cook), for his hard work in moving this issue forward. As
many of the Members know, it takes 290 cosponsors on a bill to move a
commemorative coin bill forward, and that takes a lot of effort.
So I would also like to thank all of my colleagues who have worked
with us to cosponsor this bill and bring it to this stage.
We are going to have the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City in
February of 2002, and while in Utah we like to think of these as our
Olympics. In fact they are America's Olympics, and it has been
wonderful to work with our colleagues to help support that idea that
this is the American Olympics.
I am personally proud of the Olympics because about 80 percent of the
venues are going to be in my district, and frankly I know there are a
lot of Congressmen who believe they have beautiful districts, but none
are nearly so beautiful as mine. And so we invite everyone to come to
the Olympics and to see another one of these areas in my district like
Moab, where we have the Great Red Rock country where people go down and
bike.
This commemorative coin is really about athletes; and now that we
have the Summer Olympics going on in Sydney, it is good to consider
just for a moment the benefits that they will get. We expect that this
commemorative coin will raise about $6 million, which will be split
evenly between the U.S. Olympic Committee and the Salt Lake Olympic
Committee, and the proceeds of that money will all go to training
athletes. So this is a great way to perpetuate the American tradition
of winning the Olympics, as we are currently doing.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good commemorative coin program. I commend it
to the Members. It honors a great tradition, the Olympics. It honors
and supports our great U.S. Olympic team, those athletes.
Mr. Speaker, I simply join the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) in urging all Members to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I have no other 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 Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3679, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
[[Page 18525]]
FEDERAL PRISONER HEALTH CARE COPAYMENT ACT OF 2000
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1349) to amend title 18, United States Code, to combat the
overutilization of prison health care services and control rising
prisoner health care costs, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1349
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Prisoner Health Care
Copayment Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. HEALTH CARE FEES FOR PRISONERS IN FEDERAL
INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 4048. Fees for health care services for prisoners
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `account' means the trust fund account (or
institutional equivalent) of a prisoner;
``(2) the term `Director' means the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons;
``(3) the term `health care provider' means any person who
is--
``(A) authorized by the Director to provide health care
services; and
``(B) operating within the scope of such authorization;
``(4) the term `health care visit'--
``(A) means a visit, as determined by the Director, by a
prisoner to an institutional or noninstitutional health care
provider; and
``(B) does not include a visit initiated by a prisoner--
``(i) pursuant to a staff referral; or
``(ii) to obtain staff-approved follow-up treatment for a
chronic condition; and
``(5) the term `prisoner' means--
``(A) any individual who is incarcerated in an institution
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons; or
``(B) any other individual, as designated by the Director,
who has been charged with or convicted of an offense against
the United States.
``(b) Fees for Health Care Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Director, in accordance with this
section and with such regulations as the Director shall
promulgate to carry out this section, may assess and collect
a fee for health care services provided in connection with
each health care visit requested by a prisoner.
``(2) Exclusion.--The Director may not assess or collect a
fee under this section for preventative health care services,
emergency services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment of
chronic infectious diseases, mental health care, or substance
abuse treatment, as determined by the Director.
``(c) Persons Subject to Fee.--Each fee assessed under this
section shall be collected by the Director from the account
of--
``(1) the prisoner receiving health care services in
connection with a health care visit described in subsection
(b)(1); or
``(2) in the case of health care services provided in
connection with a health care visit described in subsection
(b)(1) that results from an injury inflicted on a prisoner by
another prisoner, the prisoner who inflicted the injury, as
determined by the Director.
``(d) Amount of Fee.--Any fee assessed and collected under
this section shall be in an amount of not less than $1.
``(e) No Consent Required.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the consent of a prisoner shall not be
required for the collection of a fee from the account of the
prisoner under this section. However, each such prisoner
shall be given a reasonable opportunity to dispute the amount
of the fee or whether the prisoner qualifies under an
exclusion under this section.
``(f) No Refusal of Treatment For Financial Reasons.--
Nothing in this section may be construed to permit any
refusal of treatment to a prisoner on the basis that--
``(1) the account of the prisoner is insolvent; or
``(2) the prisoner is otherwise unable to pay a fee
assessed under this section.
``(g) Use of Amounts.--
``(1) Restitution of specific victims.--Amounts collected
by the Director under this section from a prisoner subject to
an order of restitution issued pursuant to section 3663 or
3663A shall be paid to victims in accordance with the order
of restitution.
``(2) Allocation of other amounts.--Of amounts collected by
the Director under this section from prisoners not subject to
an order of restitution issued pursuant to section 3663 or
3663A--
``(A) 75 percent shall be deposited in the Crime Victims
Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601); and
``(B) 25 percent shall be available to the Attorney General
for administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this
section.
``(h) Notice to Prisoners of Law.--Each person who is or
becomes a prisoner shall be provided with written and oral
notices of the provisions of this section and the
applicability of this section to the prisoner.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a fee
under this section may not be assessed against, or collected
from, such person--
``(1) until the expiration of the 30-day period beginning
on the date on which each prisoner in the prison system is
provided with such notices; and
``(2) for services provided before the expiration of such
period.
``(i) Notice to Prisoners of Regulations.--The regulations
promulgated by the Director under subsection (b)(1), and any
amendments to those regulations, shall not take effect until
the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date on
which each prisoner in the prison system is provided with
written and oral notices of the provisions of those
regulations (or amendments, as the case may be). A fee under
this section may not be assessed against, or collected from,
a prisoner pursuant to such regulations (or amendments, as
the case may be) for services provided before the expiration
of such period.
``(j) Notice Before Public Comment Period.--Before the
beginning of any period a proposed regulation under this
section is open to public comment, the Director shall provide
written and oral notice of the provisions of that proposed
regulation to groups that advocate on behalf of Federal
prisoners and to each prisoner subject to such proposed
regulation.
``(k) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of the Federal Prisoner Health Care
Copayment Act of 2000, and annually thereafter, the Director
shall transmit to Congress a report, which shall include--
``(1) a description of the amounts collected under this
section during the preceding 12-month period;
``(2) an analysis of the effects of the implementation of
this section, if any, on the nature and extent of heath care
visits by prisoners;
``(3) an itemization of the cost of implementing and
administering the program;
``(4) a description of current inmate health status
indicators as compared to the year prior to enactment; and
``(5) a description of the quality of health care services
provided to inmates during the preceding 12-month period, as
compared with the quality of those services provided during
the 12-month period ending on the date of the enactment of
such Act.
``(l) Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Services Required.--The Bureau
of Prisons shall provide comprehensive coverage for services
relating to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) to each Federal prisoner in
the custody of the Bureau of Prisons when medically
appropriate. The Bureau of Prisons may not assess or collect
a fee under this section for providing such coverage.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 303 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``4048. Fees for health care services for prisoners.''.
SEC. 3. HEALTH CARE FEES FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN NON-FEDERAL
INSTITUTIONS.
Section 4013 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Health Care Fees For Federal Prisoners in Non-Federal
Institutions.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding amounts paid under
subsection (a)(3), a State or local government may assess and
collect a reasonable fee from the trust fund account (or
institutional equivalent) of a Federal prisoner for health
care services, if--
``(A) the prisoner is confined in a non-Federal institution
pursuant to an agreement between the Federal Government and
the State or local government;
``(B) the fee--
``(i) is authorized under State law; and
``(ii) does not exceed the amount collected from State or
local prisoners for the same services; and
``(C) the services--
``(i) are provided within or outside of the institution by
a person who is licensed or certified under State law to
provide health care services and who is operating within the
scope of such license;
``(ii) constitute a health care visit within the meaning of
section 4048(a)(4) of this title; and
``(iii) are not preventative health care services,
emergency services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment of
chronic infectious diseases, mental health care, or substance
abuse treatment.
``(2) No refusal of treatment for financial reasons.--
Nothing in this subsection may be construed to permit any
refusal of treatment to a prisoner on the basis that--
``(A) the account of the prisoner is insolvent; or
``(B) the prisoner is otherwise unable to pay a fee
assessed under this subsection.
``(3) Notice to prisoners of law.--Each person who is or
becomes a prisoner shall be
[[Page 18526]]
provided with written and oral notices of the provisions of
this subsection and the applicability of this subsection to
the prisoner. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, a fee under this section may not be assessed
against, or collected from, such person--
``(A) until the expiration of the 30-day period beginning
on the date on which each prisoner in the prison system is
provided with such notices; and
``(B) for services provided before the expiration of such
period.
``(4) Notice to prisoners of state or local
implementation.--The implementation of this subsection by the
State or local government, and any amendment to that
implementation, shall not take effect until the expiration of
the 30-day period beginning on the date on which each
prisoner in the prison system is provided with written and
oral notices of the provisions of that implementation (or
amendment, as the case may be). A fee under this subsection
may not be assessed against, or collected from, a prisoner
pursuant to such implementation (or amendments, as the case
may be) for services provided before the expiration of such
period.
``(5) Notice before public comment period.--Before the
beginning of any period a proposed implementation under this
subsection is open to public comment, written and oral notice
of the provisions of that proposed implementation shall be
provided to groups that advocate on behalf of Federal
prisoners and to each prisoner subject to such proposed
implementation.
``(6) Comprehensive hiv/aids services required.--Any State
or local government assessing or collecting a fee under this
subsection shall provide comprehensive coverage for services
relating to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) to each Federal prisoner in
the custody of such State or local government when medically
appropriate. The State or local government may not assess or
collect a fee under this subsection for providing such
coverage.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pease) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease).
{time} 1600
General Leave
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, was
unavoidably detained and has worked a great deal with the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on this bill, and the gentleman from Florida
has asked that I include for the Record his remarks on this bill, which
I now do.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1349, the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment
Act of 1999, was introduced by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
It adds a new provision to title 18 to require the Bureau of Prisons to
assess and collect a fee from inmates for health care services provided
to the inmate. The Subcommittee on Crime and the full Committee on the
Judiciary reported this bill favorably by voice vote. It is similar to
S. 704, a bill that passed the other body by unanimous consent.
Currently, inmates in the Federal Prison System receive free medical
care from BOP employees, Public Health Services personnel, and private
health care providers working under contract with the BOP. The purpose
of the bill is to impose a type of copayment fee of a nominal amount on
inmates, similar to the copayment fee paid by most Americans when they
visit a health care provider under a managed health care plan.
Under this bill, the fee would be collected from all inmates who
request to see a health care provider. Under the bill as introduced,
the director of the BOP would establish a sliding scale for the fee,
dependent on an inmate's ability to pay, but in no event would the fee
be less than $1 per visit.
The fees to be collected under this bill will help insure that
inmates do not abuse the free health care they receive while in prison.
Economists tell us that any time someone is given something for
nothing, they will use too much of it. Health care copayment fees are a
way to ensure that people use an efficient amount of health care,
whether they be ordinary citizens or inmates. Also, the Bureau of
Prisons has testified before the subcommittee that it believes some
inmates often sign up for sick call as a way of getting out of other
responsibilities. This fee will also help deter inmates from abusing
the system in that manner.
The fee to be collected under the bill is limited in appropriate
ways. For example, the fee will not be assessed for health care
services that the BOP requires all inmates receive, nor would it be
charged for return visits required by BOP doctors after the inmate's
first voluntary visit. Inmates will also not pay the fee for diagnosis
or treatment of chronic infectious diseases, mental health care, or
substance abuse treatment. The bill also provides that if one inmate is
injured by another inmate, the other inmate would be assessed the fee
for the injured inmate's treatment. And, the bill states that inmates
may not be refused treatment because they are insolvent or otherwise
unable to pay the fee to be assessed under the bill.
The fees collected from inmates who have been ordered to pay
restitution on their victims are to be used for that purpose. Three-
quarters of the remaining fees are to be paid into the Federal Crime
Victims Fund, and one-quarter is to be used by the Attorney General for
administrative expenses in carrying out the requirements of the bill.
The bill also allows State and local governments which are housing
Federal inmates under a contract with the Federal Government to also
assess such a fee, provided that the fee is authorized under the law of
the State where the Federal inmate is housed and that State prisoners
are charged no greater a fee.
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, the administration supports this
bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this ends the statement of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. McCollum).
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1349, the Federal Prisoner
Health Care Copayment Act. The bill authorizes the director of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons to collect a fee of at least $1 from an
account of a prisoner for each health care visit made by that prisoner.
While we were successful through the amendment process to get certain
health care services excepted from that fee, such as emergency visits
and prenatal care, a prisoner must still pay a fee in most instances
and for conditions as serious as infectious diseases.
The gentleman from Indiana suggested that chronic infectious diseases
would not be assessed a fee, but other prisoners with other infectious
diseases will be discouraged from seeking care with the fee.
Discouraging prisoners from getting necessary health care services by
charging a copay violates the government's constitutional obligation to
provide such services. It will not reduce prisoner abuse of the health
care system, and it will end up costing the taxpayers money.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has recognized the government's
obligation to provide health care to prisoners. In 1976, in Estelle v.
Gamble, the Supreme Court enunciated the principle that the government
has an obligation to provide medical care to prisoners and this has
been upheld in subsequent cases. For example, in 1989 in the DeShaney
v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services the court stated,
``When the States, by affirmative exercise of its power, so restrains
an individual's liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself
and, at the same time, fails to provide for his basic human needs;
e.g., food, shelter, clothing, medical care and reasonable safety, it
transgresses the substantive limits on State actions set by the eighth
amendment and the due process clause.''
Given the limited amounts of money on hand in Federal prisoner
accounts
[[Page 18527]]
at any given time, a health care copayment requirement will impede
their access to needed health care, particularly at the early treatment
and intervention stage. The Bureau of Prisons reports that the majority
of inmates make less than 17 cents per hour, and more than half of all
inmates have no more than $60 in their account at any time, including
the day immediately after their monthly pay period. Thus, even a minor
copay would constitute a significant burden.
Establishing such a prerequisite to health care treatment not only
undermines the government's constitutional obligation to provide
medical care to inmates, but it also constitutes bad public policy. An
inmate's failure to get timely treatment could result in a minor
problem becoming a major problem, such as complications due to delayed
detection of cancer or danger to others, resulting from untreated
infectious diseases.
Further, the proponents' argument that the copay will deter inmate
abuse of health care services simply lacks merit. Obviously, inmates
with substantial amounts of money will not be deterred by a dollar or
so copay from seeking unnecessary health care, and further, those
inmates who are actually seeking appropriate care will still have to
pay the copay, and so it discourages those who are seeking appropriate
health care as well as those seeking inappropriate health care.
Therefore, a more likely effect of H.R. 1349 is their ability to pay
will be the determining factor of whether an inmate seeks care and not
whether the prisoner truly needs medical attention. Thus, it is not
surprising when the Bureau of Prisons witnesses acknowledged at a
hearing on H.R. 1349 that there is no way to know how many truly sick
inmates will be deterred by the copay as opposed to those abusing the
system.
Further, since even those who are determined to be truly sick must
pay, it appears that the real purpose of the bill is simply to deter
inmates from seeking health care whether they need it or not.
Consistent with that purpose, the majority opposed amendments in
committee which would have required a copay only if the inmate is found
to have no reasonable basis for seeking health care services.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a significant question as to whether
the cost of administering the program will actually be greater than any
savings projected. Proponents of the legislation point to States which
have instituted inmate health care copayments to suggest that copays
really work to discourage unnecessary health care and save the State
money without jeopardizing the health care of inmates.
However, the only study on this issue has been a study by the
California State auditor which found that the California Department of
Corrections' annual copay program, the annual cost of that program of
$3.2 million amounted to almost five times the annual collections,
wasting $2.5 million. Certainly, it is not surprising that these audit
results prompted the California State auditor to recommend that the
program be terminated.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill violates the government's
obligation to provide health care services. It constitutes bad public
policy by discouraging the truly sick from seeking health care, and it
will end up costing the taxpayers money. Accordingly, I urge my
colleagues to vote no on H.R. 1349.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the author of
the legislation.
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, thank the
committee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for working
so tirelessly on getting this piece of legislation to the floor. I
would also like to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. McCollum) for all of his hard work and his commitment.
As we can see from the poster board here, grandma pays a copayment
when she seeks health care, but the criminals pictured here, John
Gotti, Timothy McVeigh, Ramzi Yousef, and Aldrich Ames do not. Most
law-abiding citizens like grandma pay a small fee every time they seek
elective care. But the most despicable criminal element, terrorists,
murderers and drug dealers face no such burden.
Why should Federal prisoners be any different? The free health care
currently enjoyed by Federal prisoners is an offense to every law-
abiding, hard-working American taxpayer who struggles to make ends
meet. It is time to end the free ride for Federal prisoners by
requiring them to contribute to the costs of their own care.
The Federal prisoner health care copayment act puts an end to the
unfair policy that permits convicts totally free access to unlimited
health care. Also, under the act, every time a convict pays to heal
himself, he will pay to heal a victim. Most of the copayments collected
will be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund.
The support for this bill is bipartisan and bicameral. The Senate
version passed earlier last year with the support of everyone from
Jesse Helms to Tom Daschle. The Federal Bureau of Prisons and the
Department of Justice have endorsed the bill. At least 38 States have
enacted prisoner health care copayment plans. The bill reflects many of
the features of the successful State copayment laws.
The Federal Prisoner Health Copayment Act simply requires the Federal
Bureau of Prisons to collect a copayment of at least $1 for elected
health care visits covered by the bill. The legislation applies to both
inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons and those in the Federal
system housed in non-Federal facilities such as county jails. It is
expected that the Bureau of Prisons will adopt a sliding scale of fees
to reflect the financial status of the inmates. Indigent prisoners
would not be denied care. The fee would not be assessed for preventive
health care services or emergency services, prenatal care, diagnosis or
treatment for chronic infectious diseases, mental health care, or
substance abuse treatment. The fee does not take effect until inmates
are given prior notice. As mentioned above, every time a prisoner pays
to heal himself, he will help to pay a victim.
Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the funds collected go to the Crime
Victims Fund, and the remainder covers administrative costs. If the
experience of 38 States that have copayment programs up and running is
any indicator, the Federal measure will accomplish several important
objectives. Most importantly, frivolous visits will be reduced, perhaps
dramatically. The Federal prisoner health care system is being
overutilized, if not abused. The legislation will ensure that every
prisoner receives the care they need without forcing the taxpayers to
pay for red carpet treatment not available to most law-abiding
Americans.
Consider some of the examples of how well this program has worked on
the Statewide level. This is a list of all of the States in our
country, 38, that have passed a copayment piece of legislation like I
am introducing here today. Arizona estimates a 40 to 60 percent
reduction in medical utilization. Florida experienced a 16 to 29
percent reduction in health care visits. New Jersey inmates visits
declined 60 percent. Kansas saw a 30 to 50 percent reduction. Nevada, a
50 percent reduction, and Maryland, a 40 percent drop.
Mr. Speaker, CBO estimates that enactment of the Federal Health
Prisoner Copayment Care Act would result in a reduction of medical
visits that could be as low as 16 percent and as high as 50 percent.
That is 50 percent, and that is significant.
These reductions translate into a real cost savings. The bill would
generate annual revenues of $500,000 through collection of a copayment
fee, most of which would benefit crime victims. Additionally, $1
million to $2 million in cost savings in reduced health care visits
would be realized and could be upwards of $5 million in subsequent
years.
According to CBO, the costs of administering this program would only
cost about $170,000 annually. There is
[[Page 18528]]
absolutely no doubt that enactment of the Federal Prisoner Health Care
Copayment Act will save taxpayers money and provide victims of crime
with a modest boost in funding.
The bill will also improve prison safety and discipline, promote
responsibility, and increase the resources available to truly sick
inmates.
{time} 1615
In addition to reducing unnecessary visits to these facilities
operated by the Bureau of Prisons, the bill would accomplish the same
result for Federal inmates under the supervision of the U.S. Marshals
Service. The U.S. Marshals Service supports the bill for three other
reasons:
Number one, equity. If those in a State criminal justice system must
pay a copayment, so should the Federal inmates housed in the
institution. Two, liability. With no Federal law on this matter
governing, some Federal inmates have sued local facilities that have
perhaps improperly charged them a copayment. Number three, friction.
The exempt status of Federal inmates foster resentment amongst State
inmates. As I mentioned, 38 States have passed this. Will it take 50
States before we finally get on board and follow the leaders?
As a bonus that will interest local facilities that house Federal
inmates, the bill will generate hundreds of thousands of dollars. The
attacks on this bill have one element in common: They are all
misplaced. Any constitutional concerns do not even pass the most
liberal laugh test. Thirty-eight States have enacted the copayment
laws. These States have survived court challenges in at least seven
States, one being the State of Virginia. The bill does not deprive
inmates of health care, rather it requires them, when they have
sufficient funds in their accounts, to pay a modest copayment when
seeking elective care.
While it may be true that a majority of Federal inmates do not have
an exorbitant amount of money in their prison accounts, what expenses
do they use their discretionary funds for? Their meals are taken care
of, their exercise is taken care of, their studies are taken care of.
Prisoners are not paying for room and board. They are not paying for
television or recreational services. So where do they spend their
money? In the commissary on such items as cigarettes. The average cost
of a pack of smokes is double that of the minimum in the Prisoner
Copayment Act. If prisoners are left with less money to purchase
products such as cigarettes, I think we could argue they might be
better off.
Those concerned that the copayment would hit poorer inmates harder
than the richer ones, should be happy to know that the bill permits the
director of the Bureau of Prisons to assess higher fees for more
affluent inmates. We have been hearing so much about how terrible the
rich are in this country, so we can stick it to the rich inmates. This
is a good provision in this bill.
As for cost effectiveness, a few members of the minority cite a
California report on its copayment program. This report indicates that
copayment fees collected may be less than the amount spent
administering the program. Even if this is the case, the final figure
as to the cost effectiveness of the California program, which I have
read the report, it is dubious at best, because they have no kind of
tracking mechanism to establish exactly where the money has gone or the
money is collected or any of the cost-benefit analysis, but they are
leaving out one critical factor: The dollar value of the frivolous
visits eliminated by the copayment program. With this added to the
equation, the California program would be a cost saver. But they have
not had any tracking mechanism instituted to determine any real data on
that. In any event, CBO has reviewed the legislation before us today
and concluded that it could save up to $5 million a year in health care
costs.
Some argue this will endanger prisoner guards. That obviously is not
the case, given the strong support of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In
fact, just the opposite is the case. Guards may be exposed to
additional danger when they accompany prisoners en route to a health
care visit.
The final argument is the bill would lead to a decline in health care
services for inmates. Wrong again. What the bill would do is to
eliminate a significant percentage of frivolous visits. This should
leave additional funds and resources for the generally infirm inmates.
The vote today on the Federal Prison Health Care Copayment Act will
place each Member on one of two sides: The side of convicts or the side
of victims. I encourage my colleagues to side with the victims.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, can you advise how much time remains on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) has 14 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Pease) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes just to say that,
first, I could not quite tell on the pictures that were presented
whether or not Members of Congress were over there pictured with the
convicts, because we do not pay a copay.
I would also want to point out that according to the California State
auditor, when they did their study on their program they made
projections, and when they looked at what they collected, they only
collected about one-third of what they had anticipated. So all of these
projections ought to be taken in that light.
But it seems to me when we have a program that the State auditor of
California calculated that they wasted $2.5 million trying to implement
because the cost of implementation was more than the collections, that
seems a strange reaction to a situation where we have a grandmother
that someone is trying to give relief to. It seems to me we could take
some of that $2.5 million and buy a whole lot of health insurance.
We talk about reduction in costs. We also have to add back the cost
of the fact that the infectious diseases may not be caught and other
people may be infected. Other situations like cancer may not be
detected earlier when it is easier to treat. These kinds of expenses
will go up because of this copay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill
because it is another step toward just plain old common sense in our
Federal Government.
Thirty-eight States, as has been mentioned, including my own State of
North Carolina, have successfully implemented this copayment program to
help cover the cost of prisoners health care. And there is good reason
for that. In North Carolina, the average total cost per inmate per day
is $63. Of that, food costs about $5, but health care costs over $8.50.
With those numbers in mind, 3 years ago my State decided to implement
a $3 copayment for medical services. This bill would bring that same
common sense idea to our Federal prisons. If private citizens must pay
every time they go to a doctor, then certainly those who have broken
the law should have to pay when they choose to go to a doctor.
Yes, this bill will save Federal taxpayers money. CBO says about $5
million a year. However, it is the crime victims who will reap the most
benefit from H.R. 1349. Seventy-five percent of the copayments will be
directed to the Federal crime victims fund. And these copayments mean
that with each elective visit to the infirmary, prisoners will take
another small step to paying for their crimes.
It cannot be stated enough that under no circumstances will emergency
services, prenatal care, treatment for infectious diseases, mental
health care or substance abuse treatment be prevented under this bill.
That will not happen. All of those services will be provided regardless
of the prisoner's ability to pay. But by requiring nominal copayments
of our prisoners for
[[Page 18529]]
elective medical treatments, this Congress will enact another common
sense reform and, at the same time, give some help to the victims of
these criminals.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to point out that the crime victims who may get money, if we look
at the cost in administering this program, a $1 copay would cost 33
cents just to mail the $1 to the victim. Before we have accounted for
it in collecting, in accounting, and all that kind of stuff, the idea
that the crime victims may get a benefit, it would be a lot easier and
cheaper just to appropriate more money directly to crime victims, to
the crime victims fund.
This is a total waste of the taxpayers' money. Anybody that knows
anything about accounting knows that trying to account for these $1
copays will be much more than any benefit that could be derived.
Again, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say the bill violates the
government's obligation under the Constitution to provide health
services. It constitutes bad public policy by discouraging the truly
sick from seeking health care; it hits those who are sick from
accessing appropriate services, as well as those that are not; and I
think it is unconscionable to suggest we want to discourage people from
accessing appropriate health care.
In the end, this program will cost the taxpayers money, more money
than they can ever collect from this program. Accordingly, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and rather than reiterate the statement of the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. McCollum), which has now been entered in the record, let me just
mention one point that was made during the debate, and that is the
assertion that Members of Congress do not copay for their health care.
While there are a variety of options available, and I am not familiar
with all of the plans, I know that this Member, and others that I have
spoken to sitting right here, do copay on our health care plans.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for support of the House on the bill.
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 Indiana (Mr. Pease) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 1349, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
the Judiciary be discharged from the further consideration of the
Senate bill (S. 704) to amend title 18, United States Code, to combat
the overutilization of prison health care services and control rising
prisoner health care costs, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:
S. 704
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Prisoner Health Care
Copayment Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. HEALTH CARE FEES FOR PRISONERS IN FEDERAL
INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 303 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 4048. Fees for health care services for prisoners
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `account' means the trust fund account (or
institutional equivalent) of a prisoner;
``(2) the term `Director' means the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons;
``(3) the term `health care provider' means any person who
is--
``(A) authorized by the Director to provide health care
services; and
``(B) operating within the scope of such authorization;
``(4) the term `health care visit'--
``(A) means a visit, as determined by the Director,
initiated by a prisoner to an institutional or
noninstitutional health care provider; and
``(B) does not include a visit initiated by a prisoner--
``(i) pursuant to a staff referral; or
``(ii) to obtain staff-approved follow-up treatment for a
chronic condition; and
``(5) the term `prisoner' means--
``(A) any individual who is incarcerated in an institution
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Prisons; or
``(B) any other individual, as designated by the Director,
who has been charged with or convicted of an offense against
the United States.
``(b) Fees for Health Care Services.--
``(1) In general.--The Director, in accordance with this
section and with such regulations as the Director shall
promulgate to carry out this section, may assess and collect
a fee for health care services provided in connection with
each health care visit requested by a prisoner.
``(2) Exclusion.--The Director may not assess or collect a
fee under this section for preventative health care services,
emergency services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment of
contagious diseases, mental health care, or substance abuse
treatment, as determined by the Director.
``(c) Persons Subject to Fee.--Each fee assessed under this
section shall be collected by the Director from the account
of--
``(1) the prisoner receiving health care services in
connection with a health care visit described in subsection
(b)(1); or
``(2) in the case of health care services provided in
connection with a health care visit described in subsection
(b)(1) that results from an injury inflicted on a prisoner by
another prisoner, the prisoner who inflicted the injury, as
determined by the Director.
``(d) Amount of Fee.--Any fee assessed and collected under
this section shall be in an amount of not less than $2.
``(e) No Consent Required.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the consent of a prisoner shall not be
required for the collection of a fee from the account of the
prisoner under this section.
``(f) No Refusal of Treatment for Financial Reasons.--
Nothing in this section may be construed to permit any
refusal of treatment to a prisoner on the basis that--
``(1) the account of the prisoner is insolvent; or
``(2) the prisoner is otherwise unable to pay a fee
assessed under this section.
``(g) Use of Amounts.--
``(1) Restitution to specific victims.--Amounts collected
by the Director under this section from a prisoner subject to
an order of restitution issued pursuant to section 3663 or
3663A shall be paid to victims in accordance with the order
of restitution.
``(2) Allocation of other amounts.--Of amounts collected by
the Director under this section from prisoners not subject to
an order of restitution issued pursuant to section 3663 or
3663A--
``(A) 75 percent shall be deposited in the Crime Victims
Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of Crime
Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601); and
``(B) 25 percent shall be available to the Attorney General
for administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this
section.
``(h) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Federal Prisoner Copayment Act of
1999, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to
Congress a report, which shall include--
``(1) a description of the amounts collected under this
section during the preceding 12-month period; and
``(2) an analysis of the effects of the implementation of
this section, if any, on the nature and extent of heath care
visits by prisoners.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 303 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``4048. Fees for health care services for prisoners.''.
SEC. 3. HEALTH CARE FEES FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN NON-FEDERAL
INSTITUTIONS.
Section 4013 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(c) Health Care Fees for Federal Prisoners in Non-Federal
Institutions.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding amounts paid under
subsection (a)(3), a State or local government may assess and
collect a reasonable fee from the trust fund account (or
institutional equivalent) of a Federal prisoner for health
care services, if--
``(A) the prisoner is confined in a non-Federal institution
pursuant to an agreement between the Federal Government and
the State or local government;
``(B) the fee--
``(i) is authorized under State law; and
[[Page 18530]]
``(ii) does not exceed the amount collected from State or
local prisoners for the same services; and
``(C) the services--
``(i) are provided within or outside of the institution by
a person who is licensed or certified under State law to
provide health care services and who is operating within the
scope of such license;
``(ii) constitute a health care visit within the meaning of
section 4048(a)(4) of this title; and
``(iii) are not preventative health care services,
emergency services, prenatal care, diagnosis or treatment of
contagious diseases, mental health care, or substance abuse
treatment.
``(2) No refusal of treatment for financial reasons.--
Nothing in this subsection may be construed to permit any
refusal of treatment to a prisoner on the basis that--
``(A) the account of the prisoner is insolvent; or
``(B) the prisoner is otherwise unable to pay a fee
assessed under this subsection.''.
Motion Offered by Mr. Pease
Mr. PEASE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Pease moves to strike out all after the enacting clause
of the Senate bill, S. 704, and insert in lieu thereof the
text of H.R. 1349, as passed the House.
The motion was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 1349) was laid on the table.
____________________
OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 1638) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to extend the retroactive eligibility dates for
financial assistance for higher education for spouses and dependent
children of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers who are
killed in the line of duty.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 1638
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RETROACTIVE ELIGIBILITY DATES FOR
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION FOR
SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY.
(a) In General.--Section 1216(a) of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796d-5(a))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``May 1, 1992'', and inserting ``January 1,
1978,''; and
(2) by striking ``October 1, 1997,'' and inserting
``January 1, 1978,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect October 1, 1999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
General Leave
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on S. 1638, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in support of Senate bill 1638, a bill which will
amend the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Act of 1996. That act
provides educational assistance to the dependents of Federal law
enforcement officers and State and local public safety officers killed
in the line of duty.
The Senate bill passed the Senate in May by unanimous consent. The
identical House version of the bill, H.R. 2059, was introduced by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. King) on June 8 of 1999, and it was
reported by voice vote from the Committee on the Judiciary on July 11
of this year. The bill has wide bipartisan support. And in the interest
of ensuring that this important legislation is enacted into law at this
late hour in the legislative session, we have taken up the Senate bill.
The Senate bill would amend the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents
Assistance Act to extend the retroactive eligibility dates for
financial assistance for higher education to the spouses and dependent
children of Federal law enforcement officers and State and local public
safety officers that were killed in the line of duty.
Current law provides that the dependents of Federal law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty on or after May 1, 1992, are
eligible for this assistance. Dependents of State and local public
safety officers killed in the line of duty on or after October 1, 1997
are also eligible. Unfortunately, the somewhat arbitrary choice for
these dates has excluded some deserving dependents from participating
in the program. This legislation will move the eligibility dates
farther back in time in order to make them eligible. For Federal law
enforcement officers and for State and local public safety officers,
the new date will be January 1, 1978.
This important legislation is endorsed by the Department of Justice,
the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association. Considering the sacrifices these brave officers make to
protect us all, I think that the least we can do is to help their
families get the kind of education that they might not otherwise be
able to afford.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this very important
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1638. The bill is identical to
the Judiciary-passed version of H.R. 2059. The bill amends the Federal
Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act of 1996 to extend eligibility
for financial assistance for higher education to spouses and dependent
children to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers killed
in the line of duty.
Current law provides that the dependents of Federal law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty after May 1, 1992, are eligible for
this assistance. Dependents of State and local police officers killed
in the line of duty after October 1, 1997, are also eligible.
This legislation would change the date to January 1, 1978, for
Federal law enforcement officers and State and local public safety
officers. This is an appropriate and cost-effective change in the law,
given the modest cost projections of the program.
For example, less than $50,000 was spent under the program last year;
and projections even under the longer eligibility periods remain
modest, totaling about 24 million over the next 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no opposition to the bill and consider it
to be a reasonable and worthy way to honor the memory and contributions
of slain law enforcement officials and other public safety officers and
to assist their families. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), who has been the author of the
House version of this legislation.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for
yielding me the time. I certainly thank him for his cooperation and
support in expediting the passage of this bill.
I also want to, Mr. Speaker, give a special debt of thanks to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), himself a former police officer,
for the yeoman's job that he has done in making this a truly bipartisan
effort and for giving up so much of his time and effort. And also words
of thanks are due to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who
actually was very instrumental in the passage of the initial
legislation 2 years ago which this bill today is amending. She
certainly deserves credit.
I also want to thank the Committee on the Judiciary for acting in
such a bipartisan way. Also, I want to commend Kevin Horan of my staff
for the great job that he has done in moving this bill along.
[[Page 18531]]
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) have detailed exactly what this
bill is about. I just think it is absolutely essential that we pass
this legislation.
My father was a former New York City police officer for more than 30
years. I have known many police officers. I also, unfortunately, have
known police officers and families of police officers who have been
killed in the line of duty, who have been permanently disabled. And
while there is nothing we can do to make those families whole, there is
nothing we can do to take away their grief and suffering, the fact is
that this is a step in the right direction. It ameliorates some of that
suffering.
It also, probably just as importantly, shows that our country as a
whole wants to acknowledge the debt that we owe to these men and women
for the sacrifice and suffering that they have gone through. It is a
way of we, as a Nation, telling what we are really all about and
acknowledging the men and women who are on the front lines, who are
protecting us day in and day out, who are putting their lives and limbs
on the line for us so that we can enjoy a safe and prosperous life in
this country.
So this is a bill which is very instrumental in, I believe,
acknowledging the debt we owe to these people. It is also very
important in showing where we as a country stand. It also shows that
we, in a bipartisan fashion, can acknowledge the work that has been
done by the police officers of this country and also give a little bit
of respite, a little bit of solace, and a little bit of peace to the
families of those who have suffered so much.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), a former law enforcement
official, who is a strong supporter of law enforcement.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see legislation come to the floor like
this in a bipartisan manner. I remember when I came here in 1993, there
was no law enforcement caucus. We founded a law enforcement caucus. We
have been able to set up a bipartisan team that is constantly working
on legislation to improve the lives for law enforcement and their
families throughout this Nation.
We began in 1996 by making the bill available so that if Federal law
enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty, the educational
benefits for their spouses and their children would be taken care of.
Then again in 1998 we added State and local law enforcement. And now
here we are in the year 2000 to really correct some inequities that
have been found in all the laws that we have put together. But none of
this could happen unless we all work together.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) and I introduced this bill
back in June of 1999. It was H.R. 2059. The Senate has moved quickly,
so we are glad to substitute our bill for their bill just so we can get
this passed in the waning days here of the 106th Congress.
The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), we are all part of the law
enforcement caucus. There are about 69 or 70 Members who work together
to try to not only take care of personal needs like this, whether it is
buying bulletproof vests or trying to make sure that the voices of law
enforcement are heard here in the United States Congress.
As it has been said, the necessity for this legislation is because we
have different eligibility dates for both Federal and State officers.
And so what we are doing is really making the legislation actually move
the eligibility dates back further in time to make more dependents
eligible for this benefit. It will now go to January 1, 1978. And also,
at the same time, Federal, State, and local public safety officers are
included in this legislation. And we will take a look at the costs.
One of the big concerns in 1996 when we started the program was what
would the cost be to the Federal Treasury. We have seen in 1999 just
based upon educational benefits to officers' survivors who were killed
in the line of duty was only around some $44,000. And as the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) says, even in the next 10 years, at most if
everyone took advantage of it, it would be about $24 million.
So as a law enforcement officer and as a Member of this body, I thank
everyone who has helped in this legislation, who has helped us through
the years to make the law enforcement caucus a success. We have to be
there for the families that every day they love and support the men and
women who serve as law enforcement officers of this country. These
families deserve our support when the unthinkable happens and their
loved one is struck down. We have to look out for them just as their
husbands, their wives, their mothers, their fathers look out for us
each and every day, risking their commitments to their family for the
greater commitment that they have made to this great Nation.
With that I thank all of my colleagues for moving this legislation
forward. I thank them for their cooperation that we have enjoyed in the
last few years and look forward to continuing to work with them on
measures affecting law enforcement.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has been an
extraordinary fighter for this legislation even prior to this Congress.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, in the 105th Congress I proposed legislation which
sought to provide educational assistance for the families of all fallen
officers.
Though we were not able to fully achieve this objective, with the
help of my colleagues on the Committee on the Judiciary, we took an
important first step by enacting legislation which provided assistance
to some of these families who have lost their loved ones in the line of
duty.
This bill covers not only our police officers but fire people and
corrections officers, as well our public safety officers who make our
Nation safe.
Today we take action on a proposal to widen the circle of families
who are eligible for this assistance. Approval of this bill will mark
another significant step in fully recognizing the debt owed to those
officers who have given their lives for the sake of all of us.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of this measure.
This is something we simply ought to do and we need to do.
I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King)
in particular, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Stupak), for their efforts on behalf of this important issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this piece of legislation.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), as well as
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and especially the gentleman
from New York (Mr. King), for being such a strong advocate of this
legislation but also for being such a strong advocate for law
enforcement in general.
This legislation rights a minor wrong, and that is it acknowledges
those families that were left out of the original legislation. Despite
the good intentions, that first draft clearly left some families out
across the country.
I am very proud to represent the folks in Staten Island and Brooklyn
and probably represent the most police officers, active and retired, I
would bet, in any congressional district in the country. They are my
friends. They are my neighbors. But more importantly, they protect us
every single day.
[[Page 18532]]
It feels like every year I am going to another funeral for a police
officer who was killed in the line of duty. And, yeah, it affects the
New York City Police Department. It goes to the heart of society. It
goes to the heart of these men and women who are willing to risk their
lives to protect us. But it also destroys, in part, their families.
I have seen the young boys who lost their fathers to gunshot wounds
to the head trying to protect a local community. I have seen mothers
who were pregnant expecting their baby when they are burying their
father. I have seen families who have four or five or six police
officers between two families devastated when a young husband, a young
father is killed from some career criminal.
So those are all the things that sometimes we forget that police
officers are willing to do for us.
But one thing we do not forget today, with the help of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King)
and everyone else here today, is to tell those families that may have
been left out, the Congress of the United States appreciates what they
went through; and if they need help to help their child, we are there
for them.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just conclude by saying that when police
officers give their lives to protect the rest of us, there is really no
limit to what we ought to be willing to give back to that family.
This is a really symbolic gesture. The education of the children
means that the next generation has a future. We know what education
will do. And this is just one symbolic gesture of our respect and
admiration for the courage of police officers and for those that have
given the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the rest of us.
I certainly know of no opposition to the bill and hope it can be
passed unanimously.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 1638.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANTS ACT OF 2000
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4999) to control crime by providing law enforcement block
grants, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4999
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 ``Local Government Law
Enforcement Block Grants Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Payment and Use.--
(1) Payment.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice
Assistance shall pay to each unit of local government which
qualifies for a payment under this Act an amount equal to the
sum of any amounts allocated to such unit under this Act for
each payment period. The Director shall pay such amount from
amounts appropriated to carry out this Act.
(2) Use.--Amounts paid to a unit of local government under
this section shall be used by the unit for reducing crime and
improving public safety, including but not limited to, 1 or
more of the following purposes:
(A)(i) Hiring, training, and employing on a continuing
basis new, additional law enforcement officers and necessary
support personnel.
(ii) Paying overtime to presently employed law enforcement
officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of
increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel.
(iii) Procuring equipment, technology, and other material
directly related to basic law enforcement functions.
(B) Enhancing security measures--
(i) in and around schools; and
(ii) in and around any other facility or location which is
considered by the unit of local government to have a special
risk for incidents of crime.
(C) Establishing crime prevention programs that may, though
not exclusively, involve law enforcement officials and that
are intended to discourage, disrupt, or interfere with the
commission of criminal activity, including neighborhood watch
and citizen patrol programs, sexual assault and domestic
violence programs, and programs intended to prevent juvenile
crime.
(D) Establishing or supporting drug courts.
(E) Establishing early intervention and prevention programs
for juveniles to reduce or eliminate crime.
(F) Enhancing the adjudication process of cases involving
violent offenders, including the adjudication process of
cases involving violent juvenile offenders.
(G) Enhancing programs under subpart 1 of part E of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
(H) Establishing cooperative task forces between adjoining
units of local government to work cooperatively to prevent
and combat criminal activity, particularly criminal activity
that is exacerbated by drug or gang-related involvement.
(I) Establishing a multijurisdictional task force,
particularly in rural areas, composed of law enforcement
officials representing units of local government, that works
with Federal law enforcement officials to prevent and control
crime.
(3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``violent offender'' means a person charged
with committing a part I violent crime; and
(B) the term ``drug courts'' means a program that
involves--
(i) continuing judicial supervision over offenders with
substance abuse problems who are not violent offenders; and
(ii) the integrated administration of other sanctions and
services, which shall include--
(I) mandatory periodic testing for the use of controlled
substances or other addictive substances during any period of
supervised release or probation for each participant;
(II) substance abuse treatment for each participant;
(III) probation, or other supervised release involving the
possibility of prosecution, confinement, or incarceration
based on noncompliance with program requirements or failure
to show satisfactory progress; and
(IV) programmatic, offender management, and aftercare
services such as relapse prevention, vocational job training,
job placement, and housing placement.
(b) Prohibited Uses.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, a unit of local government may not expend any of
the funds provided under this Act to purchase, lease, rent,
or otherwise acquire--
(1) tanks or armored personnel carriers;
(2) fixed wing aircraft;
(3) limousines;
(4) real estate;
(5) yachts;
(6) consultants; or
(7) vehicles not primarily used for law enforcement;
unless the Attorney General certifies that extraordinary and
exigent circumstances exist that make the use of funds for
such purposes essential to the maintenance of public safety
and good order in such unit of local government.
(c) Timing of Payments.--The Director shall pay each unit
of local government that has submitted an application under
this Act not later than--
(1) 90 days after the date that the amount is available, or
(2) the first day of the payment period if the unit of
local government has provided the Director with the
assurances required by section 4(c),
whichever is later.
(d) Adjustments.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Director
shall adjust a payment under this Act to a unit of local
government to the extent that a prior payment to the unit of
local government was more or less than the amount required to
be paid.
(2) Considerations.--The Director may increase or decrease
under this subsection a payment to a unit of local government
only if the Director determines the need for the increase or
decrease, or if the unit requests the increase or decrease,
not later than 1 year after the end of the payment period for
which a payment was made.
(e) Reservation for Adjustment.--The Director may reserve a
percentage of not more than 2 percent of the amount under
this section for a payment period for all units of local
government in a State if the Director considers the reserve
is necessary to ensure the availability of sufficient amounts
to pay adjustments after the final allocation of amounts
among the units of local government in the State.
(f) Repayment of Unexpended Amounts.--
(1) Repayment required.--A unit of local government shall
repay to the Director, by not later than 27 months after
receipt of funds from the Director, any amount that is--
(A) paid to the unit from amounts appropriated under the
authority of this section; and
[[Page 18533]]
(B) not expended by the unit within 2 years after receipt
of such funds from the Director.
(2) Penalty for failure to repay.--If the amount required
to be repaid is not repaid, the Director shall reduce payment
in future payment periods accordingly.
(3) Deposit of amounts repaid.--Amounts received by the
Director as repayments under this subsection shall be
deposited in a designated fund for future payments to units
of local government. Any amounts remaining in such designated
fund after 5 years following the enactment of the Local
Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Act of 2000 shall be
applied to the Federal deficit or, if there is no Federal
deficit, to reducing the Federal debt.
(g) Nonsupplanting Requirement.--Funds made available under
this Act to units of local government shall not be used to
supplant State or local funds, but shall be used to increase
the amount of funds that would, in the absence of funds made
available under this Act, be made available from State or
local sources.
(h) Matching Funds.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Federal share of a grant received under this Act may not
exceed 90 percent of the costs of a program or proposal
funded under this Act.
(2) Exception for financial hardship.--The Director may
increase the Federal share under paragraph (1) up to 100
percent for a unit of local government upon a showing of
financial hardship by such unit.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this Act--
(1) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
(2) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
(3) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
(4) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(5) $2,000,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(b) Oversight Accountability and Administration.--Not more
than 3 percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated
under subsection (a) for each of the fiscal years 2001
through 2005 shall be available to the Attorney General for
studying the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the
provisions of this Act, and assuring compliance with the
provisions of this Act and for administrative costs to carry
out the purposes of this Act. The Attorney General shall
establish and execute an oversight plan for monitoring the
activities of grant recipients. Such sums are to remain
available until expended.
(c) Technology Assistance.--The Attorney General shall
reserve 1 percent in each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003
of the amount authorized to be appropriated under subsection
(a) for use by the National Institute of Justice in assisting
local units to identify, select, develop, modernize, and
purchase new technologies for use by law enforcement.
(d) Availability.--The amounts authorized to be
appropriated under subsection (a) shall remain available
until expended.
SEC. 4. QUALIFICATION FOR PAYMENT.
(a) In General.--The Director shall issue regulations
establishing procedures under which a unit of local
government is required to provide notice to the Director
regarding the proposed use of funds made available under this
Act.
(b) Program Review.--The Director shall establish a process
for the ongoing evaluation of projects developed with funds
made available under this Act.
(c) General Requirements for Qualification.--A unit of
local government qualifies for a payment under this Act for a
payment period only if the unit of local government submits
an application to the Director and establishes, to the
satisfaction of the Director, that--
(1) the unit of local government has established a local
advisory board that--
(A) includes, but is not limited to, a representative
from--
(i) the local police department or local sheriff's
department;
(ii) the local prosecutor's office;
(iii) the local court system;
(iv) the local public school system; and
(v) a local nonprofit, educational, religious, or community
group active in crime prevention or drug use prevention or
treatment;
(B) has reviewed the application; and
(C) is designated to make nonbinding recommendations to the
unit of local government for the use of funds received under
this Act;
(2) the chief executive officer of the State has had not
less than 20 days to review and comment on the application
prior to submission to the Director;
(3)(A) the unit of local government will establish a trust
fund in which the government will deposit all payments
received under this Act; and
(B) the unit of local government will use amounts in the
trust fund (including interest) during a period not to exceed
2 years from the date the first grant payment is made to the
unit of local government;
(4) the unit of local government will expend the payments
received in accordance with the laws and procedures that are
applicable to the expenditure of revenues of the unit of
local government;
(5) the unit of local government will use accounting,
audit, and fiscal procedures that conform to guidelines which
shall be prescribed by the Director after consultation with
the Comptroller General and as applicable, amounts received
under this Act shall be audited in compliance with the Single
Audit Act of 1984;
(6) after reasonable notice from the Director or the
Comptroller General to the unit of local government, the unit
of local government will make available to the Director and
the Comptroller General, with the right to inspect, records
that the Director reasonably requires to review compliance
with this Act or that the Comptroller General reasonably
requires to review compliance and operation;
(7) a designated official of the unit of local government
shall make reports the Director reasonably requires, in
addition to the annual reports required under this Act;
(8) the unit of local government will spend the funds made
available under this Act only for the purposes set forth in
section 2(a)(2);
(9) the unit of local government will achieve a net gain in
the number of law enforcement officers who perform
nonadministrative public safety service if such unit uses
funds received under this Act to increase the number of law
enforcement officers as described under subparagraph (A) of
section 2(a)(2);
(10) the unit of local government--
(A) has an adequate process to assess the impact of any
enhancement of a school security measure that is undertaken
under subparagraph (B) of section 2(a)(2), or any crime
prevention programs that are established under subparagraphs
(C) and (E) of section 2(a)(2), on the incidence of crime in
the geographic area where the enhancement is undertaken or
the program is established;
(B) will conduct such an assessment with respect to each
such enhancement or program; and
(C) will submit an annual written assessment report to the
Director; and
(11) the unit of local government has established
procedures to give members of the Armed Forces who, on or
after October 1, 1990, were or are selected for involuntary
separation (as described in section 1141 of title 10, United
States Code), approved for separation under section 1174a or
1175 of such title, or retired pursuant to the authority
provided under section 4403 of the Defense Conversion,
Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance Act of 1992 (division
D of Public Law 102-484; 10 U.S.C. 1293 note), a suitable
preference in the employment of persons as additional law
enforcement officers or support personnel using funds made
available under this Act. The nature and extent of such
employment preference shall be jointly established by the
Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense. To the extent
practicable, the Director shall endeavor to inform members
who were separated between October 1, 1990, and the date of
the enactment of this section of their eligibility for the
employment preference;
(d) Sanctions for Noncompliance.--
(1) In general.--If the Director determines that a unit of
local government has not complied substantially with the
requirements or regulations prescribed under subsections (a)
and (c), the Director shall notify the unit of local
government that if the unit of local government does not take
corrective action within 60 days of such notice, the Director
will withhold additional payments to the unit of local
government for the current and future payment periods until
the Director is satisfied that the unit of local government--
(A) has taken the appropriate corrective action; and
(B) will comply with the requirements and regulations
prescribed under subsections (a) and (c).
(2) Notice.--Before giving notice under paragraph (1), the
Director shall give the chief executive officer of the unit
of local government reasonable notice and an opportunity for
comment.
(e) Maintenance of Effort Requirement.--A unit of local
government qualifies for a payment under this Act for a
payment period only if the unit's expenditures on law
enforcement services (as reported by the Bureau of the
Census) for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in
which the payment period occurs were not less than 90 percent
of the unit's expenditures on such services for the second
fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the payment
period occurs.
SEC. 5. ALLOCATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS.
(a) State Set-Aside.--
(1) In general.--Of the total amounts appropriated for this
Act for each payment period, the Director shall allocate for
units of local government in each State an amount that bears
the same ratio to such total as the average annual number of
part 1 violent crimes reported by such State to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years
for which such data is available, bears to the number of part
1 violent crimes reported by all States to the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for such years.
(2) Minimum requirement.--Each State shall receive not less
than .25 percent of the total amounts appropriated under
section 3 under this subsection for each payment period.
(3) Proportional reduction.--If amounts available to carry
out paragraph (2) for any
[[Page 18534]]
payment period are insufficient to pay in full the total
payment that any State is otherwise eligible to receive under
paragraph (1) for such period, then the Director shall reduce
payments under paragraph (1) for such payment period to the
extent of such insufficiency. Reductions under the preceding
sentence shall be allocated among the States (other than
States whose payment is determined under paragraph (2)) in
the same proportions as amounts would be allocated under
paragraph (1) without regard to paragraph (2).
(b) Local Distribution.--
(1) In general.--From the amount reserved for each State
under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate--
(A) among reporting units of local government the reporting
units' share of such reserved amount, and
(B) among nonreporting units of local government the
nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount.
(2) Amounts.--
(A) The reporting units' share of the reserved amount is
the amount equal to the product of such reserved amount
multiplied by the percentage which the population living in
reporting units of local government in the State bears to the
population of all units of local government in the State.
(B) The nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount is
the reserved amount reduced by the reporting units' share of
the reserved amount.
(3) Allocation to each reporting unit.--From the reporting
units' share of the reserved amount for each State under
subsection (a), the Director shall allocate to each reporting
unit of local government an amount which bears the same ratio
to such share as the average annual number of part 1 violent
crimes reported by such unit to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for the 3 most recent calendar years for which
such data is available bears to the number of part 1 violent
crimes reported by all units of local government in the State
in which the unit is located to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for such years.
(4) Allocation to each nonreporting unit.--From the
nonreporting units' share of the reserved amount for each
State under subsection (a), the Director shall allocate to
each nonreporting unit of local government an amount which
bears the same ratio to such share as the average number of
part 1 violent crimes of like governmental units in the same
population class as such unit bears to the average annual
imputed number of part 1 violent crimes of all nonreporting
units in the State for the 3 most recent calendar years.
(5) Limitation on allocations.--A unit of local government
shall not receive an allocation which exceeds 100 percent of
such unit's expenditures on law enforcement services as
reported by the Bureau of the Census for the most recent
fiscal year. Any amount in excess of 100 percent of such
unit's expenditures on law enforcement services shall be
distributed proportionally among units of local government
whose allocation does not exceed 100 percent of expenditures
on law enforcement services.
(6) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) The term `reporting unit of local government' means any
unit of local government that reported part 1 violent crimes
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the 3 most recent
calendar years for which such data is available.
(B) The term `nonreporting unit of local government' means
any unit of local government which is not a reporting unit of
local government.
(C)(i) The term `like governmental units' means any like
unit of local government as defined by the Secretary of
Commerce for general statistical purposes, and means--
(I) all counties are treated as like governmental units;
(II) all cities are treated as like governmental units;
(III) all townships are treated as like governmental units.
(ii) Similar rules shall apply to other types of
governmental units.
(D) The term `same population class' means a like unit
within the same population category as another like unit with
the categories determined as follows:
(i) 0 through 9,999.
(ii) 10,000 through 49,999.
(iii) 50,000 through 149,999.
(iv) 150,000 through 299,999.
(v) 300,000 or more.
(7) Local governments with allocations of less than
$10,000.--If under paragraph (3) or (4) a unit of local
government is allotted less than $10,000 for the payment
period, the amount allotted shall be transferred to the chief
executive officer of the State who shall distribute such
funds among State police departments that provide law
enforcement services to units of local government and units
of local government whose allotment is less than such amount
in a manner which reduces crime and improves public safety.
(8) Special rules.--
(A) If a unit of local government in a State that has been
incorporated since the date of the collection of the data
used by the Director in making allocations pursuant to this
section, such unit shall be treated as a nonreporting unit of
local government for purposes of this subsection.
(B) If a unit of local government in the State has been
annexed since the date of the collection of the data used by
the Director in making allocations pursuant to this section,
the Director shall pay the amount that would have been
allocated to such unit of local government to the unit of
local government that annexed it.
(9) Resolution of disparate allocations.--(A)
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if--
(i) the attorney general of a State certifies that a unit
of local government under the jurisdiction of the State bears
more than 50 percent of the costs of prosecution or
incarceration that arise with respect to part 1 violent
crimes reported by a specified geographically constituent
unit of local government, and
(ii) but for this paragraph, the amount of funds allocated
under this section to--
(I) any one such specified geographically constituent unit
of local government exceeds 200 percent of the amount
allocated to the unit of local government certified pursuant
to clause (i), or
(II) more than one such specified geographically
constituent unit of local government (excluding units of
local government referred to subclause I and in paragraph
(7)), exceeds 400 percent of the amount allocated to the unit
of local government certified pursuant to clause (i) and the
attorney general of the State determines that such allocation
is likely to threaten the efficient administration of
justice,
then in order to qualify for payment under this Act, the unit
of local government certified pursuant to clause (i),
together with any such specified geographically constituent
units of local government described in clause (ii), shall
submit to the Director a joint application for the aggregate
of funds allocated to such units of local government. Such
application shall specify the amount of such funds that are
to be distributed to each of the units of local government
and the purposes for which such funds are to be used. The
units of local government involved may establish a joint
local advisory board for the purposes of carrying out this
paragraph.
(B) In this paragraph, the term ``geographically
constituent unit of local government'' means a unit of local
government that has jurisdiction over areas located within
the boundaries of an area over which a unit of local
government certified pursuant to clause (i) has jurisdiction.
(c) Unavailability and Inaccuracy of Information.--
(1) Data for states.--For purposes of this section, if data
regarding part 1 violent crimes in any State for the 3 most
recent calendar years is unavailable or substantially
inaccurate, the Director shall utilize the best available
comparable data regarding the number of violent crimes for
such years for such State for the purposes of allocation of
any funds under this Act.
(2) Possible inaccuracy of data for units of local
government.--In addition to the provisions of paragraph (1),
if the Director believes that the reported rate of part 1
violent crimes for a unit of local government is inaccurate,
the Director shall--
(A) investigate the methodology used by such unit to
determine the accuracy of the submitted data; and
(B) when necessary, use the best available comparable data
regarding the number of violent crimes for such years for
such unit of local government.
SEC. 6. UTILIZATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR.
Funds or a portion of funds allocated under this Act may be
utilized to contract with private, nonprofit entities or
community-based organizations to carry out the purposes
specified under section 2(a)(2).
SEC. 7. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
(a) In General.--A unit of local government expending
payments under this Act shall hold not less than 1 public
hearing on the proposed use of the payment from the Director
in relation to its entire budget.
(b) Views.--At the hearing, persons shall be given an
opportunity to provide written and oral views to the unit of
local government authority responsible for enacting the
budget and to ask questions about the entire budget and the
relation of the payment from the Director to the entire
budget.
(c) Time and Place.--The unit of local government shall
hold the hearing at a time and place that allows and
encourages public attendance and participation.
SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
The administrative provisions of part H of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, shall apply to
this Act and for purposes of this section any reference in
such provisions to title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 shall be deemed to be a reference to
this Act.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``unit of local government'' means--
(A) a county, township, city, or political subdivision of a
county, township, or city, that is a unit of local government
as determined by the Secretary of Commerce for general
statistical purposes; and
(B) the District of Columbia and the recognized governing
body of an Indian tribe or
[[Page 18535]]
Alaskan Native village that carries out substantial
governmental duties and powers.
(2) The term ``payment period'' means each 1-year period
beginning on October 1 of any year in which a grant under
this Act is awarded.
(3) The term ``State'' means any State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands.
(4) The term ``juvenile'' means an individual who is 17
years of age or younger.
(5) The term ``part 1 violent crimes'' means murder and
nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault as reported to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports.
(6) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the Bureau
of Justice Assistance.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
General Leave
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 4999.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Local Government Law Enforcement Act of 2000
represents an important step by this Congress to assist local
governments throughout the country as they confront crime. In stark
contrast to the 1994 Crime Act, it does so without prescribing the
specific programs localities must implement in order to receive
funding.
This bill provides resources to localities to respond to their unique
crime problems with their own unique solutions.
The text of H.R. 4999 is nearly identical to the reauthorization
passed by the House of Representatives in February of 1995. There are
two differences between this bill and the previous reauthorization.
First of all, the previous reauthorization as passed sought to repeal
the COPS program. This bill does not do that.
{time} 1645
It authorizes the block grants without in any way affecting the COPS.
That is one difference. The second difference is that under the
previous reauthorization and this bill, both include a 10 percent local
match requirement, whereby the Federal share may not exceed 90 percent
of the cost of a program proposed funding under the act. However, only
H.R. 4999 includes a waiver exception in cases of financial hardship.
Therefore, a unit can have its matching requirement waived upon a
showing of financial hardship.
We should make no mistake that this bill will provide money for our
law enforcement fighting efforts with greater flexibility to the vast
majority of localities throughout America. Those who argue that this
money will be wasted are completely wrong. This is not a grant program
for police chiefs like the old Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration. This is a grant program that assists communities in
addressing their crime problems. It does so through a highly visible
process involving all the major law enforcement, judicial and private
sector voices in the community. There is a role for the Federal
Government to assist the States in the fight against crime, but such
assistance must appreciate that the problems vary from State to State
and community to community. We must avoid a one-size-fits-all approach,
even as we reject micromanagement support from Washington that comes at
the expense of flexibility.
The act leaves to local governments the decisions regarding what
their funding priorities should be. It neither requires that funds be
spent on police officers nor on prevention programs. It leaves that
decision to local governments who understand their crime problems far
better than we do. Under this bill, localities can fund police on the
beat or prevention activities or anything in between. The act simply
requires that those funds be used to reduce crime and improve public
safety.
I will not go through all the different sections of the bill, Mr.
Speaker; but I believe that the Local Government Law Enforcement Act is
an important way for the Federal Government to assist localities in
dealing with crime without getting in their way. It is a rejection of
the ``Washington knows best'' mind-set and it provides more resources
for the counties, cities, and towns of America to develop homegrown
solutions to their unique crime problems.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise not only to express my support for H.R. 4999 but
also to express my disappointment that the bill under consideration on
the floor today is being considered without committee consideration.
Among the constructive purposes authorized in the bill are the hiring,
training, and equipping of police and other law enforcement personnel
and the establishment of crime prevention, early intervention, and drug
court programs. The bill specifically contains prohibitions on buying
things like tanks, airplanes, yachts, and limousines which could have
been purchased under some of the former programs that the gentleman
from Arkansas referenced.
While I support the reauthorization contained in the bill, I had
hoped that we would be looking at a program at the committee level
along with other important law enforcement programs such as the
Community Oriented Policing Services program, better known as the COPS
program. The COPS program has been very successful and considered to be
a vital contributor to the success of local communities in bringing
down the crime rate all across the country.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a member of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime introduced an authorization bill for
the COPS program which had the support of the administration and a
significant number of other Members of the House. I know that the law
enforcement community which strongly supports the Weiner bill would
have preferred to see both of these matters taken up in committee with
both coming to the floor for an authorization based on a full
assessment of their value to the local communities. Unfortunately, that
did not happen and here we are with just this part of the bill.
But before closing, Mr. Speaker, I would want to thank the gentleman
from Arkansas for accommodating the concerns of the gentleman from Guam
(Mr. Underwood) involving the formula for the appropriation.
Inadvertently, the bill that we were to bring to the floor had an
outdated allocation for Guam, but the bill before us now includes the
updated allocation. Thanks to the alertness and effectiveness of the
gentleman from Guam, we were able to correct this oversight.
Mr. Speaker, although the bill does not contain the COPS program, I
support the bill because it includes authorization for valuable,
effective crime prevention initiatives which will be developed on the
local level. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just wanted to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments
in support of this legislation. I also just wanted to remark that the
gentleman from Virginia has certainly been an ardent worker in the
issues of crime, both in his work on the subcommittee but also I have
attended numerous hearings across the country with him and he has
certainly devoted himself to this issue. The gentleman raised the issue
of the COPS program, Community Oriented Policing Services program. We
have held hearings in committee. It is true that we have not moved
forward the bill to reauthorize his program, but as the gentleman
knows, there has been some concern expressed about the effectiveness of
the
[[Page 18536]]
program. It was originally planned as a program with a fixed end to it.
And so I think it is appropriate, just expressing my view, that at this
juncture we wait until the next administration, wherever that might
take us, to see exactly where we are going to go on that particular
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), who has done an extraordinary job in
pushing this legislation. Without his leadership on this issue, I do
not think we would be here today talking about this.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson) for yielding me this time, and I certainly thank the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his support of this. I also
want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for all the
work that he has done on this and the Subcommittee on Crime and the
staff there that has done a lot of work on this.
As it stands right now, we have had a program similar to this
instituted; it has been through the appropriations. We have never had
it fully authorized. We passed a bill similar to this or it was passed
in Congress before I was here, at least on the House but never on the
Senate side. So we are hoping very much that we can get this bill fully
authorized, fully passed to authorize this program with the appropriate
changes that have been made here.
First of all, it allocates $2 billion a year for the fiscal years
2001 through 2005. We also understand as far as the improvements, they
have already been mentioned, these as far as providing block grants
back to local law enforcement agencies, it ensures that those
communities, those poor communities that are not able to meet that
match requirement previously will not be precluded from getting these
block grants because of a waiver that we have instituted. I know this
is going to be particularly helpful for our State of Kentucky. We have
several communities that may need certain items for safety or police
officers or other crime prevention programs, and yet they may not be
able to meet that 10 percent match sometimes. So in those hardship
cases, they are able to receive this grant which previously was
unavailable to them. We are glad that that change was able to be
instituted.
Why have we had so much emphasis on crime? I am glad to say that over
the last 8 years we have seen a decrease in crime in this country, but
if we look back as early as 1960, from 1960 or 1964 up to 1991, 1992,
we had a 600 percent increase in crime in this country, a tremendous
increase in crime. Seventy to 80 percent of all families were affected
by crime, many types of crimes. Certainly it has affected our region.
I reference an article we had recently in Lexington, Kentucky, where
we have particular needs. I think it points out the diversity of
communities and the diverse needs communities have where it says the
crime in Lexington increased in 1999 and that probably happened in
other communities around the country. We can see from the diversity of
problems that we have across the Nation that a plan that implements
just a one-size-fits-all is not best for particular communities.
I think, clearly, the Federal Government certainly has a role; but
the best crime prevention needs to come locally where they understand
the particular problems that they have. That is what makes this program
so effective and really so popular among law enforcement agencies and
other institutions that work to prevent and reduce crime.
In Kentucky, we have already received $4.2 million in grants from
this program. Almost $1 million has gone to our State police in
Kentucky. Over half a million has gone to my district alone. In these
we have used funds to hire police and to pay overtime. We have used the
funds to purchase other law enforcement equipment and increased the
technology that allows them to more effectively prevent and detect
crimes. And we have used it to establish crime prevention programs that
otherwise would not be able to be afforded or be available for the
communities. So it is very important.
I am certainly pleased that we have a tremendous amount of bipartisan
support on this bill, the approach to reduce crime by ensuring that we
provide flexibility to local law enforcement agencies and organizations
and that we understand that we can bring certainly the priority of
crime prevention from the Federal level but many of the decisions need
to be made at the local level to ensure that we do effectively fight
crime, reduce crime in this country, and make this a safer Nation for
all people. I encourage everyone to vote for this bill.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4999, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERIODIC REPORT ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS PAYMENTS MADE TO CUBA PURSUANT TO
TREASURY DEPARTMENT SPECIFIC LICENSES--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease) laid before the House the
following message from the President of the United States; which was
read and, together with the accompanying papers, without objection,
referred to the Committee on International Relations:
To the Congress of the United States:
As required by section 1705(e)(6) of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992,
22 U.S.C. 6004(e)(6), as amended by section 102(g) of the Cuban Liberty
and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Public Law 104-114,
110 Stat. 785, I transmit herewith a semiannual report detailing
payments made to Cuba as a result of the provision of
telecommunications services pursuant to Department of the Treasury
specific licenses.
William J. Clinton.
The White House, September 19, 2000.
____________________
{time} 1700
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2001
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees on
the bill (H.R. 4577) making appropriations for the Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Coburn moves that the managers on the part of the House
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R.
4577, be instructed to recede to Section 517 of the Senate
Amendment to the House bill, prohibiting the use of funds to
distribute postcoital emergency contraception (the morning-
after pill) to minors on the premises or in the facilities of
any elementary or secondary school.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair, who has the
right to close on this debate?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has the right to
close.
[[Page 18537]]
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion to instruct is to bring the
House in line with the Senate's vote on this very issue, and we are
going to hear a broad debate this evening about the pros and cons of
postcontraception, but that is not what I think this debate is. I think
the debate is whether or not parents ought to be made or allowed to be
involved in significant decisions of their children, and what we are
doing now in 180 schools in this country is excepting out parents from
a decision that they need to know about, excepting out parents and the
child's physician from a medical decision that is being made for that
individual.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I ask, as we await some other Members who are a little
better informed on this than I, I did have some questions for the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). As I read the instruction, and I
am not totally familiar with the Senate language, he said this was to
protect the rights of parents. As written, the instruction would say
that that was a prohibition, even if the parents consented. Is that the
gentleman's intent that even if the parents consented this would not be
allowed?
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would not have any problem; that is their
individual choice. I have a problem in destroying the life of an unborn
baby; that is a different topic. But if, in fact, a parent is involved,
but under the auspices of the HCSC planning guidelines and under the
auspices of title 10, there is no obligation to inform the parents
whatsoever.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman for that, but the point is, as I read the instruction, if
that is an accurate repeat of the language in the Senate bill, it does
not allow for an exception where the parents want to. So it goes from
saying the parents are not involved at all on both sides.
I would say one other thing, and I see the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter) is coming, and I am prepared to yield the time to him, but
I am struck, when we discuss the question of abortion and those who
make it illegal talk about an unborn child, I think we ought to be
clear when we are talking now about a morning after bill, because we
are often told there is a heartbeat, there are feet, there are various
representations of that unborn child.
We are clearly here talking about a situation where there is no
physical manifestation of the unborn child of the sort we have seen,
there are no feet, there is no heartbeat. This is a philosophical
objection. This is an effort to make illegal something which is
philosophically expressed opposition to a form of birth control. It is
very different than the kinds of representations we get.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the remainder of the
time that was allocated to me to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, for purposes of
control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will control the remaining time allotted to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 28 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 14 minutes of my
time be allocated to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Porter) for purposes of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Porter) will control 14 minutes of the 28 minutes
allotted to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I frankly am of a split mind on this issue. I am fairly
old fashioned, and I come from a part of the country where these kinds
of subjects are not discussed much in public, and I frankly get uneasy
when I walk into a lot of places and see condoms and other devices
being made available on a wholesale basis. I am very uncomfortable
about that. But I think it is also a complicated question.
I have concerns about the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma and
actually there are a number of reasons. First of all, because I am not
necessarily convinced that the best approach in my city, my hometown
would be the best approach in New York or San Francisco or Lexington,
Kentucky or other communities or vice versa. And I think one of the
problems with the Coburn motion is that it gets in the way of local
people being able to decide how they want to handle a very sensitive
problem.
Secondly, I think you do have conflicting views about which approach
actually saves the most lives and prevents the most abortions. And I
suspect that what the answer is to that question again depends on the
community morals and practices and culture. And so while I understand
those who say that they find issues like this distasteful and sometimes
they get, in fact, angry.
Mr. Speaker, I really wonder whether it is wise for the Congress to
tell local school districts that one approach is better than another.
The other thing I would simply say is that we are trying to close up
this session, and that means we are trying to resolve differences; that
means we are trying to keep as much language off appropriation bills as
possible, and it seems to me that to the extent that these riders are
attached, which are legislative in nature, they get in the way of our
ability to finish our work before the end of the fiscal year, and that
causes all kinds of turmoil.
And also, frankly, if we are going to start making motions to
instruct on this bill, then a number of us are going to have motions to
instruct to try to accomplish policy ends that we think are important
also. So if we are about to get into that business, then I guess we are
going to have to get into it all the way.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I just say in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey), there are 4,000 clinics, outside of school clinics, where
you can get this done with Federal funds, what we are saying is, is
this should not be happening in a middle school. There is plenty of
places that if you want this service, you can get it, but it should not
be occurring in the seventh and eighth grades in this country without a
parent involved.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn)
is certainly a proper motion and appropriate, but it is a very
unfortunate motion for us.
It contravenes instructions given to us by our own leadership, it
attempts to circumvent the House rules and procedures, and it makes the
completion of our conference more difficult at a time when we are
trying to finish our work. In meetings in mid-July, I should tell the
gentleman from Oklahoma, the bicameral majority party leadership
decided that we should drop all controversial riders to the Labor, HHS
and Education bill. The senior senator from Pennsylvania, the chairman
of the Senate subcommittee, Mr. Specter, and I were instructed to do
exactly that to move this process forward.
Mr. Speaker, based on these instructions, the Senate receded from its
position on this amendment; and all other similar riders were dropped
in the conference.
Mr. Speaker, the motion if offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma as
an amendment to the bill would not be in
[[Page 18538]]
order in the House. Thus the import of this action is to attempt to do
by motion what the rules would have prevented him from doing by
amendment on the House floor.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this motion will only serve to sharpen
differences within this bill and delay the completion of the final
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, of the funds made available in the bill, Elementary and
Secondary Education Act funds are prohibited, by law, from being used
for health clinics of any sort. Only Public Health Service funds
provide a substantial source for the activities that the gentleman is
alluding to.
I note that the gentleman is a member, and a valued member, of the
Committee on Commerce; he is, in fact, vice chair of the Subcommittee
on Health. I also note that recently coming across my desk he wrote
with others a dear colleague relating to the Ryan White AIDS program.
Now, we support very strongly the Ryan White AIDS program; and we, in
fact, have very substantially increased it over the President's budget
request. I certainly applaud the bipartisanship on that matter. While
amending the Public Health Services Act to reauthorize Ryan White, why
could not the provisions included in the motion be included there? Why
did not the gentleman simply add the provisions that he is attempting
now to attach to an appropriation bill, where it is not appropriate, to
the authorizing bill that he had before him at that time?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he would respond to that.
It seems to me that the Commerce Committee is where it ought to be
taken up. Over and over, authorizers tell appropriators to stay off of
their turf, to not do what they are authorized to do in their
jurisdiction. I agree with that. We include no authorizing provisions
in the House bill without the express approval of the authorizers. But
the gentleman from Oklahoma telling let us get into their jurisdiction
and put this Provision on the appropriations bill.
It does not belong in this bill. It should not be discussed here. The
motion simply attempts to put legislative language into an
appropriation bill, we do not want to do that. We wanted the
authorizers to do their work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, number one, I would thank the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Porter), I wished the gentleman would have given me the idea 2
months ago or 3 months ago, and I would have been happy to put that in
the bill.
Number two, I find it somewhat ironic. I want to stay on the issue. I
find it somewhat ironic that we cannot use direction in terms of
spending with the motion to commit, but yet we are funding hundreds and
hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of programs that never
have been authorized by any of the authorizing committees.
What I would ask the gentleman is, does he believe it is right that a
12-year old should get a morning after pill in a school clinic and a
parent never know anything about it. I mean, that is what this issue is
about. Whether or not we are going to give a prescription drug to a
young adolescent female without her parents ever knowing in school;
that is what the objection is. That is why this rider is there.
The Senate passed this 54-41. This is not a pro-life, pro-abortion
debate. This is a debate about parents being involved. As we look at
the young people in our country today, the one problem we are seeing
and we are trying to solve in many of the programs that the gentleman
has graciously funded through his appropriation to re-empower parents.
{time} 1715
This bill tears them down. This bill separates by not having this. So
the Senate did want this. They voted it. All we are asking is for the
committee, should the House accept this motion to instruct, to follow
that and give parents back some of their power.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion
to instruct. The Helms amendment, which my colleague urges the Labor-
HHS conferees to accept, was, in fact, voted on and rejected during the
conference meetings in late July.
Our colleagues who opposed it understood that supporting this motion
would interfere in locally made decisions.
There are roughly 1,200 school-based health clinics serving young
people across the country, a partnership between local schools and
community health providers. Three of four middle- and high school-based
clinics do not offer contraceptive services at all.
Of the 25 percent that provide these services, the decision to do so
has been made collectively by the schools, the parents, community
organizations and the young people themselves.
The community works together to decide what is best for their young
people and Congress should respect these local decisions. For those
communities that choose to offer contraceptive services, access to
contraception, including emergency contraception, just a double dose of
a regular oral contraceptive, is crucial to helping teens avoid
unintended pregnancies.
I am the co-chair of the Congressional Advisory Panel to the National
Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, along with my colleague, the
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). We have worked very hard in a
bipartisan way to find community-based solutions to the epidemic of
teen pregnancies that we have experienced in the 1990s. The good news
is that the teen pregnancy rate has fallen for 7 straight years. The
bad news is that American teenagers still experience 1 million
pregnancies each year.
In fact, teen pregnancy rates in this country are higher than in all
other industrialized countries, twice as high as in England or Canada,
nine times as high as in the Netherlands or Japan. Sadly, the risk of
unintended pregnancy is only part of the problem facing our young
people. There is also an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease among
young Americans, but they do not even know it. Kids think it cannot
happen to them, but it can and it is.
Kids are getting STDs like chlamydia, which years later can rob them
of their fertility; HPV, which can lead to cervical and penile cancers;
and HIV for which tragically there is still no cure.
Young people may visit a school-based clinic for information about
pregnancy prevention, but leave with facts about STDs that can save
their lives.
I believe that if we continue to deliver strong and consistent
messages about the importance of abstaining from sex, the risk of STDs,
accurate information about contraception, we can continue to make
continued progress in the fight against teen pregnancy and STDs; but
since we know from recent data that three-quarters of the decline in
the United States teen pregnancy rate is attributable to improved
contraceptive use among teenagers, denying teens access to
contraception will only jeopardize this progress.
It does not make sense. That is why we should leave decisions about
providing contraception and other important health services to local
communities and schools. School-based clinics have an enormous job to
do, and they are doing a world of good.
Let us continue to support our communities, as they work to protect
the health and safety of their kids. I urge my colleagues to defeat
this terribly misguided motion.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond. The awareness of the sexually
transmitted disease epidemic is one of the things that I think that I
have brought to this body. It was denied, obscured and covered up over
the last 6 years. The fact is, as a postcoital morning-after pill,
administration does nothing to prevent sexually transmitted diseases.
The other thing is the gentlewoman who just talked has been against
informing people of the fact
[[Page 18539]]
that a condom does not prevent someone from getting the largest
incurable, sexually transmitted disease that we have, that will infect
6 million people this year. So if we want to talk accurately about the
medical facts, I will; but this issue is when a child at school cannot
get an aspirin without a parent being involved, but we can give them a
prescription pill that will have a long-term impact on them. I think we
need to have a full and fair discussion on that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. As a mother and a
grandmother, I would be furious, literally furious, if my child were
given this pill because I as a mother have to be notified if my child
is given an aspirin. So it really upsets me that this decision is made
by other people and not by the parents.
There is very little risk involved in taking a simple aspirin, but
the morning-after pill does have several possible side effects. While I
do not support this as a means of emergency contraception, it is a
legal choice, and those who choose to do it should do it under the
supervision of a doctor.
Currently, any school that does receive Federal funds for family
planning is authorized to distribute the morning-after pill, and right
now 180 school clinics offer it. The most disturbing fact is that the
Federal laws and regulations overrule State parental consent and
notification laws so school nurses can distribute this pill without the
parents ever being involved.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion and vote to make sure
that parents have more rights over their children than the Federal
Government.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn
motion to instruct. It is no secret that many who support this motion
would not only take contraception from schools but would also remove
the option from all health clinics. So to say that school health
services are not needed is just another anti-choice action.
We know that numbers of teenagers across the country rely on school-
based health clinics for their health services and for health care
information. Local decision-makers and community representatives, those
who know their teenagers' health needs, not the Federal Government,
should have the right to decide the services their school health
clinics will offer. These individuals are elected by the local
constituencies. These schools will tell their school districts what
they want. Local decision-makers are the ones who know the needs of
their teenagers. They deserve the right to address those needs.
Allowing access to emergency contraceptive care gives teens the
ability to act responsibly; act before they become pregnant so that
they do not become pregnant. Let us help teens prevent unintended
pregnancies. Let us give our local schools and local health clinics the
right to decide for their communities.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Coburn motion to instruct.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Coburn motion
to instruct conferees. Frankly, I do not know how any Member could
disagree with this motion that simply prohibits the distribution of the
morning-after pill at schools. This is a pill that can cause an early
abortion. So our kids can go to school, be given an abortion pill
without their parents' consent. Well, unbeknownst to most parents, this
is happening in at least 180 schools across America.
Why is this so surprising to parents? Because parents are required to
sign a note or permission slip for everything. If their daughter needs
an aspirin, the parent writes a note; if she needs an allergy shot,
another note; cold medicine, a note from home; insulin, parental
permission; penicillin, more permission; Ritalin even more permission.
Then logically our daughters should not be given something as
potentially harmful as the morning-after pill at school.
This is a pill that can have side effects such as risks of developing
blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, cardiovascular disease. Obviously,
one should not just be able to go to a school nurse to get it. The
Coburn motion is a logical protection for our daughters and for the
right, as parents, to help make important health decisions for them.
Some will argue that our daughters need the morning-after pill in
schools if they have been raped or abused. If something as tragic as
rape or abuse has violated a young girl, schools are required by law to
report this to the authorities. Then proper care can be given to them
in a hospital, not at their school.
I urge my colleagues to support this motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is not
abortion and it is not RU-486. It is a high dose of oral
contraceptives. We are talking about contraceptives here. School-based
clinics provide health care professionals an ideal opportunity to
counsel teens about the importance of delaying sexual activity and the
risks of unprotected sex.
I would hope, we would all hope, that all girls would consult their
parents if there has been a terrible mistake made; but unfortunately
that communication does not happen in every family. Would we not want
then to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and to prevent perhaps even an
unwanted abortion? Certainly many State and local governments want to
give their school-based professionals that option.
I always thought that this Congress was for local control. It seems
to me we are for local control if it is our views but not the other
guy's views. I do not think that is right. Let our local governments
decide whether they want their school-based professionals to counsel
girls and to be able to give them these contraceptives. Vote no on this
motion to instruct.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are 4,000 other places in the United States that
they can get these pills if they want them. We do not need it in the
school. It amazes me that our whole goal is to help somebody keep a lie
in our school-based clinics when we use a morning-after pill. The fact
is there is a lot of freedom when young women go to their parents after
having made a mistake, and are encouraged to do that.
Know what? If we cannot do this in the school, that is what will
happen is the school nurse will encourage the young woman to talk with
her mother and if she has a father and say we need to talk with them
and get their permission to do this.
There are 4,000 other places funded by the Federal Government where
this can happen. What we are saying is this should not happen in
schools.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support the Coburn motion to
instruct conferees, to accept the Senate-passed amendment to protect
young girls from being given powerful abortion drugs at school.
I say again, we are talking about a school setting, and that is no
place. It is bad enough that this kind of action takes place in
abortion mills. To think that we would sanction in any way or shape or
form the prescribing of this kind of death to an unborn child at school
is outrageous.
It should be noted that these abortion drugs not only destroy a newly
created life, but they do indeed carry significant risks for the young
student.
{time} 1730
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said a moment ago, with Preven, if
we look at the conditions, what the manufacturer itself says, and I
quote,
[[Page 18540]]
``These conditions can cause serious disability or even death.'' We are
talking about this being given out in a high school or junior high or
elementary school setting. Our elementary and secondary schools should
be the last place, Mr. Speaker, the last place where legitimate
parental rights are trampled and usurped, especially when the health or
the life of their daughter is at risk. Our elementary and secondary
schools should be the place where life is affirmed and respect for life
is affirmed; again, the last place where abortion drugs are used.
Years ago, many of us warned that school-based clinics would be
misused to facilitate abortions for minors, especially by way of
referrals to abortion mills. We know that is going on. Planned
Parenthood alone does over 200,000 abortions in its own clinics each
and every year, many of them by referrals from schools. But now we know
that at least 180 schools across the country offer abortion drugs at
their school-based clinics. That is outrageous for parents and for
their daughters.
Mr. Speaker, we need to speak up loud and clear. Support the
gentleman's very, very smart and wise motion.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think that schools are an inappropriate place to
dispense morning-after pills, so I rise in support of the Coburn motion
to instruct. I think more importantly, not only current law allows this
to be done without parent's consent, this is done without parent's
knowledge. I think to have in place a law that says, all parents are
bad parents. If parents know that their daughter is expecting a child,
that would be bad for their daughter. I think we definitely need to
make this change, and I think that is probably why a majority of the
Senators supported this change when this issue came up in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion to instruct is a start, because
parents should be the first to know if their daughter is pregnant, not
the last. There are so many things parents should and would want to do,
and I do not think we can have in Federal law a situation where we just
assume the worst about every parent in this country. That is why I
strongly support this motion to instruct, and I urge everyone to vote
for it.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said over and over again here that this is a
question of parental consent. I do not see any of that in this. This
simply prohibits the distribution of these contraceptives on school
promises. It does not say that if the parent consents, you can do it.
It says, you cannot do it under any circumstances. So the whole issue
of parental consent is not contained in this motion to instruct; it has
nothing to do with this motion to instruct whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Coburn motion to
instruct conferees.
Mr. Speaker, school-based health centers are partnerships. They are
partnerships within a community, and they are organizations in which
school personnel, parents, community leaders, health professionals set
policy governing what health care is available and under what
circumstances. Mr. Speaker, 94 percent of school-based health centers
require parental consent forms before a student can be seen. Two out of
every three allow parents to choose which services their child cannot
receive.
Those centers in which children have most access on their own are
located in those communities where teen pregnancies are the highest,
and they are the communities where supervision of these children,
support for these children, community options for these children,
public education for these children is frankly the worst. There are
children in our communities who never see their parents for days, and
who are basically on their own. There are also lots of young women in
high schools who are really actually the victims of what we would now
call date rape. But nobody has talked to them about how to say no.
Nobody has educated them about how to prevent pregnancy. So we are
saying that they should have, through their high school clinics, if the
community board has determined that this is appropriate, they should
have access to a morning after pill or emergency contraception. This
kind of contraception is only a high dosage of birth control pills, the
same kind of pills that millions of Americans take every day. This is
not RU486. This is just a high dosage of normal contraceptive pills.
If a woman is already pregnant, the emergency pill has no effect on
her pregnancy. But if a young person takes this within 72 hours of
unprotected sex, date rape, rape, which is sometimes the case and more
often than we actually like to acknowledge, or is the victim of incest,
she can actually prevent herself from being pregnant.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my colleagues who oppose
abortion, although I do understand why they oppose abortion, but I do
not understand why they are so opposed to preventing pregnancy,
particularly for young girls who are not going to be able to support
this child economically and are almost by definition unready to support
this child emotionally.
My concern for the children of America is that they be born into
stable, loving families that can give them the emotional and economic
support and guidance over decades that children need. I can understand
the difference of opinion in our Nation about how to manage abortion or
what role abortion should play. But this, frankly, has nothing to do
with abortion at all. It has everything to do with preventing
pregnancy; it has everything to do with communities, health
professionals, parents, educators, merely giving young women the
knowledge and the tools and the power to prevent pregnancy.
Now, is it wise for young women to be intimate sexually when they are
in high school? I would tell them no, because on a peer development
basis, you are transferring power to this young man that frankly women
should not transfer because they get more into the web. I mean, I could
go on and on. I tell high school kids this. I tell kids all the reasons
why being sexually intimate prematurely is not a good idea, how it
disempowers them, how it limits their ability to develop and gain
control over their abilities, their future, their hopes and their
dreams.
However, by the same token, I want those young women who nobody told
that to, I want those young women who had nobody advising them and
helping them to at least know and understand what their choices are for
responsible action. Frankly, I think it is more responsible for a young
woman who has either been the victim of date rape, been the victim of
rape, how many of these young people are the victims of incest, we do
not know, but we are cavalier, cavalier about denying them access to a
contraceptive that simply prevents implantation. It prevents pregnancy.
That is a good thing. If you cannot economically and emotionally
support a child, frankly, it is wise and responsible not to have one.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's motion,
because this House has no business passing this provision.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As somebody who has delivered 3,500 babies and who has cared for every
complication of pregnancy, I want to clear up the medical facts. A
pregnancy, regardless of when Planned Parenthood says it occurs, occurs
when a sperm and an egg unite. Because of where it is located, they
have arbitrarily picked to say that is not a pregnancy is the biggest
misstatement that I have heard.
Number two is we are talking about high dose oral contraceptives. We
are not talking about a small dose. The reason that we have many
dosages of pills today is because the risks associated with the high
doses were so great
[[Page 18541]]
that they caused major complications for women. Now, to do morning
after pills, we are reverting back to levels of hormones that we have
not seen in 20 years in this country in single doses. That raises
significant complications for these young women.
The final thing that I would say is if this fails to work, which 25
percent of the time it fails to prevent the pregnancy, there is a
concept known as limb reduction deficits, and if we look that up, what
we find is babies born without hands, without fingers, without ears,
without toes, and without their limbs. That is one of the causative
factors from high-dose oral contraceptives at the formative stage of an
early fetus. So medically, what was just stated is inaccurate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to
instruct conferees offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
my friend.
Mr. Speaker, public schools should not use our taxpayer dollars to
distribute the morning after pill to the children of this Nation. This
is serious business. We are talking about whether or not the schools of
America hand out emergency contraceptives to the children of America.
There are many factors in play here, but I fundamentally believe that
it gets back to what schools are supposed to be about.
Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, schools are supposed to be
about education. This is their stated purpose, and I think we should
all agree that schools have a lot of work to do in that area just to
get our children educated.
It is unimaginable to me what I just heard on this House floor, that
it has been suggested that a girl who is date raped or suffered from
incest should go to school the next morning to get a pill to make sure
she is not pregnant, instead of being with her parents in a hospital
with police and counselors that could help her. That is where this type
of idea leads when we operate in secrecy from parents. Some would say
that schools cannot teach if kids are worrying about life's outside
pressure. Well, that may be true, but I believe that if schools were
really focused on education and teaching, some of life's worries and
outside pressures might fade away.
Studies have shown that high educational expectations and goals keep
kids focused on their future and their education, and they are not so
easily sidetracked. Like it or not, when schools pass out emergency
contraceptives, it sends a signal to kids. It says, there is no need to
talk to your parents or involve them in decisions which are of immense
importance to your physical and emotional well-being. It also says that
schools will help students bypass their parents and help make life-
changing decisions for them. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but this is not
what our schools are supposed to be about. I think kids, parents and
folks all across this Nation know it. Schools are supposed to be about
reading, writing, arithmetic and educational experience, not social
projects funded with taxpayer funds which bypass parents and harm
children.
It seems to me that it is not okay for a child to even sneeze in
class without a parent's permission, and rightly so, you need parental
permission to go on field trips and for a variety of other reasons. You
often need parental permission just to take an aspirin. Yet, providing
emergency contraception is of more serious medical consequences and
parents are specifically not involved.
The Congressional Research Service looked into the prevalence of
providing emergency contraceptives in school-based clinics and they
found at least 180 schools across the country already are handing out
emergency morning after pills in their clinics. This is just part of
their sample.
Again, Mr. Speaker, schools should be about education, teaching, and
learning. Let us keep the focus there. I urge my colleagues to support
this motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1745
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in a former life, I had a
Ph.D. I guess I still have it. Coming here does not remove that. I
taught medical school. I taught nursing students. I have about 100
papers in the scientific literature. So I know something about the
process that we are talking about today.
We also have 10 children in our family and 11 grandchildren and one
great grandchild. And I will tell my colleagues from the perspective of
a professor, a teacher, a parent, a grandparent and a great
grandparent, that I think this policy of using taxpayer money to fund
the morning after pill without parental consent is obscene and insane.
My colleagues should just stop to think about this. A child in school
cannot get an aspirin without parental consent, and yet this
legislation, this legislation that we are talking about, that we hope
to somehow modify with this amendment, would permit the school, without
the parents' knowledge, without parents' consent, with taxpayer money,
to give a serious medication to a student which will terminate a life.
I say again: As a professor, as a father, as a grandfather, as a
concerned citizen of this country, this is obscene and insane. Support,
please, the Coburn amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Here we go again. Although this session is about to wrap up, the
attacks on reproductive health care keep coming. Today, we have a
motion that strips away local control over school-based health clinics.
My dear friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle
constantly talk about the importance of local control. These clinics
are currently run by communities, and they are not asking for
interference by the Federal Government. But this motion steps in and
prohibits school-based health clinics from dispensing emergency
contraception.
What we are talking about is not an abortion pill. What we are
talking about is a contraception pill that a young woman can take the
morning after an evening where she may have had an emergency situation,
such as rape or incest. Why should Congress make this decision for
every single community and every single school and every single child?
If my colleagues believe in local control, vote ``no,'' and for many
other reasons.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair would ask Members to
heed the gavel.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on my side. I
would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 2
minutes for him to use on his side if he would like.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, emergency contraception has been
portrayed as equal to abortion on this floor. Let us set the record
straight. Emergency contraception is oral contraceptive used at higher
doses.
This is oral contraception, taken once a day, prescribed by a health
professional. And this is emergency contraception, taken within 72
hours of unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraception is not
abortion. Same drug, same formulation, higher dose, one time. Passes
through the system in a couple of hours.
Both oral contraceptives and emergency contraception work the same
way: They prevent pregnancy. If a woman is pregnant, neither oral
contraceptives nor emergency contraception will disrupt that pregnancy.
Let me repeat: If a woman is pregnant, neither oral contraceptives nor
emergency contraception will disrupt that pregnancy.
[[Page 18542]]
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Coburn motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, this issue of health care in school-based
clinics was already dealt with by the conference and it was rejected.
This motion would deny Federal funding to any school-based clinic that
provides emergency contraception.
Emergency contraception is not abortion. It cannot terminate a
pregnancy. It prevents pregnancy in critical hours after unprotected
sex. Emergency contraceptive in a school-based clinic is prescribed
only by a doctor to young people seeking to act responsibly to prevent
unintended pregnancy.
School-based health clinics are different across this country. They
have been set up with the input of local officials, school personnel,
parents and students. All of these interested parties participate in
the decisions about what services they believe are appropriate and how
the clinics will be run. Let us leave these decisions to the
communities and to the local officials who are involved.
As I said, this conference has already agreed to reject this
proposal. It is wrongheaded and I urge my colleagues in the full House
to reject this motion.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Porter) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, across the river about 10 years
ago, when I was mayor, we set up a school-based health clinic. It was
very controversial and difficult to do. But now that it has been set
up, it has saved countless lives. It has helped teenagers to act more
responsibly.
Ultimately, the community concluded that while it would be wonderful
if we could convince teenagers never to have sex, if we could eliminate
unintended pregnancies, unwed pregnancies, the reality is that we have
to deal with human nature. We have to improve the lives of people. We
decided that as a community, which is the way that these issues should
be decided, where people can accept the accountability for decisions
that they make for the people they serve directly.
I do not think we are particularly successful in trying to mandate
morals. We have an opportunity now for professional people, school
health nurses, generally, to be able to prescribe a way in which an
abortion is not affected; whereas we can prevent pregnancy by providing
pills that ensure that women can take control of their lives.
Through our schools and other community institutions, we can help
them become more responsible over their future, and we will not see as
many children being aborted or being born into unwed situations where
they suffer. We do not; they do. Let us not make them suffer; let us
defeat this instruction.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds the House again that he
requested that Members honor the gavel.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from a letter from the
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.
``School-based health care centers represent a partnership between
community health care organizations, such as local hospitals, health
centers and public health departments, school systems and parents. The
programs are designed by the community. The scope of service, including
reproductive health, is determined by what health care providers,
school officials, parents, and other community members feel is
necessary to combat health-compromising behaviors and inadequate and
unaffordable access to competent and caring physical and mental health
services for school-aged children. The ability to provide these
services with public family planning and primary care resources is
vital to these few programs. Their ability to offer adolescents needed
reproductive health care should not be constrained by Congress. This
decision should remain one of local control and oversight.''
And that letter is signed by John Schlitt, Executive Director of the
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care, someone certainly to
whom we should listen before we take away the right of the parents and
the health providers in a community to set up such a clinic.
Mr. Speaker, I am providing the full letter for the Record, as
follows:
National Assembly
On School-Based Health Care,
September 18, 2000.
Hon. Nita M. Lowey,
U.S. House of Representatives, 2421 Rayburn HOB, Washington,
DC.
Dear Representative Lowey: I understand the Helms amendment
to the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, which was defeated in
conference last month, is resurfacing through a motion by
Congressman Coburn to instruct the conferees. I urge you to
reject the motion and speak in its opposition.
The National Assembly on School-Based Health Care, which
represents the nearly 1200 school health centers across the
country, opposes the Helms amendment to the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill (S. 6094). The amendment would prohibit
the use of federal funds from Section 330 and Title X of the
Public Health Services Act, as well as Titles V and XIX of
the Social Security Act, to support the distribution of, or
prescription for, the emergency contraceptive pill on the
premises of elementary and secondary schools.
School-based health centers represent a partnership between
community health care organizations (such as local hospitals,
health centers and public health departments), school
systems, and parents. These programs are designed by the
community. The scope of services, including reproductive
health, is determined by what health providers, school
officials, parents, and other community members feel is
necessary to combat health compromising behaviors and
inadequate and unaffordable access to competent and caring
physical and mental health services for school-aged children
and adolescents.
Three in four school-based health centers are prohibited by
state and/or local policy from prescribing and dispensing
birth control on site. In a very small number of communities,
school boards and school health advisory groups, which
include parents, have made the decision to offer birth
control on site because of troubling teen pregnancy and
sexually transmitted disease rates.
The ability to provide these services with public family
planning and primary care resources is vital to these few
programs. Their ability to offer adolescents needed
reproductive health care should not be constrained by
Congress. The decision should remain one of local control and
oversight.
Thank you for supporting community decision-making.
Sincerely,
John Schlitt,
Executive Director.
(From the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care--Sept. 2000)
School-Based Health Centers and Family Planning
What is a school-based health center, and how is it different from a
school nurse?
School-based health centers are partnerships between
community health care organizations, typically a health
department, primary care center or hospital, and a school.
The services provided in the health center are similar to
that which is delivered in standard medical clinics:
assessment and screenings, immunizations, diagnostic and
treatment services laboratory, well child health supervision,
etc. There are an estimated 1200 of these unique health
centers in schools across the country.
Is family planning included in the scope of services?
While the majority of health centers located in middle and
high schools provide services such as pregnancy testing
(85%), HIV counseling (77%), and STD testing and treatment
(73%), services related to birth control are most often
contained to counseling. Three in four school-based health
centers are prohibited by state law or school policy from
dispensing contraception on site.
Do parents provide consent for access to school-based health centers?
Nearly all (94%) school-based health centers require signed
parental consent forms before a student can be seen. Two-
thirds of school-based health centers allow parents the
option of selecting specific services that their child cannot
receive.
[[Page 18543]]
Do school-based health centers practice within accordance of state laws
regarding minors' access to sensitive services?
One-third of health centers reported to the National
Assembly on School-Based Health Care that adolescents may be
seen for family planning related services (except
contraceptive services where prohibited) without parental
consent. This policy is often communicated to the parent
through the consent process so that the right of adolescents
to confidential services is understood.
Do school-based health centers dispense the morning after pill?
In a survey of school-based health centers, 16% of centers
serving adolescents reported that emergency contraception is
available on site. This represents approximately 130 school-
based health centers, or one-fifth of one percent of schools
in this nation.
Do federal dollars support school-based health centers?
Federal financial support for school-based health centers
comes through Medicaid reimbursement, public health grants
through Title V of the Social Security Act, and grants made
by the Bureau of Primary Health Care under its Healthy
Schools, Healthy Communities initiative.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
3 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has no
time remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has 11
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the very troubling motion
to instruct of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), which would
direct, as my colleagues know, the Labor-HHS conferees to revive the
already-rejected ban on emergency contraception in school-based health
clinics.
In July, the House-Senate conference rejected this harmful proposal
because it endangers teenagers' health and undermines the national
effort to reduce unintended teen pregnancies. This ban confuses
emergency contraception with abortion. And its attempt to ban abortion
pills would instead ban emergency contraception.
I think it is important for our colleagues to understand the
difference. ECPs, emergency contraception pills, which are FDA approved
ordinary birth control pills, do not cause abortion. They inhibit
ovulation, fertilization, or implantation before pregnancy occurs.
School-based health centers provide a private, safe place for teens
to access health care services, including contraception and related
services. Certainly we would hope that children would engage in
abstinence, but they do not always, and that is why I join the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in opposing the Coburn
motion.
{time} 1800
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is going to pass by a large vote. I
understand that. When the vote comes, I personally am going to vote
``present.''
As some Members have noticed from time to time, I on numerous
occasions have voted ``present'' as a matter of protest in order to
suggest that the House is dealing with an issue which I believe ought
to be dealt with on another level of government. Often that has been
the District of Columbia with respect to its own affairs, and on
occasion it has been other local units of government. This is another
such occasion.
I simply do not think that the same rules apply in a district which
is very largely composed of white, middle-class, fairly prosperous,
well-knit families and then, in contrast to other districts where you
have huge amounts of poverty, childhood neglect, loosely knit families,
areas such as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) described
where children literally often do not see their parents for days at a
time.
And so I think that this matter is best left to local school
officials because they are the people on the frontlines trying to weigh
the conflicting equities that they so often face not just in schools
but in police work and in a number of other areas, as well.
Notice of Intention to Offer Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 4577,
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001
Mr. OBEY. If this motion passes, I want to note, Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to clause 7(c) of House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House
of my intention tomorrow to offer the following Motion to Instruct
House conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education:
I move that the managers on the part of the House at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
bill, H.R. 4577, be instructed to insist on the highest
funding level possible for the Department of Education; and
to insist on disagreeing with provisions in the Senate
amendment which denies the press the President's request for
dedicated resources to reduce class sizes in the early grades
and for local school construction and, instead, broadly
expands the Title VI Education Block Grant with limited
accountability in the use of funds.
If we are going to start providing motions to instruct at this late
date in the session, then I am going to have a number of motions which
I think are germane to the operations of the committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The notice of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will appear in the Record.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the Members of this body might think,
the intention of this motion to instruct was not to create havoc in the
process as we attempt to go home.
I want to describe my medical practice to all of my colleagues for a
minute so they have a perspective. I just heard the ``white, middle-
class'' statement; and I think it is very important. Most of my
patients are minorities. Most of them only have one parent. And let me
tell my colleagues, every one of those parents want to know what is
going on with their kids in school. And the assumption, the racial
implication that if they happen to be a single mom and they have a
child that gets in trouble that they do not want to know as much as
everybody else is absurd and wrong and implies an absolute lack of
knowledge about what is going on in this country with that valuable
segment of our population. So I want to set that aside.
The other thing is I want to tell my colleagues a story, one of the
reasons I offered this amendment. I was in a town hall meeting in the
southeast portion of my district. A 38-year-old father came in, and I
have never seen anybody so mad in my life. I was the object of his
rage, because his 12-year-old daughter had just shown him what she had
been given at a clinic, 12 years old, no knowledge. She was given
Preven. In case she needed it at some future time, she was given a bag
of condoms. She was given noxonol nine. And she was given oral
contraceptives. No exam, no instruction sheet on how to use them, but
she was given them.
Mr. Speaker, what the father was mad about is that somebody would
dare be able to invade on the rights of his child and her health care
without him knowing about it. And in front of 50 people, he stood there
balling, to say what has happened to our country that parents are last?
We heard about local control. What about parent control? What about
putting the parents back in charge?
We cannot take an aspirin at a school without a permission slip. If
their child has an antibiotic, they have to have permission to give
that child his antibiotic at the school. We are so wrong-headed and so
out of sync in terms of the priorities for our children in this country
it is not a wonder that we are having difficulty with these issues.
The third point I want to make: we have had title X clinics for 25
years in this country. We have been teaching safe sex for 25 years. We
are the highest nation in the world in sexually transmitted diseases.
Nobody comes close to us. We will have 15 million new cases of sexually
transmitted disease this year of which 9 million are incurable, 9
million in which the methods that we teach at our title X safe-sex
clinics will
[[Page 18544]]
not protect our children from. But we are going to dig our heads in the
sand, and we are going to ignore it.
The number one cause of cervical cancer is one of them. We now know
that one of those is involved with prostate cancer, the number two
cancer with men. But we are going to ignore that. We are going to keep
doing the same thing. We are going to dumb down to the level of the
lowest possible explanation and rationalize that that is the way to
treat our children.
It is not good enough. No wonder our kids are failing. We are not
expecting enough of them. We are looking the wrong direction.
There is no reason for a parent never to be involved unless incest is
involved. And then, in every State in this country, it is a law that
they have to notify the authorities. Otherwise they go to jail if they
do not notify the authorities.
This has nothing to do with school-based clinics. This has everything
to do with parents, re-empowering parents.
The final point that I would make that my colleagues consider is that
every one of us has told a lie; and when we finally get past that lie
and tell the truth, every one of us feels good about it. When we
confess that lie, there is a great feeling. It is liberating. We have
told the truth, that burden we are carrying.
When we enable our children to be deceptive, we lessen their
potential for the future. We should not be involved in that. We should
be enabling them to reconcile with their parents, not become deceptive
partners in alienating the children from their parents.
For goodness sakes, let us really think about children.
I know we are going to have the debate on abortion and pro-life; but
as we solve this problem, let us empower parents to do the right thing,
let us encourage the positive and discourage the negative, let us go
for reconciliation between children and parents.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express to my colleagues my
great concern with this motion to instruct conferees.
First, it should be clear that this motion is about contraception,
not abortion. Like other contraceptives, emergency contraception can
prevent--but not terminate--a pregnancy. Access to contraception can be
a vital part of local efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy and reduce
the number of abortions--a goal shared by members on both sides of the
aisle.
Second, this motion restricts the decision of local leaders. School-
based clinics vary greatly across the country, and the services that
they provide reflect community standards, reflected by local advisory
boards made up of parents, young adults, community representatives and
youth family organizations.
Emergency contraception may not be an appropriate or advisable option
for many schoolbased clinics. It may be, however, both necessary and
appropriate for some clinics and some communities. For many low-income,
uninsured students, school-based health clinics provide their only
access to necessary health care. Restricting contraceptive options only
for these low-income students is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I am ashamed to say that our country has more unintended
teen pregnancies than any other industrialized country in the world. I
challenge my colleagues to reject election-year politics and work with
me toward policies that prevent unintended pregnancies before the
morning after.
As for me, I will redouble my efforts to help our kids and their
parents get the information they need about the consequences and costs
of unintended pregnancy and the benefits of abstinence, good
reproductive health and smart choices.
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to
instruct conferees. It is not the business of the federal government to
provide any form of birth control to minors. Furthermore, to do this
without parental consent and involvement is especially egregious.
When Senator Helms asked the Congressional Research Service to
investigate whether ``Morning-After'' pills were distributed to minors
at school clinics, CRS found that 180 schools did precisely this.
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, violative of parental rights, and
immoral.
It is always instructive to closely examine the rhetoric of the pro-
abortion movement. And make no mistake, the pro-abortion movement
supports providing the ``Morning-After'' pill to minors through school
based clinics.
So, lets examine their rhetoric. The ``Morning-After'' pill often can
result in causing an abortion of a human child in its earliest stages.
Yet, the pro-abortion side will consistently argue that this is not an
abortion. They will claim that this is just normal birth control. What
hogwash.
Anyone can tell you that ``birth control'' occurs before a baby is
conceived. Otherwise we would happily call abortion ``birth control.''
It's not. It never has been. And, it never will be.
Mr. Speaker, our Founders saw fit to say that government exists to
secure ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'' for its
citizens. Let us not execute the smallest of our citizens by providing
these misnamed abortifacient pills to our minors.
Vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 250,
nays 170, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 481]
YEAS--250
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neal
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--170
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
[[Page 18545]]
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--12
Campbell
Dooley
Franks (NJ)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Murtha
Nethercutt
Vento
Wise
{time} 1832
Ms. RIVERS, Mr. GIBBONS, and Mr. DINGELL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. POMEROY and Mrs. FOWLER changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3986,
ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY OF WATER EXCHANGE IN LIEU OF
ELECTRIFICATION OF CHANDLER PUMPING PLANT AT PROSSER DIVERSION DAM,
WASHINGTON
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (during consideration of the motion to
instruct conferees on H.R. 4577), from the Committee on Rules,
submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 106-866) on the resolution (H.
Res. 581) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3986) to
provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange
in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser
Diversion Dam, Washington, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4945, SMALL
BUSINESS COMPETITION PRESERVATION ACT OF 2000
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington (during consideration of the motion to
instruct conferees on H.R. 4577), from the Committee on Rules,
submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 106-867) on the resolution (H.
Res. 582) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4945) to amend
the Small Business Act to strengthen existing protections for small
business participation in the Federal procurement contracting process,
and for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 4213
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 4213.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
____________________
CHINESE GOVERNMENT IMPRISONS 80-YEAR-OLD CATHOLIC BISHOP
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous
material.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today after reading today's editorial
from the Washington Post titled ``Catholic `Criminals' in China,'' that
describes how the Chinese Government has rearrested an 81-year-old
Roman Catholic bishop, Bishop Zeng. Here is a picture of Bishop Zeng in
prison garb. And the Senate today is ready to grant MFN to China.
The bishop has spent most of his life in a Chinese prison, imprisoned
through labor camps. He was imprisoned in 1958, was let out of jail for
1 month, then rearrested and imprisoned until 1991. In 1996, in his
late 70s, he was rearrested again and put in a forced labor camp.
Imagine being in a forced labor camp at 70 and 80 years of age.
A Chinese leader affiliated with the Chinese Government's recent
public relations blitz said, ``American voters should get to know us.''
Indeed, American people, this Congress, the Clinton administration and
the next administration must know the true character of the Chinese
Government is one that throws 80-year-old Catholic bishops into forced
labor camps.
Does anyone in the Clinton administration care? Does the Congress
care? Does anyone care?
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2000]
Catholic `Criminals' in China
The Communist regime in China has identified and rooted out
another enemy of the state: 81-year-old Catholic Bishop Zeng
Jingmu. The Cardinal Kung Foundation, a U.S.-based advocate
for the Roman Catholic Church and its estimated 10 million
followers in China, reports that Bishop Zeng was nabbed last
Thursday. An embassy spokesman here said he couldn't comment.
This wouldn't be a first for this apparently dangerous
cleric. He was imprisoned for a quarter-century beginning in
1958. In 1983, the Communists let him out--for one month.
Then they jailed him for another eight years, until 1991. In
1996--at the age of 76--he was sentenced to three years of
forced labor and reeducation. When he was released with six
months still to run on that sentence, in 1998, the Clinton
administration trumpeted the news as ``further evidence that
the president's policy of engagement works.'' The fatuousness
of that statement must be especially clear to the bishop from
his current jail cell.
Bishop Zeng has been guilty of a single crime all along: He
is a Catholic believer. He refuses to submit to Communist
atheism or to the control of the Catholic Patriotic
Association, an alternative ``church'' created by the regime
that does not recognize the primacy of the pope. China's
government is willing to tolerate some religious expression
as long as it is dictated by the government. Anyone who will
not submit--whether spiritual movements such as Falun Gong,
evangelical Protestant churches, Tibetan monasteries or the
real Catholic Church--is subject to ``repression and abuse,''
the State Department said in its recent report on
international religious freedom. The admirably
straightforward report noted that respect for religious
freedom ``deteriorated markedly'' in China during the past
year. ``Some places of worship were destroyed,'' it said.
``Leaders of unauthorized groups are often the targets of
harassment, interrogations, detention and physical abuse.''
Bishop Zeng is a man of uncommon courage, but his fate in
China is sadly common. Three days before his arrest, Father
Ye Gong Feng, 82, was arrested and ``tortured to
unconsciousness,'' the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports. It
took 70 policemen to perform that operation. Father Lin
Rengui of Fujian province ``was beaten so savagely that he
vomited blood.'' Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners have
been arrested during the past year; the State Department
cites ``credible reports'' that at least 24 have died while
in police custody.
Last month the Chinese government launched a public
relations mission to the United States, dispatching exhibits,
performers and lecturers--on the subject of religious
freedom, among others--on a three-week charm offensive.
``American voters should get to know us,'' said the Chinese
functionary in charge. The U.S. ambassador to China, Joseph
Prueher, appeared at a
[[Page 18546]]
joint new conference announcing the mission, and a number of
U.S. business executives--from Boeing, Time Warner and
elsewhere--happily sponsored it. We have nothing against
goodwill cultural exchanges, but Chinese and American
officials should not delude themselves that U.S. suspicions
are caused chiefly by prejudice or lack of understanding. On
the contrary, Americans understand just fine what kind of
government throws 81-year-old clerics into jail.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). 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.
____________________
CHINESE GOVERNMENT JAILED ZENG JINGMU
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Madam Speaker, last week, as the other body was beginning
its final dash toward passage of the China trade deal, the Chinese
Government jailed yet another dangerous agitator, his name is Zeng
Jingmu. He is 81 years of age. He is a Catholic bishop, and it is not
the first time Bishop Zeng has been jailed.
He was first imprisoned 42 years ago. In 1983, he was set free for
about 30 days. Then they sent him to prison for 8 more years. In 1996,
he was imprisoned once again, and he was sentenced to 3 years of forced
labor.
At the time, Bishop Zeng was 76 years of age.
Why does the Chinese Government feel such bitter enmity toward the
bishop? What crime did this 81-year-old man commit? Teaching the
gospel.
Madam Speaker, none of this should come as a surprise to us. A
special commission appointed by the White House and this Congress found
that religious persecution is business as usual in today's China.
Over the course of this year's trade debate, advocates of normalizing
trade with China repeatedly claimed it would strengthen the cause for
human rights. But the jailing of Bishop Zeng tells us that if expanding
trade improves human rights, someone forgot to tell the Chinese
Government.
In this Capitol, the citadel of liberty, we talk a lot about the rule
of law, and we talk a lot about freedom, Madam Speaker. Yet when the
topic turns to China, it seems the only law that matters is the law of
supply and demand, and the only freedom that counts is the freedom to
make a quick buck.
Today an 81-year-old priest sits in a Chinese prison cell, and I know
that God will hear his prayers, I only ask why this government cannot.
____________________
REDUCING NATIONAL DEBT AND ANNUAL INTEREST RATES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. METCALF. Madam Speaker, this Nation can reduce our national debt
by $600 billion and reduce our annual interest payments by $30 billion
with no harm to anyone nor to any program. That sounds too good to be
true, but it is true.
Most people have little knowledge of how money systems work and are
not aware that an honest money system would result in great savings for
the people. We really can cut the national debt by $600 billion and
reduce our Federal interest payments by $30 billion a year. How? By
merely issuing our own United States Treasury currency.
It is an undisputable fact that the Federal Reserve notes, that is,
our circulating currency today, are issued by the Federal Reserve in
response to interest-bearing debt instruments. Thus we indirectly pay
interest on our paper money in circulation. Actually, we pay interest
on the bonds that ``back'' our paper money, the Federal Reserve notes.
This unnecessary cost is about $100 per person per year in our country.
Why are our citizens paying $100 per person each year to rent the
Federal Reserve's paper money when the United States Treasury could
issue the paper money exactly as it issues our coins? The coins are
minted by the Treasury and essentially sent into circulation at face
value. The Treasury will make a profit of $880 million this year from
the issue of 1 billion new gold-colored dollar coins.
If we use the same method of issue for our paper money as we do for
our coins, the Treasury would realize a profit on the bills sufficient
to reduce the national debt by $600 billion and reduce annual interest
payments by $30 billion. Federal Reserve notes are officially
liabilities of the Federal Reserve, and over $600 billion in U.S. bonds
is held by the Federal Reserve as backing for these notes.
The Federal Reserve collects interest on these bonds from the U.S.
Government and then returns most of it to the U.S. Treasury. So it is a
tax on our money that goes to the United States Treasury, a tax on our
money in circulation.
There is a simple and inexpensive way to convert this costly,
illogical, convoluted system to a logical system, which pays no
interest directly or indirectly on our money in circulation. Congress
simply needs to pass a law requiring the Nation's Treasury to print and
issue United States currency in the same denominations and in the same
amounts as the present Federal Reserve notes. Because the new U.S.
currency would be issued into circulation through the banks to replace
or in exchange for the Federal Reserve notes, there would be no change
in the money supply.
The plan would remove the liability of the Federal Reserve by
returning to the Fed, the Federal Reserve notes in exchange for the
$600 billion in interest-bearing bonds now held by the Fed, thus
reducing the national debt by $600 billion.
The Nation would thus have a circulating currency, the United States
Treasury currency, or U.S. notes, bearing neither debt nor interest.
The national debt would be reduced by $600 billion and annual
interest payments reduced by over $30 billion. The easiest way we can
save our taxpayers $30 billion each year is to issue our own U.S.
Treasury money.
____________________
{time} 1845
HONORING THE MEMORY OF BILL ASKEW
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory and the
life of Reverend William F. Askew, a man whose life touched so many in
southwest Missouri and around the world because of his dedication to
serving others.
In World War II, the Marine Corps taught him that duty, honor,
country was more than a motto. It was a commitment to the ideas that he
instilled in others as a drill sergeant and a commitment that followed
him all his days.
Coming back from the war and beginning a career in civilian
commercial radio, he accepted Christ; and his faith became the driving
center of his life. Service to others was natural for Bill Askew. He
was a founding pastor of the Arlington Heights Baptist Church in
Jacksonville, Florida; but he also found time to serve as the chaplain
of the Duval County Fire Department. He sought opportunities to serve
the spiritual and emotional needs of firemen from around Florida and
the victims of the fires they fought.
Service to others was his focus when he moved his wife, Doris, and
seven of their nine children to Springfield, Missouri, in 1968, to help
found the area's first Christian radio station. He served as general
manager of KWFC serving portions of four States until his death last
week.
Despite the responsibilities he faced in running a radio station, he
also committed to serving residents of northern Greene County as the
pastor of the Noble Hill Baptist Church, often traveling back roads to
meet the needs of a large rural area as well as those of the
surrounding communities.
Service was the keynote of his life, whether he was helping form the
North
[[Page 18547]]
Springfield Betterment Association or teaching classes at Baptist Bible
College. Bill, or ``Mr. A'' as many of his friends called him, was
dedicated to making a difference in the lives of those he served. Some
of those now serve as missionaries, as business leaders, government
officials; and they reflect his inspiration for their lives. He was a
confidant, a mentor, an advisor, a friend to so many; and he often did
it with so little fanfare.
Bill Askew was a family man. Even though he gave much to others, he
was happiest when surrounded by his children, his grandchildren and his
great grandchildren. He shared their joys and comforted their pain.
Madam Speaker, with his passing, southwest Missouri has lost a great
spiritual and civic leader, a friend and a guiding force for many in
our community. I ask that God bless him and his family as we share in
their loss.
____________________
THE VETERANS ORAL HISTORY PROJECT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, Abraham Lincoln, during his address at
Gettysburg, stated that the world will little note, nor long remember
what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. Inspired
by those words, as well as the words from countless number of veterans
back in my own congressional district and across the country, I was
motivated to draft and also introduce today, with my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the Veterans
Oral History Project, which will direct the Library of Congress to
establish a national archives for the collection and preservation of
our veterans' oral history through videotape testimony.
Now that we have the technological means to do so, I think this is a
worthwhile investment for this country to make. It would be a gift from
our veterans which will keep on giving not only today but tomorrow, and
God willing, for generations and centuries to come.
There is a sense of urgency in introducing this bill which has, I am
pleased to report, received wide bipartisan support, with a majority of
the Members in the House of Representatives willing to be original
sponsors of this legislation. Senator Max Cleland will be introducing
the bill in the United States Senate this week as well.
There is a sense of urgency, given the fact that we have roughly 19
million veterans still living in this country today, of which 3,400 are
from the First World War, roughly 6 million are still living from the
Second World War and they are passing away by a rate of roughly 1,500 a
day.
If we are to truly honor our veterans, then I think this Nation needs
to make every conceivable effort to try to preserve their memory.
I am struck by the number of people who I have encountered who have
regrets today because they did not take out the family video camera and
videotape their grandmother or grandparent or father or mother and talk
to them about their years of serving our country and some of the great
conflicts that we went through as a Nation during the course of the
20th century.
I envision now, with this project, with the cooperation of a lot of
people across the country, including family members, friends,
neighbors, the VFW and American Legion halls, school students, class
projects, who could go out and interview these veterans on videotape, I
envision that a child in the 21st or 22nd century will be able to call
up on the Internet the testimony of their great, great, great,
grandfather or grandmother and in their own words listen to their
experience during the Second World War or Korea or Vietnam or the Gulf
War, for instance.
This is something that we can do with relative ease. The Library of
Congress is already involved in a similar type of project with the
American Folk Life Center where they are videotaping community leaders
around the country as to how they would like their communities to be
remembered 100 or 200 years from now. They are also engaged on a
comprehensive project to digitize the information that they are
collecting; and what this project would call for is for the Library of
Congress and the talent and expertise that they have there to index the
videotape and digitize that and make it available to families and to
anyone who wants access to this very important piece of our Nation's
history.
When I have been working on this project, I have had a chance to
think of many of the veterans who I have encountered back home, people
like Glenn Averbeck, from my congressional district who served in Korea
and was part of the occupation force in Japan after the Second World
War. I think of Don Bruns, a former POW during the Second World War.
One story Don likes to tell is when he bailed out of a shrapnel-ridden
B17 over the skies of Germany and he landed in a patch of kohlrabi. To
this day, he cannot stand the sight or smell of that vegetable; but
there is more to Don's story as he tells of the days of hunger in the
stalag, days of boredom, days of anxiety and days when his captured
comrades drifted towards insanity waiting for the day when they would
be liberated or the day when they would escape.
These are the stories that we need to capture, in Don's words, and
preserve for history's sake.
When I talk about the Veterans Oral History Project, I think of
William Ehernman, a World War II vet shot down in the Pacific. William
tells of flying cover for PT boats in the Pacific, including flying
cover for one young commander, a Naval officer by the name of John F.
Kennedy. I also think of Golden Barritt, a World War I veteran from my
district who died just last summer. It is a shame that we did not get
Golden's oral history from the Great War. He almost reached his 100
birthday, and just last year he received a medal from the government of
France for his participation in the First World War.
I also think of my father, who I did get a chance to videotape who
served in the Army; my uncle who served during the Second World War;
and also my younger brother who recently served during the Gulf War.
So I am encouraged by the bipartisan support that many of my
colleagues have given for this legislation, and I would encourage this
House to move the legislation quickly since time is of the essence.
____________________
THE HIGH PRICE OF GASOLINE DUE TO TAXATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, the top headline in the Washington Post
late last week said: ``Oil Prices Hit Ten Year High.'' Yet, as I drove
into work this morning, the CBS Radio National News reported that oil
prices had gone up another 90 cents a barrel.
In last Friday's Washington Times, a column in the editorial
commentary pages carried the headline, ``Gassed and Going Up.''
This column, written by two economists, said taxes take 43 cents of
every gallon and that Federal regulations add great additional costs
and have prevented any new refinery from being built for 25 years. They
wrote, quote, ``The economy will suffer if the price of oil remains
high. Our analysis shows that high oil prices will cost the average
family of four more than $1,300; decrease consumer spending by nearly
$80 billion and cost almost 500,000 jobs,'' unquote.
Last Friday night on the CNN Moneyline program, one leading stock
analyst said higher oil prices are leading us into a recession and much
lower stock prices. The stock market fell 278 points Friday and Monday,
mainly due to fears about higher oil prices.
One of the things I do in the House is chair the Subcommittee on
Aviation. A few months ago, the Air Transport Association told me that
each one penny increase in jet fuel costs the airlines $200 million.
Last week, the Christian Science Monitor newspaper had a front page
story about protests and some near
[[Page 18548]]
riots in Britain and throughout Europe over high gas prices.
Sometimes we are told that we are lucky because we are paying much
less for gas than the Europeans. Well, the reason is that our socialism
is not as far along as theirs is. In Europe, taxes make up as much as
80 percent of the cost of gas. They pay the same world oil price as we
do. They simply have more big government than we do, and we have too
much.
Other segments of our economy will be hurt badly besides aviation if
these oil prices go up even more, as is being predicted. Truckers are
already feeling the pinch and are leading the protests in Europe.
Agriculture and tourism and those who heat their homes with home
heating oil will be greatly affected.
Who do we have to thank for this situation? Well, in this country
those who like higher gas prices should write the White House and thank
the President. The President vetoed legislation in 1995 which would
have allowed production of oil in one tiny 2,000 to 3,000-acre part of
the coastal plain of Alaska. The U.S. Geologic Survey has said there is
approximately 16 to 19 billion barrels of oil there, equal to 30 years
of Saudi oil. The President also signed an executive order placing 80
percent of the U.S. outercontinental shelf off-limits for oil
production, and this is billions more barrels.
I heard on the radio last week that oil is the most plentiful liquid
in the world after saltwater. Even with increased usage, we have
hundreds of years worth of oil available. Yet because this
administration is controlled by wealthy environmental extremists, we
cannot produce more oil in this country. The environmentalists even
want gas to go much higher so everyone but them will have to drive
less.
They do not seem to care that the people they hurt the most are
lower-income and working families. Most environmental extremists seem
to come from wealthy families who are not hurt when prices go up and
jobs are destroyed. Then, too, some of these environmental groups
probably receive big contributions from the oil companies, the shipping
companies, the OPEC countries and others who get rich if we do not
produce more U.S. oil.
Due to EPA and other Federal regulations, I am told that 36 U.S. oil
refineries have closed just since 1980. Because this administration is
held captive by environmental extremists, our present oil policy
consists of nothing more than to beg the OPEC countries.
Well, we need to do more than beg. We endanger not only our own
economy but also our national security by being too dependent on
foreign oil. The price of oil could be reduced dramatically if the
President would tell OPEC that we are going to produce more oil
domestically and really mean it. He needs also to tell the OPEC
countries that their foreign aid will be ended if they continue to
gouge us on oil prices. I have co-sponsored the bill of the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) to cut off IMF loans to OPEC countries
which raise their oil prices, but the liberals in Congress will
probably not let us pass this bill.
Begging OPEC will get us nowhere. We need strong leadership, Madam
Speaker, from the White House; but we will not get it. We also need to
wake up and realize that the Sierra Club and some of these other
environmental groups have now gone so far to the left that they make
even socialists look conservative.
____________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Madam Speaker, how much is enough? The buzz in
Washington is that the President is spoiling for one last fight with
Congress over the budget. In fact, White House aides have practically
encouraged suspicion that they would like a government shutdown to
embarrass Republicans and boost Democratic prospects in the upcoming
elections. Rumors of a government shutdown are greatly exaggerated.
Congressional leaders are working in good faith to ensure principled
compromise with the President on a budget that serves the national
interest.
Under our proposal, over $600 billion of publicly held debt would be
paid down by the end of next year. It would be eliminated by the year
2013. Of course, reduced debt means lower interest rates on credit
cards and home mortgages for millions of American families.
The GOP debt reduction plan would also save an average of $4,064 for
every American household in lower interest rates over the next 10
years. Since early last year, Congress has made its spending priorities
very clear. As a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I helped
craft a budget for next year in which Federal spending would grow at a
rate slower than the average family budget. This budget passed the
House and Senate. It serves as the blueprint for congressional spending
bills this year.
The President, on the other hand, will not say just how many billions
of dollars he wants to spend. He submitted one plan in January, which
was soundly rejected even by members of his own party. Speaking for
congressional Democrats during the debate on the President's proposal
earlier this year, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), a
Democratic, confessed on the House floor, and I quote, ``We did not
propose the President's budget. We do not want any part of the
President's budget,'' closed quote.
{time} 1900
Indeed. The House Democrats offered four substitute budget plans this
year. Not one of them was the President's budget plan. It never even
got a vote.
Since that time, the President's spending plans have been a moving
target. He is currently asking for between $20 billion and $30 billion
more than he asked for in January, though he cannot say how much or
exactly what he needs it for. If we cannot move forward on lowering and
simplifying taxes, let us at least not go backwards on spending. A
balanced budget with the surplus devoted largely to paying down debt
would make perfect sense under these circumstances.
Last week, in an effort to reach agreement on total spending,
congressional leaders went to the White House to propose reserving 90
percent of next year's surplus for reducing the national debt. This
compromise would provide some limited room for additional spending,
while paying down billions more dollars of the Federal debt and keeping
a lid on Federal spending.
This should have been an attractive idea to the President. He claimed
in the last few weeks that fidelity to the national debt caused him to
veto the bills eliminating the marriage tax penalty and the death tax
which Congress sent to the White House. But, the President seems
decidedly cool toward the 90 percent debt reduction plan. Quote:
``Whether we can do it,'' that is, use 90 percent of the surplus to pay
down debt ``depends on what the various spending commitments are,'' the
President said earlier to the New York Times.
So let us be clear. When presented with a choice of more spending or
paying down the national debt, the President chose more spending.
Ultimately, the budget debate comes down to a very simple question:
how much is enough? I believe that $1.68 trillion should be more than
enough to fund the legitimate needs of the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, it is still not clear how much more the President thinks
is necessary. Congress is committed to working in good faith with the
President to reach a reasonable budget compromise. The question is, is
he?
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR LAUTENBERG
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to join the New
Jersey congressional delegation and my colleagues in paying tribute to
Senator Frank Lautenberg. This legislation which we passed earlier in
the day
[[Page 18549]]
to name the post office and courthouse at Federal Square in Newark
after the Senator is just one small way to honor a man who has done so
much for New Jersey and the Nation. I will be delighted to support it
and I am pleased to see the House take it up.
Frank Lautenberg, born into an immigrant family residing in Paterson,
New Jersey, Frank and his family dealt with numerous obstacles and
struggles that were common experiences for many Americans during the
1920s. After moving from city to city, the Lautenbergs and Lautenberg's
father found work at the renowned silk mills in Paterson. His father
was soon able to eke out a living to support his family. Sadly, just as
Frank was on the brink of manhood, he lost his father to cancer.
Upon his graduation from Nutley High School, Frank Lautenberg
enlisted and served in the Army's Signal Corps in Europe during World
War II. After serving his country, he attended the prestigious Columbia
University on the GI Bill where he studied economics.
With his eyes set on the innovations of the future, Lautenberg,
accompanied by two childhood friends, founded Automatic Data
Processing, a payroll services company. ADP quickly rose up the ladder
of business and emerged as one of the world's largest computing service
companies with over 33,000 people on its payroll.
Since his election to the Senate in 1982, Frank Lautenberg has given
back to the State of New Jersey and our Nation throughout his
senatorial career. By writing laws that established age 21 as the
national drinking age, by banning smoking on airplanes and forbidding
domestic violence abusers from owning guns, Lautenberg insured the
health and security of our families.
As a strong environmental leader, Frank Lautenberg sought to protect
all aspects of our beautiful environment, mainly through the Superfund
program to clean up toxic waste sites, the clean air and safe drinking
water acts, and the Pets on Planes acts. With the best interests of New
Jersey and New Jersey's beaches in mind, Frank Lautenberg wrote
legislation that would ban ocean dumping of sewage, rid our beaches of
garbage, control medical waste, and stop oil drilling off our famed
Jersey shore.
Standing as an example of an American success story, Frank Lautenberg
has dedicated 18 years of his career to public service here in the
United States Capitol and in New Jersey. And, despite his retirement,
Senator Lautenberg will always be remembered for his many contributions
made to better the lives of millions of Americans. I am sure he will
continue to dedicate himself to improving lives, to healing the world.
On a more personal note, no one has done more to help me as a new
member of the New Jersey congressional delegation than Senator Frank
Lautenberg. His advice, guidance and assistance are things that I will
always remember with gratitude.
____________________
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4919, DEFENSE AND SECURITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF
2000
Mr. GOODLING submitted the following conference report and statement
on the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and
the Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to certain defense and
security assistance provisions under those acts, to authorize the
transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries, and for other
purposes:
Conference Report (H. Rept. 106-868)
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4919), to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the
Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to certain
defense and security assistance provisions under those Acts,
to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign
countries, and for other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the
amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Security
Assistance Act of 2000''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
TITLE I--MILITARY AND RELATED ASSISTANCE
Subtitle A--Foreign Military Sales and Financing Authorities
Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Requirements relating to country exemptions for licensing of
defense items for export to foreign countries.
Subtitle B--Stockpiling of Defense Articles for Foreign Countries
Sec. 111. Additions to United States war reserve stockpiles for allies.
Sec. 112. Transfer of certain obsolete or surplus defense articles in
the war reserve stockpiles for allies to Israel.
Subtitle C--Other Assistance
Sec. 121. Defense drawdown special authorities.
Sec. 122. Increased authority for the transport of excess defense
articles.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Additional requirements.
TITLE III--NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL ASSISTANCE
Sec. 301. Nonproliferation and export control assistance.
Sec. 302. Nonproliferation and export control training in the United
States.
Sec. 303. Science and technology centers.
Sec. 304. Trial transit program.
Sec. 305. Exception to authority to conduct inspections under the
Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998.
TITLE IV--ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE
Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE V--INTEGRATED SECURITY ASSISTANCE PLANNING
Subtitle A--Establishment of a National Security Assistance Strategy
Sec. 501. National Security Assistance Strategy.
Subtitle B--Allocations for Certain Countries
Sec. 511. Security assistance for new NATO members.
Sec. 512. Increased training assistance for Greece and Turkey.
Sec. 513. Assistance for Israel.
Sec. 514. Assistance for Egypt.
Sec. 515. Security assistance for certain countries.
Sec. 516. Border security and territorial independence.
TITLE VI--TRANSFERS OF NAVAL VESSELS
Sec. 601. Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign
countries.
Sec. 602. Inapplicability of aggregate annual limitation on value of
transferred excess defense articles.
Sec. 603. Costs of transfers.
Sec. 604. Conditions relating to combined lease-sale transfers.
Sec. 605. Funding of certain costs of transfers.
Sec. 606. Repair and refurbishment in United States shipyards.
Sec. 607. Sense of Congress regarding transfer of naval vessels on a
grant basis.
Sec. 608. Expiration of authority.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Utilization of defense articles and defense services.
Sec. 702. Annual military assistance report.
Sec. 703. Report on government-to-government arms sales end-use
monitoring program.
Sec. 704. MTCR report transmittals.
Sec. 705. Stinger missiles in the Persian Gulf region.
Sec. 706. Sense of Congress regarding excess defense articles.
Sec. 707. Excess defense articles for Mongolia.
Sec. 708. Space cooperation with Russian persons.
Sec. 709. Sense of Congress relating to military equipment for the
Philippines.
Sec. 710. Waiver of certain costs.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``appropriate committees of
Congress'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the
House of Representatives.
TITLE I--MILITARY AND RELATED ASSISTANCE
Subtitle A--Foreign Military Sales and Financing Authorities
SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated for grant
assistance under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. 2763) and for the subsidy cost, as defined in
section 502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of
direct loans under such section $3,550,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001 and $3,627,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
SEC. 102. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO COUNTRY EXEMPTIONS FOR
LICENSING OF DEFENSE ITEMS FOR EXPORT TO
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
(a) Requirements of Exemption.--Section 38 of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
[[Page 18550]]
``(j) Requirements Relating to Country Exemptions for
Licensing of Defense Items for Export to Foreign Countries.--
``(1) Requirement for bilateral agreement.--
``(A) In general.--The President may utilize the regulatory
or other authority pursuant to this Act to exempt a foreign
country from the licensing requirements of this Act with
respect to exports of defense items only if the United States
Government has concluded a binding bilateral agreement with
the foreign country. Such agreement shall--
``(i) meet the requirements set forth in paragraph (2); and
``(ii) be implemented by the United States and the foreign
country in a manner that is legally-binding under their
domestic laws.
``(B) Exception.--The requirement to conclude a bilateral
agreement in accordance with subparagraph (A) shall not apply
with respect to an exemption for Canada from the licensing
requirements of this Act for the export of defense items.
``(2) Requirements of bilateral agreement.--A bilateral
agreement referred to paragraph (1)--
``(A) shall, at a minimum, require the foreign country, as
necessary, to revise its policies and practices, and
promulgate or enact necessary modifications to its laws and
regulations to establish an export control regime that is at
least comparable to United States law, regulation, and policy
requiring--
``(i) conditions on the handling of all United States-
origin defense items exported to the foreign country,
including prior written United States Government approval for
any reexports to third countries;
``(ii) end-use and retransfer control commitments,
including securing binding end-use and retransfer control
commitments from all end-users, including such documentation
as is needed in order to ensure compliance and enforcement,
with respect to such United States-origin defense items;
``(iii) establishment of a procedure comparable to a
`watchlist' (if such a watchlist does not exist) and full
cooperation with United States Government law enforcement
agencies to allow for sharing of export and import
documentation and background information on foreign
businesses and individuals employed by or otherwise connected
to those businesses; and
``(iv) establishment of a list of controlled defense items
to ensure coverage of those items to be exported under the
exemption; and
``(B) should, at a minimum, require the foreign country, as
necessary, to revise its policies and practices, and
promulgate or enact necessary modifications to its laws and
regulations to establish an export control regime that is at
least comparable to United States law, regulation, and policy
regarding--
``(i) controls on the export of tangible or intangible
technology, including via fax, phone, and electronic media;
``(ii) appropriate controls on unclassified information
relating to defense items exported to foreign nationals;
``(iii) controls on international arms trafficking and
brokering;
``(iv) cooperation with United States Government agencies,
including intelligence agencies, to combat efforts by third
countries to acquire defense items, the export of which to
such countries would not be authorized pursuant to the export
control regimes of the foreign country and the United States;
and
``(v) violations of export control laws, and penalties for
such violations.
``(3) Advance certification.--Not less than 30 days before
authorizing an exemption for a foreign country from the
licensing requirements of this Act for the export of defense
items, the President shall transmit to the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a
certification that--
``(A) the United States has entered into a bilateral
agreement with that foreign country satisfying all
requirements set forth in paragraph (2);
``(B) the foreign country has promulgated or enacted all
necessary modifications to its laws and regulations to comply
with its obligations under the bilateral agreement with the
United States; and
``(C) the appropriate congressional committees will
continue to receive notifications pursuant to the
authorities, procedures, and practices of section 36 of this
Act for defense exports to a foreign country to which that
section would apply and without regard to any form of defense
export licensing exemption otherwise available for that
country.
``(4) Definitions.--In this section:
``(A) Defense items.--The term `defense items' means
defense articles, defense services, and related technical
data.
``(B) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
`appropriate congressional committees' means--
``(i) the Committee on International Relations and the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives;
and
``(ii) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate.''.
(b) Notification of Exemption.--Section 38(f) of the Arms
Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(f)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The President may not authorize an exemption for a
foreign country from the licensing requirements of this Act
for the export of defense items under subsection (j) or any
other provision of this Act until 30 days after the date on
which the President has transmitted to the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate a
notification that includes--
``(A) a description of the scope of the exemption,
including a detailed summary of the defense articles, defense
services, and related technical data covered by the
exemption; and
``(B) a determination by the Attorney General that the
bilateral agreement concluded under subsection (j) requires
the compilation and maintenance of sufficient documentation
relating to the export of United States defense articles,
defense services, and related technical data to facilitate
law enforcement efforts to detect, prevent, and prosecute
criminal violations of any provision of this Act, including
the efforts on the part of countries and factions engaged in
international terrorism to illicitly acquire sophisticated
United States defense items.
``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to an
exemption for Canada from the licensing requirements of this
Act for the export of defense items.''.
(c) Exports of Commercial Communications Satellites.--
(1) Amendment of the arms export control act.--Section
36(c)(2) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2776(c)(2)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) in the case of a license for an export of a
commercial communications satellite for launch from, and by
nationals of, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, or Kazakhstan,
shall not be issued until at least 15 calendar days after the
Congress receives such certification, and shall not be issued
then if the Congress, within that 15-day period, enacts a
joint resolution prohibiting the proposed export; and''.
(2) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the appropriate committees of Congress and the appropriate
agencies of the United States Government should review the
commodity jurisdiction of United States commercial
communications satellites.
(d) Sense of Congress on Submission to the Senate of
Certain Agreements as Treaties.--It is the sense of Congress
that, prior to amending the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations, the Secretary of State should consult with the
appropriate committees of Congress for the purpose of
determining whether certain agreements regarding defense
trade with the United Kingdom and Australia should be
submitted to the Senate as treaties.
Subtitle B--Stockpiling of Defense Articles for Foreign Countries
SEC. 111. ADDITIONS TO UNITED STATES WAR RESERVE STOCKPILES
FOR ALLIES.
Section 514(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321h(b)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2)(A) The value of such additions to stockpiles of
defense articles in foreign countries shall not exceed
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
``(B) Of the amount specified in subparagraph (A), not more
than $50,000,000 may be made available for stockpiles in the
Republic of Korea.''.
SEC. 112. TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE OR SURPLUS DEFENSE
ARTICLES IN THE WAR RESERVE STOCKPILES FOR
ALLIES TO ISRAEL.
(a) Transfers to Israel.--
(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h), the President is
authorized to transfer to Israel, in return for concessions
to be negotiated by the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, any or all of the
items described in paragraph (2).
(2) Items covered.--The items referred to in paragraph (1)
are munitions, equipment, and material such as armor,
artillery, automatic weapons ammunition, and missiles that--
(A) are obsolete or surplus items;
(B) are in the inventory of the Department of Defense;
(C) are intended for use as reserve stocks for Israel; and
(D) as of the date of the enactment of this Act, are
located in a stockpile in Israel.
(b) Concessions.--The value of concessions negotiated
pursuant to subsection (a) shall be at least equal to the
fair market value of the items transferred. The concessions
may include cash compensation, services, waiver of charges
otherwise payable by the United States, and other items of
value.
(c) Advance Notification of Transfer.--Not less than 30
days before making a transfer under the authority of this
section, the President shall transmit to the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives a
notification of the proposed transfer. The notification shall
identify the items to be transferred and the concessions to
be received.
(d) Expiration of Authority.--No transfer may be made under
the authority of this section 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Subtitle C--Other Assistance
SEC. 121. DEFENSE DRAWDOWN SPECIAL AUTHORITIES.
(a) Emergency Drawdown.--Section 506(a)(2)(B) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of
[[Page 18551]]
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(2)(B)) is amended by striking
``$150,000,000'' and inserting ``$200,000,000''.
(b) Additional Drawdown.--Section 506(a)(2)(A)(i) of such
Act (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(2)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (II); and
(2) by striking subclause (III) and inserting the
following:
``(III) chapter 8 of part II (relating to antiterrorism
assistance);
``(IV) chapter 9 of part II (relating to nonproliferation
assistance); or
``(V) the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962;
or''.
SEC. 122. INCREASED AUTHORITY FOR THE TRANSPORT OF EXCESS
DEFENSE ARTICLES.
Section 516(e)(2)(C) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)(2)(C)) is amended by striking ``25,000''
and inserting ``50,000''.
TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING
SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the President
$55,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $65,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 to carry out chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.).
SEC. 202. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
Chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sections:
``SEC. 547. CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.
``The selection of foreign personnel for training under
this chapter shall be made in consultation with the United
States defense attache to the relevant country.
``SEC. 548. RECORDS REGARDING FOREIGN PARTICIPANTS.
``In order to contribute most effectively to the
development of military professionalism in foreign countries,
the Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain a
database containing records on each foreign military or
defense ministry civilian participant in education and
training activities conducted under this chapter after
December 31, 2000. This record shall include the type of
instruction received, the dates of such instruction, whether
such instruction was completed successfully, and, to the
extent practicable, a record of the person's subsequent
military or defense ministry career and current position and
location.''.
TITLE III--NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL ASSISTANCE
SEC. 301. NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL ASSISTANCE.
Part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new chapter:
``CHAPTER 9--NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL ASSISTANCE
``SEC. 581. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of assistance under this chapter are to halt
the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons, and conventional weaponry, through support of
activities designed--
``(1) to enhance the nonproliferation and export control
capabilities of friendly countries by providing training and
equipment to detect, deter, monitor, interdict, and counter
proliferation;
``(2) to strengthen the bilateral ties of the United States
with friendly governments by offering concrete assistance in
this area of vital national security interest;
``(3) to accomplish the activities and objectives set forth
in sections 503 and 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C.
5853, 5854), without regard to the limitation of those
sections to the independent states of the former Soviet
Union; and
``(4) to promote multilateral activities, including
cooperation with international organizations, relating to
nonproliferation.
``SEC. 582. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law (other than
section 502B or section 620A of this Act), the President is
authorized to furnish, on such terms and conditions as the
President may determine, assistance in order to carry out the
purposes of this chapter. Such assistance may include
training services and the provision of funds, equipment, and
other commodities related to the detection, deterrence,
monitoring, interdiction, and prevention or countering of
proliferation, the establishment of effective
nonproliferation laws and regulations, and the apprehension
of those individuals involved in acts of proliferation of
such weapons.
``SEC. 583. TRANSIT INTERDICTION.
``(a) Allocation of Funds.--In providing assistance under
this chapter, the President should ensure that not less than
one-quarter of the total of such assistance is expended for
the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of friendly
countries to detect and interdict proliferation-related
shipments of cargo that originate from, and are destined for,
other countries.
``(b) Priority to Certain Countries.--Priority shall be
given in the apportionment of the assistance described under
subsection (a) to any friendly country that has been
determined by the Secretary of State to be a country
frequently transited by proliferation-related shipments of
cargo.
``SEC. 584. LIMITATIONS.
``The limitations contained in section 573 (a) and (d) of
this Act shall apply to this chapter.
``SEC. 585. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the President to carry out
this chapter $129,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
$142,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
``(b) Availability of Funds.--Funds made available under
subsection (a) may be used notwithstanding any other
provision of law (other than section 502B or 620A) and shall
remain available until expended.''.
``(c) Treatment of Fiscal Year 2001 Appropriations.--
Amounts made available by the Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2001,
under `Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related
Programs' and `Assistance for the Independent States of the
Former Soviet Union' accounts for the activities described in
subsection (d) shall be considered to be made available
pursuant to this chapter.
``(d) Covered Activities.--The activities referred to in
subsection (c) are--
``(1) assistance under the Nonproliferation and Disarmament
Fund;
``(2) assistance for science and technology centers in the
independent states of the former Soviet Union;
``(3) export control assistance; and
``(4) export control and border assistance under chapter 11
of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2295 et seq.) or the FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801 et
seq.).''.
SEC. 302. NONPROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL TRAINING IN THE
UNITED STATES.
Of the amounts made available for fiscal years 2001 and
2002 under chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961, as added by section 301, $2,000,000 is authorized to
be available each such fiscal year for the purpose of
training and education of personnel from friendly countries
in the United States.
SEC. 303. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS.
(a) Availability of Funds.--Of the amounts made available
for the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 under chapter 9 of part II
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section
301, $59,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $65,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for science
and technology centers in the independent states of the
former Soviet Union.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress, taking
into account section 1132 of H. R. 3427 of the One Hundred
and Sixth Congress (as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of
Public Law 106-113), that the practice of auditing entities
receiving funds authorized under this section should be
significantly expanded and that the burden of supplying
auditors should be spread equitably within the United States
Government.
SEC. 304. TRIAL TRANSIT PROGRAM.
(a) Allocation of Funds.--Of the amount made available for
fiscal year 2001 under chapter 9 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, as added by section 301, $5,000,000 is
authorized to be available to establish a static cargo x-ray
facility in Malta, if the Secretary of State first certifies
to the appropriate committees of Congress that the Government
of Malta has provided adequate assurances that such a
facility will be utilized in connection with random cargo
inspections by Maltese customs officials of container traffic
transiting through the Malta Freeport.
(b) Requirement of Written Assessment.--In the event that a
facility is established in Malta pursuant to subsection (a),
the Secretary of State shall submit a written assessment to
the appropriate committees of Congress not later than 270
days after such a facility commences operation detailing--
(1) statistics on utilization of the facility by Malta;
(2) the contribution made by the facility to United States
nonproliferation and export control objectives; and
(3) the feasibility of establishing comparable facilities
in other countries identified by the Secretary of State
pursuant to section 583 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, as added by section 301.
(c) Treatment of Assistance.--Assistance under this section
shall be considered as assistance under section 583(a) of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to transit
interdiction), as added by section 301.
SEC. 305. EXCEPTION TO AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS UNDER
THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION
ACT OF 1998.
Section 303 of the Chemical Weapons Convention
Implementation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6723) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Exception.--The requirement under subsection
(b)(2)(A) shall not apply to inspections of United States
chemical weapons destruction facilities (as used within the
meaning of part IV(C)(13) of the Verification Annex to the
Convention).''.
TITLE IV--ANTITERRORISM ASSISTANCE
SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 574(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2349aa-4(a)) is amended by striking ``$9,840,000'' and
all that follows through the period and inserting the
following: ``$72,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $73,000,000
for fiscal year 2002.''.
TITLE V--INTEGRATED SECURITY ASSISTANCE PLANNING
Subtitle A--Establishment of a National Security Assistance Strategy
SEC. 501. NATIONAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE STRATEGY.
(a) Multiyear Plan.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act,
[[Page 18552]]
and annually thereafter at the time of submission of the
congressional presentation materials of the foreign
operations appropriations budget request, the Secretary of
State should submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
a plan setting forth a National Security Assistance Strategy
for the United States.
(b) Elements of the Strategy.--The National Security
Assistance Strategy should--
(1) set forth a multi-year plan for security assistance
programs;
(2) be consistent with the National Security Strategy of
the United States;
(3) be coordinated with the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;
(4) be prepared, in consultation with other agencies, as
appropriate;
(5) identify overarching security assistance objectives,
including identification of the role that specific security
assistance programs will play in achieving such objectives;
(6) identify a primary security assistance objective, as
well as specific secondary objectives, for individual
countries;
(7) identify, on a country-by-country basis, how specific
resources will be allocated to accomplish both primary and
secondary objectives;
(8) discuss how specific types of assistance, such as
foreign military financing and international military
education and training, will be combined at the country level
to achieve United States objectives; and
(9) detail, with respect to each of the paragraphs (1)
through (8), how specific types of assistance provided
pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 are coordinated with United States
assistance programs managed by the Department of Defense and
other agencies.
(c) Covered Assistance.--The National Security Assistance
Strategy should cover assistance provided under--
(1) section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2763);
(2) chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.); and
(3) section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321i).
Subtitle B--Allocations for Certain Countries
SEC. 511. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR NEW NATO MEMBERS.
(a) Foreign Military Financing.--Of the amounts made
available for the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 under section 23
of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763), $30,300,000
for fiscal year 2001 and $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 are
authorized to be available on a grant basis for all of the
following countries: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.
(b) Military Education and Training.--Of the amounts made
available for the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to carry out
chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
(22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.), $5,100,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
$7,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be
available for all of the following countries: the Czech
Republic, Hungary, and Poland.
(c) Select Priorities.--In providing assistance under this
section, the President shall give priority to supporting
activities that are consistent with the objectives set forth
in the following conditions of the Senate resolution of
ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty
of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic:
(1) Condition (1)(A)(v), (vi), and (vii), relating to
common threats, the core mission of NATO, and the capacity to
respond to common threats.
(2) Condition (1)(B), relating to the fundamental
importance of collective defense.
(3) Condition (1)(C), relating to defense planning, command
structures, and force goals.
(4) Conditions (4)(B)(i) and (4)(B)(ii), relating to
intelligence matters.
SEC. 512. INCREASED TRAINING ASSISTANCE FOR GREECE AND
TURKEY.
(a) In General.--Of the amounts made available for the
fiscal years 2001 and 2002 to carry out chapter 5 of part II
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et
seq.)--
(1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for Greece;
and
(2) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $2,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for Turkey.
(b) Use for Professional Military Education.--Of the
amounts available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(a) for fiscal year 2002, $500,000 of each such amount should
be available for purposes of professional military education.
(c) Use for Joint Training.--It is the sense of Congress
that, to the maximum extent practicable, amounts available
under subsection (a) that are used in accordance with
subsection (b) should be used for joint training of Greek and
Turkish officers.
SEC. 513. ASSISTANCE FOR ISRAEL.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) ESF assistance.--The term ``ESF assistance'' means
assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.), relating to
the economic support fund.
(2) Foreign military financing program.--The term ``Foreign
Military Financing Program'' means the program authorized by
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763).
(b) ESF Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for each of
the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for ESF assistance, the amount
specified in paragraph (2) for each such fiscal year is
authorized to be made available for Israel.
(2) Computation of amount.--Subject to subsection (d), the
amount referred to in paragraph (1) is equal to--
(A) the amount made available for ESF assistance for Israel
for the preceding fiscal year, minus
(B) $120,000,000.
(c) FMF Program.--
(1) In general.--Of the amount made available for each of
the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for assistance under the
Foreign Military Financing Program, the amount specified in
paragraph (2) for each such fiscal year is authorized to be
made available for Israel.
(2) Computation of amount.--Subject to subsection (d), the
amount referred to in paragraph (1) is equal to--
(A) the amount made available for assistance under the
Foreign Military Financing Program for Israel for the
preceding fiscal year, plus
(B) $60,000,000.
(3) Disbursement of funds.--Funds authorized to be
available for Israel under paragraph (1) for fiscal year 2001
shall be disbursed not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of an Act making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs for fiscal
year 2001, or October 31, 2000, whichever date is later.
(4) Availability of funds for advanced weapons systems.--To
the extent the Government of Israel requests that funds be
used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel out
of funds authorized to be available under paragraph (1) for
Israel for fiscal year 2001 shall, as agreed by Israel and
the United States, be available for advanced weapons systems,
of which not less than $520,000,000 shall be available for
the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense
services, including research and development.
(d) Exclusion of Rescissions and Supplemental
Appropriations.--For purposes of this section, the
computation of amounts made available for a fiscal year shall
not take into account any amount rescinded by an Act or any
amount appropriated by an Act making supplemental
appropriations for a fiscal year.
SEC. 514. ASSISTANCE FOR EGYPT.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) ESF assistance.--The term ``ESF assistance'' means
assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2346 et seq.), relating to
the economic support fund.
(2) Foreign military financing program.--The term ``Foreign
Military Financing Program'' means the program authorized by
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763).
(b) ESF Assistance.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts made available for each of
the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for ESF assistance, the amount
specified in paragraph (2) for each such fiscal year is
authorized to be made available for Egypt.
(2) Computation of amount.--Subject to subsection (d), the
amount referred to in paragraph (1) is equal to--
(A) the amount made available for ESF assistance for Egypt
during the preceding fiscal year, minus
(B) $40,000,000.
(c) FMF Program.--Of the amount made available for each of
the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for assistance under the
Foreign Military Financing Program, $1,300,000,000 is
authorized to be made available for Egypt.
(d) Exclusion of Rescissions and Supplemental
Appropriations.--For purposes of this section, the
computation of amounts made available for a fiscal year shall
not take into account any amount rescinded by an Act or any
amount appropriated by an Act making supplemental
appropriations for a fiscal year.
(e) Disbursement of Funds.--Funds estimated to be outlayed
for Egypt under subsection (c) during fiscal year 2001 shall
be disbursed to an interest-bearing account for Egypt in the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York within 30 days of the date
of enactment of this Act, or by October 31, 2000, whichever
is later, provided that--
(1) withdrawal of funds from such account shall be made
only on authenticated instructions from the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service of the Department of Defense;
(2) in the event such account is closed, the balance of the
account shall be transferred promptly to the appropriations
account for the Foreign Military Financing Program; and
(3) none of the interest accrued by such account should be
obligated unless the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives are
notified.
SEC. 515. SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES.
(a) Foreign Military Financing.--Of the amounts made
available for the fiscal years 2001 and 2002 under section 23
of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763)--
(1) $18,200,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $20,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for all of the following countries: Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania;
(2) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for the Philippines;
(3) $4,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $5,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Georgia;
(4) $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $3,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Malta;
[[Page 18553]]
(5) $3,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $4,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Slovenia;
(6) $8,400,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $8,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Slovakia;
(7) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $11,100,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Romania;
(8) $8,500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $8,600,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Bulgaria; and
(9) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $105,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available on a grant
basis for Jordan.
(b) IMET.--Of the amounts made available for the fiscal
years 2001 and 2002 to carry out chapter 5 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.)--
(1) $2,300,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $4,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for all of
the following countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania;
(2) $1,400,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for the
Philippines;
(3) $475,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 are authorized to be available for Georgia;
(4) $200,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 are authorized to be available for Malta;
(5) $700,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 are authorized to be available for Slovenia;
(6) $700,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 are authorized to be available for Slovakia;
(7) $1,300,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,500,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for Romania;
and
(8) $1,100,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $1,200,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are authorized to be available for Bulgaria.
SEC. 516. BORDER SECURITY AND TERRITORIAL INDEPENDENCE.
(a) GUUAM Countries and Armenia.--For the purpose of
carrying out section 499C of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 and assisting GUUAM countries and Armenia to strengthen
national control of their borders and to promote the
independence and territorial sovereignty of such countries,
the following amounts are authorized to be made available for
fiscal years 2001 and 2002:
(1) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $20,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 are of the amounts made available under
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763).
(2) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 of the amounts made available under chapter
9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added
by section 301.
(3) $500,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $5,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002 of the amounts made available to carry out chapter
5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2347 et seq.).
(4) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $2,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 of the amounts made available to carry out
chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act.
(b) GUUAM Countries Defined.--In this section, the term
``GUUAM countries'' means the group of countries that signed
a protocol on quadrilateral cooperation on November 25, 1997,
together with Uzbekistan.
TITLE VI--TRANSFERS OF NAVAL VESSELS
SEC. 601. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER NAVAL VESSELS TO CERTAIN
FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
(a) Brazil.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Government of Brazil two ``THOMASTON'' class dock landing
ships ALAMO (LSD 33) and HERMITAGE (LSD 34), and four
``GARCIA'' class frigates BRADLEY (FF 1041), DAVIDSON (FF
1045), SAMPLE (FF 1048) and ALBERT DAVID (FF 1050). Such
transfers shall be on a grant basis under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(b) Chile.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Government of the Chile two ``OLIVER HAZARD PERRY'' class
guided missile frigates WADSWORTH (FFG 9), and ESTOCIN (FFG
15). Such transfers shall be on a combined lease-sale basis
under sections 61 and 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2796, 2761).
(c) Greece.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Government of Greece two ``KNOX'' class frigates VREELAND (FF
1068), and TRIPPE (FF 1075). Such transfers shall be on a
grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
(d) Turkey.--The President is authorized to transfer to the
Government of Turkey two ``OLIVER HAZARD PERRY'' class guided
missile frigates JOHN A. MOORE (FFG 19), and FLATLEY (FFG
21). Such transfers shall be on a combined lease-sale basis
under sections 61 and 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2796, 2761). The authority granted by this subsection
is in addition to that granted under section 1018(a)(9) of
Public Law 106-65.
SEC. 602. INAPPLICABILITY OF AGGREGATE ANNUAL LIMITATION ON
VALUE OF TRANSFERRED EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES.
The value of naval vessels authorized under section 601 to
be transferred on a grant basis under section 516 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) shall not be
included in the aggregate annual value of transferred excess
defense articles which is subject to the aggregate annual
limitation set forth in section 516(g) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(g)).
SEC. 603. COSTS OF TRANSFERS.
Any expense of the United States in connection with a
transfer authorized by this title shall be charged to the
recipient.
SEC. 604. CONDITIONS RELATING TO COMBINED LEASE-SALE
TRANSFERS.
A transfer of a vessel on a combined lease-sale basis
authorized by section 601 shall be made in accordance with
the following requirements:
(1) The President may initially transfer the vessel by
lease, with lease payments suspended for the term of the
lease, if the country entering into the lease for the vessel
simultaneously enters into a foreign military sales agreement
for the transfer of title to the vessel.
(2) The President may not deliver to the purchasing country
title to the vessel until the purchase price of the vessel
under such a foreign military sales agreement is paid in
full.
(3) Upon payment of the purchase price in full under such a
sales agreement and delivery of title to the recipient
country, the President shall terminate the lease.
(4) If the purchasing country fails to make full payment of
the purchase price in accordance with the sales agreement by
the date required under the sales agreement--
(A) the sales agreement shall be immediately terminated;
(B) the suspension of lease payments under the lease shall
be vacated; and
(C) the United States shall be entitled to retain all funds
received on or before the date of the termination under the
sales agreement, up to the amount of the lease payments due
and payable under the lease and all other costs required by
the lease to be paid to that date.
(5) If a sales agreement is terminated pursuant to
paragraph (4), the United States shall not be required to pay
any interest to the recipient country on any amount paid to
the United States by the recipient country under the sales
agreement and not retained by the United States under the
lease.
SEC. 605. FUNDING OF CERTAIN COSTS OF TRANSFERS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Defense
Vessels Transfer Program Account such funds as may be
necessary to cover the costs (as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a)) of the
lease-sale transfers authorized by section 601. Funds
authorized to be appropriated under the preceding sentence
for the purpose described in that sentence may not be
available for any other purpose.
SEC. 606. REPAIR AND REFURBISHMENT IN UNITED STATES
SHIPYARDS.
To the maximum extent practicable, the President shall
require, as a condition of the transfer of a vessel under
section 601, that the country to which the vessel is
transferred will have such repair or refurbishment of the
vessel as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces
of that country, performed at a shipyard located in the
United States, including a United States Navy shipyard.
SEC. 607. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TRANSFER OF NAVAL
VESSELS ON A GRANT BASIS.
It is the sense of Congress that naval vessels authorized
under section 601 to be transferred to foreign countries on a
grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j) should be so transferred only if
the United States receives appropriate benefits from such
countries for transferring the vessel on a grant basis.
SEC. 608. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority granted by section 601 shall expire two years
after the date of enactment of this Act.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 701. UTILIZATION OF DEFENSE ARTICLES AND DEFENSE
SERVICES.
Section 502 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2302) is amended in the first sentence by inserting
``(including for antiterrorism and nonproliferation
purposes)'' after ``internal security''.
SEC. 702. ANNUAL MILITARY ASSISTANCE REPORT.
Section 655(b)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2415(b)(3)) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and, if so, a specification of
those defense articles that were exported during the fiscal
year covered by the report''.
SEC. 703. REPORT ON GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT ARMS SALES END-
USE MONITORING PROGRAM.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President shall prepare and transmit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report that contains a
summary of the status of the efforts of the Defense Security
Cooperation Agency to implement the End-Use Monitoring
Enhancement Plan relating to government-to-government
transfers of defense articles, defense services, and related
technologies.
SEC. 704. MTCR REPORT TRANSMITTALS.
For purposes of section 71(d) of the Arms Export Control
Act (22 U.S.C. 2797(d)), the requirement that reports under
that section shall be transmitted to the Congress shall be
considered to be a requirement that such reports shall be
transmitted to the Committee on International Relations of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs of the Senate.
[[Page 18554]]
SEC. 705. STINGER MISSILES IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION.
(a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and except as provided in subsection (b), the United
States may not sell or otherwise make available under the
Arms Export Control Act or chapter 2 of part II of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 any Stinger ground-to-air
missiles to any country bordering the Persian Gulf.
(b) Additional Transfers Authorized.--In addition to other
defense articles authorized to be transferred by section 581
of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related
Programs Appropriation Act, 1990, the United States may sell
or make available, under the Arms Export Control Act or
chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
Stinger ground-to-air missiles to any country bordering the
Persian Gulf in order to replace, on a one-for-one basis,
Stinger missiles previously furnished to such country if the
Stinger missiles to be replaced are nearing the scheduled
expiration of their shelf-life.
SEC. 706. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING EXCESS DEFENSE
ARTICLES.
It is the sense of Congress that the President should make
expanded use of the authority provided under section 21(a) of
the Arms Export Control Act to sell excess defense articles
by utilizing the flexibility afforded by section 47 of such
Act to ascertain the ``market value'' of excess defense
articles.
SEC. 707. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES FOR MONGOLIA.
(a) Uses for Which Funds Are Available.--Notwithstanding
section 516(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2321j(e)), during the fiscal years 2001 and 2002,
funds available to the Department of Defense may be expended
for crating, packing, handling, and transportation of excess
defense articles transferred under the authority of section
516 of that Act to Mongolia.
(b) Content of Congressional Notification.--Each
notification required to be submitted under section 516(f) of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(f)) with
respect to a proposed transfer of a defense article described
in subsection (a) shall include an estimate of the amount of
funds to be expended under subsection (a) with respect to
that transfer.
SEC. 708. SPACE COOPERATION WITH RUSSIAN PERSONS.
(a) Annual Certification.--
(1) Requirement.--The President shall submit each year to
the appropriate committees of Congress, with respect to each
Russian person described in paragraph (2), a certification
that the reports required to be submitted to Congress during
the preceding calendar year under section 2 of the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-178) do not
identify that person on account of a transfer to Iran of
goods, services, or technology described in section
2(a)(1)(B) of such Act.
(2) Applicability.--The certification requirement under
paragraph (1) applies with respect to each Russian person
that, as of the date of the certification, is a party to an
agreement relating to commercial cooperation on MTCR
equipment or technology with a United States person pursuant
to an arms export license that was issued at any time since
January 1, 2000.
(3) Exemption.--No activity or transfer which specifically
has been the subject of a Presidential determination pursuant
to section 5(a) (1), (2), or (3) of the Iran Nonproliferation
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-178) shall cause a Russian person
to be considered as having been identified in the reports
submitted during the preceding calendar year under section 2
of that act for the purposes of the certification required
under paragraph (1).
(4) Commencement and termination of requirement.--
(A) Times for submission.--The President shall submit--
(i) the first certification under paragraph (1) not later
than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii) each annual certification thereafter on the
anniversary of the first submission.
(B) Termination of requirement.--No certification is
required under paragraph (1) after termination of cooperation
under the specific license, or five years after the date on
which the first certification is submitted, whichever is the
earlier date.
(b) Termination of Existing Licenses.--If, at any time
after the issuance of a license under section 36(c) of the
Arms Export Control Act relating to the use, development, or
co-production of commercial rocket engine technology with a
foreign person, the President determines that the foreign
person has engaged in any action described in section
73(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2797b(a)(1)) since the date the license was issued, the
President may terminate the license.
(c) Report on Export Licensing of MTCR Items under
$50,000,000.--Section 71(d) of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. 2797(d)) is amended by striking ``Within 15 days''
and all that follows through ``MTCR Annex,'' and inserting
``Within 15 days after the issuance of a license (including
any brokering license) for the export of items valued at less
than $50,000,000 that are controlled under this Act pursuant
to United States obligations under the Missile Technology
Control Regime and are goods or services that are intended to
support the design, utilization, development, or production
of a space launch vehicle system listed in Category I of the
MTCR Annex,''.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Foreign person.--The term ``foreign person'' has the
meaning given the term in section 74(7) of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c(7)).
(2) MTCR equipment or technology.--The term ``MTCR
equipment or technology'' has the meaning given the term in
section 74(5) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2797c(5)).
(3) Person.--The term ``person'' has the meaning given the
term in section 74(8) of the Arms Export Control Act (22
U.S.C. 2797c(8)).
(4) United states person.--The term ``United States
person'' has the meaning given the term in section 74(6) of
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c(6).
SEC. 709. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO MILITARY EQUIPMENT
FOR THE PHILIPPINES.
(a) In General.--It is the sense of Congress that the
United States Government should work with the Government of
the Philippines to enable that Government to procure military
equipment that can be used to upgrade the capabilities and to
improve the quality of life of the armed forces of the
Philippines.
(b) Military Equipment.--Military equipment described in
subsection (a) should include--
(1) naval vessels, including amphibious landing crafts, for
patrol, search-and-rescue, and transport;
(2) F-5 aircraft and other aircraft that can assist with
reconnaissance, search-and-rescue, and resupply;
(3) attack, transport, and search-and-rescue helicopters;
and
(4) vehicles and other personnel equipment.
SEC. 710. WAIVER OF CERTAIN COSTS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President
may waive the requirement to impose an appropriate charge for
a proportionate amount of any nonrecurring costs of research,
development, and production under section 21(e)(1)(B) of the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(e)(1)(B)) for the
November 1999 sale of 5 UH-60L helicopters to the Republic of
Colombia in support of counternarcotics activities.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Benjamin A. Gilman,
Bill Goodling,
Sam Gejdenson,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Jesse Helms,
Richard G. Lugar,
Chuck Hagel,
Joe Biden,
Paul S. Sarbanes,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4919) to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control
Act to make improvements to certain defense and security
assistance provisions under those Acts, to authorize the
transfer of naval vessels to certain foreign countries, and
for other purposes, submit the following joint statement to
the House and the Senate in explanation of the effect of the
action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the
accompanying conference report:
SECURITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2000
The conferees note that, during the past 10 years, the pool
of money available for security assistance to United States
allies and partners has decreased dramatically. At the same
time, the number of countries with which the United States
needs to engage, whether to combat proliferation or terrorism
or to bolster regional security, has steadily increased. For
instance, three countries of the former Warsaw Pact are now
NATO members and receive both Foreign Military Financing and
International Military Education and Training from the United
States. Other countries which were once part of the Soviet
Union itself are now free and independent, and enjoy
important security relationships with the United States. An
even larger number of countries, now free from the Soviet
orbit, are also free to pursue closer military relationships
with the United States. Thus, for instance, this bill makes
Mongolia eligible for Department of Defense expenditures
relating to excess defense articles for the first time in
history.
The conferees are concerned that a steadily increasing
number of countries are pursuing a relationship with the
United States which is funded by a steadily decreasing amount
of money. Additionally, 98 percent of the Foreign Military
Financing (FMF) account is currently committed to just three
countries as a result of various peace accord commitments.
Even if the President's budget request is fully funded, only
$18,200,000 in FMF would actually be available for the United
States to build security ties to the rest of the world. This
legislation seeks to arrest and reverse this decline. Section
101 authorizes an increase in FY 2001 of $12,000,000 in grant
Foreign Military Financing over the President's budget
request, and in FY 2002, with an increase of $89,000,000,
will bring the total amount of truly ``discretionary'' FMF
spending to $272,200,000. Even so, this will not return
security assistance to 1990 spending levels.
Similarly, Section 201 fully funds the President's request
for the International
[[Page 18555]]
Military Education and Training program by authorizing
$55,000,000 in FY 2001 and provides a $10,000,000 increase
for FY 2002.
Section 301, which establishes a new chapter in the Foreign
Assistance Act, consolidates all nonproliferation funding,
except for assistance to the International Atomic Energy
Agency, under a single funding line. In so doing, it will
protect nonproliferation assistance from numerous foreign aid
restrictions that govern the current appropriations process.
This legislation fully funds the President's request and
authorizes funding for one additional, Congressionally-
mandated nonproliferation and export control initiative in
Malta. It also funds the International Science and Technology
Centers (ISTC) program at maximum capacity. Moreover, this
legislation will strengthen the hand of the newly-created
Nonproliferation Bureau of the Department of State in shaping
a coherent U.S.nonproliferation and export control policy.
Likewise, the President's antiterrorism funding request is
fully authorized, and the conferees have applied additional
resources to ensure that the fledgling Terrorist Interdiction
Program is funded in fiscal year 2001 at the same level as in
fiscal year 2000.
In total, this bill authorizes $38,806,000,000 in security
assistance funding for fiscal year 2001. This is an increase
of $30,800,000 over the President's budget request for fiscal
year 2001. It further authorizes $3,907,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002.
Title I--Military and Related Assistance
Subtitle A--Foreign Military Sales and Financing Authority
Authorization of Appropriations
Section 101 of the conference agreement, which has been
modified from the Senate proposal, authorizes $3,550,000,000
for fiscal year 2001, and $3,627,000,000 for fiscal year
2002, for the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Program. The
administration request for fiscal year 2001 for FMF (grants
and loans) is $3,538,200,000. The actual level of FMF funding
for fiscal year 2000 is $3,420,000,000.
Requirements Relating to Country Exemptions for Licensing of Defense
Items for Export to Foreign Countries
Section 102 of the conference agreement, which has been
modified from the House proposal, codifies in statute
requirements relating to country exemptions for licensing of
defense items for export to foreign countries.
On May 24, 2000, the Administration unveiled a major
initiative--the Defense Trade Security Initiative--to improve
transatlantic cooperation in the area of defense trade. The
initiative was a package of seventeen separate proposals
geared toward promoting U.S. defense exports of NATO
countries, Japan and Australia. The Committees on Foreign
Relations and International Relations, which were not
consulted in a timely fashion on the Defense Trade Security
Initiative, nevertheless welcome most of the proposed changes
to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
The overall objective of DTSI is to improve transatlantic
cooperation in defense trade, particularly as that may aid us
in strengthening NATO, supporting the Defense Capabilities
Initiative (DCI), improving the interoperability of our
forces and contributing to the health and productivity of
defense industries on both sides of the Atlantic.
Most of the seventeen separate proposals deal with
reforming the U.S. defense export control licensing process.
They are noncontroversial. They include proposals to
establish new procedures for U.S. industry to secure export
license for arms sales to NATO countries and other friendly
countries and the establishment of a robust common database.
Indeed, several of the initiatives mirror recommendations
made by the two committees at various times.
Under Article 1, Section 8, of the United States
Constitution, the Congress possesses sole constitutional
authority to ``regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.'' The
President may only engage in such an exercise to the extent
he has been authorized to do so by the Congress. Most of the
seventeen DTSI measures, which clearly relate to the
regulation of commerce, have been implicitly authorized in
advance by Congress. The Arms Export Control Act (AECA)
requires the President to administer export controls for
certain commodities and also contains a measure of
flexibility, allowing the President to alter export control
requirements through regulatory changes. Indeed, numerous
regulatory modifications have been made using this authority.
Thus the constitutionality of a regulatory change to
implement many of the proposed initiatives is well
established.
The conferees remain concerned, however, with certain other
of the proposals. The most important--and controversial--
initiative is entitled `Extension of International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (ITAR) Exemption to Qualified Countries'.
Pursuant to this initiative, the Administration is prepared
to establish new ITAR licensing exemptions for unclassified
defense items to qualified companies in foreign countries
with whom the United States signs a bilateral agreement and
that adopt and demonstrate export controls that are
comparable in effectiveness to those of the United States.
For several years, the United States has, under Section
38(b)(2) of the AECA, permitted unlicensed trade in defense
articles and defense services with Canada. This practice,
popularly called the ``Canada exemption,'' has been supported
by Congress in light of the unique defense trade relationship
between the United States and Canada. In a June 28, 2000,
letter to Chairman Helms, the Secretary of Defense stated his
intent ``to negotiate a Canada-style exemption to the ITAR
with the U[nited] K[ingdom] and Australia.'' On March 16,
2000, in a letter to the Secretary of State, the Chairmen of
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House
Committee on International Relations--the two Congressional
Committees with sole jurisdiction over the AECA and
regulation of defense trade--expressed concern about
expanding the Canadian exemption. The Canada exemption is a
unique one, based on an intertwined defense industrial base,
a close law enforcement relationship, and geographical
considerations. These same considerations do not apply to
either the United Kingdom or Australia (to say nothing of
other countries), despite the close military, intelligence,
and law enforcement relationships that the U.S. government
has with the governments in London and Canberra. For
instance, defense commodities being shipped between the
United States and Canada are far less susceptible to
diversion than items shipped longer distances on cargo
vessels which must make multiple port calls before arriving
in the final port of destination. Moreover, unlike the case
in Canada, many major U.K. defense companies are now jointly
partnered with other European firms.
For these reasons and others, the Secretary of State and
the Attorney General raised serious questions about how a
Canada-like exemption would affect U.S. export controls and
law enforcement efforts. Their concerns turned, in short, on
the fact that elimination of a licensing requirement for
various weapons and defense commodities would remove an
important law enforcement capability for the United States,
placing heightened reliance upon the United Kingdom and
Australia to stop diversions of U.S. equipment and to provide
the type of evidence needed to prosecute violations of the
AECA.
In his June 28, 2000 letter, the Secretary of Defense
assured the Committee on Foreign Relations that the licensing
exemption for certain countries would need to be accomplished
through ``legally binding agreements to ensure their export
control and technology security regimes are congruent to our
own. In exchange for these ironclad arrangements, we are
prepared to offer an exemption to the ITAR similar to that
long-provided to Canada.''
The conferees are pleased to note this emphasis on
extending a broad ITAR exemption in a legally-binding
agreement and, accordingly, are equally pleased to codify the
requirement in statute. As the Department of State noted in
connection with the START Treaty: ``An undertaking or
commitment that is understood to be legally binding carries
with it both the obligation to comply with the undertaking
and the right of each Party to enforce the obligation under
international law.'' This right of enforcement is of singular
importance in this case, because noncompliance with the
undertaking presumably could result in the diversion of
United States weaponry or technology.
Essential to the initiative to provide license-free trade
to various countries is the operation of domestic export
control laws in such countries. Accordingly, the underlying
rationale governing Section 102 is that the United States
should not provide the benefit of an exemption from licensing
of U.S. defense exports unless a foreign country agrees to
apply, in a legally-binding fashion and in accordance with a
bilateral agreement with the United States, the full range of
United States export control and laws, regulations, and
policies appropriate to the sensitivity of defense items
exported to a foreign country under the exemption.
In that regard, the section requires that in order to
provide an exemption from licensing of defense exports to a
foreign country, the United States must negotiate a legally
binding bilateral agreement including specific requirements.
The President must then certify that the bilateral agreement
meets those specific requirements and, importantly, that the
foreign country has promulgated or enacted all necessary
modifications to its laws and regulations to comply with its
obligations under the bilateral agreement before implementing
the exemption.
The specific requirements include but are not limited to
securing end-use and retransfer commitments from all end-
users, controls on reexports to foreign countries including a
requirement for prior written U.S. government approval for
such reexports, and the establishment of a list of controlled
defense items that will include those items covered by the
exemption, which are required to be notified to the Congress
under subsection (b) of this section.
The conferees expect to exercise close oversight of any
agreements reached with foreign nations that provide for
unlicensed trade in defense articles and defense services.
The conferees reserve judgment on whether any agreements
contemplated with
[[Page 18556]]
the United Kingdom or Australia in this area should be
undertaken in executive agreements, or as treaties, subject
to advice and consent of the Senate. The conferees expect, as
stated in subsection (d), that the Secretary of State will
consult with the two Committees as to whether the DTSI
licensing exemption for various countries should be codified
as a treaty. Were the Secretary of State to conclude
bilateral treaties with the United Kingdom and Australia to
achieve the objectives set forth under the DTSI initiative,
the Senate conferees would support the earliest possible
consideration of such important measures. Alternatively, the
Congress has the option of amending Section 38(b)(2) of the
AECA to limit the President's flexibility to approve
unlicensed trade--with Canada or any other nation.
Finally, the conferees address in subsection (c) the issue
of exports of commercial communication satellites. Without
prejudice to the outcome of a review, the conferees believe
that both Congress and the Executive Branch should re-
evaluate the issue of the correct and appropriate commodity
jurisdiction for export control of U.S. commercial
communication satellites.
Subtitle B--Stockpiling of Defense Articles for Foreign Countries
additions to united states war reserve stockpiles for allies
Section 111 was proposed by the House. Pursuant to Section
514 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the
Department of Defense can make additions to the War Reserve
Stockpiles for Allies stockpiles only as periodically
provided for in legislation. For fiscal year 2000, the
President requested authority to make additions to stockpiles
in South Korea ($40,000,000) and Thailand ($20,000,000). The
conferees provided this authority under Section 1231 of the
``Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations
Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001'' (P.L. 106-
113). For fiscal year 2001 the Department of Defense has
asked for an additional $50,000,000 authorization for the
Korean program. Section 111 provides this authority for
fiscal year 2001.
transfer of certain obsolete or surplus defense articles in the war
reserve stockpiles for allies to israel
Section 112 has been modified from the House proposal.
Periodically the Department of Defense requests authorization
to transfer defense articles out of War Reserve Stockpiles to
the host country in question. The defense articles are to be
sold to the host nation, or to be transferred in exchange for
other non-monetary concessions. The Committee provided
similar authority to make such transfers to South Korea and
Thailand pursuant to Section 1232 of the ``Admiral James W.
Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001'' (P.L. 106-113).
Subtitle C--Other Assistance
defense drawdown special authorities
Section 121, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, increases the special drawdown authorities of
defense articles and services from defense stocks, and for
military education and training, to assist foreign countries
from $150 million to $200 million.
Current law grants the President the authority to draw down
from existing stocks within the Department of Defense to
assist in emergencies or when he determines it is in the
national interest. This section expands the authority by
making nonproliferation and antiterrorism activities eligible
for the special drawdown authorities relating to defense
articles and services, and to military education and
training, to assist foreign countries. The increase in
financial authority is meant to allow for incorporation of
nonproliferation and antiterrorism objectives without
sacrificing the President's flexibility to respond to
unforeseen emergencies and foreign policy objectives relating
to combating international narcotics, international disaster
assistance, and migration and refugee assistance.
increased authority for the transport of excess defense articles
Section 122, proposed by the Senate, raises the space
available weight limitation that is imposed on the
transportation of excess defense articles (EDA) from 25,000
pounds to 50,000 pounds. Currently, a variety of limitations
are imposed on the use of Department of Defense funds to
transfer excess defense articles to foreign nations and
international organizations. Moreover, even when such an
expenditure is authorized, free transportation of EDA may
only be provided on a space available basis if it is in the
U.S. national interest to do so, the recipient nation is a
developing nation which receives less than $10,000,000 in FMF
and IMET, and the weight of the items to be transferred does
not exceed 25,000 pounds.
In limiting the weight of defense articles to no more than
25,000 pounds, current law will preclude the transportation
of a large number of United States Coast Guard ``self-
righting'' patrol craft which have recently been declared
excess but which weigh approximately 33,000 pounds. Over the
next four years, more than 50 of these vessels will be
eligible for transfer to foreign nations under the EDA
program. However, the current weight limitation will preclude
shipment of the vessels on a space available basis to foreign
countries. This, in turn, will increase the cost of transfer
of the defense article to would-be recipients, and likely
would cause many nations to decline U.S. offers of these
vessels. As a result, the Untied States Coast Guard could
incur unnecessary expenses due to delays in finding foreign
recipients of the craft, and possibly be forced to
demilitarize vessels for whom a foreign customer could not be
secured. Raising the weight limit to 50,000 pounds will
obviate this problem.
Title II--International Military Education and Training
Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, authorizes $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
$65,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 to carry out international
military education and training (IMET) of military and
related civilian personnel of foreign countries. The
administration request for fiscal year 2001 for IMET is
$55,000,000. The actual level of IMET funding for fiscal year
2000 is $50,000,000. IMET is provided on a grant basis to
students from allied and friendly nations, and is designed to
expose foreign students to the U.S. professional military
establishment and the American way of life, including the
U.S. regard for democratic values, respect for individual and
human rights and belief in the rule of law. Section 201
authorizes funding of the IMET program in 2002 at its maximum
capacity. Funding beyond this level cannot be absorbed due to
limitations in number of courses and classes.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Section 202, proposed by the Senate, amends Chapter 5 of
part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, relating to
International Military Education and Training (IMET), by
adding two new requirements. First, selection of foreign
personnel for the IMET program will be done in consultation
with United States defense attaches, who are uniquely
positioned to recommend candidates. The conferees are
concerned to note that defense attaches are, on occasion,
excluded from this process. By mandating consultation, the
conferees intend to secure the complete involvement of
defense attaches in nominating individuals for the IMET
program. Naturally, selection of foreign personnel, and
overall management of the IMET program remain the
responsibility of the Department of State.
Section 202 also requires that the Secretary of Defense
develop and maintain a database containing records on each
foreign military or defense ministry civilian participant in
education and training activities conducted under this
chapter after December 31, 2000. This record shall include
the type of instruction received, the dates of such
instruction, whether it was completed successfully, and, to
the extent practicable, a record of the person's subsequent
military or defense ministry career and current position and
location. The conferees expect that the record of a person's
subsequent career will include positions held, reports of
exceptional successes or failures in those positions, and any
credible reports of involvement in criminal activity or human
rights abuses. The conferees believe that such a database
will improve the effectiveness of foreign military education
and training activities by enabling the Department of Defense
to better determine: what follow up training may be most
appropriate for previously trained personnel; which courses
are most effective in improving the performance of foreign
military personnel; and where personnel are located in
foreign defense establishments who, by virtue of their prior
training, are most likely to understand U.S. modes of
operation and share U.S. standards of military
professionalism. This section does not require, however, that
the Department of Defense institute dramatic new collection
programs to gather information for the database.
Title III--Nonproliferation and Export Control Assistance
Nonproliferation and Export control Assistance
Section 301 has been modified from the Senate proposal.
Every major category of U.S. foreign assistance, except for
nonproliferation and export control assistance, is governed
under multiple sections, or entire chapters, of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA). The FAA contains chapters
authorizing international narcotics control, military
assistance, peacekeeping operations, antiterrorism
assistance, IMET, development assistance, and funding for
international organizations, to name a few. Although the
President has declared a state of national emergency to
combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and
associated delivery systems, the FAA does not contain a
specific chapter to authorize and direct such a clearly
important form of U.S. foreign aid. Funding for the
nonproliferation and export control activities of the
Department of State derives from a variety of disparate
authorizations passed at various
[[Page 18557]]
times. As a result, this category of funding does not enjoy
the same status as other types of foreign assistance.
Appropriation of funds for nonproliferation and export
control activities is cobbled together annually by the
Appropriations Committee under a catch-all account that also
includes demining and contributions to certain international
organizations. Thus the Department of State is invariably
forced to make ``trade-offs'' between nonproliferation and
export control funding and funding for other activities.
Finally, other nonproliferation and export control funding is
contained within the amounts appropriated for the ``newly
independent'' states of the former Soviet Union, and is thus
subject to restrictions if the President cannot certify that
Russia is not proliferating technology to Iran (which he has,
to date, been unable to do).
By adding a new chapter to Part II of the FAA, the
conferees intend U.S. nonproliferation and export control
assistance to be given equal stature with other authorized
activities. The conferees expect the Department of State, in
the future, to consolidate all of its nonproliferation
funding, except for funding for the International Atomic
Energy Agency (which is governed by a separate authorization
under the FAA), into a single, integrated request to be
authorized under Chapter 9 of the FAA. The conferees further
expect that the Nonproliferation Bureau of the Department of
State will be given authority over the use of funds
authorized by this chapter.
The new chapter to the FAA incorporates existing
authorities under Sections 503 and 504 of the FREEDOM Support
Act (which are the principal extant authorities for
nonproliferation and export control activities). The new
sections 581 and 582 carry forward those authorities, but
also emphasize the need for programs to bolster the
indigenous capabilities of foreign countries to monitor and
interdict proliferation shipments. Section 583 directs the
President to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to
the transit interdiction effort. To this end, the section
contains authority for the Secretary of State to establish a
list of countries that should be given priority in U.S.
transit interdiction funding. The conferees suggest that the
initial designation of the transit country list include those
countries mentioned in the fiscal year 1999 Congressional
presentation document as ``key global transit points'' (e.g.,
the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, the Baltics,
Central and Eastern Europe, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Cyprus, Malta, Jordan, and the UAE).
Section 584, which will be part of the new chapter of the
FAA, makes clear that two of the same limitations which apply
to antiterrorism assistance also apply to nonproliferation
and export control assistance. Section 584 permits the use of
unrelated accounts to furnish services and commodities
consistent with, and in furtherance of, Chapter 9 of the FAA.
However, it requires that the foreign nation receiving such
services or commodities pay in advance for the item or
service, and that the reimbursement be credited to the
account from which the service or commodity is furnished or
subsidized. Foreign Military Financing may not be used to
make such payments. Section 584 also makes clear that Chapter
9 does not apply to information exchange activities conducted
under other authorities of law.
Section 585 authorizes $129,000,000 for fiscal year 2001,
and $142,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, for activities
conducted pursuant to Chapter 9 of the FAA. This amount
captures several activities currently appropriated within the
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Deminining, and Related
Programs Account, and the FREEDOM Support Act Assistance for
the New Independent States (NIS) of the Former Soviet Union.
The covered programs, at the administration's requested
levels of funding for FY2001, are: $15,000,000 for the
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund; $14,000,000 for Export
Control Assistance; $45,000,000 for the Science Centers; and
$36,000,000 in NIS export control and border assistance
funding. The administration request for fiscal year 2001 thus
totals $110,000,000 for all Chapter 9 authorized activities.
The increase of $19,000,000 above the administration's
requested levels is intended to support two initiatives
contained in sections 303 and 304. Specifically, this
increase supports funding of the International Science and
Technology Centers at maximum capacity (which requires an
additional $14,000,000) and establishment of a static cargo
x-ray facility in Malta as the first of the transit
interdiction programs to be managed under the new authorities
of the FAA (a $5,000,000 program).
Nonproliferation and Export Control Training in the United States
Section 302, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, authorizes the expenditure of $2,000,000 during
both fiscal years 2001 and 2002 in nonproliferation and
export control funding for the training and education of
personnel from friendly countries in the United States. The
Department of State already engages in a vigorous training
program, and funds numerous activities which are implemented
by Department of Commerce personnel. However, much of this
training is conducted overseas. The conferees urge the
Department of State to place emphasis on bringing a select
group of officials from friendly governments back to the
United States to engage in an intensive training program
which draws upon the expertise of all relevant U.S.
government agencies. This training should focus on those
nonproliferation and export control activities which would
most benefit from being conducted in the United States.
Finally, the conferees are concerned with declining travel
and training budgets of U.S. government agencies tasked with
combating proliferation. The conferees hope this trend will
be arrested, but urge the Department of State, in the
interim, to seek to offset the effects of this decline using
the funds authorized under this section.
Science and Technology Centers
Section 303, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, authorizes $59,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$65,000,000 in fiscal year 2002, in nonproliferation and
export control funding for the Department of State's
international science and technology centers. The
administration request for fiscal year 2001 is $45,000,000.
The actual level of funding for fiscal year 2000 is
$59,000,000. The conferees expect that this not only will
fully fund all ongoing activities at these centers, but will
allow a significant expansion in the number of research
grants offered to Russian scientists formerly employed in the
development of missiles and chemical and biological warfare
programs.
Section 303 also expresses the view of the conferees that
frequent audits should be conducted of entities receiving
ISTC funds. This will be necessary in light of the
administration's interest in expanding the role of the ISTC
to provide funds to redirect the expertise associated with
the Soviet Union's biological warfare program. U.S.
obligations under the Chemical and Biological Weapons
Conventions, as well as under domestic law (e.g., P.L. 106-
113), prohibit the furnishing of assistance to offensive
biological warfare programs. It thus is essential that the
United States audit entities that receive assistance to
ensure that the United States is not contributing, albeit
unknowingly, to an offensive biological warfare program (or
to entities that are proliferating technology to rogue
states). Moreover, the obligation to conduct audits should be
spread equitably throughout the United States Government.
Trial Transit Program
Section 304, proposed by the Senate, authorizes $5,000,000
in nonproliferation and export control funding to establish a
static cargo x-ray facility in Malta, provided that the
Government of Malta first gives satisfactory assurances that
Maltese customs officials will engage in random cargo
inspections of container traffic passing through the Malta
Freeport, and will utilize the x-ray facility to examine
random shipping containers.
Malta is the ideal location for a trial transit
interdiction program. The country's location, along one of
the busiest trade routes in the world, has made it a crucial
shipping center. The Malta Freeport is ideally situated as a
redistribution point, linking trade between Europe, Africa,
the Middle East, and Asia. For instance, direct shipments
from the Black Sea to Malta take less than 15 days. From
various ports in Europe, Russia, and Asia, large cargo
vessels offload their containers into the Freeport. The
containers are then stored temporarily and are reloaded onto
smaller ``feeder'' vessels which service ports in North
Africa, including Libya. The Freeport went into operation in
April 1990. According to Maltese Freeport documents, that
year alone, 231 vessels offloaded 94,500 containers. Since
that time, the volume of activity at the port has steadily
increased. In 1996, the number of ships calling at the
Freeport reached 1,383. Nearly 600,000 containers transited
the facility that year. For 1999, according to a January 10,
2000 article in a Maltese daily newspaper, 1,464 container
ships utilized the Freeport. At this time, estimates of
container traffic are not available, but presumably the
number will exceed half a million.
The steadily rising level of container traffic in the
Freeport is noteworthy. The volume can be expected to
increase if plans to further expand the port's services are
implemented, thereby making one of the world's largest
deepwater ports all the more robust. The Malta Freeport Act,
which establishes the Freeport as a legally separate entity
from Malta proper, creates specific proliferation concerns.
Currently the Freeport has its own Minister, and customs
functions have been conferred upon the Freeport Authority
which he oversees. Maltese Customs does not receive
information on transshipments, and may not operate in the
Freeport without permission. While the Freeport has never
refused such a request, the fundamental lack of transparency,
and the inability of Maltese customs to conduct random
inspections, means that effective export enforcement is
impossible at this time.
The conferees are concerned with this situation since Malta
is undeniably being used as a transit point by various
entities engaged in weapons proliferation. For example, in
one instance of excellent cooperation between the Freeport
and Maltese Customs officials, a shipment of chemical warfare
precursor
[[Page 18558]]
chemicals was seized. Similarly, the United Kingdom recently
uncovered a massive shipment of missile parts slated for air
delivery to Libya via Malta. While this latter incident did
not involve the Freeport, it nevertheless is further evidence
that various countries are seeking to use Malta as a transit
point for deliveries of dangerous commodities to North
Africa.
The conferees note that Maltese-U.S. relations have
steadily improved over the past several years. The Government
of Malta has demonstrated a genuine commitment to
nonproliferation and bolstering its export control
capability. Therefore the conferees favor initiation of a
trial transit program with Malta, provided that the Maltese
Government takes the necessary steps to render this program
viable (namely, by opening the Freeport to periodic, random
inspections by Maltese Customs officials). The conferees hope
that this program, if successful, might serve as a model for
programs in other designated transit countries.
exception to authority to conduct inspections under the chemical
weapons convention implementation act of 1998
Section 305 was proposed by the Senate. The Chemical
Weapons Convention, which was approved by the Senate in 1997,
has an extensive inspection regime which allows potentially
intrusive inspections of chemical companies in the United
States. The Senate was concerned about the threat posed to
business proprietary information during the course of an
inspection. As a result, the Chemical Weapons Convention
Implementation Act of 1998 imposes a requirement that a
special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
accompany every inspection conducted in the United States.
However, there is minimal benefit to the FBI's monitoring
of inspections at chemical destruction sites. Such
inspections pose little risk to national security or trade
secrets and--because of their lengthy duration--a constant
FBI presence would be expensive to maintain. This section
gives the FBI an exemption from the requirement to be present
at inspections of U.S. chemical destruction facilities.
Title IV--Antiterrorism Assistance
authorization of appropriations
Section 401, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, authorizes $72,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
$73,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 in antiterrorism assistance.
The administration request for anti-terrorism assistance for
fiscal year 2001 is $72,000,000 (including the request for
the Terrorist Interdiction Program (TIP)). The actual level
of funding for fiscal year 2000, including the TIP, is
$38,000,0000.
Title V--Integrated Security Assistance Planning
Subtitle A--Establishment of a National Security Assistance Strategy
national security assistance strategy
Section 501, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, strongly urges the annual preparation of a National
Security Assistance Strategy (NSAS) to be submitted in
connection with the annual foreign operations budget request.
The purpose of the NSAS is to establish a clear and coherent
multi-year plan, on a country by country basis, regarding
U.S. security assistance programs. The current process
utilized by the United States Government is entirely
insufficient and is run, on an ad hoc basis. Seldom is a
thoroughly researched, thoroughly justified proposal for
security assistance put forward to Congress. This, in turn,
has encouraged parallel Congressional initiatives and
earmarks which often are put forward with a comparable level
of foresight and planning. As a result, it seems that the
Political-Military Affairs Bureau of the Department of State
does not currently possess sufficient control over the
allocation of security assistance funds, despite its clear
mandate to manage these programs (except for nonproliferation
assistance).
Currently there is no clearly articulated organizing
principle for U.S. military assistance. Nor is there a
coherent set of benchmarks, or measurements, against which
the success of individual programs with various countries can
be measured. As a result, military assistance funding
proposals are often vague and seemingly unjustified. For
instance, the most recent Congressional presentation
documents justify the provision of FMF for Southeast Europe
as ``contributing to regional stability in Southeast Europe
by promoting military reform.'' No further elaboration is
given. It is hardly surprising, in light of this sort of
justification, that the administration's security assistance
requests seldom are fully funded by Congress.
The conferees urge the Department of State to transform
fundamentally the way that the United States conceptualizes
security assistance. Utilizing a model more akin to the
Department of Defense's planning process, the Department of
State is encouraged to pull together a comprehensive multi-
year plan, which will evolve on an annual basis, setting
forth a specific programmatic objective for each country and
explaining how the requested funds will accomplish that
objective. Additional, secondary objectives should be added
as necessary. The conferees believe that the plan for each
country should be developed at the U.S. mission level, and
should be coordinated by the Department of State with all
relevant U.S. government agencies with a role in U.S.
security assistance programs. The bottom-up document that
results is then to be coordinated with the top-down policy
guidance set forth in the National Security Strategy of the
United States, and by the Secretary of State (in coordination
with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and in consultation with other relevant
agencies, including the intelligence community).
The conferees expect the resultant document to be a
comprehensive National Security Assistance Strategy which
provides a robust, detailed justification for security
assistance funding that is requested. Rather than the current
process, which yields unclear and unmeasurable objectives for
U.S. security assistance programs, it is expected that the
NSAS process will ensure that the type and amount of
assistance given a country is determined programmatically.
Progress can thus be measured by the administration and the
Congress. In turn, the conferees anticipate that such an
initiative, led by the Political-Military Affairs Bureau of
the Department of State, will substantially improve
Congressional understanding of the administration's
initiatives and bolster Congressional support for the
President's military assistance request.
Subtitle B--Allocations for Certain Countries
security assistance for new nato members
Section 511, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, authorizes $30,300,000 for fiscal year 2001 and
$35,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 in grant Foreign Military
Financing for the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland.
Section 511 also authorizes $5,100,000 for fiscal year 2001
and $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 in IMET funding for these
three new NATO members. The administration request for fiscal
year 2001 for these three countries is $30,300,000 in grant
FMF and $5,100,000 in IMET funding. The actual level of grant
FMF funding for the three for fiscal year 2000 is
$22,000,000. The actual level for IMET funding for fiscal
year 2000 is $4,570,000.
Section 511 also directs the President to give priority to
supporting the objectives set forth by the Senate in its
resolution of ratification for the protocols adding the three
new NATO members. Specifically, the conferees expect the
administration to ensure that FMF and IMET funding is used to
support the ability of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic to fulfill their collective defense requirements
under Article V of the Washington Treaty. The conferees also
expect the administration to use the additional funds
provided to expand U.S. efforts to improve the ability of
these countries to protect themselves from hostile foreign
intelligence services.
increased training assistance for greece and turkey
Section 512, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, authorizes $1,000,000 in IMET funding for Greece
and $2,500,000 in IMET funding for Turkey for each of the
fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The administration request for
IMET for fiscal year 2001 is $25,000 for Greece and
$1,600,000 for Turkey. The actual level of IMET funding for
Greece for fiscal year 2000 is $25,000. For Turkey, the
actual level of IMET funding for fiscal year 2000 is
$1,500,000.
The conferees are encouraged by numerous indications of a
warming in Greek-Turkish relations. This improvement has
manifested itself in several ways, ranging from Greek
agreement to Turkish candidacy for membership in the European
Union to the large number of bilateral agreements that have
recently been signed during reciprocal visits of foreign
ministers (including agreements on transportation, tourism,
cultural heritage, and customs issues). In the interest of
bolstering this process the conferees authorize a substantial
increase in funds for International Military Education and
Training (IMET). It is the conferees' expectation that the
administration will use these additional funds to support the
process of rapprochement between Greece and Turkey.
Specifically, the conferees urge the administration to ensure
that $1,000,000 of the additional resources, evenly divided
between the two countries, is used for joint professional
military education of Greek and Turkish officers. The
conferees note that this type of training will build personal
relationships between the militaries of these two important
NATO allies, and will reinforce the process that is already
underway.
assistance for israel
Section 513, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, sets into place the formula for a phase-out of
annual U.S. Economic Support Funds to Israel. Operating from
a baseline of $1.2 billion ESF per annum, beginning in FY
1999, the United States and Israel agreed to a plan whereby
Israel's annual economic assistance would be reduced in equal
increments of 10 percent (equivalent to $120,000,000 per
annum), resulting in the ultimate elimination of ESF for
Israel. In order to ensure Israel's continued security in the
face of the loss of annual economic support, Israel
requested--and the United States agreed to--an annual
increase
[[Page 18559]]
in Foreign Military Finance equal to half the reduced ESF
amount (or $60,000,000). Section 513 authorizes this process
for both fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and will result in an
aggregate reduction in authorized foreign assistance of
$120,000,000. Specifically, this section authorizes
$1,980,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 and $2,040,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 in FMF. The administration's request for
fiscal year 2001 is $1,980,000,000.
The authorization provided by the section is without
prejudice to any rescissions or supplemental appropriations
which might be required. The conferees intend for this
formula for the reduction of Israel's ESF be in place through
fiscal year 2008, and intend to authorize accordingly in
future Acts.
In addition, this section directs that FMF funds for Israel
for fiscal year 2001 be disbursed not later than 30 days
after enactment of this Act or on October 31, 2000, whichever
is later. To the extent that Israel makes a request, FMF
funds shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be
available for advanced weapons systems. Additionally, not
less than $520,000,000 can be used for procurement in Israel
of defense articles and defense services, including research
and development. The conferees expect that Israel's annual
aid package will be provided under the usual terms, including
early disbursal of both ESF and FMF, offshore procurement,
and that the aid will be provided in the form of a grant.
The conferees will view favorably additional requests for
authority required in the event of a peace agreement in the
Middle East.
assistance for egypt
Section 514, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, provides a similar formula for Egypt as that
applied under Section 513. In providing an authorization for
ESF to Egypt for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, Section 514 sets
in place the phase-out of Economic Support Funds for Egypt at
a rate of $40,000,000 per year. This section, which also
contains a two-year authorization for FMF, will result in an
aggregate reduction of $80,000,000 in ESF. The authorization
provided by the section is without prejudice to any
rescissions or supplemental appropriations which might be
required.
Further, the section directs that FMF estimated to be
outlayed during fiscal year 2001 shall be disbursed to an
interest bearing account for Egypt in the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York. However, withdrawal of funds from the
account can be made only on authenticated instructions from
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and, in the event
that the interest bearing account is closed, the balance of
the account is to be transferred promptly to the
appropriations account for Foreign Military Financing. The
conferees urge that before any of the interest accrued by the
account is obligated, the Committees on Appropriations and
Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committees on
Appropriations and International Relations of the House, be
notified.
security assistance for certain counties
Section 515, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, provides individual authorizations for fiscal years
2001 and 2002 of grant FMF and IMET funding for various
countries.
border security and territorial independence
Section 516, which has been modified from the Senate
proposal, provides an integrated authorization of security
assistance funds for the GUUAM countries (e.g., Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova) and Armenia.
Specifically, for fiscal year 2001, Section 516 authorizes a
package of $5,000,000 in grant FMF, $2,000,000 in
nonproliferation and export control assistance, $500,000 in
IMET funding, and $1,000,000 in antiterrorism assistance. For
fiscal year 2002, that package is: $20,000,000 in grant FMF,
$10,000,000 in nonproliferation and export control
assistance, $5,000,000 in IMET funding, and $2,000,000 in
antiterrorism assistance. These funds must be expended in
accordance with the individual requirements of their
respective accounts. Thus, for instance, the grant FMF may
only be utilized for activities authorized in connection with
the FMF program. Likewise, nonproliferation and export
control funds must be spent on the objectives set forth under
Chapter 9 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Similar
restrictions apply to the other authorized forms of security
assistance. Thus, as assistance to Azerbaijan under this
section is still subject to section 907 of the FREEDOM
Support Act, such assistance may be provided only for
antiterrorism or nonproliferation and export control
purposes.
The funds authorized under Section 516 must be spent for
the purpose of assisting the GUUAM countries and Armenia in
strengthening control of their borders, and for the purpose
of promoting the independence and territorial sovereignty of
these countries. These funds also are specifically
authorized, pursuant to Section 499C of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, for the purpose of enhancing the
abilities of the national border guards, coast guard, and
customs officials of the GUUAM countries and Armenia to
secure their borders against narcotics trafficking,
proliferation, and transnational organized crime. The
conferees intend that funds authorized by this section be
used in Uzbekistan solely for nonproliferation purposes.
Finally, it bears emphasizing that the conferees strongly
support the cooperation on political, security, and economic
matters promoted and facilitated through the GUUAM group. The
United States should promote these endeavors as part of its
strategy to help these states consolidate their independence
and strengthen their sovereignty, to help resolve and prevent
conflicts in their respective regions, and to promote
democracy and human rights. In addition, the conferees
strongly support political, security, and economic
cooperation between the United States and Armenia.
Finally, the conferees note the successes of the Department
of Defense's two international counterproliferation
programs--the DOD/FBI Counterproliferation Program and the
DOD/Customs Counterproliferation Program. With minimal
funding, and through excellent management, these programs are
contributing to efforts to halt the spread of dangerous
technology across the borders of the former Soviet Union,
Eastern and Central Europe, and the Baltic states. The
conferees hope that the Department of Defense will continue
to support these programs and recommend that the Department
of State coordinate closely with the Department of Defense on
proliferation matters.
Title VI--Transfers of Naval Vessels
authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign countries
Section 601 of the conference agreement, similar in the
House and Senate proposals, provides authority to the
President to transfer twelve naval vessels to Brazil, Chile,
Greece, and Turkey. These naval vessels either displace in
excess of 3,000 tons, or are less than 20 years of age.
Therefore statutory approval for the transfers is required
under 10 U.S.C. 7307(a). The two PERRY class frigates
proposed for transfer to Turkey under lease/sale authority
were approved by Congress to be transferred to Turkey by sale
in the fiscal year 2000 shop transfer legislation. Because of
Turkish financial uncertainties caused by recent natural
disasters, however, this proposal, which is in addition to
the sale authority previously granted, is needed to give
Turkey some flexibility in determining the most appropriate
means to acquire the ships. Two KNOX class frigates are
proposed in this section to be transferred to Greece on a
grant basis.
inapplicability of aggregate annual limitation on value of transferred
excess defense articles
Section 602 of the conference agreement, similar in the
House and Senate proposals, ensures that the value of naval
vessels authorized for transfer by grant by this Act will not
be included in determining the aggregate value of transferred
excess defense articles.
Costs of Transfers
Section 603 of the conference agreement, identical in the
House and Senate proposals, provides that all costs are to be
borne by the foreign recipients, including fleet turnover
costs, maintenance, repairs, and training.
conditions relating to combined lease-sale transfers
Section 604 of the conference agreement, identical in the
House and Senate proposals, authorizes the transfer of high
value ships on a combined lease-sale basis under Section 61
and 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796 and
2761 respectively).
funding of certain costs of transfers
Section 605 of the conference agreement, identical in the
House and Senate proposals, provides authorization for the
appropriation of funds that may be necessary for the costs of
the combined lease-sale transfers in order to satisfy the
requirements of 2 U.S.C. 661c. These funds are authorized to
be appropriated into the Defense Vessels Transfer Program
Account, which was established in the fiscal year 1999
transfer legislation.
Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards
Section 606 of the conference agreement, proposed by the
House, requires the President, to the maximum extent
practicable, to ensure that repair and refurbishment of naval
vessels authorized for transfer under this title is performed
in U.S. shipyards, including U.S. Navy shipyards.
Sense of Congress Regarding Transfer of Naval Vessels on a Grant Basis
Section 607 of the conference agreement, proposed by the
House, expresses the sense of Congress that naval vessels
authorized for transfer to foreign countries on a grant basis
under section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act should be
transferred only if the U.S. receives appropriate benefits
from such countries.
Expiration of Authority
Section 608 of the conference agreement, identical in the
House and Senate proposals, provides that the transfers
authorized by this Act must be executed within two years of
the date of enactment. This allows a reasonable opportunity
for agreement on terms and for execution of the transfer.
Title VII--Miscellaneous Provisions
Utilization of Defense Articles and Services
Section 701, proposed by the Senate, amends Section 502 of
the Foreign Assistance
[[Page 18560]]
Act of 1961 to make clear that defense articles and services
may be furnished by the United States to foreign nations for
antiterrorism or nonproliferation purposes (in addition to
other currently authorized purposes).
Annual Military Assistance Report
Section 702 of the conference agreement, proposed by the
House, requires the State Department to include information
in the annual military assistance report required by section
655 of the Foreign Assistance Act which identifies the
quantity of exports of weapons furnished on a direct
commercial sales basis. The so-called ``655 report'' provides
a timely and comprehensive account of U.S. arms transfers.
This provision will close a long-standing gap by ensuring
that the State Department provides information not only on
the quantity of approved licenses for Direct Commercial Sales
(DCS) but also on the quantity of actual deliveries of
weapons exported pursuant to the DCS authority during the
fiscal year covered by the report, specifying, if necessary,
whether such deliveries were licensed in preceding fiscal
year.
Report on Government-to-Government Arms Sales End-Use Monitoring
Program
Section 703 of the conference agreement, proposed by the
House, requires the President to submit a report on the
status of efforts by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
(DSCA) to implement its plan to enhance end-use monitoring on
government-to-government arms transfers to foreign countries.
The conferees direct the State Department to provide DSCA
complete copies of all end-use violation and prior consent
reports required under section 3 of the Arms Export Control
Act.
MTCR Report Transmittal
Section 704 includes the Senate Committee on Banking in an
infrequent report required under the Arms Export Control Act.
Stinger Missiles in the Persian Gulf Region
Section 705, proposed by the Senate, permits the
replacement, on a one-for-one basis, of Stinger missiles
possessed by Bahrain and Saudi Arabia that are nearing the
scheduled expiration of their shelf-life.
Sense of Congress Regarding Excess Defense Articles
Section 706, proposed by the Senate, calls on the President
to sell more defense articles, rather than merely give them
away, using the authority provided under Section 21 of the
Arms Export Control Act. It urges the President to use the
flexibility afforded by Section 47 of that Act to determine
that ``market value'' of Excess Defense Articles and to sell
such items at a price that can be negotiated. When the
Department of Defense uses too rigid a definition of ``market
value,'' and that price cannot be commanded, the item is
instead transferred on a ``grant'' basis pursuant to Section
516 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, thereby forgoing
revenues. This section encourages the Department of Defense
to ascertain the ``market value'' on the basis of local
market conditions rather than solely on the basis of a
generic formula applied by the Department of Defense for
accounting purposes.
Excess Defense Articles for Mongolia
Section 707 of the Conference agreement, which has been
modified from the House proposal, provides authority to
furnish grant excess defense articles (EDA) and services to
Mongolia for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, given
the weak nature of its national economy, which has led to
difficulty in funding its military budget, Mongolia cannot
afford the cost of packing, crating, handling, and
transportation of EDA, even if the EDA itself is provided at
no cost. Section 707 provides the Department of Defense with
the authority to absorb the cost of transporting EDA to
Mongolia, thereby allowing the receipt of much needed
equipment. However, the Committee intends to continue the
practice of requiring from the Department of Defense a
detailed description of such costs in each proposed transfer.
Were such costs to grow beyond a reasonable level, the
Committee's continued support for such authorities would be
jeopardized.
Space Cooperation with Russian Persons
Section 708 has been modified from the Senate proposal.
This section amends the Arms Export Control Act, provides for
increased reporting and certification to Congress, and
expands the ability of the President to regulate missile-
related cooperation by providing him with the discretionary
authority to terminate contracts in the event that he
determines that a violation of the MTCR sanctions law
(Section 13(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act) has
occurred.
Currently, Chapter 7 of the Arms Export Control Act imposes
mandatory sanctions on proliferating entities. However, those
sanctions apply only to prospective licenses and contracts.
The authority does not exist, within Chapter 7, to terminate
an existing license in the event that an individual has been
discovered to have proliferated missile technology subsequent
to the granting of the license. This deficiency became
apparent in discussions with the administration regarding the
proposed co-production arrangement between Lockheed Martin
and a Russian rocket-engine firm, NPO Energomash. Section 708
provides that missing authority to the President, should he
choose to utilize it. It is important to underscore that this
authority is completely discretionary.
Section 708 also requires the President to make an annual
certification to the Committee that various Russian space and
missile entities doing business with the United States are
not identified in the report required pursuant to the Iran
Nonproliferation Act of 2000. These certifications must be
made annually for the first five years of a license between a
U.S. firm and a Russian entity (or for the life of the
license, if less than five years). However, there is no
penalty in the event that a certification cannot be made
(presumably because the person or entity has been listed in
the report). The MTCR sanctions law only operates in the
event that the President makes a formal determination that a
transfer, or a conspiracy to transfer, occurred. While the
certification required under Section 708 does not go beyond
the annual report that the President is required to submit to
Congress under the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, it is
nevertheless useful because it will ensure that the
Department of State continues to focus on Russian entities
doing business with the United States. This provision is also
intended to encourage U.S. companies working with Russian
space entities to maintain pressure on their counterparts not
to proliferate technology to Iran.
Finally, Section 708 rectifies an unintended reporting
loophole in the Arms Export Control Act that resulted from
amendments to integrate the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency within the Department of State and a subsequent
decision by the Department of State on licensing technical
exchanges and brokering services under Section 36 of the
AECA. Specifically, for MTCR-related transfers governed under
Section 36(b) and (c) which fall below the Congressional
notification threshold, the administration currently must
nevertheless submit a report to the Committee explaining the
consistency of such a transfer with U.S. MTCR policy.
However, MTCR-related licenses covered by Section 36(d) which
fall below the notification threshold are not captured fully
by this reporting requirement. Section 708 rectifies this
problem.
seense of Congress Relating to Military Equipment for the Philippines
Section 709 of the conference agreement, proposed by the
House, expresses the sense of the Congress that the U.S.
should work with the Government of the Philippines to enable
them to procure certain military equipment to upgrade the
capabilities and improve the quality of life of the armed
forces of the Philippines.
Waiver of Certain Costs
Section 710 of the conference agreement, proposed by the
House, waives the requirement to collect certain nonrecurring
charges associated with the government-to-government sale of
5 UH-60L helicopters to Colombia in November of 1999.
Benjamin A. Gilman,
Bill Goodling,
Sam Gejdenson,
Managers on the Part of the House.
Jesse Helms,
Richard G. Lugar,
Chuck Hagel,
Joe Biden,
Paul S. Sarbanes,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
____________________
IMPACT AID THEFT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Speaker, something pretty positive happened in
Hyattsville, Maryland that I want to discuss; it happened particularly
at a Chevrolet dealership, at the Lustine Chevrolet dealership. It was
there that a sales agent happened upon a scandal that affects the
United States Department of Education, a theft of about $2 million that
this sales agent stumbled upon and called the FBI, and it resulted in a
hearing that was conducted earlier today in the Committee on Education
and the Workforce; specifically, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations.
The Justice Department, back in July of 2000, filed a claim in
Federal court that Impact Aid funds, these are the funds that are sent
to assist districts responsible for educating children connected with
Federal facilities; military installations usually, sometimes Indian
reservations, that these Impact Aid funds intended for two school
districts in South Dakota were stolen on March 31 of this year. These
alleged facts were presented in the Justice Department's complaint for
forfeiture, which it filed in order to recover the stolen money and
property
[[Page 18561]]
and try to get these dollars back to the children in South Dakota.
Here is how it worked. There was a falsified, direct deposit sign-up
form for the Bennett County, South Dakota school district that was
submitted to the Department of Education on March 20 of this year, and
on the form, the deposit bank account was changed from the correct bank
account number, which was used by the school district, to a number
under the name of Dany Enterprises. The Department of Education
employee entered these forms and this false information into the
agency's electronic accounting system. Consequently, the Impact Aid
forms were wired on March 31 to the Dany Enterprises bank account, to
the thief's bank account.
Now, this fraud was discovered thereafter on April 4 when a
salesperson at the Chevrolet dealership in Hyattsville, Maryland, when
he contacted the FBI to report this suspicious transaction involving
two men trying to buy a Chevy vehicle with a $48,000 cashier's check,
drawing on the stolen funds from the U.S. Department of Education that
were deposited in the thief's account, Dany Enterprises account. The
salesman was alerted by what appeared to be false credit information.
Now, although this Chevrolet salesman refused to sell the two men the
car, they were each successful in purchasing a car from other dealers
in the Washington, D.C. area. Now, one of them purchased a 2000
Cadillac Escalade from a Cadillac dealer using a $46,900 cashier's
check, and the other person purchased a Lincoln Navigator from a
Lincoln-Mercury dealer, using a $50,000 cashier's check. These checks
were used to buy both of these cars and they drew on the stolen funds
from the Department of Education which were intended to go to the
school in South Dakota.
Madam Speaker, I mention all of this because the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigation has been working very hard to try to divert
dollars away from the waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant over in
the Department and move these dollars back to our classrooms where they
benefit children.
The story did not end there, because following these revelations, the
FBI found another example of where another cash transaction, this time
almost $1 million which was intended for another South Dakota school
district was again stolen out of these Impact Aid funds and wired to an
account called Children's Cottage, Incorporated, due to another
fraudulently submitted direct deposit form. This was used to buy a
house as it turns out somewhere here in the Maryland area.
Now, this committee hearing that we had today was one of an ongoing
series of committee hearings that we have initiated to uncover and
explore the theft, fraud and abuse and waste in the Department of
Education. We have also been learning about a computer theft ring where
Department of Education employees have come up with this elaborate
system where they have stolen television sets, electronic equipment,
and so on and so forth.
Madam Speaker, we are spending as a Congress about $40 million a year
for various investigators, financial auditors, other investigators that
are working over in the Department of Education to try to help us stop
this waste, fraud and abuse within the Department of Education and to
help us get these dollars to our children and classrooms where these
dollars matter most. But in this case, we are thankful for the car
agent who did what the high-priced auditors were unable to do, and in
this case, it has a very positive ending. He has reunited these almost
$2 million with the children of South Dakota who need them. I wanted to
bring that to the attention of my colleagues.
____________________
PIPELINE SAFETY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to command the
attention of my colleagues to a potentially deadly and amazingly
overlooked aspect of public safety, the construction of oil and natural
gas pipelines in America.
Unbeknownst to millions of Americans, their homes, their schools and
communities are sitting atop hundreds of miles of pipelines that may
explode at any moment if not properly constructed or if not properly
maintained.
We all received a rude awakening to the likelihood of tragedy this
past August. A pipeline exploded one August morning on a camping ground
in Carlsbad, New Mexico, taking the lives of 11 men, women and
children. Our Speaker pro tempore knows firsthand of this tragedy.
Forty-eight hours later, on the other side of the country, a bulldozer
ruptured a gas pipeline on a construction site in North Carolina.
Luckily, no serious injuries were reported there. Of the 226 people
that died between 1989 and 1998, according to a report issued by the
General Accounting Office, these were some of 1030 who were injured,
$700 million in property was damaged. This is unbelievable. It is
unacceptable.
Madam Speaker, it is time for Congress to demand that the office of
pipeline safety within the Department of Transportation do their job.
Periodic pipeline inspections, rigorously report pipeline spills.
Let me give my colleagues an idea about the status of pipeline
safety, Madam Speaker, in the United States right now. All of the
Nation's natural gas, in about 65 percent of crude and refined oil,
travel through a network of nearly 2.2 million miles of pipes. These
pipelines need constant attention and repair to remain safe. Over 6.3
million gallons of oil and other hazardous liquids are reportedly
released from pipelines on the average each year.
{time} 1915
Yet the incidence of spills and explosions is getting worse. The
amount of oil and other hazardous liquids released per incident has
been increasing since 1993. The average amount released from a pipeline
spill in 1998 was over 45,000 gallons.
Oil pipeline leaks can and do contaminate drinking water, crops,
residential land. They generate greenhouse gases, kill fish, cause
deaths and injuries from explosions and fires.
For one, there is little or no enforcement of existing regulations.
The General Accounting Office found that the Office of Pipeline Safety
had not enforced 22 of the 49 safety regulations that are already on
the book. And right now there are pipelines, natural gas pipelines,
starting all over America. Some of these pipelines are going through
college dormitories in my own State of New Jersey; going through
people's residential areas in Pennsylvania and Ohio. And I say there is
something wrong. This was a wilderness area. These people were fishing
in New Mexico. This was not a densely populated area when 11 Americans
were killed.
The Office of Pipeline Safety has not acted on many National
Transportation Safety Board recommendations for more stringent pipeline
standards. This sort of inattention is mysterious. Why would the
agency, whose sole purpose it is to regulate and monitor these
pipelines, keep them safe, be so uninterested in their duties? It is
enough to make me wonder if there is collusion of some kind going on
behind the scenes. Why else would this Federal agency be so lax in
enforcing its own regulations?
Madam Speaker, this inaction of the Office of Pipeline Safety will
not be excused by this Congress. We cannot forgive the lack of pipeline
safety and enforcement. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 4792 with the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who we will hear from later, I
beg of the Speaker to use her influence to get some real safety
regulations. They are not being adhered to. People's lives are in
jeopardy.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a newspaper article regarding
a pipeline rupture in Paterson, New Jersey.
[From the Herald News]
Gas Line Rupture Forces Evacuation in Paterson
(By Robert Ratish and Eileen Markey)
Paterson.--Workers digging up a roadway on Governor and
Straight streets hit a natural gas line Monday morning,
releasing
[[Page 18562]]
fumes and forcing the evacuation of 82 residents in 15 to 20
buildings.
Police cordoned off four blocks surrounding the break for
about three hours while crews from Public Service Electric &
Gas Co. worked to shut off the gas. Meanwhile, those who live
in the neighborhood waited outside until emergency crews
deemed the area safe. ``You could hear a roaring sound. It
sounded like a train,'' Councilwoman Vera Ames said. She said
a thick smell of gas filled the area surrounding the break.
There were no injuries, and no buildings were damaged.
The break occurred as workers with the Passaic Valley Water
Commission were using a backhoe to break through the street.
The crew had been shutting off a water line leading into a
building, said Chief Engineer Jim Duprey.
Duprey said the accident occurred because PSE&G failed to
mark the road properly for underground lines. ``When Public
Service went to mark out, they indicated there was no piping
in the area that was excavated,'' he said.
Before digging, the commission called a hotline maintained
by the state Board of Public Utilities as required by the
1995 ``One Call'' law, Duprey said. The hotline allows
agencies to make one call and have all of the appropriate
utilities mark underground lines.
A spokesman for PSE&G said the utility was investigating
whether the gas line was properly marked.
After hitting the line, a PVWC worker flagged down a
passing officer at about 10:35 a.m., police said. Police were
advised to turn off the lights on patrol cars and not leave
any engines running for fear of sparking the gas fumes.
``It was very dangerous. The pressure was just
phenomenal,'' Mayor Martin G. Barnes said.
Roger Soto, a service technician at PSE&G, stopped at each
building on Harrison Street telling workers to stay outside
their buildings.
``We want to make sure that no one is operating any
equipment or any kind of engine,'' he said. ``We're just
securing the area, making sure everybody is safe.''
The chief of emergency management, James Sparano, said even
police and fire equipment posed a danger. ``You'll notice
even our emergency vehicles are staying way back--anything
can spark it,'' he said.
As firefighters and emergency medical technicians stood by,
22 young children attending Bethel Christian Childcare on
Auburn Street were evacuated to School 6, where they stayed
until it was safe to return. * * *
____________________
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, as my colleague earlier this evening
talked about, today we had a hearing in the Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
doing oversight hearings on the Department of Education. Let me just
put this in context for my colleagues.
In 1998 and 1999, the Department of Education failed its financial
audit. That means that the independent auditors who came in and took a
look at the financial records of the Department of Education indicated
that the way the numbers were presented and the background, the records
that the Department of Education has, the procedures that it has in
place and the interim controls that it has in place, gave the auditors
some reason of doubt that the way the numbers were actually presented
in the financial statements perhaps did not accurately reflect the
expenditures and the flow of revenue throughout the Department.
Coming from the private sector, I know that when the financial
auditors come in and put some disclaimers in or do not give an
organization a clean bill of health, it sets off a number of alarm
bells. Because, basically, what the auditors are saying is that in this
environment, without the proper financial controls in place, an
environment is created that is ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. Over
the last 18 months, as we have been taking a look at this problem
within the Department of Education, we have come across a number of
cases where the predictions from the auditors have actually been borne
out, and it is very, very disappointing.
Today, we talked about basically what some would characterize as an
embezzlement scheme of roughly $1.9 million out of the Impact Aid funds
that were diverted into individuals' or small companies' checking
accounts. And, again, this was not caught by the internal controls
within the Department of Education, this was caught by a car salesman
who grew suspicious with somebody coming in and buying or attempting to
buy a very expensive automobile.
We know about the theft ring. Three people have pled guilty, another
three have pleadings before the court, and there are a number of
employees within the Department of Education that are suspended without
pay. This is a $300,000 theft ring. The material products they brought
in were anything from a 61-inch television to computers to VCRs to a
whole series of other electronic equipment. It also includes up to
$600,000 of false billable overtime, time that was billed, time that
was paid, but time that was never worked.
We also know of at least one other major theft ring within the
Department of Education that we are not at liberty to talk about
because there are not public documents that have been released at this
point in time. We also know that within the Department of Education the
Inspector General has estimated that improper Pell Grant payments
amounted to $177 million in one recent year.
We know that real decisions have real impact on real people. The $1.9
million embezzlement from the Impact Aid funds impacted directly two
school districts in South Dakota. Another example. Thirty-nine students
were recently awarded Jacob Javits scholarships. These are scholarships
that are given to students who have excelled at the undergraduate
level. The Education Department at the Federal level comes back and
says that they have done such a good job, that the Federal Government
is now going to fund 4 years of graduate school. That is great news for
those young people; that is great news for their parents; and that is
great news for the undergraduate university that has fostered an
environment that has allowed these kids to excel.
Just one problem: The Department of Education notified the wrong 39
students. Two days later they had to call back these young people and
tell them, sorry, they were not the students that won.
We know that the Department of Education has made $150 million in
duplicate payments in this current fiscal year alone. A duplicate
payment is a vendor supplying an invoice for products and services that
they have provided the Department of Education. A duplicate payment
means they get paid once and they get paid again.
We have some serious problems at the Department of Education. At the
same time that we have been looking at these kinds of problems within
the Department of Education, we have also had the opportunity to travel
around America and see what is working in education. We have been in
roughly 21 different States, and what we have seen is some great
education, reform and educational results happening at the local level.
What the Federal Government needs to learn in this issue is where we
are only providing 7 percent of the money, but in some States we
estimate that we are providing 50 percent of the paperwork, it is time
for the Federal Government to step back and let the people who know our
children's names decide what is best for our schools and for our kids.
It is time to step back and to make sure that we get 95 cents of every
Federal dollar invested in education, that we get 95 cents of every
dollar back into the classroom.
It is time for us to remove the red tape which really restricts
innovation at the local level. It is time for us to allow local school
districts to decide whether they want to use money on technology, to
hire teachers, to pay teachers more for teacher training or for
investment in other projects. Allow people at the local level to make
the decisions.
There is a lot of good things happening in education in America
today. The focus needs to be on the local level and not here in
Washington.
____________________
[[Page 18563]]
TRIBUTE TO GILBERT WOLF
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good
friend and a great American, Mr. Gilbert Wolf. On April 1 of this year,
Gilbert Wolf retired as Director of the National Plastering Industry's
Joint Apprenticeship Trust Fund and Administrator of the Plasterers and
Cement Masons Job Corps Training Program. After 49 years in the
industry, Mr. Wolf has left a legacy of superior skills training
directed toward young people entering the construction trades.
A plasterer by trade, Mr. Wolf began his own career as an apprentice
and went on to become a journeyman and then apprentice instructor. In
1969, he was instrumental in securing a contract with the Department of
the Interior to train economically disadvantaged youth to become
plasterers and cement masons. After a successful operation in three Job
Corps centers, Mr. Wolf was awarded additional contracts with the
Department of the Interior and labor. The Plasterers and Cement Masons
Job Corps Training Program, under Gilbert Wolf's guidance, now boasts
participation in 41 centers throughout the United States.
Training and motivating youth in careers in the construction industry
has been Mr. Wolf's major focus for over four decades. He spearheaded
several national events to bring the need for youth training to the
forefront. Competition was one of his favorite themes. The result was
three international apprenticeship competitions over a 5-year period;
two Job Corps national competitions and countless skills demonstrations
at trade shows and construction industry events throughout the United
States. These events consistently showed the public the need for and
the importance of solid skills training.
The Smithsonian Institute's famous Festival of Life became the
setting for another national skills demonstration by Job Corps students
from around the country. Mr. Wolf led the committees who organized the
2-week long festivals and won a spot on Good Morning America.
Mr. Wolf also coauthored papers on historical preservation and
restoration with the Department of the Interior and the National Trust
for Historical Preservation. A partnership with the NTHP brought
opportunities for Job Corps students to learn and to work on important
historical landmarks and to develop specialized skills.
Mr. Wolf also coauthored the Incentive Apprenticeship Training
Course, which guides instructors through the process of training a
number of people at multiple levels.
Gilbert Wolf is also credited with pushing hard to increase the
number of women and other minorities into skills training and the
construction industry. He was the first in the Job Corps to hire a
woman as an instructor in a nontraditional trade.
When asked what has kept him going in this industry for the last 49
years, Mr. Wolf responded, where are the future skilled crafts people
coming from, and who will train them? Passing a legacy of knowledge
from one generation to the next is the backbone of our building
industry. Young people are our only chance to keep building a strong
America.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to express my own personal deep
appreciation for the fact that Gilbert Wolf has been a mentor to my
brother Roger and a valued friend to me. This Nation would be stronger
and we would all be better people if more of us were more like Gil
Wolf. I wish him a long, healthy, and happy retirement.
____________________
PIPELINE SAFETY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, in June 1999, a gasoline pipeline ruptured
in Bellingham, Washington, and the ensuing fireball killed three young
men. Following that tragedy, the House of Representatives did nothing.
Several months ago, a fuel pipeline ruptured by the Patuxent River in
Maryland, spilling over 100,000 gallons of fuel, creating an
environmental disaster. And following that disaster, the U.S. House of
Representatives did nothing.
Several weeks ago in New Mexico, in Madam Speaker's own State, entire
families were incinerated in a terrible tragedy due to a ruptured
natural gas pipeline. And to date, despite many of our best efforts,
the U.S. House of Representatives has done nothing.
{time} 1930
This Chamber, despite this continuing toll of human loss and
environmental loss, has not moved one bill through committee, has not
moved one bill to the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote
despite many of our bipartisan efforts to accomplish a meaningful bill
this year.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to call on the House leadership to bring
forward to this Chamber a meaningful, comprehensive, pipeline safety
bill with real teeth. And we have several to choose from in the House.
We have a bipartisan bill cosponsored by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Metcalf), a Republican from the Second District in Washington, and
myself, H.R. 4558. I am a prime sponsor on a bill, House bill 4792,
bills that will achieve something we have long needed in this country
and that is statutorily codified inspection criteria to require that
pipelines in this country are inspected on a regular basis to try to
prevent these tragedies.
Now, why is that so important? It is important because the tradition
in the last several decades here has been of abject failure. What has
happened before is that when tragedies of this nature have occurred,
the U.S. Congress has passed bills that have essentially deferred to an
administrative agency, to the Office of Pipeline Safety, and have
directed the Office of Pipeline Safety to adopt meaningful inspection
criteria, to adopt meaningful training criteria for operators.
And what has happened despite those continued grants of discretion to
the administrative agency? Well, what has happened is total failure.
In 1992, this Chamber required requirements to identify high-risk
pipelines. And yet, in a new millennium, we still do not have a
regulation or rule requiring that. We have the National Transportation
Safety Board. It found ``in 1987, the Safety Board recommended that the
Office of Pipeline Safety require pipeline operators to periodically
inspect their pipelines to identify corrosion, mechanical damage, or
other time dependent defects that may prohibit their safe operations.
Yet, 13 years after our initial recommendation was issued, there are no
regulations that require pipeline operators to perform periodic
inspections or tests to locate and assess whether this type of damage
exists on other pipelines.''
Thirteen years and yet we are on the cusp of a failure if we do not
pass a bill that has a statutorily required maximum period between
inspections.
Now, the other Chamber, Madam Speaker, has passed a bill that again
requires and gives discretion to the Office of Pipeline Safety to act.
Well, frankly, we need a tougher bill. We need to break this chain of
failure in the U.S. Congress. We need to bring to the floor of this
House a bill that will have a statutorily codified inspection regime to
make sure that these pipelines are in fact inspected.
I believe we can obtain a bipartisan resolution and get a bill to
conference committee relatively quickly to do that under the leadership
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.
There have been lots of discussions, and I believe we can find a
bipartisan solution to this to make sure we pass a meaningful bill.
I want to address a couple of other things our bill needs to do if we
are going to give Americans the confidence they deserve in their
pipelines. Besides the inspection, we have got to pass a bill that has
meaningful training requirements for the people who operate
[[Page 18564]]
these pipelines. They have to get a license to drive a truck with
gasoline in this country. They have to get a license to fly an
airplane. But they do not have to have any license or essentially any
training requirements to operate a pipeline. It is time to require a
meaningful training requirement for all operators.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to help this leadership
bring these bills up for a vote.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. JOHN B. DUFF, PRESIDENT OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE CHICAGO
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Wilson). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Dr. John B. Duff, who is retiring as President of Columbia College
Chicago after 8 successful years and an illustrious career in both
academia and the public sector.
Prior to Columbia, Dr. Duff served as commissioner of the Chicago
Public Library system, where he supervised construction of the Harold
Washington Library, the world's largest public library. His academic
positions include serving as the first chancellor of the Board of
Regents from Massachusetts' newly reorganized system of public higher
education; president of the University of Lowell, Massachusetts; and
lay provost, executive vice president and processor of history at Seton
Hall University.
Founded in 1890, Columbia College Chicago is an undergraduate and
graduate college in downtown Chicago, dedicated to communication arts
as well as media arts, applied and fine arts, theatrical and performing
arts, and management and marketing arts. It is the fifth largest
private institution of higher education in Illinois and the largest and
most comprehensive arts media and communications college in the
country.
More than one-third of Columbia's 9,000 students are minorities, the
largest minority enrollment of any arts and communication institution
in the country.
Columbia today is 50 percent larger than it was 9 years ago. In terms
of physical space, under Dr. Duff's leadership, Columbia acquired
650,000 square feet. During this time, the first residence hall and new
film stage facilities were opened, a new home for the music department
was purchased, a new dance center was built, the 33 East Congress
Building was purchased to house the English Department and the Radio
Department, and Chicago's historic Ludington Building was acquired
providing gallery space, student space, the Film/Video Department, and
the Center for Book and Paper Arts.
The college has played a major role in the revitalization of the
South Loop and, working with its neighbors, arts organizations,
entrepreneurs and the city is spearheading the development of a Wabash
Avenue Arts Corridor.
The growth of Columbia's faculty was also a priority for Dr. Duff
during his tenure. The college added more than 100 full-time faculty
positions to enhance curriculum development and management, to give
more continuity to the educational programs, and to increase student
contact with faculty.
Dr. Duff also reinforced the college's commitment to its students by
strengthening developmental education programs, to help students stay
in school and graduate. Open-admissions arts colleges are rare, but one
as academically strong as Columbia is truly unique.
Today, thanks to Dr. Duff's leadership, Columbia remains secure in
its mission and traditional commitments to opportunity, diversity, and
professional education in the arts and communications.
Madam Speaker, I invite all Members of the House to join with me in
recognizing Dr. John Duff's many contributions to higher education to
the City of Chicago and to the State of Illinois and in wishing him and
his wife, journalist Estelle Shanley, our very best as they join one-
fifth of the rest of the population in this country and move out to
California to spend the rest of their days.
____________________
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WEEK
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
General Leave
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the subject of my special order this evening.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am honored today to join a number of my
colleagues in celebrating National Historically Black Colleges and
Universities Week.
The contributions made by HBCUs to the African American community, to
our country, and to our culture cannot be overstated.
As President Clinton noted in proclaiming the week of September 17 as
HBCU Week, ``Generations of African American educators, physicians,
lawyers, scientists, and other professionals found at HBCUs the
knowledge, experience and encouragement they needed to reach their full
potential.''
The alumni rolls of HBCUs are very long. They include two very
distinguished, extraordinary Americans, Martin Luther King, Jr., and
Booker T. Washington. In addition, they include a number of my
colleagues who will be joining me today.
Today, Madam Speaker, Historically Black Colleges and Universities
comprise about three percent of all colleges and universities. However,
they confer nearly 30 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded each
year to African Americans.
HBCUs, Historically Black Colleges, also confer the majority of
bachelor's degrees and advance degrees awarded to black students in the
physical sciences, mathematics, computer sciences, engineering, and
education. More than half of all African American professionals,
including 70 percent of African American dentists and physicians,
graduated from Historically Black institutions.
The real story, Madam Speaker, that underlies these figures is the
story of hope and opportunity. We cannot, we should not, we must not
run from our history no matter how painful, no matter how disgraceful.
Before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954, African Americans were routinely and wrongly
excluded from institutions of higher learning. It did not matter how
smart they were. It did not matter how much talent or potential they
had. The only thing, tragically, that mattered was the color of their
skin.
But out of that rank injustice, that indefensible racism, was born a
fortitude and a determination to rise above, to overcome, to overcome
through education. Thus, the first black college, which is now known as
Cheyney University in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837.
To appreciate the magnitude of this, remember that Cheyney was
created a full 28 years before the ratification of the 13th amendment
established to train free blacks to become school teachers.
Today Cheyney is one of the 105 HBCUs that continue to serve with
great pride as an avenue for African Americans to attend college and
indeed for other Americans to attend college, as well.
Four of those Historically Black Colleges are located in the State of
Maryland, including Bowie State University in my own district, which
was founded in 1865. Bowie State University is the oldest Historically
Black University in Maryland. The others, Madam Speaker, are Morgan
State, Coppin State, both in Baltimore, and the University of Maryland
Eastern Shore.
Shortly, I will be joined by my colleague, the gentleman from
Maryland
[[Page 18565]]
(Mr. Cummings), a graduate of Morgan State, who will join me in this
special order.
I want to make specific note of the four presidents of those
distinguished institutions: Dr. Calvin Burnett, president of Coppin
State College; Dr. Earl Richardson, with whom I had the privilege of
being today, president of Morgan State University; and Dr. Dolores
Spikes, president of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore.
Our newest president is the president of Bowie State University,
which I just mentioned, Dr. Calvin Lowe.
Madam Speaker, let me say, as a current member of the Board of
Regents of the University of Maryland systems, as someone acutely
interested in education and the needs of our youth, I see the manifest
vision and the determination of HBCUs practically every day. I see it
in the faces of the young people in my district who know that they will
have the opportunity to develop their skills and talent, whether they
choose Bowie State University, the University of Maryland College Park,
or any other school. I see it in the faces of young professionals who
have attended an HBCU and who are now working hard to build their
careers and contribute to our society. And I see it in the faces of
those here tonight who appreciate the unique role and history of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and who understand the
importance of their continued vibrancy.
{time} 1945
In the past 20 years, at least 10 Historically Black Colleges and
Universities have closed. Others, Madam Speaker, face financial
hardship. We have in my opinion in this House a duty to help them, and
not just with dollars, though dollars are very important. The bottom
line, adequate funding, will continue to be important. But we must also
recognize, Madam Speaker, that our strength as a Nation lies not just
in the quality of the University of Maryland at College Park or any of
the other great universities but in the excellence of another great
university, Bowie State, Morgan, Coppin, the University of Maryland
Eastern Shore, and the institutions from which so many of our
distinguished colleagues have graduated. We must realize that while we
celebrate the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we also must
take joy in the accomplishments and excellence of North Carolina A&T.
Historically Black Colleges have strengthened our country and
enriched our culture beyond measure. They have nurtured and fostered
the talents of millions. And while they can take great pride in their
glorious past, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that they enjoy
an even brighter future.
Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity of meeting with Dr. Richardson,
as I said, and many other presidents of Historically Black Colleges.
They brought up some critical issues with which this Congress must
deal. I am sure that my colleagues will join me in doing so to ensure
the continued vibrancy and success of these extraordinary institutions.
Madam Speaker, I am now privileged to yield to my good friend,
distinguished colleague and graduate of Howard University. I said
Morgan, but Howard, University. He is on the board of regents at Morgan
State University, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want
to thank him for this special order tonight with regard to our Nation's
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. I also want to thank him
as the former president of the State Senate in Maryland and now as a
Member of this great body for all of the support he has given to our
colleges in the State of Maryland and then of course to those
throughout the United States as a Member of this body.
Many might ask, what is an HBCU? To clarify, the Higher Education Act
of 1965 defines an HBCU as any historically black college or university
that was established prior to 1964 whose principal mission was and is
the education of black Americans. Earlier today, presidents,
chancellors and representatives from HBCUs met with congressional
leaders to identify opportunities to advance HBCUs. Throughout their
history, HBCUs have served as emblems of excellence in higher education
for African Americans.
Often acclaimed ``the salvation of black folks,'' HBCUs have engraved
in American history the opportunity for freedom through education.
There are 117 HBCUs, a mix of 4-year colleges and universities,
community and junior colleges, public and private institutions, and
technical schools. The benefits of an educational experience at an HBCU
are significant and cannot be duplicated. Students develop
intellectually and build life skills and personal confidence about
their identity, heritage and mission to society.
Tonight, Madam Speaker, I would like to simply provide facts and
figures that will give my colleagues an idea of how many lives have
been impacted by HBCUs. Did you know that HBCUs have produced a large
number of congressional representatives, State legislators, mayors,
Federal and State judges, professors, teachers, doctors, lawyers,
business leaders, activists, writers, musicians, actors, athletes and
military leaders? Did you know that for more than 150 years HBCUs have
enrolled less than 20 percent of African American undergraduates but,
significantly, award one-third of all bachelor's degrees and a large
number of the graduate and professional degrees?
During the second session of the 101st Congress at a hearing before
the House Committee on Education and Labor entitled ``Issues and
Matters Pertaining to Historically Black Colleges and Universities,''
former Congressman and current president and CEO of the United Negro
College Fund, William Gray of Pennsylvania, said, ``HBCUs have
performed a remarkable task, educating almost 40 percent of this
country's black college graduates at either the graduate or
undergraduate level, some 75 percent of all black Ph.D.s, 46 percent of
all black business executives, 50 percent of all black engineers, 80
percent of all black Federal judges, and 85 percent of all black
doctors.''
At that same hearing, U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher, who was
then serving as president of Meharry Medical College, stated that
``historically black health professional schools have trained an
estimated 40 percent of this Nation's black dentists, 40 percent of
black physicians, 50 percent of black pharmacists, 75 percent of the
Nation's black veterinarians.''
Again, these statistics speak volumes for the value of HBCUs in
providing an opportunity for African Americans to participate and make
contributions in all walks of life. This record of outstanding
achievement comes despite daunting challenges, including limited
financial resources, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) talked
about just a moment ago. In fact, I must note that in comparison with
other colleges and universities, HBCUs are often underfunded. However,
these institutions have maintained their commitment to excellence in
higher education.
Locally, in my district of Baltimore, there are two HBCUs. Coppin
State College has become a staple in the community, working with school
children while also providing services to small businesses in
cooperation with the Small Business Administration. It has also
sponsored workshops, health fairs, concerts and other activities that
enable the college to serve as a repository for African American
culture. Coppin State also offers degree programs to prison inmates in
urban and rural areas. This is just one example of an HBCU working to
make their surrounding community more livable.
As President Clinton once said, ``Historically Black Colleges and
Universities continue to play a vital role by adding to the diversity
and caliber of the Nation's higher education system. Furthermore, these
institutions remind all Americans of our obligations to uphold the
principles of justice and equality enshrined in our Constitution.''
I believe that the information I have provided here tonight supports
this notion. I again thank the gentleman for the special order.
[[Page 18566]]
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I also thank
him for his service with Morgan State University, one of the great
schools in this country and in our State, and also would mention that
his alma mater, Howard, of course, has a particular relationship with
the Federal Government; and we are very supportive of that institution,
and Dr. Swygert is doing a very outstanding job as its leader.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I certainly agree with the gentleman on that one. That
is why my daughter is a second-year student there at Howard.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that testimony. It is as strong a testimony
as you can get. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the very distinguished gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I very much thank the gentleman for yielding. Moreover, I
am very appreciative of the initiative that his involvement brings to
this special order this evening. He is a member of our leadership. I
think a special order led by him indicates, among other things, the
attention and the importance of the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities to our own minority leadership here in the House. I
recognize that the majority has also given some considerable attention
to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and I want to thank
them for that this evening as well. I am pleased that the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, has taken a lead in
drawing in the Historically Black Colleges and Universities here this
week when the President has declared this to be National Black Colleges
and Universities Week, so that we could hear directly from them.
If I may say so, my own sister, a fourth generation Washingtonian
like me, is president of a Historically Black College and University,
Albany State University; so I suppose my own interest in this is also a
family interest. She is a graduate of Miners Teachers College, now the
University of the District of Columbia. My mother is a graduate of
Howard University. I suppose it is very difficult for any African
American who has gotten anywhere in life not to have in her family some
indication that the HBCUs have touched their lives. I believe that this
special order this evening is important for the way in which it
illustrates the gentleman from Maryland's understanding of the
continuing importance of these universities in the life and times of
black America, the 23 States and the District of Columbia where they
are located, almost half our States, 105 of them who bear a
disproportionate share of the responsibility for higher education for
African Americans. Because of that fact alone, these colleges and
universities are deserving of all the attention we can give them. If
they were to drop out of the higher education business tomorrow, black
higher education in the United States of America would collapse. They
give us, just at the bachelor's level, 28 percent of the bachelor's
degree. They are only 3 percent of the colleges and universities in the
United States of America. They are as vital as any network of
institutions in our country.
Madam Speaker, I do want to speak about some new developments in the
District of Columbia involving HBCUs. Of course, Howard University, in
many ways the flagship university of black America, is located here.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has indicated its special
relationship to this Congress. When the slaves were freed, what they
wanted most of all was access to education, and higher education. The
Congress has had responsibility for Howard University in a very special
way almost since the end of the Civil War.
Actually, we had two Historically Black Colleges and Universities
here, the University of the District of Columbia as well as Howard
University, the University of the District of Columbia being an amalgam
of three Historically Black Colleges and Universities. But because of a
wrinkle and mishap, the University of the District of Columbia was
never funded as a Historically Black College and University.
I want to thank this body here this evening that when the D.C.
College Tuition Act was passed, the University of the District of
Columbia received its rightful status as a fully funded HBCU beginning
in 1999. This was very important because this is the only publicly
supported university in the District of Columbia, for its lack of vital
funding, especially given the hard times the District has since gone
through, was a matter of some considerable disadvantage to the
District.
It is also, however, an open-admissions university. That means that,
by definition, it is not the university for some of our youngsters. One
size does not fit all. And so this body passed the D.C. College Tuition
Access Act. This was a historic act, because for the first time it
means that residents of the District of Columbia have what Maryland and
Virginia, to point to our two neighbors, have had historically.
Virginia has 58 public colleges and universities, I think Maryland has
almost 30, and so you can choose which one fits you. The District had
one. It was an open-admissions university. This gave us access to any
public college or university anywhere in the United States of America,
and in this its first year just begun in September, college attendance
in the District of Columbia has been raised enormously. Already in the
first year they have come. What it means is that the youngster and her
family pays in-state tuition and the Federal Government picks up the
rest.
What does that have to do with what we are celebrating here today? We
have the preliminary figures about where these students are going. And
I am here to report today that of the 10 universities most favored by
D.C. students, and they could choose any universities that are publicly
funded anywhere in the United States, six are Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, the six most favored. And they are Howard,
Norfolk State, Morgan, Hampton, Bowie State. There are a host of
others. Delaware State. There are many in North Carolina. Now I am
focusing only on the Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Private universities in the District and the region receive a stipend
of $2,500 if the student chooses the private university. We have 150
students at Hampton, a private university, of course, one of the great
Historically Black Colleges and Universities in Virginia.
{time} 2000
Mr. Speaker, the fact that so many District youngsters, who finally
have the gates open for them, choose any one they want have chosen
HBCUs speaks for itself about the importance of these universities to
African Americans.
Mr. Speaker, we are a microcosm of where black America is in their
choices of higher education. They feel welcome. They feel these schools
will help them get a degree, rather than simply attend a university.
The dropout rates for whites and blacks who go to college in the United
States is enormous. Many of our students come from very disadvantaged
backgrounds. They need special attention.
They get that attention in the historically black colleges and
universities. These universities have proven themselves to the
students, to their families and to our country for generations. More
students than ever now in the District of Columbia know the value since
the way it has been opened to allow them to go to these universities.
We are grateful for this opportunity. We are grateful for this body,
for the leadership on this side of the aisle and the other side of the
aisle that has opened the gates all over America to make up for the
fact that we do not have the same access that other colleges and
universities have.
We are grateful that we now have a funded HBCU here in the District
of Columbia, the University of the District of Columbia, and above all
we are grateful that the HBCUs are there for D.C. as they have been
there for African Americans and for people of all backgrounds
throughout their glorious history.
Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) for yielding to me and I thank him once again for leadership on
this issue as he has always shown leadership on
[[Page 18567]]
this issue and on other issues facing black America.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much. I
appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks, and I believe her remarks were
very cogent. I think it is a very significant fact that the six highest
choices made by students in the District of Columbia who could go
anywhere are historically black colleges, which speaks not only to the
fulfillment of their mission, but to the quality of their work. So I
thank her for her comments.
I yield to my very distinguished friend, the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Bishop), a graduate of one of the most distinguished educational
institutions in America that is also a historically black college,
Morehouse College.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to our distinguished
colleagues, certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for arranging this evening's
special order in recognition of the contributions made by the country's
historically black colleges and universities.
These 105 institutions located in the District of Columbia and in 23
States from New York to California began to emerge more than 140 years
ago, thrusting open the doors of opportunity and promise for millions
of African Americans. These centers of learning have enriched the lives
of their students, their parents and families and the communities and
the regions that they serve.
As a matter of fact, they have made contributions that have
strengthened our entire country enriching the lives of all Americans.
For me, this special order has a very personal meaning. I literally
grew up within the environment of a historically black college. This
was in Mobile, Alabama, and the college was Bishop State Community
College, which got its start in 1927 as a branch of Alabama State
Teachers College. In 1965, the branch, as it was called, gained its
independence and became Mobile State Junior College where my father,
Dr. Sanford D. Bishop, Sr., served as the first president.
My mother incidentally was the librarian at the college, and it was
literally true that the campus and family life were very closely
interwoven as I spent my formative years on and about the campus there.
In 1971, Mobile State became Bishop State Junior College by an act of
the Alabama legislature and later Bishop State Community College in
recognition of the leadership that my late father provided in building
that college into the modern, flourishing institution that it has
become. Today, it offers a wide variety of courses for our student
enrollment that exceeds 4,000. A college that is recognized for its
academic excellence and which is, perhaps, especially noted for turning
out highly skilled health care professionals.
When I decided to attend college away from home, as many young people
do, my choice was Morehouse College in Atlanta, my father's alma mater,
an institution that had grown from a small Baptist school when founded
in 1867 to become a part of a sprawling college complex, Atlanta
University Center Complex, in providing studies in liberal arts,
religion, philosophy, business administration and the sciences.
It is a place known for its leaders in the struggle to move our
country closer to fulfilling its promise of freedom and opportunity for
all from presidents like Dr. John Hope and Dr. Ben Mays to the most
famous graduate, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., not to mention prominent
leaders in the entertainment field like Spike Lee and Samuel L.
Jackson.
Today I have the privilege of representing the Second Congressional
District of Georgia, which is the home of Albany State University,
where, as we have heard, Dr. Portia Holmes Shields serves as president.
Dr. Shields is, of course, the sister of our own friend and colleague,
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Albany State, which was founded 97 years ago as a Bible and
vocational training institute, now serves a widespread area of
southwest Georgia, and it provides a wide range of bachelor's and
graduate degrees. I often visit the campus in Albany where I always
gain energy and ideas and inspiration from the relationship that I have
with the faculty and the students.
Albany State has implemented what it calls a total quality approach,
where the academic achievement translates into both commitment to the
community and the skills and knowledge needed to compete in the
workplace. Incidentally, in 1994 and 1998, Albany State was submerged
in water from the flooding of the Flint Rivers as a result of Tropical
Storm Alberta. They developed a motto the Unsinkable Albany State, and
they have rebounded, rebuilt and now have a new campus that is
flourishing.
Also we have Fort Valley State University in Fort Valley, Georgia,
which is one of the 1890 Land Grant Colleges, the only one in Georgia.
It has provided agriculture, education and liberal arts training for
many, many years with many prominent graduates who have excelled in
business and politics and medicine and other fields of endeavor. My
good friend Dr. Oscar Prater is the President there.
There are historically black colleges and universities throughout
much of the school with records and achievement very similar with those
that I am very familiar with from a relatively new facility such as
LaGuardia Community College in New York City to the long-established
Wilberforce University in Ohio which was founded in 1856, to Compton
Community College founded in 1927.
All have made contributions that loom large as the history of the
country continues to be written. Congratulations to everyone who has
helped these colleges and universities carry out their historic
mission, including everyone here in Congress on both sides of the aisle
who have helped provide the increased support for our HBCUs.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer) and my other colleagues for having the foresight to have this
special order to give recognition that of course is long overdue to a
group of institutions that have really contributed greatly to the
greatness of America and the world. Godspeed to all of these
institutions as they continue to help make this Nation's promise a full
reality.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Bishop) for his comments. And as I was standing here, I thought to
myself Sanford Bishop Sr. would indeed be proud of his son, a leading
educator in our country. His father was a very distinguished American,
and his son has become someone of whom his father would be indeed be
extraordinarily proud. I thank the gentleman for his participation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from
Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Rush), a distinguished representative, and one
of the very significant leaders in our country for most, if not all, of
his adult life.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer). I want to, first of all, commend the gentleman for his
insightful leadership, for his dedication to the historical black
colleges throughout his professional, political career. I want to thank
him for the sensitivity of which he approaches this particular issue
and really just his total dedication to the efforts of historical black
colleges as they move to try to strengthen themselves and maintain
their commitment and their mission to the American people.
The gentleman has an exemplary image and his exemplary conduct should
be noted by all Americans, because he has indeed done this Nation a
great service on behalf of its minority students throughout the
country.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, Historically Black Colleges and Universities
are important institutions of higher learning, growth and development
for African Americans and minorities Nationwide.
[[Page 18568]]
These institutions offer quality education in collegiate settings that
are conducive to education and economic excellence.
The students who attend these colleges are educated, without the
deriding stumbling blocks, the deriding stumbling blocks of racial
selection for grants and scholarships and loans. The institutions are
free of racial, religious, and gender discrimination.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities graduate large numbers
of African Americans who, as previous speakers have indicated, lead,
very, very productive lives in our society, who are leaders in this
Nation among all professions, and who are leaders in the world.
In my home state of Illinois, many of our African American students
attend HBCUs. There are 23 States along with the District of Columbia
and the Virgin Islands which are home to HBCUs. While these
institutions are places where African Americans can flourish and people
prepare for the challenges of the global village. There is an important
problem which impacts the quality of their students and their
professors, and that problem is finances, it is money. In the last
decade, the Federal Government has increased its support of HBCUs, and
although the House appropriators led by the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) and others have worked hard to ensure that HBCUs have ready
access to Federal dollars through the HBCU capital financing program,
more work still needs to be done.
It is this commitment to excellence which has fueled this
administration's, the Clinton administration, acknowledgment of the
needs of the HBCUs. This commitment was exemplified on November 1,
1993, when President Bill Clinton signed an executive order 12876 in
order, and I quote, ``to advance the developments of human potential,
to strengthen the capacity of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities to provide quality education, and to increase
opportunities to participate in and benefit from Federal programs.''
I am proud that President Clinton has designated the week of
September 17, 2000 as National Historic Black Colleges and Universities
week. The administration, the Democratic leadership, the Congressional
Black Caucus and the House Democratic Caucus have led in promoting
awareness of the merits of these education institutions. It is with
this leadership that this subject is discussed on the Floor today, and
that our Nation is aware of the tremendous benefits and the success of
attending HBCUs.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, on a personal note say that both the
previous speakers before me mentioned Albany State University, Albany
State University was the first college that I ever laid eyes on.
{time} 2015
As a young man, my mother attended Albany State University. I am a
product of Albany, Georgia, and I cannot ever forget the awe and the
delight and the sense of curiosity as a young man who was in
kindergarten, going to a school right across the street from Albany
State University, and to be excited about my first day in school, to
look across the street, to be in the shadow of Albany State University,
indeed imprinted on my mind that education was indeed the one thing
that meant the most to me as a young man. As I grew into adulthood,
education certainly became the hallmark of my activities.
I want to thank, again, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I
want to thank all of those who had a vision to create Historically
Black Colleges and Universities, and I want to thank my mom for
introducing me to education and to instill in me the yearning, the
need, the desire to make sure that I received all that this Nation can
provide in terms of college and higher education and higher learning.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rush), for his generous comments and also for his cogent
comments with respect to the impact that Historically Black Colleges
and Universities have had on young African Americans, instilled in them
a sense of hope, a sense of opportunity, a sense of future. We know
that if young people do not have a sense of future, as too many do
today, that they do not work for a future. They work only for today.
That inspiration that the gentleman's mother gave him and his exposure
to Albany State has enriched us all in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from
the State of California, from Oakland, (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and commend the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for
this special order tonight, and also for their consistent commitment
and hard work on behalf of Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. These institutions are so important to all of us, not
only in the African American community but to all of us in the entire
country.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I was going to make this point later, but she gives me
such an opening. We talk about these institutions giving extraordinary
opportunities to African Americans, and they do. Bowie State University
in my county is the place from which Christa McAuliffe graduated with
her Master's degree. Christa McAuliffe, as some may recall, was the
teacher in space who went up on the Challenger as it blew up and she
died. She was one of Bowie State's most distinguished graduates, a
Caucasian American but given an extraordinary opportunity through her
attendance at and the receipt of a quality education at a Historically
Black College.
Ms. LEE. That is quite a testimony; quite a testimony.
It is really an honor to be able to honor tonight our Nation's
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Malcolm X once declared
that education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to
the people who prepare for it today.
For over 150 years, Historically Black Colleges have provided these
passports to their students. Although many African American scholars
and leaders of the 19th and early 20th century disagreed about how
African Americans would attain freedom and equality promised in our
Constitution, they agreed, however, that educating young men and women
was the most important step in succeeding in life.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, also known as HBCUs,
have always offered African American young men and women a quality,
affordable education at times when access to institutions of higher
learning were limited or completely closed off to African Americans.
According to the Herald-Sun newspaper in North Carolina, HBCUs were
actually first founded in 1837, 26 years before the end of slavery.
Since this humble beginning, HBCUs have become revered institutions
of higher learning that have provided quality educational access to
millions of African Americans.
According to the United States Department of Education, there are 105
accredited HBCUs in the United States. These institutions enroll
upwards of 370,000 students each year. Since 1966, HBCUs have awarded
approximately 500,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional
degrees. They are providers of equal educational opportunity with
attainment and productivity for hundreds of thousands of students. They
are educating our future world leaders.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities have never been more
important in providing young men and women a superior education than
they are today; and now in this new era of technology, we must ensure
that our HBCUs receive the necessary support to educate and train young
African Americans for these unfilled jobs in the high-tech industry.
And now, in my home State of California, since the end, unfortunately,
of affirmative action, as we know it was banned in 1998 by passing
Proposition 209, California students have increasingly become more
aware of the educational benefits
[[Page 18569]]
of attending a Historically Black College or University and many of my
constituents are thriving and achieving academic excellence in these
great schools.
Now, although I did not have the honor of attending an HBCU, I come
from a family with deep roots at Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. My grandfather graduated from Huston-Tillotson College in
Austin, Texas; my role model, my mother, she attended Prairie View A&M
and also Southern University; and my aunts followed in my grandfather's
footsteps in attending Huston-Tillotson College. My nieces graduated
from Prairie View A&M.
So I have really been the beneficiary of the values and the academic
foundation provided me through my family's attendance and involvement
at these great institutions.
Black colleges have a rich history to look back upon and a vibrant
future ahead. I am proud to join my colleagues tonight in celebrating
their many achievements and in so doing urge the United States Congress
to redouble its efforts in supporting these fine institutions of higher
learning.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Lee) for her very important contribution and her giving us another
example of an extraordinary American leader who has been impacted in
her family and by the images and inspiration given by Historically
Black Colleges and Universities.
We are advantaged by the service of the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) in the Congress; and that, I am sure, is in part due to the
inspiration she received by all of those who were enriched and given
hope and opportunity and vision by Historically Black Colleges.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the very distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding, but I also want to thank the
gentleman for his display of sensitivity relative to taking out this
special order and for recognizing the tremendous value of Historically
Black Colleges and Universities. We have heard all of those who have
spoken talk about the vast numbers of African Americans and others who
have benefited from these institutions.
I, too, was fortunate to attend a Historically Black College, the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. As the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) was talking about affordability, I can never
forget on my 16th birthday going off to A&M College with $50 in my
pocket wondering how I was going to make it.
As it turned out, the tuition was only $76 at that time, and I did
have a $50 scholarship that the State of Arkansas gave to each of its
high schools. So I only had to pay $26 of those $50. So I still had a
little left over to play with.
The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff has been an educational
mecca for my family. I think of the numbers. I have four sisters who
attended, two brothers, three nephews, two brothers-in-law and a whole
group of cousins. So it has been not only an opportunity but it has
been a propelling force in all of our lives.
It started with seven students; opened its doors in 1875 with seven
students. Much of the character, though, of this institution has been
shaped by outstanding administrators: J.C. Corbin, John Brown Watson,
and then, of course, President Lawrence Arnett Davis, who we called
Prexie, who was there when I was a student and now his son is following
in his footsteps, Dr. Lawrence A. Davis, Jr.
Wherever I go in America, I always run into individuals who have
excelled: physicians, nurses, under-secretaries of departments and
agencies. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of Transportation, Rodney
Slater's, mother-in-law and father-in-law, his mother-in-law was a
colleague of mine. We were students together. His father-in-law was one
of our advisors in a current events club. So these become very personal
and very direct.
I would hope that we would understand what everybody has been saying.
These institutions have existed, operated, oftentimes with little more
than baling wire; but they cannot continue in that way. We seriously
need to redouble our efforts and find additional resources, and I
guarantee if one talks about getting a bang for your buck, if we put
some more resources into the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, I guarantee we will be reaping the dividends and rewards
for years and years and years.
So I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), again, for
yielding me this time.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comments. It is just
extraordinarily interesting to learn of the history of families that
have been impacted by HBCUs and the enrichment of those families being
passed on to generations that then benefit so much their district,
their State, and their Nation.
We very much appreciate his contribution and his recitation of not
only his history but his family's history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Dickey), who probably was interested in the history of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DICKEY. Absolutely. I am from Pine Bluff, Arkansas. I grew up
when Prexie Davis was the president of Arkansas A&M, and I cannot say I
know as much about it from the inside as the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Davis), who is one of their distinguished alumnus; but I do know
that I saw it from the outside. I know that what that school did under
Dr. Lawrence A. Davis was offer scholarships to people who could not
even afford to get transportation to come to school. Some of those
people learned how to learn at Arkansas A&M at Pine Bluff.
Then to advance forward, here I am in Congress and I am on a
committee that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and I serve on.
We are midgets compared to Louis Stokes in this area, but we have been
striving to add money to HBCUs because we want to present opportunities
to people who want to learn and who care.
TRIO is a part of this plan, and I have gotten a lot of
encouragements from Dr. Davis, Jr., about TRIO and we are doing our job
there so that we can prepare people to come to school in places like
UAPB and HBCUs all over the country. It is a great privilege for me to
be a part of it, and I am going to continue on this committee striving
hard to bring as much money as we can in a reasonable fashion for the
benefit of the students who go to HBCUs all over the United States, but
particularly at Pine Bluff, Arkansas.
{time} 2030
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
Mr. Speaker, it is now a great privilege of mine to yield to the
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), one of our most
dynamic members of the House.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my own
personal accolades to the speakers who have given their eloquence
before me and to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), in
particular, along with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), for
the very significant and important opportunity we have been given for
this Special Order.
Many times, people diminish or misinterpret Special Orders and do not
see the ultimate importance of coming to this august body and speaking
to our colleagues, as the gentleman from Arkansas has just done,
speaking to America, about some very vital and important issues of
concern, but also making important tributes. Let me thank the gentleman
from Maryland for not only providing this opportunity for a tribute,
but also for his legislative work and agenda of showing himself to be a
true friend of HBCUs.
Let me ask the question, since we are here together: What if? I think
the gentleman from Maryland made a very valid point, as we have
listened to some of the very charging stories of my colleagues. This
was a very instructive experience for me, listening to sons and
daughters of presidents and heroes and sheroes of our historically
black colleges, right here in the House of Representatives, now the
legacies of the
[[Page 18570]]
teachings of those colleges are now here passing laws. What an honor. I
think it again emphasizes that the colleges are more than places of
refuge for individuals who can go nowhere else, though they were born
in a segregated history, which we are very proud of. I have the honor
and pleasure of representing Texas Southern University, being the
neighbor to Prairie View A&M, and being on the board of directors of
Oakwood College in Huntsville, Alabama. So I have a familial
relationship.
Although I did not have the honor or the distinct pleasure of going
to or attending an historically black college, I can certainly name a
whole list of relatives and extended family members who have had the
honor and pleasure of associating themselves with these institutions.
My father-in-law, Philip Lee, now passed, was a Tuskegee airman and a
very proud graduate of Hampton Institute, now university, along with
his dear wife, who still lives. I had the pleasure of being able to
point my younger brother, Michael Jackson, to the Oakwood Academy in
Huntsville, Alabama. And, of course, the predecessors of this seat, the
esteemed and honorable Barbara Jordan, Mickey Leeland and Craig
Washington were all respective graduates of Texas Southern University,
and I certainly count them as colleagues and friends. So the 23 States,
along with the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, are further
homes to the HBCUs.
Mr. Speaker, I raise the question as I speak this evening, what if?
What if we did not have these places of intellectual stimulation where
Booker T. Washington could not debate with W.E.B. Du Bois about the
question of lifting up your buckets where they were, versus having the
Talented Tenth as W. Du Bois argued, what an excellent and outstanding
intellectual debate.
I think those of us who look back on history realize that there was
no anger between those two gentlemen; they were only seeking to lift
the recently freed slaves where they could best serve. Booker T.
Washington, who founded Tuskegee Institute, thought it was important
for us to learn how to be carpenters and artisans, for us to know how
to build and to be plumbers, and to use our hands. He knew that slaves
had just come off of the plantations, we had worked with our hands, and
he wanted us to be economically independent and he saw a vehicle to do
so, teach them to build this Nation with their hands and to be
remunerated, to be compensated.
Also, the same with W.E.B. Du Bois, a Harvard proponent and graduate,
saw that it was necessary to take the Talented Tenth and to lift them
from the buckets and send them to the East Coast at that time,
primarily because there were no institutions, at least of plentiful
numbers, that could educate the Talented Tenth and have them be
available to be the philosophers and the articulators of the agenda of
the new Negro for the 20th century as we went into the 21th century.
So I ask the question, what if? What if these institutions had not
survived or not carried us through the segregated 20th century when
many African Americans could not be educated anyplace else.
Particularly in the State of Texas and in the Deep South, there were no
places for the Talented Tenth or those who wanted to lift their buckets
where they were to be educated, and these schools saw fit to take up
the cause.
As we moved through the 20th century, of course, as we saw the
movement of A. Philip Randolph and Witney Young, and then we moved into
the 1950s and saw a young man, a graduate of Morehouse College, rise to
the occasion to be the visionary of the civil rights movement, Dr.
Martin Luther King. His original training, or his basic training was
that of a minister, but he saw fit to carry the vision of that
movement, and it was his leadership that drew young people out of
institutions all over this country, both white and black, but I believe
that historically black colleges fueled the movement of which he led
that brought young people from those institutions, because they lived
in the segregated South and they said, what can we do to begin to
follow Dr. Martin Luther King, and there lie the sit-ins and, of
course, the marches joined by young people all over the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a special week and I have enjoyed
participating with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) this week,
as the President has named this week in honor of historically black
colleges. We were gratified to have the Democratic Caucus host I
imagine over 100 leaders of these colleges. They came to petition us to
have us listen to them and to have us share our vision with them.
I would just like to note, because I know of the gentleman's record
in the Committee on Appropriations, that each of us could count
opportunities where we have tried to increase their funding. As a
member of the Committee on Science, I thought it was important to
ensure that the Civilian Space Authorization Act of 1998 and 1999 would
ensure that there would be access by these colleges for direct research
programs to work with the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, to
ensure under their research, engineering and development authorization
act, in particular, that again, undergraduate students could do the
research that they needed.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly conclude by noting as well that the NASA
minority research, which is an important aspect of this program, and
the land grant programs are important to be funded by some of the
agricultural authorization.
I think the key that I would like to make sure that we are aware of
is the answer to what if? We would be left with I think a gaping hole,
to not have the rich history of the historically black colleges,
Oakwood College, now chaired by Chairman Calvin Rock. We would not be
able to cite Dr. Freeman, Dr. Joshua Hill, Dr. Polly Turner, Dr. John
B. Coleman, all surrounding Prairie View A&M and Texas Southern
University doing all great works.
This is an important part of our history, I say to the gentleman, and
I believe this is an important night, because we have allowed ourselves
to reflect and to congratulate. I think our concluding commitment
should be, as our presidents have asked us, to bring them into the 21st
century and catapult them with the research institutions of this Nation
of high order. Let them be on the same plane as our institutions that
are noted as the Ivy Leaguers, which I attended one of those. But I
want them to hear our voices of appreciation and our commitment that we
believe their role is extremely vital for the future of our young
people and the 21st century.
With that, there is much more I could say, but I yield back to the
gentleman, and I thank him for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of the special role that
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) have played in the
education of our Nation's young people. Twenty-three states, along with
the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands are homes to HBCUs. I
have the honor of recognizing Texas Southern University, a HBCU and a
constituent of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, which I serve.
Texas Southern University like so many of the HBCUs was established in
1947 as a means of educating young African Americans who wanted to
experience the full force of the American Dream through higher
education. It was first formed under the name Texas State University
for Negroes, and became the first state supported institution in the
City of Houston, Texas. The first president of Texas Southern
University was the Honorable Dr. R. O'Hara Lanier, U.S. Minister to
Liberia.
Although Texas Southern University was first formed to educate
African Americans it has become the most ethnically diverse school of
higher learning in the State of Texas.
Texas Southern University has awarded over 35,000 degrees and
presently offers 54 baccalaureate degree programs, 30 master's degree
programs; the Doctor of Education degree in six programs; the Doctor of
Philosophy in Environmental Toxicology; and two graduate professional
degrees a Doctor of Pharmacy and the Doctor of Jurisprudence. The
University's Robert J. Terry Library has a collection of over 913,000
holdings. The campus also hosts a 25,000-watt FM radio station that
serves as a teaching and learning laboratory for communications.
Another HBCU located in the state of Texas is Prairie View A&M
University. Prairie View
[[Page 18571]]
A&M University is the second oldest public institution of higher
education in Texas, originated in the Texas Constitution of 1876.
Originally the University was named the A&M College of Texas for
Colored Youths and opened on March 11, 1878. Initially the College was
designed by the Texas legislature to provide education to teachers.
In 1945 the name of the College was changed to Prairie View
University, and the school was authorized to offer, ``as need arises''
all courses that were offered at the University of Texas.
Another HBCU that is close to my heart and carries the proud heritage
of education excellence is Oakwood College located in Huntsville,
Alabama. This college unlike the previous HBCU is not a public
institution, but is operated by the General Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists. Ellen G. White declared that it was God's purpose that the
school should be placed in the City of Huntsville, Alabama.
Oakwood College's beginning can be traced to 1895, when the General
Conference Association sent a three-man educational committee to the
South to select and purchase property for a school for black youth.
They began with four buildings, four teachers and 16 students, eight
women and eight men; Oakwood Industrial School opened its doors on
November 16, 1896.
The faculty consisted of H.S. Shaw, A.F. Hughes, Hatie Andre, and the
principal, Solon M. Jacobs. For the benefit of both the institution and
community, the school maintained and operated a line of industries.
Students and teachers worked beside each other in agriculture,
blacksmith, bricklaying, broom making, canning, carpentry, chaircaning,
clothes manufacturing, cotton manufacturing, dairying, gardening, log
milling and woodworking.
The beginning of each of these institutions was a need and the will
to see that need met. I commend those hundreds of instructors,
visionaries, students, parents, and communities who made higher
education a reality for African American young people in our nation. My
regret is that the precious gift of higher education was not available
to every African American young person, and that desegregation came so
many generations after the institution of slavery was ended.
As a member of the House Committee on Science I have worked to offer
parity to HBCUs through the application of amendments to routine
legislation designed to offer support to Colleges and University
science, math, and engineering programs, but which have historically
not included HBCUs.
I included amendments in the Civilian Space Authorization Act, Fiscal
Year 1998 and 1999 that would direct that research programs funded by
this act to include Historically Black Colleges and Universities. On
the Floor of the House during the 104th Congress I had an amendment
added to the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Authorization
Act in particular to encourage research by undergraduate students at
our nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic
Serving Institutions.
I also offered an amendment to increase funding for Historically
Black Colleges and Universities under NASA's minority research and
education programs. The amendment added $5.8 million to the
authorization request of $25.5 million, which restored the program to
the FY 1997 funding level of $31.3 million. This greatly improved and
expanded research programs of HBCU's with NASA and promotes science and
technology at minority universities.
Recently, during the appropriations process for the Department of
Agriculture, I sponsored a successful amendment that offered 1890
Historically Black Land Grant Colleges an opportunity to share in the
research resources that are made available to other colleges and
universities by the Department of Agriculture. My amendment will ensure
the economic viability of 105 1890 Historically Black Land Grant
Colleges and Universities. These 1890 HBCUs are part of a land grant
system of 105 state-assisted universities that link new science and
technological developments directly to the needs and interests of the
United States and the world. In addition, to strengthening agriculture,
the 1890 HBCUs conduct research, provide technical assistance in
environmental sciences, improve the production and preservation of safe
food supplies, train new generations of scientists in mathematics,
engineering, food and agriculture sciences and promote access to new
sources of information to improve conservation of natural resources.
HBCUs are unlike any other institutions of higher education in the
United States; they for decades were for many the only means of higher
education for thousands of African Americans. They were the source of
our doctors, dentists, lawyers, teachers, ministers, and artisans of
all descriptions. They have reached this level of recognition that is
being demonstrated this evening by education nearly 40 percent of our
nation's black college graduates. Today these same institutions confer
the majority of bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees awarded to
black students in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science,
engineering, and education.
I am proud to stand with my colleagues in touting the accomplishments
of America's Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished gentlewoman
for participating in this Special Order.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today during National Historic Black
Colleges and Universities Week to honor the achievements of two of
Ohio's historically black institutions of higher learning which I have
the privilege of representing in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Wilberforce University, with a current enrollment of 964 students,
and Central State University, with a current enrollment of 1,111
students, have demonstrated time and time again that they are firmly
committed to academic excellence and the pursuit of knowledge. I am
very familiar with both of these universities, as I have had the
opportunity to serve on the Board of Directors of both of them.
Before coming to Congress, I served as the President Pro Tempore in
the Ohio State Senate and became very involved with both institutions.
I have found their respective administrators and educators to be of the
highest caliber, and I am proud to represent their interests in both
the Ohio Statehouse and the U.S. Congress.
Wilberforce University, which is named in honor of the 18th century
statesman and abolitionist, William Wilberforce, was established in
1856. It is affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church and
was the first institution of higher learning owned and operated by
African Americans.
Central State traces its origin to legislation passed by the Ohio
General Assembly in 1887 to create a Combined Normal and Industrial
Department at Wilberforce. In 1951, the general assembly officially
changed the name of the state-supported portion of Wilberforce to
Central State College, and then to Central State University in 1965.
Central State University remains the only public historically black
university in the State of Ohio.
The true resilience of these educational institutions has been
demonstrated in the way they have recovered following the tornadoes of
April 1974, which devastated large portions of both campuses. Both
schools have been revitalized and have produced aggressive plans for
the future to continue producing outstanding graduates for the State of
Ohio for generations to come.
As Ohio's Seventh District Representative to the Congress of the
United States, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to honor the
efforts and the achievements of Wilberforce and Central State
Universities. Their many contributions to higher learning in the State
of Ohio are greatly appreciated by all.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Nationally Historic
Black Colleges and Universities Week to pay tribute to Paul Quinn
College of Dallas, Texas. Founded in 1872, it is the oldest Liberal
Arts College for African-Americans in Texas and west of the
Mississippi.
Born of humble roots, Paul Quinn College was founded by a small group
of African Methodist Episcopal preachers. A faculty of five taught
newly freed slaves blacksmithing, carpentry, and tanning saddle work.
The founders faced early challenges: a poor congregation, limited
resources, and a country struggling with post-Civil War race relations.
To construct the college's first building, the church launched a ``Ten
Cents a Brick'' campaign throughout their congregation. Although poor,
together the congregation's pennies built the first solid monument to
their dreams.
Paul Quinn College soon expanded its curriculum to include
mathematics, music, Latin, theology, and English. As the increasing
service and value of the institution became apparent, the student
population grew, the academic program evolved, and more buildings
appeared on campus.
Today Paul Quinn College is a thriving institution, rich in history.
Its 150-acres campus is a far cry from the schoolroom built with
pennies, and today its 741 students take advantage of a liberal arts
education, a diverse student population from around the globe, more
than 40 clubs and organizations, and a strong athletic program, all
steeped in an atmosphere of Christian ideals.
Although it has come a long way from humble beginnings, Paul Quinn
College is now, as it was 128 years ago, still serving the
intellectual, spiritual, emotional and social development of its
students, preparing them for leadership and service.
[[Page 18572]]
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the opportunities this fine institution
has provided for so many people and the contributions it has made to
the Dallas community. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting
Paul Quinn College and all historically black colleges and universities
this week.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of
the 29,300 students that graduate from Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) each year. I come to this floor as a proud 1968
graduate of Tougaloo College and a 1972 graduate of Jackson State
University. I am also proud to say that, located in my congressional
district is the nation's oldest historically Black land-grant
institution--Alcorn State University.
In the year 2000, we find that nearly 40% of Black undergraduates at
HBCUs are first-generation college students. While we applaud the
services that these institutions provide, we must also show support for
HBCUs by increasing funding for them, developing programs to make
federal dollars more accessible and encouraging private investments. In
my home state of Mississippi, public HBCUs have been faced with the
challenge of achieving funding levels equal to those of traditionally
White institutions. For 25 years, Mississippi Valley State University,
Jackson State and Alcorn have been engaged in a legal battle for equal
funding. This fact emphasizes the need for increased public and private
support. In spite of the circumstances, we find that HBCUs are
continuing to fulfill their missions as institutions of higher learning
and the first outlet for Blacks who desire to attend college.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, HBCUs have stood the test of time. Today, more than
25% of Blacks earning bachelors degrees received them from HBCUs. As
President Clinton has designated this week as Nationally Historic Black
Colleges and Universities Week, let us commit to improve upon the past
successes of schools like Tougaloo College, Rust College, Alcorn State
University and Jackson State University.
I thank Representatives Hoyer, Cummings, Lewis and Wynn for their
leadership on bringing this issue to the floor. God bless our HBCUs and
their supporters.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a proud graduate of a
Historically Black College, I am more than happy to be a part of the
National Historical Black College and University week here in
Washington. Today, over half of all African American professionals are
HBCU graduates, as is 42% of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities were created back in
1837 to provide African Americans access to higher education. Because
of the terrible history of racism in many parts of our country, the
goal of these schools, although straight forward, has not been easy: to
educate young black Americans and empower them to play a role in the
affairs of our country. Since African Americans have been denied
educational opportunities until very recently, these schools have
really been the only avenue open to blacks to further themselves
through education.
Today, a majority of African American college students graduate from
HBCU's. 28% receive their bachelor's degrees from these schools, and
15% obtain their Master's degrees from these schools. Since their
creation, HBCU's have graduated more than 70% of the degrees granted to
African Americans.
In my state of Florida, we are blessed with four HBCU's, two of which
are located in my district. In Tallahassee, we have Florida's largest
Black College, my alma mater, Florida A&M, which has nearly 10,000
students. In South Florida, we have Florida Memorial College, and my
district, Florida's third, is lucky to have both Edward Waters College
in Jacksonville, and Bethune Cookman College, which was founded by a
determined young black woman, Mary Mcleod Bethune, in 1904 in Daytona.
Among the many exciting things happening in Florida's black colleges
is the acquisition of a law school at Florida A&M, which is set to open
in 2003. The opening of the school will officially mark the return of
the FAMU College of Law since its closing in 1968. I remember when I
was a student at Florida A&M, when the FAMU College of Law, which had
provided the only avenue in the state of Florida for African Americans
to undertake a career in the influential field of law, was stolen from
us and merged with the law school at Florida State. This was a time
when African Americans were not allowed to study at Florida state
schools at the graduate level, consequently, African Americans were
excluded from the field. Not surprisingly today, although that law has
been repealed, there are very few African American attorneys in
Florida. With the reinstallation of FAMU's law school, minority
students will once again have greater access to be represented in the
legal profession.
In closing, I am, and always will be, a strong supporter of HBCU's,
and will continue to work hard to allow these schools to continue on
with their valuable mission, the educational advancement of young
African Americans.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on
behalf of the positive influences that Virginia State University and
Saint Paul's College, two Historically Black Colleges and Universities
in my district, have had on Virginia in particular, and African
American culture in general.
Virginia State University, located in Ettrick, Virginia, is America's
first fully state supported four-year institution of higher learning
for African-Americans. In its first academic year, 1883-84, the
University had 126 students and seven faculty; one building, 33 acres,
a 200-book library, and a $20,000 budget.
Tuition was $3.35 and room and board was $20.00.
From these modest beginnings, Virginia State University now offers 27
undergraduate degree programs and 13 graduate degree programs.
The University, which is fully integrated, has a student body of
4,300, a full-time teaching faculty of approximately 170, a library
containing 277,350 volumes, a 236-acre campus and a 416-acre farm, more
than 50 buildings (including 15 dormitories and 16 classroom
buildings), and an annual budget of $64,238,921.
I am pleased to have been on the Board of Visitors of Virginia State
University.
When I was a delegate in the Virginia General Assembly, I sponsored
the legislation which changed Virginia State College to Virginia State
University.
Saint Paul's College, founded in 1888 in Lawrenceville, Virginia, is
a small liberal arts college in which the attributes of integrity,
objectivity, resourcefulness, scholarship, and responsible citizenship
are emphasized. Over 15 undergraduate degrees are offered.
Its liberal arts, career-oriented, and teacher-education programs
prepare graduates for effective participation in various aspects of
human endeavor.
Intentionally small, its 600 students represent a wide variety of
areas in the United States and several countries. However, the active
campus life is characterized by a strong sense of camaraderie.
Education has always been very important to the people of Virginia.
Whatever part of the Commonwealth you hail from, there is a place for
our children to go for advanced learning.
Both Virginia State University and Saint Paul's College rank with the
best colleges and universities in the country for preparing our young
people to enhance this world.
As a Historically Black Colleges and Universities, the opportunities
offered by these schools have been very important to the development of
Virginia, and will continue to be for the future of this nation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, Lincoln University, in Jefferson City,
Missouri, is an historic black college that has served Missouri and our
nation well since the latter part of the 1800s. Today, it serves as a
beacon of education for our state of Missouri. I am so very proud of
the faculty, the students, and its extension service, which have put
this university on the map. I am pleased to represent such an
outstanding institution.
____________________
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4577,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I
hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following
motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 4577, a bill making
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education.
I move that the managers on the part of the House at the conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 4577, be
instructed to increase Title VI Education Block Grant funding with
instructions that these increased funds may also be used for the
purposes of addressing the shortage of highly qualified teachers, to
reduce class size, particularly in early grades; using highly qualified
teachers to improve educational achievement for regular and special
needs children, to support efforts to recruit, train and retrain highly
qualified teachers, or for school construction and renovation of
facilities at the sole discretion of the local educational agency.
____________________
[[Page 18573]]
MEDICARE MODERNIZATION AND PRESCRIPTION DRUG ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, tonight we want to discuss one of the
measures that has passed the House of Representatives. Sometimes, we do
not feel the need to discuss measures that have gone through committee
and have passed the House, but since there has been so much
misrepresentation about the legislation that passed the House on a
bipartisan vote called the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug
Act, and since the Presidential nominees are engaged in a spirited
debate, I thought it would be worthwhile to take some time, one, to
focus on what it is that the House actually did, but probably more
important than the specifics is to put in context the way in which the
prescription drug issue has been discussed.
I think the first thing that people have to remember is that as the
former majority, the Democrats controlled the House the entire time
Medicare was law, up until 1994. Indeed, when President Clinton was
elected in 1992, the Democrats controlled the House, they controlled
the Senate, and they controlled the Presidency. I find it rather
interesting that at a time when they could do anything they wanted to
do, they did not talk about putting prescription drugs in Medicare for
seniors.
All right. Let us say that that issue is one which has matured only
recently. However, let me tell my colleagues what I consider to be an
even more telling fact. During the time the Democrats controlled the
House and the Senate and the Presidency, they did not add any
preventive care measures or wellness measures. Now, that I think is
very telling, because it was pretty obvious even at that time that if
we would do relatively aggressive screening on seniors for colorectal
cancer, increase mammography, and especially tests for women with
osteoporosis; and one of the real scourges is diabetes, and with
education and early detection and treatment, we can make significant
life-enhancing behavioral decisions; but none of those were part of a
Medicare program that the Democrats offered.
In 1995, the Republicans became the majority in the House and in the
Senate. We offered a series of reforms adding preventive and wellness
and suggesting prescription drugs. Well, as some people may remember,
the 1996 election was based upon a series of untruths, frankly, that
Republicans were trying to destroy Medicare, that Republicans never
liked the program and could not be trusted with it.
Well, as it is now historically recorded, in 1997, it was the
Republican majority that, for the first time in the history of the
Medicare program, put a preventive and wellness package together, and
proposed a commission to examine the way in which we could successfully
integrate prescription drugs into Medicare. Why? Because no one would
build a health care plan, especially one for seniors today, that does
not make medicines or prescription drugs a key part of the program.
Now, what we have heard from this well from a number of our
Democratic colleagues about the Republican prescription drug plan and
its modernization of Medicare are frankly untruths. They have attempted
to use what they have unfortunately historically done during campaign
seasons with prescription drugs, and that is, they have tried to scare
seniors into believing that Republicans would never believe,
notwithstanding the fact that we have mothers and fathers and aunts and
uncles and now, for me, even sisters who are on the verge of turning
65; I hope I do not get an irate phone call on that statement; but I
have a real concern about making sure that Medicare is relevant to
today's seniors' health care needs and especially tomorrow's.
{time} 2045
I mention that brief history because, as we talk about Medicare,
suggested changes in Medicare, and the proposals that the Democrats
have offered, including President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore in
his race for the Presidency, and alternatives that Democrats may offer,
I think it behooves all of us to stick to the facts; to talk about what
the programs are. And there are differences between the Republicans'
approach to reforming Medicare and providing for prescription drugs,
and Democrats'. But one of the things we ought not to do is take the
liberty with the truth.
One of the things I think we need to put in focus is the fact that,
unfortunately, according to recent news reports, Al Gore was unable to
contain himself and made up stories; made up a story about his dog and
his mother-in-law, which is already on thin ice, and comparing their
use and price of drugs. I am sure it was quite a good story. He is good
at telling stories. There is just one problem with it: It was not true;
it is not true. He made it up.
I think it ironic that as the press and some of my colleagues focus
on some verbal stumblings on the part of our Presidential candidate, he
does not make things up; and that when one is challenged with the
pronunciation of a word, I think it is significantly different than
when one is challenged with the efficacy of a statement.
Al Gore lied. He was probably so overcome by the occasion that he
felt he had to have a better story than the truth. And, actually, that
is a perfect setting for the discussion of what the Republican
prescription drug proposal and the modernization of Medicare is and the
Democrats description of it.
The first thing they have said frequently is that our program is not
in Medicare; it is not even an entitlement program. That is, it is not
part of the traditional Medicare. It is something new, it is a risky
scheme, and it is probably not going to be available.
During the debate, we were pleased to get a letter from the American
Association of Retired People, and I do believe that in this instance
it is better to rely on third parties describing what our program is
rather than listening to us or to our opponents. Because what the
American Association of Retired People said was, ``We are pleased that
both the House Republicans and Democrat bills include a voluntary
prescription drug benefit in Medicare, a benefit to which every
Medicare beneficiary is entitled.'' That is where they get the name
entitlement. ``And while there are differences, both bills describe the
core prescription drug benefit in statute.''
So there should be no misunderstanding, Governor George W. Bush's
basic plan is a Medicare plan. The Republican plan, the bipartisan
plan, the plan that passed the House, was a Medicare entitlement
program. AARP says so. Do not take our word for it.
But what we want to spend a little time on tonight is the phrase that
there are differences. Because if we do not have to worry about the
fundamentals, that is they are both in Medicare, they are both an
entitlement program, they are both voluntary, then maybe it might be
worthwhile to stress what the differences really are. If once we have
met the threshold that Republicans are not trying to destroy Medicare,
that we are trying to improve Medicare, just as it was the Republican
majority that added preventive and wellness and it was described as an
attempt to destroy Medicare, let us spend a few minutes talking about
how the plan that passed the House differs from the one that, for
example, Vice President Gore wants to offer.
And in that regard I am joined by two of my colleagues tonight, both
of them members of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways
and Means, which has the primary responsibility in the House
jurisdictionwise of the part A Medicare program and shares the part B
Medicare program with the Committee on Commerce. We have worked long
and hard.
I was a member of the Medicare bipartisan commission that spent over
a year examining the particulars. Both of my colleagues were close
followers of that debate, read the material, and as we put together the
plan that passed the House, we were focusing not on whether or not it
was in Medicare but key things that I think seniors are concerned
about, such as: Does it give me
[[Page 18574]]
some choice? Do I get to choose or do I have to fit the plan I am told
that I get? The idea that if someone cannot afford the drugs, how do we
help them? Whether an individual is low income, or even if they are not
low income, whether the cost of the drugs that they are required to
take are so expensive that even that lifetime earning they have put
away would soon be lost.
Those are some of the key questions. But probably the most
fundamental question, given the fact that we are going to put drugs now
into Medicare, and we are at the very beginning of not an evolution but
a revolution in the kinds of drugs that are going to be available to
seniors, do we really want a one-size-fits-some government-regulated
drug program; or would we rather have the professionals who do this
every day for the other health care programs decide when and how we
need to shift this mix to maximize the benefit to seniors?
That really is, when we strip away all of the scare terms and the
untruths about the program, the real question. The differences that
AARP has said are in the two plans. And when we begin to focus on the
differences, I think we will find that there are not only quantitative
differences in the plans but there are clearly qualitative differences
as well.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to talk about one or more
of those differences?
Mr. ENGLISH. I would, and I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) for raising this issue and leading this
discussion tonight.
Every August I go back to my district and I take the time to have a
series of town meetings, particularly with seniors. And as I went back
this August, I attended meetings at senior centers and I went to Labor
Day fairs, and when I talked to seniors this was the single topic that
they seemed to be focused on. This is the single issue that seems to
directly affect their lives almost regardless of their personal
circumstances.
Seniors were telling me stories, and too many times that plot
included skipped doses or the act of cutting pills in half in order to
save money on the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. And in my
district in northwestern Pennsylvania it is odd, but senior groups have
felt obliged to charter buses to drive more than 2 hours to Canada in
search of lower drug costs. That is an extraordinary anamnesis, a trip
they should not have to be making, and it is just further evidence that
we ought to be putting politics aside and trying to get signed into law
a prescription drug plan that will protect seniors and relieve them
from the expensive prescription drug market where they simply cannot
keep up.
We have discussed different plans on the floor of the House, but the
one thing we can all agree on is no senior should have to choose
between buying food and buying their life-sustaining medicines. What I
feel comfortable about is that this House has acted and has moved
forward a bipartisan plan that offers a flexible and universal benefit
that would really address the needs of seniors.
We in the House voted to provide a prescription drug plan under
Medicare that really meets the needs of seniors virtually regardless of
their circumstances, and we did it in the face of rancorous partisan
opposition. We embraced a bipartisan model for extending prescription
coverage to Medicare beneficiaries. Beyond that, we also all agree that
seniors should have the right to choose whether or not they wish to
enroll in the prescription drug benefit or maintain their current
coverage.
The bipartisan plan that we passed is a balanced market-oriented
approach targeted at updating Medicare and providing prescription drug
coverage that is affordable, available and voluntary. And I credit the
gentleman for having played a critical role in designing this plan.
This plan provides options to all seniors, options that allow all
seniors to choose affordable coverage that does not compromise their
financial security.
The plan that the House passed would give seniors the right to choose
a coverage plan that best suits their needs through a voluntary and
universally offered benefit. On the other hand, as the gentleman
alluded to, the plans offered on the other side, including the one
offered by the Vice President, would shoehorn seniors, many of whom
have private drug coverage which they are happy with, into a one-size-
fits few plan. The Gore plan seems to give seniors one shot to choose
whether or not to obtain their prescription drug coverage under
Medicare. They have to choose at age 64 or forever hold their peace.
Under that plan, seniors are forced to take a gamble. At 64 they are
asked to predict what the rest of their lives will be like. They are
supposed to operate on assumptions that may change. And while their
coverage may be adequate now, if heaven forbid illness were to strike
and their current plan no longer suited their needs, sorry, under the
Gore plan those seniors would be out of luck.
In my view, the House-passed plan addressed skyrocketing drug costs
in the most effective possible way by providing Medicare beneficiaries
real bargaining power through private health care plans that can
purchase drugs at discount rates. This is a much more effective
approach than rote price controls. Seniors and disabled Americans under
the plan the House passed will not have to pay full price for their
prescriptions, they will have access to the specific drug, brand name
or generic, that their doctor prescribes.
Our plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with real bargaining power
through group purchasing discounts and pharmaceutical rebates, meaning
seniors can lower their drug prices certainly 25, perhaps as high as 40
percent. These will be the best prices on the drugs that their doctors
say they need, not the drugs some government bureaucracy dictates. But
I would say to the gentleman that I am concerned that other plans, such
as the one offered by the administration, cannot give all seniors such
a sizable discount on their prescription drugs. The CBO reports that
seniors will probably see a discount of about half of what our plan
offers.
The House-passed plan also is designed to allow seniors who have drug
coverage to keep it, and help those who do not, get it. No senior will
lose coverage as the result of this bill. Under the House plan, we are
trying to help millions of seniors in rural areas without coverage to
get it and to get prescription drugs at the best prices, and to have
the choice of at least two plans.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that this plan is the best and the most
flexible. And in Pennsylvania about two million seniors who rely on
Medicare could choose to reduce their drug costs by enrolling in
programs to supplement Medicare. Our plan gives all seniors the right
to choose an affordable prescription drug benefit that best fits their
own health care needs. By making it available to everyone, a universal
benefit, we are making sure that no senior citizen or disabled American
falls through the cracks. Mr. Gore claims to offer seniors a choice,
but in reality he offers them a selection of one, one plan, Medicare,
take it or leave it. That does not seem like much of a choice to me.
The House-passed bill also takes steps to modernize Medicare, and I
think that is the core difference. The gentleman had asked me what the
differences are, and this, to me, is one of the critical ones.
{time} 2100
We take the first step to reform Medicare to create an independent
commission to administer the prescription drug program. Mr. Gore's plan
leaves Washington bureaucrats in control of senior benefits. These are
the same bureaucrats who have made bad decisions here in Washington
about Medicare+Choice plans like, for example, Security Blue in my
district. They have not provided adequate reimbursements to districts
like mine; and, as a result, we have seen a decline in benefits under
Medicare+Choice and Security Blue.
I do not think those bureaucrats are the ones that we should be
putting in charge of a Medicare prescription drug
[[Page 18575]]
benefit making critical decisions that will affect not only pricing but
also access to benefits for seniors throughout America.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that there is a clear choice here. We have
advocated a plan that gives seniors real choices, real flexibility, and
allows them to customize their benefits to meet their needs. Mr.
Speaker, those are the differences that I think are absolutely
critical.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his observations. Because although his State does not share its
border with Canada in any significant way, he is clearly in a situation
in which, because we failed to provide group purchases for seniors
under a plan, they are forced to take some drastic measure.
General Leave
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the subject of my special order this evening.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the key term is ``flexibility.'' As I said,
we are on the verge of a dramatic breakthrough and a number of drugs
are going to be available that are not currently on the market.
One of the reasons that the nonpartisan analysts that we use to look
at pieces of legislation said that our plan, the bipartisan plan that
passed the House, had as much as twice the discount capability of the
Democrats' plan, including the one that the Vice President has offered,
is because of the flexibility; that we provide the opportunity to
change the structure when the structure needs to be changed, not when
the bureaucrats or the politics say it should be changed. And so, we
really should not wait one day longer than necessary to provide the
seniors this relief.
Now, I think it is also worthy to note that there are as much as two-
thirds of the seniors that have some form of insurance protection; but
even though they have it, they are in fear of losing it. And, of
course, if they are part of the one-third that has none at all, they
live in fear every day that something is going to happen in which their
finances simply are not going to be capable, if they have them in the
first place, of paying for some these miracle drugs, which do come at
relatively high prices if they have to buy them at retail, as many
seniors do today, instead of group purchases.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs.
Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California, the chairman of the subcommittee that governs most of the
Medicare program, for yielding to me.
I have been very pleased. First of all, I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for his very thorough overview of the
legislation that we developed in our committee. And I might say, over
many months I have been very pleased that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have really taken an interest in prescription drugs.
The last few months, and actually in our last floor debate, we had a
full- blown alternative developed. Had that been possible a year ago,
we would have prescription drugs signed by the President now. But our
subcommittee did start holding hearings on this matter at the very
beginning of this session.
I must say, as a woman, I have been keenly aware of the need for
Medicare to cover prescription drugs. It is simply a fact that 90
percent of all women over 65 have at least one chronic illness and 73
percent of women over 65 have at least two chronic illnesses. And, for
this reason, because women tend to have more chronic illnesses and also
live longer than men, they spend much more on prescription drugs than
do men over 65.
It is also a fact that, for a lot of reasons in our society, that
most women are retired on very modest incomes, oftentimes not so low
that they benefit from our State medication subsidy programs. In
Connecticut it is called COMPACE, and it is a wonderful blessing to
low-income seniors. But to those just above the poverty income but
struggling along on a very modest income, they get no help from the
State program. They cannot afford insurance. They cannot afford
preventative health care and, in fact, they commonly suffer from
disabilities. But they do have in common a higher instance of chronic
illness and therefore a greater need for regular weekly, monthly
prescription drugs.
So it is extremely important to our seniors and extremely important
to senior women that we integrate prescription drug coverage into
Medicare. And so there are two things that are very important in this
effort to gain coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare.
One is price.
Over and over, seniors will say to me, why, when we are such a big
buying group, can we not negotiate lower prices at the pharmacist?
I want to congratulate the chairman for structuring a bill that will
cut those prices 25 to 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Democrats' bill,
because it does not involve competition, and we are going to talk about
what that means to seniors in terms of the quality of drug coverage,
but just from the point of view of price, because our Democrat
colleagues' alternative does not allow more than one company to
distribute drugs, they will reduce drug prices at the pharmacy only
about 12 percent.
And since all the bills, whether it is the Democrats or the
Republicans, the President or the Congress, involve 50 percent
copayment for most seniors, whether it is 50 percent of $50 or 50
percent of $100 or 50 percent of $75 makes a lot of difference.
I just want to congratulate the chairman on the fact that the
structure of his bill, and this goes back to not only the importance of
achieving the goal, but how we do it, the structure of our bill will
drive those prices down at the pharmacy 25 to 30 percent; and that will
help seniors no matter what their income group, no matter how many
drugs they have to buy, whether they have reached the catastrophic
limit or they have not. So I am very proud that our bill will reduce
prices at the pharmacy by 25 percent.
I would like to take a couple of minutes later on in the discussion
to talk about the fact that our bill will also ensure many more drugs
are available to our seniors.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to give my colleagues a real-
world anecdote to support what my colleague says. Because, clearly, as
we talk about the flexibility, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. English) indicated, no one should have to choose between
prescription drugs and food.
Using professional managers in dealing with seniors' drug needs
directly addresses two fundamental problems with seniors and drugs
today; and that is, the drugs are miracle workers, as I said, but
oftentimes only if they take them as prescribed. And sometimes it is
money. That should not be the case, but sometimes it is just failure to
remember to follow a regimen. Professional management is important
there.
I was in the Kern River Valley, and this is a predominant retirement
senior area, and it was at a health fair and we began discussing this
question of prescription drugs. And if my colleagues have not really
experienced it firsthand, they just do not appreciate the other real
problem that we face with seniors and prescription drugs and that is,
many seniors are not on just one prescription drug or two or three.
There were about 200 seniors there; and I said, how many seniors here
are on one prescription drug? Well, every hand in the place went up.
How many are on two? Virtually none went down. How many are on three.
All the hands went up. How many are on four? By the time we reached
four, a couple hands went down. How many are on five? Still a majority.
I went all the way up to 12 different drugs, 9, 10, 11, 12, until I
finally got one hand. And I said, well, okay, you win. How many do you
have? He said, as far as I can remember, 16.
[[Page 18576]]
So it is the failure, the tragic failure to not only provide
availability or low price through the group purchasing but the
management, the best way to allow seniors to enjoy this miracle is what
we are missing and that professional management, that flexibility is
what gives us the opportunity to tell seniors under our plan and the
President's plan that, yes, they are going to have a prescription drug
program that meets today's needs; but they are going to have tomorrow's
needs met and the day after tomorrow the flexibility that gives us
those discount savings that the nonpartisan professional saves twice as
much as the Democrats or the Vice President's plan.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery),
who represents a different region than the ones we have been discussing
but whom I am sure has similar concerns based on his seniors' needs and
how a program is structured.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) for convening this special order to talk about prescription
drugs, and I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) for
bringing up the element of our prescription drug bill that does not get
highlighted too much, which is the elements of price and price
discounts. And she is exactly right. The Republican prescription drug
bill that we passed through this House, on average, would give seniors
a 25 percent reduction in the cost of their prescription drugs, that is
every senior, not just low-income seniors, as some Democrats have tried
to characterize our bill. Every senior gets that reduction in the cost
of the prescription drugs.
Another element that is overlooked sometimes in the Democrats'
characterization of our bill as one that leaves out millions of senior
citizens is the element of the catastrophic coverage. That is available
for every senior, not just low-income seniors, not just some seniors;
but every senior who voluntarily subscribes to this prescription drug
program would have the benefit of that protection, protection against
those soaring drug costs that can afflict somebody with a range of
illnesses, some catastrophic disease should that strike that person.
That senior will be protected no matter his income, no matter his
status. If he opts to get into this voluntary program that we will have
created through this legislation, he will receive that protection.
So I think it is important for us to explain to the American public
that the bill we passed through this House of Representatives is not
just a bill for low-income seniors. It does not leave millions of
seniors out; it protects all seniors who voluntarily choose to
subscribe to the program, and it is available for every senior without
regard to the health status of the senior.
In other words, if the senior citizen already is on the 12
prescription drugs that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
discovered one of his constituents was on, she is eligible for our
program, just like the senior citizen who is not on any prescription
drugs.
So, unfortunately, in some of the House races around the country, our
prescription drug bill has been mischaracterized by Democrat opponents;
and that is unfortunate, because what we passed through this House, I
believe, is the best solution for guaranteeing a prescription drug
benefit to the seniors in this country. It is the solution that
involves the private sector in this country which has been so dynamic
in delivering high-quality health care, unlike countries that have gone
to government control of health care, dumb down basically the health
care system, dumb down innovation in our health care system.
Our country, thank goodness, has continued to rely on the private
sector to deliver that health care innovation. We want to do the same
thing with prescription drugs, not fall back on a government solution
that involves hundreds of mandates like the Democrat solution, the Gore
solution. That would be catastrophic for this country if we were to let
the Government take over prescription drugs in this land of ours.
{time} 2115
I appreciate the gentleman allowing me a few minutes to talk about
the fact that our prescription drug plan is for all seniors, not just
for some, and it delivers high quality benefits to all seniors, not
just some.
Mr. THOMAS. What is especially of concern to me about now, apparently
the news media's understanding that the Vice President manufactured
some facts to try to make his point is that there is a lot of reality
out there that is better than made-up stories. What concerns me is that
he knowingly made that story up. And I happen to personally believe
that there are some of the Members in this body who have made up
fictions about the plan that passed the House because they would rather
have the issue than the solution. That is just to me reprehensible,
when we could have already provided prescription drugs for seniors in
Medicare.
It should not be part of a presidential debate. It should be part of
the law. We are doing everything we can to make that happen, including
create a bipartisan plan that passed the House when those Democratic
leaders who wanted to make it an issue walked out of this body rather
than engaging in an honest, direct debate about the flexibility of our
plan versus the rigidness of theirs, the integration of the plan rather
than theirs as an add-on, and probably, most important, the fact that
we provide the drugs that your doctor believes you need, not a
bureaucratic structure that may not provide that particular drug but
will force you to an alternative. That is not the kind of choice that
we believe seniors and their doctors ought to make.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The gentleman makes an excellent point.
Honestly, some nights I just lie in anguish because I know that by my
colleagues making this a partisan decision, seniors in America are not
going to get prescription drugs for another year and a half. Now, all
the plans will take a year or two to put in place and if we cannot pass
the bill for another year and a half, there are people in my district
who are really truly desperate for this coverage, and that says to
them, ``Not for another 3 or 4 years.'' We could pass this this year.
It is really almost a crime that our colleagues will not come together
and help us do it. It needs to be bipartisan.
Now, we have talked about price, but there is one really important
issue that you referred to that needs to be addressed. Seniors need to
be able to have the drug that is appropriate to them. Some
antidepressants, for example, work by making you sleepy. Well, if you
are sleepy and you fall and break a hip, that is terrible. There are
other antidepressants that do not make you sleepy, and your doctor
ought to have the right to choose the one that works for you. Under our
bill, I am proud to say every plan will have to provide not only
multiple drugs in each category but what we call multiple drugs in each
classification.
One of the problems with the proposal from the other side is that you
have to only provide one drug in each category, and that means your
doctor will not be able to choose the pharmaceutical product that is
really good for you, that will interact fairly in a healthy fashion
with your other medications, that will not give you side effects that
will cause harm to your health or to your well-being. So I think in
this fast-paced debate, it is kind of being overlooked, that we not
only want a plan that gives seniors choices of drug plans but that we
want within those plans for each one to provide a lot of choices of
medications so each senior gets the medication that she or he needs and
that doctors will have the right to choose the pharmaceutical agent
that is best for that senior.
Mr. McCRERY. It is ironic that our plan has been attacked by the
Democrats because we rely on the private sector to manage the benefit.
They say, ``Oh, gosh, you know, we just don't believe the private
sector will do a good job of managing this benefit under Medicare. We
should let HCFA, the Health Care Finance Administration which
administers Medicare, also administer this prescription drug benefit.''
What they do not tell you is that HCFA, the Health Care Finance
Administration, would rely, would hire, a
[[Page 18577]]
private sector entity to manage their business. Just as under our bill
we would have private sector entities called PBMs, or pharmaceutical
benefits managers, to provide this benefit around the country, only we
would have multiple PBMs, not just one, the Health Care Finance
Administration would hire under the Democrats' vision one single
pharmaceutical benefits manager to manage this benefit. Well, if our
plan is flawed because we are going to have a private sector entity, in
fact a number of private sector entities, PBMs, manage the benefit,
then theirs is flawed as well because HCFA relies on a private sector
entity, a PBM, a single PBM to manage theirs.
They say, ``Oh, well, gosh, if that happens, if we can't get a PBM to
manage the benefit under our plan, well, we'll just let HCFA, the
Health Care Finance Administration, manage the benefit.'' Well, that
sounds good, I guess, but then when you examine the kind of job that
HCFA is doing now with Medicare, managing Medicare, never mind
prescription drugs because that is not part of Medicare, just managing
Medicare, you see that maybe that is not such a good idea after all.
For example, in an effort to help senior citizens, this Republican-
majority Congress just in the last couple of years passed a change to
Medicare to benefit senior citizens with their copayments, with their
coinsurance under Medicare, trying to reduce the amount of out-of-
pocket costs to seniors. Well, in order to effect that, HCFA, the
Health Care Finance Administration, has to create an outpatient
prospective payment system to make that happen, to save those seniors
those out-of-pocket costs. Guess what? They have not been able to do
that yet. How many years have they had now, HCFA, to put this in place?
How long has it been since we have directed them to do that, to save
seniors money and they have not been able to put it in place?
Mr. THOMAS. That particular program 3 years, but actually there is
one program on the statutes that has been 7 years languishing waiting
for the Health Care Finance Administration to implement it through
regulation.
Mr. McCRERY. So 7 years for that, 3 years for the one I am talking
about that would benefit the pocketbooks of seniors that we passed in
an effort to help seniors, and the very administration, the Health Care
Finance Administration, that the Democrats want to rely on to deliver
this new benefit, prescription drugs, has not been able in 3 years to
perfect this mechanism to save seniors out-of-pocket costs. That to me
is not much to rely on. To me, it is much safer to rely on the private
sector, a robust private sector that is innovative and wants to get in
the business of delivering prescription drugs to seniors and in fact is
doing so in a number of group plans around the country.
Mr. THOMAS. I know the gentleman shares my frustration in trying to
get the media and others to realize that folks on the other side of the
aisle and, for example, the Democratic Party nominee for President make
things up. They simply are not truthful about the programs. In fact, I
have often thought, if you think about ``Do You Want to Be a
Millionaire,'' a couple of really good questions that should have a
high dollar value to them because they would be very difficult for
people to answer, and, that is, which party was the majority in
Congress when preventive and wellness programs for seniors was put into
Medicare? You would probably have to use one of the lifelines to
realize that it was the Republican Party and not the Democrats. Better
than that, which party was in the majority when for the first time in
the history of the 35-year Medicare program a prescription drug program
was voted off of the floor of the House? That should be way up around a
quarter of a million, because the answer is the Republicans, not the
Democrats.
But if you listen to Al Gore, if you listen to the Democrats who
describe our program, frankly I believe you would have to say, less
than truthful terms, we are out to destroy Medicare. That old Medicare
partisan scare card unfortunately is being wheeled out once again in
this election by the Democrats' presidential nominee, except I am
pleased to say that he was so carried away with not dealing with the
truth that the press has now found out that he simply makes things up.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I want to mention something that really
has received no attention because it goes to what my colleague from
Louisiana was saying. If you rely on the private sector and you have
multiple plans out there, lower prices for seniors, better choices of
pharmaceuticals, you also could use, and our seniors could have used it
at this very time as HCFA is driving the Medicare HMOs out of the
business, an ombudsman office. And our bill puts in it a new office
that is separate from HCFA, within the government but separate from
HCFA, who will help them when they need help, help them find the right
coverage if they cannot find it, if they need to appeal the
government's decision that they can or cannot have certain care.
Then this ombudsman will help them get the information together and
make that appeal. Under current law, they have effectively no appeal
rights. Here we are talking about a patient bill of rights for all
under-65-year-old Americans, and that has passed through the House, we,
the Republican majority, included in the prescription drug bill an
appeals process so that every senior would have the right to appeal if
they cannot have the right drug, if they cannot have the right
procedure, if they need medical care that they are being denied, and
this office of ombudsman who can help them get together the information
they need, guide them through the process of appeal if they need to be
guided through that appeal process, and help them whenever they need
help in dealing with the government around the current Medicare plan.
I am very proud that we have set up this new independent office of
ombudsman and also passed for every senior in America an appeals
process that gives them those critical rights to speak up and say,
``Wait a minute, I need that medical treatment, and I ought to have it
and have someone neutral to turn to say, yes, actually you should have
that medical treatment because you need it and Medicare should be
providing it.''
The breadth of our prescription drug bill, not only in the choices it
provides seniors and in the pharmaceutical products it provides
seniors, but also in restoring their rights as human beings under
Medicare is really important for seniors to understand. I am proud we
did it. I hope that over the course of the next few weeks we can join
together, Republicans and Democrats, and of course our bill was
bipartisan, but into a larger arena and get the President with us so
that our seniors will not have to wait 3 years for prescription drug
coverage.
Mr. THOMAS. I want to point out again that we are not talking about a
risky scheme; we are not talking about something that is different than
what seniors have now in terms of Medicare. The American Association of
Retired Persons said that they are pleased that both the Republican and
the Democrat bills include a voluntary prescription drug in Medicare,
it is an entitlement, and what we have been talking about are the
differences. We frankly think that when you talk about the differences,
do not use scare tactics, do not say that this plan will not work
because ironically, and the gentleman from Louisiana and my colleague
from Connecticut know this, under the Al Gore plan, if they are not
able to get those prescription benefit managers that you have talked
about to do the job, which is to limit their professional experience
and let a bureaucrat tell them what to do, if they are not doing it,
the fallback provision in the Vice President's plan is to those
insurance companies that the Democrats like to say, will say that our
plan fails.
Our plan, which was passed on a bipartisan vote, reduces the cost of
drugs to seniors up to twice as much as the Democrats' plan because it
is flexible and it lets professionals make the decisions in a timely
and professional manner. It may not seem like a big point now, but 4 or
5 years down the road when the senior finds out the drug they need is
not one that is approved and
[[Page 18578]]
therefore you do not get the group purchasing insurance premium value
to it, when they realize that they do not have the flexibility, that
they do not get to choose between plans, those differences that we are
mentioning now will loom very large in the life of those seniors who
need to choose and who need the flexibility of our program.
{time} 2130
Mr. McCRERY. As the gentleman knows, one of the criticisms that
Democrats have leveled at our plan is that the private sector insurance
companies, the private sector pharmaceutical benefit managers will not
participate in our plan. They will not offer a plan; therefore, we are
not really offering seniors any choices. Well, the same criticisms were
leveled in the State of Nevada, when Nevada's Republican Governor came
up with a similar plan to provide prescription drugs in the State of
Nevada.
And if I am not mistaken, and please correct me if I am wrong, but
just recently the deadline came for submission of plans from the
private sector or bids to participate in the Nevada State program and
not only did the private sector step up to the plate and say yes, we
will participate, but I believe Nevada had a choice from among at least
five different plans.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, five different plans chose to compete for
the business.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, we will play in this game. We want to
provide this benefit to your citizens in Nevada, so even though that
same criticism was leveled at Nevada, the private sector will not
participate. They do not like this plan.
We found at least there that that criticism was not warranted, and
Nevada now has the luxury of choosing from among five different bids
from the private sector to manage their prescription drug benefit in
their State.
I predict, if our bill were to become law, we would experience the
same thing. The private sector would step up to the plate and seniors
would have multiple choices of plans as we have described.
Mr. THOMAS. And what we get out of that, as we repeated over and
over, is the flexibility of choosing, but also the advantage through
the competition of a lower price to the seniors, and, of course, given
that the Medicare program is taxpayer financed, a lower cost to the
taxpayers. We have to be concerned about the Medicare program, because
it is not financially sound as we make these improvements, things like
adding prescription drugs, we have to keep an eye on the bottom line
costs 10 years out, 15 years out.
The intensive more than 1 year study that was undertaken by the
bipartisan Medicare commission wound up unanimous in terms of the
experts, whether they were professional, academia, in saying the one
thing Medicare needs to preserve itself over the long run is a degree
of competition and negotiation for the price of the services.
The plan we are talking about, the plan as indicated that the State
of Nevada has put into place, provides the structure for that
competition, which will produce, bend those growth curves a little, it
will produce a plan that will save us money in the long haul. We are
preserving Medicare by making sure that we can get the job done at the
cheapest possible cost.
We are protecting seniors. We are, in fact, strengthening and
simplifying the program. Now, that is not what we will hear from our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because if they, in fact,
were honest about the plan, we could focus on the differences, we could
make adjustments, and we could provide seniors with prescription drugs
in Medicare. That apparently is a choice that they have made that they
do not want.
They want the political issue during this campaign. The Vice
President is more than willing to make up stories that are not true to
try to win the Medicare prescription drug debate. What happened to that
slogan ``I would rather be right than President?''
This particular candidate would rather make up stories in the attempt
to convince people that his plan is better. It is not better. It is
more costly. It is more limited. It does not provide the choices that
this plan does, and it does not provide the savings in the long run,
the competition and negotiations provide.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman brought that up, as
we have to conclude our discussion here. I am glad the gentleman
brought up the issue of saving Medicare, because, indeed, if no changes
are made to the Medicare system, we all know that it is not actuarially
sound, and it will meet its demise. The program itself will meet its
demise within about 20 or 25 years.
And when my generation, the baby boom generation, reaches retirement
age, the Medicare program will not be able to provide benefits to my
generation. So the gentleman makes an excellent point. The gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) also mentioned some of the reforms that
we include, reforms of Medicare that we include in our prescription
drug plan, which will facilitate the transition from the current
Medicare system to a Medicare system that will be stronger, that will
rely on competition in the private sector to drive down costs in the
Medicare system and save Medicare for the long hall so that my
generation and generations following mine will have the benefit of this
program.
I appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me and saying that our
plan does that, but the Vice President's does not.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for his comments. The solvency the
day after tomorrow is important, the needs for tomorrow is important,
but frankly we should not go one day longer than necessary to provide
seniors with prescription drugs, and we ought not to keep talking about
the issue. We did something, we passed it, especially when talking
apparently coming from the Vice President is not truthful in the first
place.
Mr. McCRERY. We passed it in a responsible way. I would admit.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud we are
doing it in not only a way that will save and strengthen Medicare for
future generations and provides more choice for seniors, but it
provides more health care for seniors. Ours is the only bill that
covers off-label uses of drugs. Since most of the cancer patients are
over 65, and since many of the cancer treatments involve off label uses
of drugs, only our bill provides coverage for most cancer treatments.
So we not only do it in an efficient, cost effective way that will
strengthen Medicare in the long run for current seniors and future
retirees, but we provide more choices and more health care. We need for
the President to weigh in now and get our bill to his desk so every
senior in America can have drugs as a part of Medicare now.
Mr. THOMAS. Our bill provides that competition in negotiation, and
the only thing I am really pleased about with Governor George W. Bush's
plan is he gets it, he understands the need for that competition in
negotiation to provide a better product, flexibility and choice, but
ultimately at a cheaper price.
My only hope is that as we continue this very important debate, my
druthers would be that we do not debate, we show action. We took that
action in our hands, we passed a bill off the floor of the House, we
would like to deal with legislation moving forward, but if it is
apparently the way that the Democrats have chosen to be rhetoric, to
talk about the needs, then I think, at the very minimum, what we would
hope is that the Vice President, the Democrats' nominee for President,
would not play fast and loose with the facts that, in fact, the debate
be a truthful one.
This is a serious matter. It is not just partisan rhetoric. It is
whether or not a senior gets the kind of lifesaving drugs they deserve
at a price they can afford.
The bipartisan Republican plan that passed the House does that. We do
not want rhetoric. We do not want debate. We want action. We have taken
action. It is now up to the President and others. I thank both of my
colleagues for participating and our colleague from Pennsylvania as
well.
____________________
[[Page 18579]]
NIGHTSIDE CHAT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues recall, last evening I had
an opportunity to address my colleagues and to speak about a number of
different subjects. I would like to kind of do a quick summary or at
least some additions or amendments to my comments last night based on
some of what I saw today.
First of all, as many of my colleagues will recall last night I spoke
about Pueblo, Colorado, and the home of heroes. This week is Patriots
Week in Pueblo, Colorado, and there we are going to honor over 100
recipients of the Medal of Honor.
These are real heros, as I said last night, and I read the definition
of heroes. And we do not have to explain to people what courage is and
how courageous and brave these particular individuals were, we know
that just because they are recipients of the Medal of Honor, they are
amongst the most recognized, courageous and brave people in the history
of this country.
I say with some sadness today that we lost one of our heroes who
passed away at age 74, and I thought I would just read a brief
paragraph or two about this particular hero. Douglas T. Jacobson,
Douglas T. Jacobson who received the Medal of Honor was a Marine
private, private in the Marine Corps for single handedly storming enemy
positions on Iwo Jima, an action that resulted in the deaths of 75
Japanese soldiers, died in August. He had congestive heart failure.
Iwo Jima is often remembered for the photograph of the five Marines
and the Navy Combat Medic raising the American flag on February 23,
1945, but the carnage of what occurred there was one, as described, as
one of the most savage and most costly battles in the history of the
Marine Corps.
This was taken from the obituary out of the New York Times.
Unfortunately, obviously, Mr. Jacobson will not be in Pueblo, Colorado,
but to his family, we mourn his passing and want them to know in Pueblo
this week we will think about him. We will think about the action that
he took on behalf of this country.
Moving on to another subject. I talked last night about the
entertainment world, specifically I focused in on some of the video
games that we can pick up or rent at the store or pick up or go down to
the video arcade and play. I showed you a demonstration of some of
them, including one which is called the Kingpin. And on the Kingpin, as
I mentioned last night, you are actually able to put this video game on
your video and focus in on the exit wounds of the person that you shot.
The game itself encourages you to be like a tough gang person and
wipe out your opponents. And it is a gross miscarriage of, in my
opinion, of responsibility, community responsibility, by some
individuals, not all individuals, but by some individuals in the
entertainment industry.
Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in my comments that I felt that I
probably represented 1 percent, maybe 2 percent, 3 percent of that
entertainment industry that put that kind of trash out. Tonight while I
was waiting for my opportunity to address my colleagues, I was back
reading the New York Times.
And I noticed a story and I would like to say or comment on a
response that was given to our concern in the United States Congress,
our concerns as parents, parents who have young children that many of
our constituents do, we expressed the concern of a lot of people and a
lot of communities across this country.
Here is the response of one of the people of the entertainment
industry, a guy named Larry Casinof, he is president of Threshold
Entertainment, a company that makes, among other things, movies based
on action oriented video games like Mortal Kombat and Duke Nukem.
Here is his comment about what Congress says about these video games,
about what parents and communities are saying about these video games.
I think it is a bunch of weasels scrambling for votes; that is exactly
what this fellow calls my colleagues up here who express concern about
the entertainment industry that small portion of the entertainment
industry which puts this kind of garbage out there to be sold to our
young people, with the intent of influencing our young people.
Let me tell you it would be interesting to call Larry on the phone
and I wish had his phone number because I would call him this evening.
In fact, if I could, I would bring a phone on to the floor, it is not
allowed, but I would bring it to the floor and let my colleagues hear
in the microphone, and I would ask Larry the question, Larry, do you
have any children? My guess is he probably does.
Let us see. Larry, how young are they? And I would hope that his
children are young. I would say Larry, do you buy these games? Do you
buy Mortal Kombat, and do you buy Duke Nukem or do you buy Kingpin
games for your own children? Do you allow your children to play the
same kinds of games that you are profiting from by marketing to your
neighbor's children, to your community's children, to your State's
children, to the Nation's children.
My guess if Larry who has got the big mouth and says you are nothing
but weasels if you question my integrity on putting this kind of trash
out, my bet is he does not allow his kids near this stuff.
{time} 2145
I think this guy is a self-righteous guy, and I do not mind saying it
on the House floor; and I sure wish he would take a second look at his
community responsibilities.
I sure wish he would take a look at some of the tragedies that we
have suffered, some of the school shootings, Columbine High School, for
example, in Colorado. I think he ought to take a look and say, gosh,
are the people that are really worried about this, should we consider
them vote-getting weasels or maybe, just maybe, it is somebody who is
worried about the communities that they represent. I hope I get an
opportunity some day to meet this fellow because I would like to ask
him that question.
The Liberal Media Bias
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, let me move on from there and mention
something else. Obviously, we are in the presidential election; and
when you get into an election that is as intense as this election is,
the question always comes up, does the media favor one candidate over
the other. Now, of course, as many of you know, obviously, I am a
Republican, and I am concerned. I think that there is a liberal bias to
the media in this country, not all of the media, obviously. We have
many papers, the Wall Street Journal editorials which I think are
outstanding. We have the Washington Times, but on a whole I think most
people would agree that the media has a very liberal bent to it; that
the media favors Al Gore as the next President of the United States. I
think it has been clearly demonstrated in the last few days.
I guess a couple of weeks ago, an advertiser hired by George W. Bush
put an ad out that had rats or something on the ad. You could not
believe it. Many of you saw it. That became the headlines and the
starting news story on the newscasts in the evening. They have played
this story over and over and over and over. That word did not come out
of George W. Bush's mouth, but they tagged him with it; and they have
been tagging him day after day after day.
Well, another big issue that has come up in this presidential
election is prescription drugs; and as I said last night, look, do not
buy into what the liberal Democrats, not all Democrats because moderate
and conservative Democrats do not necessarily agree with the liberal
Democrat philosophy, but do not buy into their philosophy that they
have the magic answer and that you are going to get something for
nothing.
Prescription drugs are a huge problem in this country. Our medical
delivery system is a huge problem in this country; but the quick and
easy answer, especially for a politician, is to promise all of you that
you can get
[[Page 18580]]
something for nothing; that the government will take all the
responsibility; you do not have to worry about individual
responsibility anymore; we will do it for you and it will not cost you
anything.
Prescription drugs are a big issue, but they have to sell this.
Hillary Clinton attempted this about 8 years ago. She attempted, and I
will say the polls were way up here, it took a lot of guts to stand up
against Hillary Clinton and the national health care plan that Gore and
Clinton supported 8 years ago, but the American people did not buy into
it. Once they had time to evaluate it, once they understood what the
consequences of a national health care plan would be, once they
understood how poorly the government managed its current health care
delivery system, like veterans benefits, like Medicare, like Medicaid.
Once they realized this, they did not buy into that.
Initially, when the Hillary Clinton proposal came out to offer a
nationwide socialized health care plan, the polls supported it, the
majority of Americans said hey, we are tired of paying the kind of
prices, we are tired of getting it stuck to us by insurance companies
and frankly in a lot of cases they were. So they supported this plan
until they began to look at the details. But during that period of
time, until the American people had time to let the details settle out,
until they had time to weigh what the consequences were of this
nationalized socialized health care plan, there was a lot of propaganda
put out there.
Well, you know what? We are seeing the same kind of thing. You know
what is happening? The media is giving Al Gore a free ride on it. Let
me say exactly what I am talking about. Not all of the media,
obviously, because this headline came out of the Washington Times. Al
Gore, to try and push his numbers higher against George W. Bush, has
gone out and we have seen this history with Al Gore in the past, Al
Gore at one point said that the movie Love Story, which my generation
remembers, that Love Story was written about him and his wife, Tipper.
Al Gore went on later to say that he is the one who invented the
Internet, and now in the last couple of days Al Gore has stood in front
of senior citizens, and I will say one of the ways that the liberal
Democrats are selling their plan and are attacking the conservative or
moderate Republican/Democrat plan is by the doctrine of fear, so a
couple of days ago Al Gore stood up in front of a group of senior
citizens and he said to these senior citizens, he said my mother-in-
law, who lives with us, has arthritis and she has to pay, and I think
the number was $138 a month for her prescription every month, and he
says our dog has arthritis and the same drug that is administered to
that dog, why that prescription costs, I think he said $37 a month.
Well, you know what? Afterwards, some people began asking questions,
well, what was the price of this drug and what was the price of that
drug? And this is the result: Gore made it up. He made up the antidote
about the cost of the drugs. His own staff admitted that Al Gore made
it up.
In all fairness, and talk about fairness here, do you think that the
media has put this out? This came directly from Al Gore's mouth, by the
way. Whereas this rats ad, or whatever it was, did not come from George
W. Bush; it came from an advertisement authorized by his campaign or
whatever. But do you think the media has done much about this?
Frankly, Al Gore has had some problems with credibility with the
administration that he is associated with, but he says now he is his
own man; but yet he stands in front of the American public and he lied
to us about this. He fabricated. That is the word they are using, not
the word lie. He fabricated the facts because it sounded good.
Of course, it is alarming that the average person would pay $138 or
something a month for prescription drugs and the same drugs used on the
dog would be $37 a month. That is unfair. On its face, its outrageous.
Of course, we sympathize with the Vice President. Of course, we are
drawn in by Al Gore's story. He told that story for a purpose, to get
votes, to get your votes, Mr. Speaker. Yet now his staff admits well,
he fabricated the story.
At the beginning of my comment in regards to this issue, I said take
a look at whether you are a liberal Democrat, whether you are a
conservative serving up here, whether you are a moderate, take a look
from a nonpartisan point of view and see if there is fair play going on
out there with the media. Ask the media, hey, why is not this story
being played up like these other stories? I can say if that was not
Gore but Bush who made up the antidote about the cost of drugs, it
would be the lead story on every national broadcast in this Nation. It
would be the lead story, bold headlines in a lot of newspapers across
this country. They would unmercifully attack Bush for this kind of
little example. But look what happened. It is a small story in a lot of
these newspapers.
My point tonight is to demonstrate to you, as we get in these
presidential elections, we do not have a level playing field, in my
opinion, with a lot of the media out there on this presidential race. I
am saying, Mr. Speaker, most of our constituents, in my opinion, will
eventually see through this, and I hope most of our constituents have
an opportunity to stand back and make an educated decision on who they
want to support for the White House.
Well, let me move off of this subject.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Members are reminded that
suggesting dishonesty of the Vice President or questioning his
credibility are violations of the rules of the House.
Mr. McINNIS. Inquiry of the Speaker. That is a headline on a
newspaper. Is that what the Speaker is referring to, is an objection to
the headline off the Washington Times that says that the Vice President
misled?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Rules of the House, quotes from a
newspaper read in debate are held to the same standard as if spoken in
the Member's own words.
Fun Facts About Water
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I will move on to a new subject now and
that is on water. I want to talk this evening about water. Water is a
fun subject to talk about. Really, it is kind of boring. In Colorado,
we are a State that has critical reliance on water, but I thought
before we begin the discussion in earnest about the State of Colorado,
I thought I would go through some fun facts that impact all of our
colleagues out here, all of our constituents; some neat things,
interesting things to learn about water.
As I begin this, most people do not think much about water unless it
does not come out of the taps, or they do not think much about the
quality of water unless their water is dirty. There are some major
issues that evolve around the natural resource of water. Water is the
only resource we have that naturally renews itself. It does not expire
upon its use.
So I thought we would go over some interesting things that I have
found about water. It would be kind of fun for us this evening to take
a lighter moment and talk about some of these things.
First of all, I have titled this little chart, which obviously you
can tell I have slapped this thing together, but there are some
interesting things. Who was the American explorer who compared the
western plains to the sandy deserts of Africa? Zebulon Pike, Pikes Peak
of Colorado. Another interesting fact, and this pertains mostly to
Colorado, but the largest reservoir in the State of Colorado is the
reservoir called the Blue Mesa Reservoir.
Next, what percent of water treated by the public water systems is
used for drinking and cooking? In other words, all of the water that is
treated nationwide by your public treatment system, how much of that is
used for drinking and cooking? Less than a percent. That is an
interesting fact. I thought it was more than that.
In fact, I thought most of the water that was processed by your
treatment facility plant was used for drinking and cooking, but less
than 1 percent of it actually is.
What river in Colorado used to be called the Grande River? That is
the Colorado River, and we are going to go in later on a little more
depth about
[[Page 18581]]
the Colorado River. It is called the Mother of All Rivers.
Kentucky blue grass, an interesting point here, uses 18 gallons of
water per square foot for each year. Tall fescue and wheat grasses use
10 and 7 gallons of water per square foot each year, respectively.
Riparian habitat makes up less than 3 percent of the land in Colorado
but is used by over 90 percent of the wildlife in the State, which
points out how important riparian habitat is; and our technological
advances have shown us over the last 20 or 30 years why these riparian
areas are so important for our wildlife.
Eighty-seven percent of the water leaving Colorado flows out of the
Colorado River Basin towards the Pacific Ocean. The remaining 13
percent of water that leaves Colorado flows out of the Missouri, the
Arkansas, and the Rio Grande River Basins towards the Atlantic Ocean.
So 87 percent of water in the State of Colorado, and for a lot of you
that are not from Colorado you will see why there are many references
to Colorado, not just because I am from there but Colorado is really a
critical State in the western States when we talk about the issue of
water. As I just said, 87 percent of the water that goes into Colorado
flows towards the Pacific Ocean and 13 percent of that water flows
towards the Atlantic Ocean.
I might also add that Colorado is the only State in the Union where
all of the free-flowing water goes out of the State. There is no water
in the Continental United States, in any State in the Continental
United States, like Colorado, that flows into Colorado. Colorado does
not have any. It is an exception of one.
Producing a typical lunch hamburger, french fries and soft drink,
this is hard to believe, uses 1,500 gallons of water; a typical drink,
french fries and a hamburger. By the time you are able to grow the
resources, produce the resources that are necessary to come up with
your final product, you have gone through 1,500 gallons of water. It
includes the water needed to raise the potatoes, the grain for the bun
and the grain needed to feed the cattle and the production of the soda.
Let me move over here. The natural rotation of the earth, now this is
one of the most amazing water facts that I have seen and for 18 years I
have studied water, the natural rotation of the earth has been altered
slightly by the ten trillion, ten trillion tons of water stored in
reservoirs over the last 40 years, according to NASA.
So of the 10 trillion tons of water that is stored, it has actually
altered slightly the rotation of the earth.
The Platte River, whose name means flat, was named by French trappers
and explorers. The Native Americans in the region called it the
Nibraskier, a similar word for flat.
{time} 2200
The hottest spring water in the State of Colorado, 82 degrees
Celsius, 180 degrees Farenheit is found in Horse Tents Hot Springs in
Chaffee County. The largest hot spring in Colorado is the big spring in
Glenwood Springs with a maximum discharge greater than 2,200 gallons
per minute. I am from Glenwood Springs, Colorado, and I hope that many
of you have already been through Glenwood Springs. It is a small town,
a beautiful town, located about 40 miles north of Aspen, Colorado. If
you have driven to Aspen, especially in the winter, you had to go
through Glenwood Springs, and as you go over the bridge, if you go
through there again, take a look and you will see that huge hot
springs.
In May 1935, 10 miles south of Kiowa, 24 inches of rain fell in 6
hours. Note that the average for Colorado in a year, in a year in
Colorado, the average precipitation we get is 16.5 inches, and here in
Kiowa County, they actually got 24 inches in 6 hours. Grand Lake is 265
feet deep, the deepest natural lake in Colorado.
From 1820 to 1846, the boundary of the United States with Mexico was
the Arkansas River. That was the actual boundary between the United
States and Mexico, the Arkansas River. Wolford Reservoir, which is one
of our newer reservoirs, located 7 miles north of Kremmling, Colorado,
opened to the public over Memorial Day weekend, the 5.5 mile long
reservoir covers about 1,400 acres and has a capacity of 26,000 acre
feet and costs about $42 million to build.
Now, in our discussion this evening about water, we will be talking
about acre feet, so it is a good time to define exactly what I mean by
acre feet. An acre foot of water means that the amount of water over a
1-year period of time that would cover 1 acre 1 foot deep. Now, that is
what an acre foot of water is. Eighty-nine percent of Colorado's
naturally occurring lakes are found at altitudes above 9,000 feet.
Now, let us talk a little bit about Colorado and why this altitude is
different or important. Colorado is the highest State in the Union. In
fact, the district that I represent, the Third Congressional District
of Colorado, which, geographically, is larger than the State of
Florida, is the highest congressional district in the Nation.
In Colorado, we depend very heavily on the precipitation that occurs
on those high points at that high elevation. That is what creates 80
some percent, and we will look at that statistic a little later on, but
80 some percent of the water as a result of the snowfall at that high
precipitation. So as we point out here, 89 percent, almost 90 percent
of our natural lakes are found at altitudes of 9,000 feet or higher.
The average humidity that we have in Colorado is about 38 percent;
technically, 37.9 percent. There are more than 9,000 miles of streams
and 2000 lakes and reservoirs open to fishing in the State of Colorado.
A dry wash, we often hear the term dry wash. What that really means,
they are stream flows that occur only for a short period of time after
the snow melt or after a rain storm, something like this. That is what
they call a dry wash, or gulch, et cetera.
Let me shift over here. The South Platte waters is used in the
following ways. This is interesting. The South Platte, which is a major
river in the State of Colorado, 10 percent for city and industrial use,
65 percent for irrigation, and 3 percent of the water for reservoir
evaporation. Twenty-two percent of the water leaves that State.
Now, let us talk for a moment, leave this and talk just for a moment
about water in general. Mr. Speaker, 97 percent, 97 percent of the
water in the world is salt water, and of that 97 percent, 75 percent of
the balance, so we have 97 percent of the water in the world is salt
water, so we have 3 percent of that left, and 75 percent of that 3
percent is water that is tied up in the polar ice caps. So we can see
that less than half of a percent is fresh water in this world that we
would find in lakes and streams. Mr. Speaker, 73 percent of that stream
flow in the United States is claimed by States east of a line drawn
north to south along the Kansas-Missouri border. So 73 percent of the
stream flow in this Nation is in the eastern United States. And, most
of our rainfall occurs in the East, not in the West.
In fact, in many States in the East, their problem is getting rid of
water. Our problem in the West is the ability to retain the water. Mr.
Speaker, 12.7 percent of the water is claimed by the Pacific Northwest,
which means that only 14 percent, about, 14.2 percent to be technical,
so approximately 14 percent of the water, of the total stream flow of
fresh water is shared by 14 States and these 14 States geographically
consume more than one-half of the Nation in land area. Of those 14
States, Colorado sits at the apex. Again, back to the high elevation of
the State of Colorado.
In Colorado, our high altitude semi-arid climate, we have 85 million
acre feet, of the 100 acre feet we get approximately a year of moisture
that falls in the State as precipitation. So we have about 100 million
acre feet. Here is an interesting statistic. Of that 100 million acre
feet, approximately 85 million acre feet of that goes away in
evaporation or goes away in what we would call transpiration through
where the plants take the moisture from the soil and it essentially
evaporates through the leaves of the plants.
Let us go back here for some other interesting statistics that I
think will help give us a good idea of just how
[[Page 18582]]
critical water is and how critical it is going to be in our future. Mr.
Speaker, 48 million people in the United States receive their drinking
water from private or household wells. In Colorado, water must be
diverted for a purpose and for beneficial use. The reason I put this in
there is that Colorado water law is very unique.
Our water law in the West is significantly different than the water
law in the East. In the West, water actually is a private property
right. One can actually own the water separate from the land. In some
States in this Union, the water and the land go together. But in
Colorado, they can be separated. In Colorado, it is necessary, and in
the West in general, it is necessary for us to divert water.
Basically, in Colorado, we have as much water as we could possibly
need during what is called the spring runoff, which lasts from about 60
to 90 days. But once that spring runoff is finished, the States in the
West have to rely very heavily upon water storage. If we do not have
the water stored, we do not have the ability to use it for the balance
of the year that we do not have spring runoff. That is why water
storage is so critical in the West.
What is interesting is that a lot of what we would call, I guess,
politicians in the East criticize water storage in the West. It is
because they are talking about two entirely different systems. It is
almost as if we have two entirely different countries based on water
differences. In the East, the water comes much heavier and it is
treated, even legally is treated differently than the water needs and
the water facts of the West, which is very important to remember as we
go on here.
In the United States, approximately 500,000 tons of pollutants pour
into our lakes and rivers each day. That is why all of us continue
towards this effort of clean water and clean lakes. Now, we cannot be
so extreme as to say, look, we cannot flush our toilets because there
is a pollutant in the toilet. What we have to do is figure out where
that balance is with the use of water, without getting too extreme on
one side or the other side. It is interesting here that if you spill
four quarts of oil, a can, four quarts of oil in a sewer system, by the
time it is done, you will have about an eight-acre oil spread, eight
acres, as a result of four quarts of oil.
Those are the kinds of things that we have to be very sensitive with
about. That is why we have to be careful about the pollutants that are
in our water sources and our water supplies. This is interesting. The
maximum 24-hour snowfall in the United States is 75 inches which
occurred in the mountains of Colorado in 1921. Can we imagine, 75
inches of water in a 24-hour period of time.
Here are some other interesting facts. We will jump down here. Well,
right here. Evidence indicates that an ancient irrigation system was
found at Mesa Verde and may have been in use by 1000 AD or even
earlier. It is interesting, the Anasazi down in the Mesa Verde National
Park, down in the four corners of Colorado, and by the way, if you have
not been down to the Mesa Verde National Park, you have to go. Take a
look at the Anasazi Ruins, they were fabulous. These people that lived
in the cliffs, they were called the Cliff People, and that is where we
find the first indication of the use of a dam in the United States, and
it was by the Anasazi people who would go down by the stream below the
cliffs, and the water, as I said, Colorado is an arid State, averages
16\1/2\ inches of rain or precipitation in a year. So they would go
down and store their water. That is the first indication we found of
the use of a dam.
In Colorado, for a dam, we actually have a ditch, the San Luis
People's Ditch, which has been in operation since its construction in
1852. That is the oldest irrigation system that we have that is still
in continuous operation in Colorado. Fresh, uncompacted snow, and this
is important to remember about the snowfall that comes down. In
Colorado, we have an arid climate. As I said earlier, our humidity
averages about 37 percent. But did we know that those snow flakes, when
you are out there skiing in Colorado or just walking in the snow, those
snow flakes that you see, 90 to 95 percent of that snowflake is trapped
air. Mr. Speaker, 90 to 95 percent of that snowflake that we see at
least in Colorado is 90 to 95 percent trapped air and I think that
percentage is probably very similar in Washington, D.C., or up in
Connecticut, or New Jersey when it snows.
Denver, Colorado has an average snowfall of about 60 inches per year,
and the snowiest season occurred in 1908 where they had 118 inches.
Avalanches killed 914 people in the United States between 1990 and
1995. On an average year, on an average year, most of the avalanche
deaths actually occur in my congressional district out there in
Colorado, because the Third Congressional District of Colorado
basically has all of the mountains of Colorado. There are some that are
outside of it, but for the most part, the mountains in Colorado are in
the Third Congressional District, and avalanche is a huge danger that
we have to deal with. But I can tell my colleagues this in a little
promotion here which I do not think it is against the rules; I hope my
colleagues ski, we have the best skiing snow in the United States. Try
some of our resorts, Aspen, Vail, Steamboat, Beaver Creek, Powder Horn,
Purgatory.
Let us go back to water. Water usage, this is one of the most
interesting charts that I have come across in regards to water. Follow
through with me when we talk about water usage. Americans are
fortunate. We can turn on the faucet and get at the clean, fresh water
that we need. Many of us take water for granted. Have we ever wondered
how much water you use each day? Here is an idea. For the average
person out there, I say to my colleagues, this will give us an idea of
what the average person in America uses, the basic needs for water each
day. Direct uses of water, again, this is daily, drinking and cooking,
the average person uses about two gallons of water a day to drink and
cook with. Flushing the toilet, between five and seven gallons per day,
or excuse me, per flush, I am sorry, per flush. Washing machine, 20
gallons per load. The dishwasher, 25 gallons per load. Taking a shower,
seven to nine gallons of water per minute while you are in that shower.
Now, growing foods takes most of the water. In this country, a lot of
people, if you ask what consumes most water, one, they will not think
of evaporation and maybe it is a misleading question, because
evaporation really zaps up our biggest amount of water, but right
behind it, the number one use of water in this Nation is the growing of
food.
It is in agriculture. Every day in the super market we take for
granted how much water is necessary to grow that food. Well, here is a
good example of what is necessary. If we have one loaf of bread, by the
time we grow the grain and so on and so forth to produce that one loaf
of bread, we have used 150 gallons of water, 150 gallons of water. To
give us an idea, I am sure many of my colleagues drink bottled water
like I do. I stop at the convenience store. I am trying to get away
from a pop and buy a bottle of water. Multiply, think of what you have
in that container, see how many of those containers it takes to make a
gallon and then multiply that times 150, and that is how much of the
water you are holding in your hands is going to be required for one
loaf of bread.
Mr. Speaker, one egg, one egg is 120 gallons of water; 120 gallons of
water is necessary to produce 1 egg. A quart of milk, one quart of milk
requires 223 gallons of water. These are numbers we cannot even
imagine. If you would have given me this chart, given me just to you
the right-hand side of the chart, colleagues, and ask me to fill in the
gallons, I would not have even come close to these numbers. One pound
of tomatoes, 125 gallons of water for a pound of tomatoes; 1 pound of
oranges, 47 gallons; 1 pound of potatoes, 23 gallons of water. As we go
down here, it takes more than 1,000 gallons of water to produce three
balanced meals a day for one person.
{time} 2215
So for every person, every one of my colleagues, if we have three
balanced
[[Page 18583]]
meals in a day, it has taken over 1,000 gallons of water to produce
that food for us.
What happens to 50 glasses of water? If we had 50 glasses of water,
very interesting, now, remember that evaporation is considered a
portion in this, but what happens to our 50 glasses of water, if we had
50 glasses of water lined up, 44 glasses, as demonstrated right here,
44 of these glasses would be used for agriculture, for growing the food
products that we eat; three glasses would be used by industry; two
glasses would be used by the cities; and a half a glass would be used
in the country.
I think this chart demonstrates just how critical water is. Now,
obviously, we all know most of our body is made up of water, so we do
not have to educate people about the importance of water. But it is
interesting to just see how water interplays with everything that we do
in any given day and how the circumstances of water are a lot different
in the West than they are in the East.
Let us go back to Colorado. As I mentioned to my colleagues earlier,
Colorado is the only State in the continental United States where all
of our water flows out. We have no free-flowing water that comes into
Colorado for our use. That is a very important issue here. So I thought
I would point out particularly, colleagues, why in Colorado water is
our lifeblood. It was written by Thomas Hornsby, the poet, and it is
inscribed in our State capital that out in the West life is written in
water. Life is written in water.
Here is an idea of what flows out of the State of Colorado. It gives
us the average annual outflow of major rivers through 1985. So while
the statistic is through 1985, it still holds pretty accurate today.
Our total that we show here is about 8 million acre feet. The total of
all rivers in Colorado is about 10.5 million acre feet.
We have up here, out of the South Platte, about 400,000 acre feet of
water that flow out every year. We have the Republican River, about
14,000 acre feet. Over here we have the Arkansas River, which is
133,000 acre feet. Down here on the Rio Grande we have 313,000 acre
feet. Over here on the Animas River we have about 663,000 acre feet. Up
here on the Yampa River we have 1,500,000 acre feet. And here on the
Colorado River, the river that I mentioned earlier in my remarks known
as the mother of rivers, the Colorado River, earlier named by the
Indians as the Red River and then later changed to the Grand River and
then later Colorado, Colorado is the Spanish name for red, is 4,540,000
acre feet; 4,540,000 acre feet out of just the Colorado River.
What is interesting here are our different river basins, and I will
go through those very briefly with my colleagues. We have a good map
here in color that gives a pretty clear demonstration of what we call
the four major river basins. We have four major basins that drain most
of Colorado. All of these river basins in this State are at the apex of
those 14 States which consume over half the Nation.
Lots of statistics here but, needless to say, Colorado is the
critical piece of the puzzle for western water. When we take a look at
that, we have four major river basins. We have the South Platte, also
known as the Missouri River Basin; we have the Colorado River Basin
here in the purple; here in kind of the bland green we have the Rio
Grande River Basin; and over here in the lighter green we have the
Arkansas River Basin.
I thought I would talk about each of these river basins. First of
all, the Missouri, which is up here in the red, and that is up in what
I would call the northeastern part of the State of Colorado. Its
primary river in the Missouri Basin or the South Platte River Basin is
the South Platte River. Now, the South Platte River drains the most
populous section of the State and serves the area with the greatest
concentration of irrigated agricultural lands. So the greatest
concentration of irrigated agricultural lands in Colorado is up in this
section of the State.
The main stem of the river flows north, then east, and meets the
North Platte in southwestern Nebraska. The South Platte River, which
starts here, follow my pointer here, that is the South Platte River, up
into Nebraska, is 450 miles long, with 360 miles of that in the
Colorado River.
Rivers east of the divide. Now, remember that we have what we call a
Continental Divide which runs from Mexico to Canada. And through
Colorado it basically goes, following my pointer, basically goes like
this. And on the east side, rivers east of the continental divide
eventually will flow to the Atlantic Ocean from Colorado. Rivers here
on the west side of the Continental Divide eventually flow to the
Pacific Ocean and to the Gulf of Mexico. All the way from here to the
Gulf of Mexico or to the Pacific Ocean.
The Arkansas River Basin, again down here in this lighter green,
begins in the central mountains near Leadville, Colorado. It flows
south and east through the southern part of Colorado towards the Kansas
border. The Arkansas River, this river right here which I am following
here with my pointer, that river is 1,450 miles long, and 315 miles of
that river are in the State of Colorado.
We move over here to the Rio Grande River. Again, back to my pointer
here, that is the Rio Grande in this kind of bland green here. The Rio
Grande drainage basin is located in south central Colorado and it is
comparatively small, with less than 10 percent of the State's land
area. The Rio Grande River is 1,887 miles long, with 180 miles in
Colorado.
And now, let us talk for a moment about the Colorado River Basin. The
Colorado River Basin, of course, is this area that is located right
here in the purple. That is the Colorado River. We can see how many
rivers and tributaries come into the Colorado. There is the Gunnison,
the Roaring Fork, and in that river basin we also have the Yampa River,
the White River, and the Animas River, and we could continually go
down, but the Colorado River, the Colorado River system, drains over
one-third of the State's area.
Twenty-five million people use water out of this basin for drinking
water. Twenty-five million people depend on Colorado, specifically the
Colorado River Basin, which is a good portion of western Colorado, 25
million people depend on their drinking water from this area of
Colorado. Less than 20 percent of the Colorado River basin lies inside
Colorado. So the length of the Colorado River Basin, less than 20
percent of that Colorado River is in that basin. But 75 percent of the
water, 75 percent, goes into this basin comes from the State of
Colorado.
It provides clean hydropower. We have 2 million acres of agriculture
in the Colorado River Basin, and the Colorado River is 1,440 miles
long, with just 225 miles of it in Colorado. Although, as I said,
Colorado, in that 225 miles, puts 75 percent of the water into that
river.
Now, the Colorado River Basin, our native flow, basically is close to
11 million acre feet a year. There are a lot of statistics here, but
let me say to my colleagues that what we have become very dependent
upon, if we flip this over very briefly, or if we pretended for a
moment that this was the United States of America and we divided the
country in half and we were to call this the western United States and
we would call that the eastern United States, the critical factor to
remember about water is that geographically there are two entirely
different systems.
Water in the East has many, many different dynamics than water in the
West. That is why when I talk with my colleagues, when I talk with them
about water issues in the West, it is so important for my colleagues to
remember that the water issues my colleagues face here in the East are
different. There are different dynamics, there are different
geographical constraints, there are even different uses and storage of
the water.
Storage in the West is absolutely critical. If these States in the
western United States did not have the water storage, for example, like
Lake Powell, we would be in a real hurt. We could not exist on these
lands, one, if we did not divert water from the streams; and, two, if
we were not able to store the water.
I just pulled out Lake Powell. I do not know, I wonder how many of my
[[Page 18584]]
colleagues have ever been to Lake Powell. It is spectacular. In fact,
Lake Powell is so large that it has more shoreline than the entire
Pacific West Coast. More shoreline in Lake Powell than the entire
Pacific West Coast. It is one of the primary family recreation spots in
the western United States. There are not many families in the western
United States that do not know about Lake Powell, but there are a lot
of families in the eastern United States that are not aware of the
importance of Lake Powell, not just for recreation, family recreation,
but to the whole western water system, for water storage, for clean
hydropower.
The dam will hold about 27 million acre feet. The surface area is
about 252 square miles; about 161,000 acres. This dam is so critical
for our power. It provides power for millions of people. And needless
to say, in the last couple of years we have seen a serious effort by
the national Sierra Club to take down Lake Powell; to drain Lake
Powell. And this is an example that points out the naivete, in my
opinion, and I say that with due respect, but the naivete of an
organization out of Washington, D.C. which comes out to the West to
dictate what is in our best interest with western water.
There are a lot of physical characteristics, some of which I have
mentioned about Colorado, that are important to remember when we talk
about western water. First of all, the fact that all of the water in
our State runs out of the State; the fact that we have an arid State.
We do not get lots of moisture year-round. Out here in the East, in an
average year, there is pretty steady moisture. In the West, the primary
moisture we get is in winter, and most of that moisture is in the
Colorado mountains, the high Colorado Rockies. As I mentioned to my
colleagues earlier, for the Colorado River, for example, 75 percent of
that River Basin comes off that snow melt that we get in the high
Colorado Rockies.
I mentioned earlier as well the different rivers that we have. That
is why Colorado, and again we have the four major river basins, and why
when we talk about water in the West, when we talk about water in this
Nation, Colorado always surfaces. It is kind of a centerpoint.
Now, when this country was first formed, the Federal Government said,
just because all the water in the West falls in one State does not mean
that one State should own all of that water. We have to have interstate
compacts. Let us create agreements between the States so that the
States have a way for reasonable use of the water but they share the
water as a country instead of keeping all the water as a State. And
those interstate compacts, as most of my colleagues on the floor know,
are critical for the use of this water.
So, for example, we do not go to war, and I can tell my colleagues
that there have been plenty of so-called water wars, not the kind of
wars where there are lots of deaths, although there have been deaths,
but we had water wars in the past, and the interstate compacts have
primarily brought peace to the region by fairly dividing up, or at
least what was considered fair at the time, those water resources.
{time} 2230
There are a lot of interesting facts about these Federal river
compacts. For example, the Colorado River Compact, believe it or not,
the country of Mexico is entitled to parts of the Colorado River. In
fact, the country of Mexico is entitled to a million and a half acre
feet of the surplus water, a million and a half acre feet of the
Colorado River.
How did that come about? A very interesting story. In World War II,
the United States and Mexico were afraid, that is right, that the
Japanese were going to invade Mexico; and Mexico came to the United
States and said, would you enter our country and help protect us
against the Japanese? And the United States also had a concern. We did
not want the Japanese on our border coming through Mexico. So we agreed
to enter the country and defend Mexico.
But Mexico understood our superior bargaining power, so they said,
now look, if you are going to defend our country of Mexico, you really
ought to give us some water for it. So the United States agreed to give
about a million and a half acre feet of water every year to Mexico.
Now there is even a dispute where that water comes from. We have
under the Colorado River Compact upper States and lower States, and
even the dispute is how does that get split. It is supposed to be split
evenly, 7.5 million acre feet with the lower States and 7.5 million
acre feet with the upper States. But the lower States at times have
argued, wait a minute, it comes out of surplus water and since there is
no surplus water in the lower States, it all ought to come out of the
upper States.
As you can see, the water arguments are intense throughout this
Nation. But tonight the purpose of my comments on speaking on water,
and as I summarize, my purpose here is that I hope my colleagues in the
East understand that in States in the West like Colorado and Wyoming
and Montana and California and Arizona and Utah and New Mexico, that
these States are unique water States, States with unique water
problems.
Colorado, as I said, is right at the apex. We have got the
Continental Divide where the water on the east side of the divide flows
to the Atlantic Ocean and on the west side of the Divide it flows to
the Pacific Ocean.
We have 25 million people that depend on the Colorado River Basin for
drinking water. These are issues that should not be downplayed. You
know, on the East you do not feel the pain that we have in the West
with our water. But I am asking that you understand the pain and I am
asking that, before you agree with legislation and before you sign on
the dotted line, for example to take down reservoirs like Lake Powell,
that you have a clear understanding of the circumstances that are
created when you alter the water system in the West.
In Colorado, we feel that water is for Colorado people; but we
understand in Colorado that we have an obligation under the compacts to
share that water. At the same time, we think there is a responsibility
from neighboring States and from our fellow citizens in the eastern
part of the country to understand what the unique needs are of the
people of the State of Colorado.
Why multiple use and the protection of that water, whether we keep it
there for minimum stream flow or whether we use it for agriculture uses
that it has been well thought out over hundreds of years, 150 some
years in Colorado, it has matured as we go through time.
It has matured, the uses of this water. And it should not be easily
dismissed by political movement coming out of some of my colleagues on
this floor.
So, in summary, I know tonight primarily the discussion has been on
water. To many of you perhaps it has been somewhat boring because water
is not your primary focus in Congress. But I can tell you from those of
us in the West, those of us in the Rocky Mountains, water is probably
the number one issue when we talk about what can we do for future
generations.
So I appreciate your understanding this evening. And, in conclusion,
let me tell you some phrases that we take credit for coming out of the
waters in the West.
The phrase ``sold down the river.'' We do not want to be sold down
the river in the West by those of us in the East. And we do not intend
to sell you down the river in the East, either. We want a good cohesive
partnership when it comes to water issues.
``Swallowed hook, line, and sinker.'' There are people that want you
out there to swallow hook, line, and sinker that Lake Powell should be
drained.
``Doesn't hold water.'' They want you to think storage does not hold
water or there is a better way to do it.
``Not worth a tinker's damn.'' We think water in the West is an issue
that is worth a tinker's damn.
And finally, ``fish in troubled water.'' We in the western United
States will be a fish in troubled water if we do not have interests and
understanding by
our colleagues and our citizens in the East. It is the United States
and it does require understanding between these two graphically
different areas of the country as to our water issues.
____________________
[[Page 18585]]
ILLEGAL NARCOTICS IN AMERICA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). 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, I am pleased to come before the House again
tonight to talk about the issue of illegal narcotics and its impact
upon our society.
Tonight I am going to focus on a topic that I have discussed usually
on Tuesday nights in the past before my colleagues and the American
public, and that is the specific impact of illegal narcotics on our
communities and on our population.
Tonight I will bring up again the chart that I did before, the little
poster that I have had here on the floor before. And it, basically,
says that drugs destroy lives, a large poster background. I think this
background is fitting tonight to bring out again. It is a rather large
poster. It talks about a rather large problem: drugs destroy lives.
It is a simple message, simple poster. I have had it on the floor
before. We have used it in my district to demonstrate that illegal
narcotics are, in fact, wreaking havoc upon young people's lives and
also all Americans' lives.
Tonight I want to specifically release some data that was given to
our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
today, and that is a startling announcement and a startling revelation
that, for the first time in the history of the United States of
America, the drug-induced deaths exceed homicides across our land.
These are the figures that we have. Some 16,926 Americans lost their
lives to drug-induced deaths in 1998. Murders in that year were 16,914,
an incredible milestone in a problem that we are experiencing across
the land from the East Coast to the West Coast to the Canadian border
down to the Mexican border. And for the first time, again in the
statistical compilation of the United States, drug-induced deaths
exceed murders.
It is a sad milestone but, again, one reflected in so many
communities affecting so many families and destroying so many lives.
This is indeed a sad turn of events for our Nation. And it is sad,
too, that the administration under which this has occurred, the
Clinton/Gore administration, has not paid attention to this problem and
has tried to sweep the problem aside.
What really disturbs me as Chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources is the attempt in the last
few weeks since I guess we are getting close to election to try to put
a happy, smiling face on the problem of drug abuse and illegal
narcotics misuse in this country.
There have been some staged events with the Secretary of HHS and
other drug officials of this administration to try to come up with
anything that puts a happy face on the problem that we face with
illegal narcotics.
Unfortunately, this is probably their worst nightmare. We announced
these findings today. It will be interesting to see what kind of a spin
the media puts on this and also the administration.
The spin they have attempted to put on is that they are making
progress. I think we have some facts tonight that dispute that.
The drug-induced mortality rates, and let me read from the National
Vital Statistics Report, which is produced just within the last 60
days, talks about this total of death. It says, in 1998, again a total
of 16,926 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States. It
says the category of drug-induced causes includes not only deaths from
dependent and nondependent use of drugs, but it also excludes accident,
homicide, and other causes indirectly related to drug use.
So the figure that we have here, this 1998 figure, which is our last
record, is actually a much smaller figure than if we take into account
all of the drug-related deaths in this Nation.
Now, the drug czar, Mr. Barry McCaffrey, has testified before our
subcommittee that if we take all the drug-related deaths in the United
States on an annual basis, we are approaching 52,000, equal to some of
the worst casualty figures in any war in which we have been engaged.
This goes on to report that between 1997 and 1998, the age-adjusted
death rate for drug-induced causes increased 5 percent from 5.6 deaths,
now this is in 1 year, increased 5 percent from 5.6 deaths per 100,000
U.S. standard population to 5.9 percent, the highest it has been
recorded since at least 1979.
The rate increased by 35 percent from 1983 to 1988, and that was back
in the Reagan administration, the beginning of the Reagan
administration, then declined 14 percent between 1988 and 1990, part of
the Reagan administration and Bush administration; and it increased
every year since 1990, beginning I guess the last part of the Bush
administration. Between 1990 and 1998, the age-adjusted death rate for
drug-induced causes increased by some startling 64 percent.
In 1998, the age-adjusted death rate for drug-induced causes for
males was 2.3 times the rate for females and the rate for the black
population was 1.4 times the rate for the white population.
And this also confirms other statistics that have been presented
before our drug policy subcommittee that in fact those who are harmed
the most by illegal narcotics are the minority population, including
the blacks and Hispanics who are suffering right now not only from the
problem of drug abuse.
But also, if we looked and examined the deaths here, we would see
that the minority population is affected on a disproportionate basis.
{time} 2245
In fact, during the Clinton administration, the number of drug-
induced deaths has risen by approximately 45 percent in just 6 years.
What is interesting, too, in these statistics that we have here is not
the 1999 murder rate, and we do have the 1999 U.S. murder rate
according to the FBI's uniform crime statistics. We do not have the
drug deaths. The last compilation we have is 1998. But in 1999, we
actually had a falling of the murder rate in the United States to
15,561. So we have a much greater number of drug-induced drug deaths;
and we are certain that the figure we will get in 1999 will even exceed
what we see in 1998. So by a dramatic increase even over this year's
murders in the United States, we see drug-induced deaths surpassing
that number.
Most people are concerned about weapons and destruction of life
through guns and knives and other means of murder and mayhem. Now we
have a statistic that should startle every Member of Congress and every
American, particularly every parent and every community leader, that
drug-related deaths have exceeded homicides.
It is ironic that last week one of the communities most hard hit in
the Nation by illegal narcotics is Baltimore, a beautiful historic city
just to the north of our Nation's capital. Baltimore has had the
misfortune of having in the past a very liberal mayor, a very anti-
enforcement mayor, a very pro-narcotics and liberal utilization of
illegal drugs lack of enforcement in that city over that mayor's
tenure.
Fortunately, they have a new mayor, Mayor O'Mally. But Baltimore has
been ravaged by illegal narcotics and again by a very tolerant policy.
This headline was last week in the Baltimore Sun. It says ``Overdose
Deaths Exceed Slayings.'' It again cites that the number of deaths in
that city by illegal narcotics and drug overdoses exceeds murders in
the city. In fact, the State medical examiner's office reported that
324 people died of illegal drug overdose in Baltimore last year,
passing the total of 309 homicides. In 1998 there were 290 overdose
victims and 313 homicides. I hope later on to spend a little bit more
time talking about the policy in Baltimore that turned into a disaster.
And certainly this community is facing now the same thing that we see
on a national level.
[[Page 18586]]
This is an urban setting. Baltimore is an urban community. I come from
a suburban area, the area just north of Orlando, Florida, a very
family-oriented community and region. We have had, and I have held up
here headlines from 2 years ago that the number of drug overdose deaths
exceed homicides in central Florida, also. So we have suburban areas
that are well-to-do; we have urban areas such as Baltimore that now see
the same thing happening. We see rural areas impacted by illegal
narcotics. We see every age bracket impacted by illegal narcotics.
Unfortunately today we announce that for the entire Nation, drug-
induced deaths have exceeded murders across our land.
If I may, I would like to also focus on this chart that shows from
the beginning of the Clinton-Gore administration, some 11,000 drug-
induced deaths, up to 16,926, just shy of 17,000. Again, that
represents a 45 percent increase under this administration's watch. Now
I see why they want to talk about prescription drugs now. I see why
they like to change the subject. Now I see why they like to report any
glimpse of favorable statistics relating to drug abuse and illegal
narcotics use, because this in fact is one of the most dismal figures
and dismal legacies by any administration, Republican, Democrat or in
any Nation. It is a very sad milestone for this country.
What really disturbs me, too, is the misuse of some of the data that
has been released recently. Our Congress has required the
administration under Public Law 105-277 to establish measurable goals
in the funds and programs that we assign for combating illegal
narcotics, particularly in a multibillion-dollar drug education and
prevention program. We ask the drug czar and the administration to
report back to the Congress on their efforts to curtail illegal
narcotics on a performance basis that is measurable so we know that we
are putting money in and we are getting results out.
One of the objectives of the report that has come to us was that we
would reach an 80 percent level of our 12th graders, or young people,
by the year 2002 perceiving drug use as harmful. That was the goal that
we reach. Unfortunately, in some of the statistics that have been
released lately to put a happy face on the drug abuse and misuse
situation in our country, I have found the administration is changing
baselines. For example, in 1996, 59.9 percent of the 12th graders
perceived drug use as harmful. Even after we have run the media
campaign, we find that in 1998, it dropped to 58.5 percent of the 12th
graders perceived drug use as harmful. In 1999, they have even
backslided more according to the information that we have obtained, and
we are down to some 57.4 percent of the 12th graders now perceive drug
use as harmful. The goal, remember, was to achieve 80 percent by 2002.
So it is rather scary that they would take a new base year, 1998,
rather than 1996, and now claim a 1-year decline, a modest decline and
change from assessing 12th graders to eighth graders because they did
find that 73.3 percent of eighth graders saw marijuana use as harmful.
By using the 73.3 percent of eighth graders, they now only fall
somewhere around 7 percent from reaching their 80 percent goal.
These are some of the statistics touted by the administration, but a
clever change in the group that was surveyed and judged and also
changing the baseline. But the facts remain pretty clear that in fact
we have an epidemic of illegal narcotics use among almost every age
group.
According to a January 26, 2000, white paper which was published by
the National Center on Addiction and Substance abuse, which is also
known as CASA, eighth graders in rural America, if we take out those
eighth graders in rural America, 83 percent are likelier than eighth
graders in urban centers to use crack cocaine; 50 percent are likelier
than eighth graders in urban centers to use cocaine; and 34 percent
likelier than eighth graders in urban centers to smoke marijuana. And
104 percent likelier than eighth graders in urban centers to use
amphetamines including methamphetamines. If we start looking at some of
the subsections of eighth graders, and in this case this study looked
at rural eighth graders, we see a horrible trend in illegal narcotics
use; and we are talking about crack cocaine and methamphetamines which
have caused a tremendous amount of damage, death and destruction and I
am sure in this figure of death we would even find those young people.
We find another report from May of this year that the number of
heroin users in the United States has increased from 500,000 in 1996 to
980,000 in 1999. Again, this is not part of the administration's report
to the American people. Nor would they want to talk about this
statistic or this legacy, especially so close to the election. The rate
of first use by children age 12 to 17 increased from less than 1 in
1,000 in the 1980s to 2.7 in 1,000 in 1996. This is not a statistic
that we heard touted by the Secretary of HHS or our drug officials.
First-time heroin users are getting younger, another legacy of this
administration, from an average of 26 years old in 1991, just before
they took control of the administration, to an average of 17 years.
That means the first-time heroin user in 1991 was 26 years of age. They
have managed to bring that down to 17 years of age by 1997, not a
pretty statistic; but we see why drug deaths are dramatically
increasing in the United States.
According to a very recent Associated Press article, June 11 of this
year, a survey conducted by the national drug control policy office
itself said that about 80,000 12- to 17-year-olds and 303,000 18- to
25-year-olds admitted using heroin in 1998. According to DEA, our Drug
Enforcement Administration, in 1990 the average age again of someone
trying heroin was 26.5. We said in 1992 27 years of age, and again this
administration managed to turn it around to an average of age 17.
A study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
for 15,349 students grade nine through 12 revealed that in 1991, again
just before this administration won office in 1992, 14 percent of
students surveyed said they used marijuana. That number increased to
26.7 percent in 1999. Students reporting that they tried marijuana at
least once increased from 31.3 percent in 1991 to 47.2 percent in 1999.
Unfortunately, what we see during the past 7 years has been an
increase in drug use and abuse in almost every category. We have some
statistics that do not get publicized. For example, 4 percent, or
595,640 students, enrolled in grades nine through 12 have used cocaine
according to the most recent study in the past month.
{time} 2300
That is up dramatically over again the beginning of this
administration. Methamphetamines, which were not even on the charts at
the beginning of this administration, we have 99.1 percent or 1,355,018
students enrolled in grades 9 through 12 have now used methamphetamine,
almost 10 percent of the students enrolled in grades 9 through 12.
If you want to worry about drugs and prescription drugs for elderly,
and that is a serious concern that we must address, and we must make
certain that those who are elderly and infirm or in need have
prescription drugs, that is an important topic. But this topic that I
present tonight is extremely important, particularly to our young
people, when again we have a startling statistics like this.
Mr. Speaker, almost 10 percent of our young people have tried
methamphetamines, and we have again 2.4 percent of our students
enrolled in grades 9 through 12 have used heroin. Heroin, which we find
now in a more deadly and potent form than we ever have, and I have
cited the increases in marijuana use, which have nearly doubled in the
terms of this administration. 2.8 percent of the students enrolled in
grade 9 through 12 have injected illegal drugs, that is 268,038
students, again, in our most recent report.
These are not statistics again that you will hear from the
administration, and the media unfortunately does not want to cover this
problem. They, the media, have a more liberal bent, and
[[Page 18587]]
they have, along with the administration, been guilty of sweeping this
problem under the table.
One of the problems that we have, how did we get ourselves into a
situation with these statistics, with drugs, drug-induced deaths now
exceeding homicides in the United States. I want to say it was not
easy. It took the Clinton administration almost 7 years to dismantle
and systematically take piece by piece apart what was a very effective
war on drugs.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, if we look at a period from 1985 to 1992, we
saw over a 40 percent decrease in drug use in this country. The
Clinton-Gore administration has failed to make the drug war a top
national priority. Now, how can a President of the United States make
drug enforcement, drug prevention, drug education, drug interdiction or
a war on drug real when only eight times in 7 years, just prior to our
work this year on the Colombian package, did the President mention the
war on the drugs in his public addresses.
As a result, we have witnessed an explosion in drug use and abuse. We
have witnessed an incredible amount of production of coca, the base for
cocaine and opium poppy, the base for heroin, in Colombia. And I have
cited in past special order presentations how this administration
systematically first stopped in 1994 information sharing to the chagrin
of even the Democrats, who protested their move, who stopped providing
surveillance information that could be used in shoot down by other
countries trying to stop drugs within other countries borders, not U.S.
forces, but other countries which saw a resurgence in drugs leaving the
source countries.
We saw again a policy where aid and assistance was blocked for some 3
years by a misapplication of our drug certification law, and we saw the
stopping of aid even appropriated and designated by the Congress to get
to Colombia that did not get to Colombia, and then finally when some
few helicopters that we asked 3 years and 4 years for to get there to
get to the illegal narcotics to go after the traffickers in the
mountain terrain. When they finally arrived, it was almost in a
ludicrous situation and a condition that they arrived without proper
armoring which led us to require this Congress to pass a $1.3 billion
package in emergency funding just recently. And we saw the President of
the United States attempt to grandstand and also blur the issue of the
tragedy that he had helped create in Colombia through very specific
missteps and policy.
Despite that billion dollars in aid, we still see a tide of illegal
narcotics coming into this country, that is because our Panama forward
surveillance post was closed down, the administration bungled the
negotiation of keeping our antinarcotics surveillance base in Panama,
and it may be some 2 years before we get the surveillance capability,
the forward-operating capability, the interdiction capability. That is
why we have an incredible supply of drugs coming in and they are
killing our young people.
Why are they coming in? Again, because of some direct and
inappropriate missteps by this administration to stop drugs cost
effectively at their source and also stop them by taking the military
out of the surveillance business. And we know that this administration
from 1992 to 1999, according to this report provided to me as chair of
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources,
this administration cut antinarcotics flights, they declined from some
46,264 to 14,770 or some 68 percent from fiscal year 1992 to 1999. That
is why we have a flood of illegal narcotics, heroin and other drugs in
our streets and in our communities.
This report further details, again prepared by the General Accounting
Office, that the administration cut ship days devoted to supporting
interdiction of suspected maritime illegal drug shipments, which
declined 62 percent from 1992 through 1999. So if you wonder why we
have illegal narcotics in incredible quantities coming in to our
country, here in fact is the evidence.
When you close down a real war on drugs, the result is death in our
streets and now drug-induced deaths have exceeded homicides in our land
for the first time.
Mr. Speaker, the other problem that we have and many young people do
not realize, and even adults who are using the narcotics that are
coming in, for example, the heroin that is on the streets today, the
purity levels are incredibly high.
In the 1970s and 1980s, there were 3 percent and 4 percent, 5 percent
purity levels in the heroin that was on the streets. Today it is not
uncommon to find 70 percent or 80 percent pure heroin when mixed with
other drugs or alcohol is resulting in the deaths drug-induced deaths,
that we have seen that again have now skyrocketed above murders in the
United States. Even though the Republican-led Congress has instituted a
$1 billion antidrug media campaign, we still see us losing the war on
drugs in the United States for several reasons.
First of all, we have not had a war on drugs since 1993. The Clinton
administration, one of its first steps was to dismantle the drug czar's
office and slash the positions from some 120 down to several dozen. We
have helped build that back up and with the aid of a new drug czar,
Barry McCaffrey, we have made some progress in putting Humpty Dumpty
back together again.
The interdiction and source country programs are both cut by some
nearly 50 percent, and that was a further blow to any effective war on
the drugs. And even with the institution of a $1 billion media campaign
matched by a billion dollars and donated, we are still far away from
winning or recreating a real war on drugs. Unfortunately, we found that
in our subcommittee, the reports that we are getting even dismay us
more. Heroin users, as I said, are even younger than ever.
We are finding also that emergency room reports and incidents of drug
overdose in our hospitals and treatment centers are also dramatically
on the increase.
Mr. Speaker, I am told by some local officials that the only reason
that we do not have even higher death rates by drug-induced deaths is
that, in fact, we have gotten a little bit better at the emergency
treatment, but emergency room doctors reported in 1997 and 1998 that
heroin is involved in four to six visits out of every 100,000 by use,
12 to 17 up from 1 in 100,000 in 1990. For young adults, from 18 to 25,
41 emergency room visits in every 100,000 involved heroin up from 19 in
1991. Among women, in general, the numbers have doubled in a decade.
Again, more troubling information that comes before our subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, we also have reports that dismay me not only about
illegal narcotics but about other types of addictive habits, and we
have heard some talk from this administration about cutting down
tobacco use. Unfortunately, from the President, from the Executive
Offices of the Presidency, we find that they may talk about tobacco,
but they have their own way of sending the wrong message.
When you see the President of the United States smoking a cigar and
talking about cutting down on tobacco use, it has obviously sent a dual
message to our young people. Some of the reports that again my
subcommittee have received that cigar smoking and the numbers of cigar
smokers and the amount of cigar use is on a dramatic increase.
{time} 2315
This report that our subcommittee received, and this was prepared by
a number of doctors and a medical report, said the trends in cigar
smoking between the years 1993 and 1997, the consumption of all types
of cigars in the United States increased by 46.4 percent, reversing a
steady decline of 66 percent in cigar consumption from 1964 to 1993.
Between 1993 and 1997, consumption of large cigars increased some
69.4 percent. Unfortunately, this is also affecting our college
population and a survey of some 14,000 college students done in 1999,
last year, found that 46 percent had either smoked cigarettes, cigars
or used smokeless tobacco in the previous year.
Cigar consumption increased by 50 percent between 1993 and 1998,
reversing a 30-year decline. Of course, I take
[[Page 18588]]
the legacy of having more drug-induced deaths much more seriously than
I do the cigar smoking report, but it just shows that when you set a
bad example a bad example is followed by our young people, by our
college students and by our general population.
One of the problems we have with this whole illegal narcotics issue
is lack of national leadership on the issue. When you do not talk about
it, when you destroy programs that were built up to deal with it, or
you misdirect resources appropriated by the Congress to resolve the
problem, we see the results, and they are not very pretty.
One of the most serious problems that we face today in the area of
illegal narcotics is a new drug that is on the scene in large
quantities. Some of these drugs are referred to as designer drugs or
club drugs. In particular, I want to talk a few minutes about ecstacy.
We have a July 2000 Joint Assessment of MDMA Trafficking Trends, that
is ecstacy trafficking trends, which is produced by the National Drug
Intelligence Center, in cooperation with the Department of Justice Drug
Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service. This
assessment talks about trends in ecstacy. Sometimes our statistic-
counting does not even keep up with what is happening in the real
world.
Some of that was evidenced today in the hearing that we conducted
when we announced that for the first time in the history of our Nation
that drug-induced deaths, drug-related deaths, exceeded homicides in
our country. We talked to the statistic-gatherers and sometimes their
statistics do not keep up with what is happening on the streets. That
is unfortunate. But we found with this recent report, through, again
DEA, Customs, Department of Justice, a trend with ecstacy that is
startling. Nearly 8 million ecstacy pills have been seized by the U.S.
Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration from January to
July 2000. That is 20 times the numbers seized in all of 1998.
An article in USA Today, just a short time ago, stated that U.S.
Customs seizures of ecstacy have risen some 700 percent in the past 3
years from some 381,000 tablets in 1997 to more than 3.5 million in
1999. One of the things that we have learned about ecstacy is most of
the ecstacy coming into the United States is produced at a very high
profit, sometimes just a few pennies to produce this ecstacy and
sometimes the ecstacy tablet sells for somewhere between $20 and $45 a
tablet in the urban and rural areas of America, so there is high profit
in this. It is a new drug of choice. It is a drug that young people are
told is harmless, and it is a drug that is very common in some of the
raves and youth dance clubs around the country. DEA intelligence
reports, our drug administration intelligence reports, find that
ecstacy dealers in Europe have joined with Israeli organized crime
groups, have also found that more than 80 percent of the ecstacy coming
into the United States is manufactured in the Netherlands. I am pleased
to report that our U.S. Customs Service is going to reopen our
operation in the Netherlands, and we will have agents stationed there.
We will also increase our resources there to go after some of these
traffickers, and I appreciate the cooperation of DEA and Customs in
that effort. When we know where illegal narcotics are coming from, we
can apply the resources to go after people who are delivering death and
destruction to our communities.
Customs officials at Kennedy Airport in New York seized over 1
million ecstacy pills in just the first nine months of 1999. Ecstacy
was first identified as a street drug in 1972, but we have never seen
anything like the amount of ecstacy that has been seized. Just this
year, since January 1, the U.S. Customs Service reported to our
subcommittee that it seized over 219,000 ecstacy tablets just in
Florida, my home State, and they had a street value of almost $7
million.
In May of 2000, U.S. Customs officials seized 490,000 ecstacy
tablets, the largest single amount seized in the United States to that
date, from a courier at the San Francisco Airport. Right now the Drug
Enforcement Agency estimates that over 90 percent of all ecstacy
smuggled into the United States is in capsule or pill form and 10
percent is in powder form.
MDMA, again ecstacy, that threat is expected to approach the
methamphetamine threat that we now see in this country by the year 2002
or the year 2003. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse shows an
increase in lifetime use of ecstacy, MDMA, by almost every age group in
the country, especially the 18 to 25 age group whose use increased from
3.1 percent in 1994 to 5 percent in 1998.
I would just like to say a few more things about ecstacy. We received
many more reports of bad ecstacy and ecstacy mixed with other drugs
that is having fatal results across the land. This is a copy of the
Boston paper, the Boston Globe from last week. The headline on the
local section said Ecstacy Additives Trouble Activists. It says, law
enforcement authorities and antidrug activists are warning that new and
dangerous additives are being mixed into one of the most popular drugs
sold and used in the city's nightclubs. Law enforcement officials say
many makers of ecstacy eager to cut costs and meet demand for the
euphoria-inducing drug among high school and college students are
lacing the pills with cheaper and more dangerous substances. Of
particular concern, authorities said, is the use of PMA, a chemical
recently blamed for the death of an 18-year-old woman in Illinois.
Our Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
is receiving more and more of these reports of bad drugs. They are bad
in the first place but they have these deadly poison additives to them,
and young people are dying from them.
We had testimony yesterday in Atlanta, in a field hearing, from the
father of a young girl who had ingested one of the designer drugs, and
she died a most horrible death. Some two years she was on a life
support system, convulsing. Her body temperature reached 107. At
several points her heart rate had fallen to 25 and up to 170, literally
destroying her body until she finally died; two years of suffering
through a drug that she had taken most innocently.
Today we held a hearing as we announced again the news that drug-
induced deaths in 1998 exceeded homicides and murders in this country.
We brought from Florida a couple whose 15-year-old son Michael had
ingested designer drugs and died, one of the 16,926 who died in 1998.
Unfortunately, this puts a very human face on a problem which we have
outlined tonight, and which, again, only shows a part of the problem.
From time to time, I like to cite some of the happenings around the
country. I just cited an article about what is happening with ecstacy
in Boston and this article appeared recently on August 18 in the L.A.
Times, and it says, Teen Executed Over Drugs. A 15-year-old boy
allegedly kidnapped from his San Fernando Valley neighborhood was shot
execution-style as he lay bound and gagged in a shallow grave because
his older half brother had not paid a $36,000 marijuana debt to a drug
dealer, authorities said.
Now, when we compile the year 2000 figures, this death will not
appear there because it is not drug-induced and it does not meet the
qualifications. It will be in the 50,000 drug-related deaths cited by
our drug czar, unfortunately.
The area that I come from which is, again, a very peaceful, family-
oriented part of our Nation, central Florida, continues to be racked by
illegal narcotics. While I was home, I had this clipping that I saved
dated, again, August 29, where a young life was lost; Drugs Take Life
is the headline; friend charged. Sherry Rich, 19, died early Sunday
morning of an apparent overdose of ecstacy laced with heroin in an
apartment complex in my area.
This is one, September 2, a couple of days later, Apparent ODs At
Club Kills Two. Two men died and another was hospitalized from apparent
drug overdoses after they visited an Orange County bottle club. This
report said they purchased marijuana and some sort of pills, according
to the Orange County sheriff's deputy.
[[Page 18589]]
{time} 2300
While we hear crack cocaine is now down, even my area continues to be
inundated. A recent article says Central Florida's crack cocaine
problem is no longer a front-burner issue; it has been replaced in
importance by heroin's comeback and the surge of new designer drugs.
However, this says that crack continues to be a problem along with
these other drugs. That is referring to my area of representation,
which is Central Florida, again plagued.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from Mel Martinez, the chairman of
Orange County, our central legislative body in Orange County, Florida,
and he writes to me just a few days ago, ``Congressman Mica: Eighty
heroin overdose deaths have occurred in the 7-county Central Florida
high-intensity drug traffic area in 1999 alone. The Florida Department
of Law Enforcement recently released a report prepared by the Medical
Examiner's Office indicating 48 heroin overdose deaths occurred in
Miami last year, and 42 occurred in Orlando.''
Almost every State, every community, every locale, every region of
this Nation is facing the same thing.
Tonight we released the statistics that again state that U.S. drug
deaths from drug-induced deaths in 1998 exceeded murder for the first
time. Again, if we use 1999 murder figures, we are down in the 15,000
range. These continue to drop, while drug deaths continue to rise.
The headlines spell out the story, the threat of Ecstacy reaching
cocaine and heroin proportions, and tonight we have outlined some of
what is going on with Ecstacy.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to take a moment for my colleagues and others
who may be listening to show what Ecstacy does to the brain. Many young
people think it is a harmless drug. Dr. Allen Leschner of the National
Institute of Drug Abuse presented a different grasp, but this just
shows what happens to the brain. This is the normal brain; this is a
brain that has absorbed or been affected by the use of Ecstacy.
Basically, it induces a Parkinson's-type affect on the brain,
destroying the brain cells, not allowing regeneration of the brain
cells.
Not only do we have that, but Ecstacy that is attractively packaged
in with all kinds of designer labels, which the U.S. Customs Service
provided us, even fancy symbols that are put on of various designer
clothing and the cars and things to induce young people to try these
drugs. But this is the fancy packaging. These are the results. If we do
not think the results are bad enough, again, to destroy the brain, look
at the deaths, and many of these, I just read one from my local
community, they used Ecstacy and other drugs or alcohol with these
drugs, and also, the drug dealers are now cutting Ecstacy across the
land with all types of deadly chemicals.
So this is what we end up with, a horrible situation and the
destruction of life and limb and also brain. Ecstacy again, reaching
cocaine and heroin proportions, and high schoolers report more drug use
from June 9, 2000.
Again, the administration would rather probably talk about
prescription drugs, and I do not want to demean in any way the
importance of that, particularly for our elderly or those who have
problems paying for legal narcotics, and I am talking tonight about
illegal narcotics. But, in fact, we have a situation that has basically
spun out of control. In spite of our good efforts over the past 3 or 4
years by the new majority, we have somehow missed the mark with the
administration of the resources that have been provided to this
administration. It is sad, again tonight, as I conclude, to report that
for the first time in the history of our country, we have deaths by
drug-induced means, drug-related deaths exceeding murder across our
land.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the patience of the staff who have remained
tonight. This is an important topic and should be on the minds of
Members of Congress, it should be on our agenda, and it should be
important to every American that not another American is lost to
illegal narcotics in this country.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. McNulty (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
illness in the family.
____________________
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. Pascrell) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Bonior, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Kind, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Pascrell, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Strickland, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Duncan) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Castle, for 5 minutes, September 20.
Mr. Pitts, for 5 minutes, September 20.
Mr. Duncan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Gutknecht, for 5 minutes, today.
Mrs. Morella, for 5 minutes, September 20.
Mr. Schaffer, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Hoekstra, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
S. 2247. An act to establish the Wheeling National Heritage
Area in the State of West Virginia, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Resources.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 36 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, September 20,
2000, 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:
10108. A letter from the Chief, Programs and Legislation
Division Office of Legislative Liaison, Department of
Defense, transmitting notification that the Commander of
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB) has conducted a cost
comparison to reduce the cost of the Air Force Research
Laboratory Support Service functions, pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
2461; to the Committee on Armed Services.
10109. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting
the Secretary's certification that the system level Live Fire
Test and Evaluation (LFT&E) of the UH-60 Modernization
Program aircraft would be unreasonably expensive and
impractical, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2366(c)(1); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
10110. A letter from the Attorney Advisor, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressesd Natural Gas Fuel
Containers [Docket No. NHTSA-98-4807] (RIN: 2127-AH72)
received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10111. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
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. (Arcadia, Gibsland, and Hodge, Louisiana and Wake
Village, Texas) [MM Docket No. 99-144; RM-9538; RM-9747; RM-
9748] received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10112. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
Chief, Mass Media Bureau,
[[Page 18590]]
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Amendment of Section 73.202.(b),
Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations. (Canton and
Saranac Lake, New York) [MM Docket No. 99-293; RM-9720; RM-
9721] received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10113. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Chief,
Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), FM Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Kaycee and Basin, Wyoming) [MM Docket No. 98-87;
RM-9278; RM-9608] received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10114. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
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
(Canton and Morristown, New York) [MM Docket No. 99-362; RM-
9730] received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10115. A letter from the Special Assistant to the Bureau
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
(Stamps and Fouke, Arkansas) [MM Docket No. 99-241; RM-9480]
received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10116. A letter from the Associate Bureau Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Commission, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Amendment to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz [WT Docket No. 99-327]
received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
10117. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Export Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Crime Control Items: Revisions
to the Commerce Control List [Docket No.000822242-0242-01]
(RIN: 0694-AC31) received September 14, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International
Relations.
10118. A letter from the Executive Director, Committee For
Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled,
transmitting the Committee's final rule--Procurement List:
Additions--received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
10119. A letter from the Director, Office of Federal
Housing Enterprise Oversight, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Releasing Information; Electronic Freedom of Information
Amendment (RIN: 2550-AA09) received September 11, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
10120. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of State, transmitting
Activities under the Freedom of Information Act Annual Report
on Religious Freedom, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(d); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
10121. 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; Groundfish Fisheries by Vessels
Using Hook-and-Line Gear in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.
000211039-0039-01; I.D. 08300H] received September 11, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
10122. 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; Atka Mackerel in the Eastern
Aleutian District and Bering Sea Subarea of the Bering Sea
and Aleutian Islands [Docket No. 000211040-0040-01; I.D.
090100A] received September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10123. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels using Trawl Gear in the Bering
Sea and Aleutian Islands [Docket No. 000211040-0040-01; I.D.
082900D] received September 11,2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
10124. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western
Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries; Closure and Inseason
Adjustments from Cape Falcon to Humbug Mountain, OR [Docket
No. 000501119-01119-01; I.D. 080400C] received September 11,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
10125. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery, Implementation of Conditional Closures
[Docket No. 000407096-0096-01; I.D. 082300A] received
September 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
10126. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna Fisheries;
Closure of the Purse Seine Fishery for Bigeye Tuna [Docket
No. 991207319-9319-01; I.D. 072700A] received September 11,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
10127. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Deaprtment
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -
200C Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-288-AD; Amendment
39-11878; AD 2000-17-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September
11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10128. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Deaprtment
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-20 0 and -300
Series Airplanes Equipped with a Main Deck Cargo Door
Installed in Accordance with Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) SA2969SO [Docket No. 2000-NM-277-AD; Amendment 39-
11877;AD 2000-17-51] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 11,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10129. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directivez; Rolls-Royce plc. RB211 Trent 768-
60, Trent 772-60,and Trent 772B-60 Turbofan Engines;
Correction [Docket No. 2000-NE-05-AD; Amendment 39-11804; AD
2000-13-05] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received September 11, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
10130. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department
of Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-289-AD; Amendment
39-11879; AD 2000-17-05] (RIN 2120-AA64) received September
11,2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
10131. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Disaster Assistance: Cerro Grande Fire Assistance (RIN: 3067-
AD12) received September 11,2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
10132. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulations
Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the
Department's final rule-- Cash Values for National Service
Life Insurance (NSLI) and Veterans Special Life Insurance
Term-Capped Policies (RIN: 2900-AJ35) received September 11,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
10133. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting
the Department's annual report to Congress on the FY 1999
operations of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
(OWCP), the administration of the Black Lung Benefits Act
(BLBA), the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act
(LHWCA), and the Federal Employees' Compensation Act for the
period October 1, 1998, through September 30, 1999, pursuant
to 30 U.S.C. 936(b); jointly to the Committees on Education
and the Workforce and Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 3986. A
bill to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of
a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler
Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington; with an
amendment (Rept. 106-864). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. H.R. 4441. A bill to amend title 49, United
States Code, to provide a mandatory fuel surcharge for
transportation provided by certain motor carriers, and for
other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 106-865). Referred
to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 581. Resolution providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3986) to provide for a study of the engineering
feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of
the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam,
Washington
[[Page 18591]]
(Rept. 106-866). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. SESSIONS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 582.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4945) to amend the Small Business Act to strengthen existing
protections for small business participation in the Federal
procurement contracting process, and for other purposes
(Rept. 106-867). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. GOODLING: Committee of Conference. Conference report on
H.R. 4919. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
and the Arms Export Control Act to make improvements to
certain defense and security assistance provisions under
those Acts, to authorize the transfer of naval vessels to
certain foreign countries, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-
868). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. H.R. 4519. A bill to amend the Public
Buildings Act of 1959 concerning the safety and security of
children enrolled in childcare facilities located in public
buildings under the control of the General Services
Administration (Rept. 106-869 Pt. 1).
discharge of committee
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the Committee on Government Reform
discharged. H.R. 4519 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the
Speaker:
H.R. 1882. Referral to the Committee on Ways and Means
extended for a period ending not later than September 25,
2000.
H.R. 4519. Referral to the Committee on Government Reform
extended for a period ending not later than September 19,
2000.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Herger, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Gallegly):
H.R. 5203. A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to
sections 103(a)(2), 103(b)(2), and 213(b)(2)(C) of the
concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001 to
reduce the public debt and to decrease the statutory limit on
the public debt, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for retirement security; to the Committee on
Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on the
Budget, and 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 Ms. LEE (for herself, Mr. Capuano, and Mr. Sanders):
H.R. 5204. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for the collection of data on benign brain-related
tumors through the national program of cancer registries; to
the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. BEREUTER (for himself and Mr. Minge):
H.R. 5205. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market
Transition Act to establish a flexible fallow program under
which a producer may idle a portion of the total planted
acreage of the loan commodities of the producer in exchange
for higher loan rates for marketing assistance loans on the
remaining acreage of the producer; to the Committee on
Agriculture.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. Waxman, and Ms. Eshoo):
H.R. 5206. A bill to provide funding for MTBE
contamination; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. COBURN:
H.R. 5207. A bill to clarify the Federal relationship to
the Shawnee Tribe as a distinct Indian tribe, to clarify the
status of the members of the Shawnee Tribe, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Ms. DeGETTE (for herself, Mrs. Morella, Mrs.
Tauscher, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Weygand, Mr.
Stark, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Doggett, Mr.
Levin, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Filner):
H.R. 5208. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the
Social Security Act to promote smoking cessation under the
Medicare Program, the Medicaid Program, and the maternal and
child health program; 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. FOLEY (for himself and Mr. Tanner):
H.R. 5209. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to revise the payments for certain physician
pathology services under the Medicare Program; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. GOODLING (for himself, Mr. Greenwood, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Borski, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Martinez, Mr.
Gekas, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Oxley, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Toomey, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Holden, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Kanjorski, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Coyne, Mr.
Pitts, Mr. English, and Mr. Klink):
H.R. 5210. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 200 South George Street in
York, Pennsylvania, as the ``George Atlee Goodling Post
Office Building``; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. GOODLING:
H.R. 5211. A bill to allow taxpayers to include
compensation payments received pursuant to the Declaration on
Extraordinary Emergency Because of Plum Pox Virus by the
Secretary of Agriculture as income or gain over a 10-year
period; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. KIND (for himself, Mr. Houghton, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Allen, Mr. Andrews,
Mr. Baca, Mr. Baird, Mr. Baldacci, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Barcia, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Barrett of
Nebraska, Mr. Bass, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Bentsen, Ms.
Berkley, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr.
Bishop, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Boehner,
Mr. Bonior, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Borski, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Boyd, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Ms. Brown of Florida, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Castle, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Clement, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Condit, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Coyne, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Crowley, Mrs. Cubin, Ms. Danner, Mr.
Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Florida, Mr. DeFazio,
Ms. DeLauro, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Dickey, Mr.
Dicks, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Dooley of
California, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Ehlers, Mr. English, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Ewing, Mr. Farr of California, Mr. Filner, Mr. Foley,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts,
Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Goode, Mr.
Gordon, Mr. Graham, Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Green
of Texas, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr. Hall of
Texas, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Hill of Indiana, Mr.
Hill of Montana, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Hobson, Mr. Hoeffel, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Holt, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Hulshof,
Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hyde, Mr. Inslee, Mr.
Isakson, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
John, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mrs. Johnson of
Connecticut, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mrs. Jones
of Ohio, Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Kennedy of
Rhode Island, Mr. Kildee, Mr. King, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
Kleczka, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Lantos, Mr.
Largent, Mr. Larson, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms.
Lofgren, Mr. Luther, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, Mr.
Manzullo, Mr. Markey, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Matsui, Ms.
McCarthy of Missouri, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. McGovern, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. McKeon,
Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Gary Miller of California, Mrs. Mink
of Hawaii, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs.
Morella, Mr. Murtha, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Nussle, Mr.
Oberstar, Mr. Obey, Mr. Olver, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Owens,
Mr. Oxley, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Pease, Ms.
Pelosi, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Petri, Mr.
Phelps, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr.
Quinn, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Reyes, Ms. Rivers, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Rothman, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin,
Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Salmon, Ms.
Sanchez, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Sandlin, Mr. Sawyer, Ms.
Schakowsky, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Shays,
Mr. Sherman, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shows, Mr. Skelton, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Snyder, Mr.
Spratt, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Stark, Mr. Stenholm, Mr.
Strickland, Mr. Stump, Mr. Stupak, Mr.
[[Page 18592]]
Sununu, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Tanner, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr.
Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi,
Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Towns, Mr. Udall of
New Mexico, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Ms. Waters, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Waxman,
Mr. Wexler, Mr. Weygand, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Wilson, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. Wu, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Watt of North
Carolina):
H.R. 5212. A bill to direct the American Folklife Center at
the Library of Congress to establish a program to collect
video and audio recordings of personal histories and
testimonials of American war veterans, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. MATSUI:
H.R. 5213. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to repeal the extended recovery period applicable to the
depreciation of tax-exempt use property leased to foreign
persons or entities; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. REGULA (for himself, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas,
and Mr. Matsui):
H.R. 5214. A bill to rename the National Museum of American
Art; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. SANDERS:
H.R. 5215. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exclude national service educational awards from the
recipient's gross income; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr.
Bilirakis, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Cunningham, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. DeMint, Ms. Dunn, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Greenwood, Mr.
Herger, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Klink, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Sherwood, Mr.
Simpson, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Terry, Mr. Watkins, Mr.
Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Rohrabacher,
Mr. Shays, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Farr of
California, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Hoekstra,
Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Thornberry, Mrs.
Northup, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Boehner, Mrs.
Bono, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Camp, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Cook, Mr. Cooksey, Mr. Cox, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. DeLay,
Mr. Dickey, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Duncan, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. English, Mr. Ewing, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Goode, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.
Gordon, Mr. Graham, Ms. Granger, Mr. Gutknecht, Mr.
Hansen, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Holden, Mr. Hostettler, Mr.
Hoyer, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Kind, Mr.
Knollenberg, Mr. Largent, Mr. Latham, Mr. Lazio, Mr.
Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr.
Mascara, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. McIntosh, Mr.
Mica, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Moran of Kansas, Mr. Ney, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Paul, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Quinn, Mr.
Radanovich, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Riley, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Sanford, Mr.
Saxton, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Scott, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Smith of Michigan, Mr.
Stenholm, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr.
Traficant, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Wicker, and Mrs.
Wilson):
H. Con. Res. 404. Concurrent resolution calling for the
immediate release of Mr. Edmond Pope from prison in the
Russian Federation for Humanitarian reasons, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on International Relations.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mr. WELLER introduced a bill (H.R. 5216) to direct the
Secretary of the Army to convey easement over certain lands
in La Salle County, Illinois, to the Young Men's Christian
Association of Ottawa, Illinois; which was referred to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 148: Mrs. Bono.
H.R. 207: Mr. Kolbe.
H.R. 218: Mr. Vitter.
H.R. 284: Mr. Baldacci, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Mr. Crowley, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Filner, Mr. Wynn,
and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 303: Mr. Becerra and Mr. Paul.
H.R. 625: Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 783: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 842: Mr. Phelps, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Mr.
Levin.
H.R. 900: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 914: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 935: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 979: Mr. Roemer.
H.R. 1178: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 1413: Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 1505: Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Leach.
H.R. 1644: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri.
H.R. 1824: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 1926: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 2000: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Hilleary.
H.R. 2351: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2413: Mr. Kuykendall.
H.R. 2620: Mr. Rangel and Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 2710: Mr. Meehan, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Barrett of
Nebraska, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Pascrell,
and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 2790: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 2870: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey.
H.R. 3003: Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Ehrlich, and Mr. Walsh.
H.R. 3249: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Olver.
H.R. 3308: Mr. Hefley.
H.R. 3446: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 3463: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 3500: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 3633: Mr. Pascrell and Mr. Deutsch.
H.R. 3700: Mr. Shays, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas,
Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Goodling.
H.R. 3809: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 3823: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 4025: Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 4028: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 4064: Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 4102: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 4146: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 4206: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri.
H.R. 4213: Mr. Barr of Georgia.
H.R. 4215: Mrs. Emerson and Mr. Burr of North Carolina.
H.R. 4250: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 4259: Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Pickering, Mr.
Mascara, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Castle, Mr. Chabot,
Mr. Ackerman, Ms. Waters, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Goode, Ms.
Granger, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Hill of Indiana, Mr.
Hoeffel, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Holt, Mr. Holden, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas,
Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Hilliard.
H.R. 4274: Ms. Brown of Florida.
H.R. 4289: Mr. Berman, Mr. Regula, Mr. Hoeffel, and Mr.
Meehan.
H.R. 4330: Mr. Baldacci.
H.R. 4356: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mrs. McCarthy of New
York, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Baldacci, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 4357: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 4431: Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 4434: Mr. King.
H.R. 4467: Mr. Sherwood and Mr. Riley.
H.R. 4483: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 4490: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 4503: Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Deal of Georgia, and Mr.
Thornberry.
H.R. 4508: Ms. Danner.
H.R. 4613: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 4645: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 4649: Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Oberstar,
Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Barr of Georgia, and Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 4653: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 4664: Mrs. Thurman and Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 4677: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 4728: Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr.
Collins, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Ms. Brown of Florida,
Mr. Gibbons, and Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 4745: Mr. Barton of Texas and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 4780: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 4828: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H.R. 4894: Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
McHugh, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, and Mrs. Northup.
H.R. 4895: Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
McHugh, and Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
H.R. 4902: Ms. Danner.
H.R. 4904: Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 4935: Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 4964: Mr. McGovern and Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 5004: Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 5005: Mr. Lewis of California and Mr. Franks of New
Jersey.
H.R. 5026: Mr. Armey, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Souder, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Combest,
Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Graham, Mr. Istook, Mr. Kingston, Mr.
Largent, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Ose, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Ryun of Kansas,
Mr. Spence, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Tancredo, and Mr. Toomey.
H.R. 5028: Mr. Armey, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kolbe,
Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Rogan, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Schaffer, Mr. Herger, Mr. Foley,
and Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 5052: Mr. Mascara and Mr. McHugh.
[[Page 18593]]
H.R. 5054: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 5055: Mr. Barton of Texas and Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 5091: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 5128: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.
H.R. 5151: Mr. Kolbe and Mr. McCollum.
H.R. 5161: Mr. Baker, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Ney, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Skeen,
and Mr. Barr of Georgia.
H.R. 5164: Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Ehrlich, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Camp, Mr. Phelps, and Mr. Reynolds.
H.R. 5178: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Clay, Mr. Leach, Mr. Castle,
Mr. Bilbray, and Mr. Hilleary.
H.R. 5180: Ms. Danner, Mr. Barcia, and Mr. Gejdenson.
H.R. 5200: Mr. Stearns.
H.J. Res. 7: Mr. Souder.
H.J. Res. 48: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H. Con. Res. 58: Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Capuano, and Mr.
Boehlert.
H. Con. Res. 390: Mr. Mica, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Ramstad, and
Mr. Callahan.
H. Res. 163: Mr. Olver.
DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were deleted from public bills
and resolutions as follows:
H.R. 4213: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
____________________
PETITIONS, ETC.
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
113. The SPEAKER presented a petition of American Bar
Association, relative to a Resolution petitioning federal,
state, and territorial governments to construe and if
necessary amend laws regulating the health professions,
controlled substances, insurance, and both public and private
health benefit programs so that these laws do not impose
barriers to quality pain and symptom management; which was
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
United States
of America
September 19, 2000
[[Page 18594]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
POCKET-VETO POWER
______
HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of a letter
signed jointly by myself and the Democratic Leader, Mr. Gephardt. It is
addressed to President Clinton. In it, we express our views on the
limits of the ``pocket-veto'' power. I also submit a copy of the letter
referenced therein, which was sent to President Bush on November 21,
1989, by Speaker Foley and Republican Leader Michel.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, September 7, 2000.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The President, The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is in response to your actions on
H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2000, and H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. On
August 5, 2000, you returned H.R. 4810 to the House of
Representatives without your approval and with a message
stating your objections to its enactment. On August 31, 2000,
you returned H.R. 8 to the House of Representatives without
your approval and with a message stating your objections to
its enactment. In addition, however, in both cases you
included near the end of your message the following:
Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my
return of [the respective bill] within the meaning of Article
I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution, my withholding of
approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket
Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my
signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to
``pocket veto'' bills during an adjournment of the Congress,
to avoid litigation, I am also sending [the respective bill]
to the House of Representatives with my objections, to leave
no possible doubt that I have vetoed the measure.
President Bush similarly asserted a pocket-veto authority
during an intersession adjournment with respect to H.R. 2712
of the 101st Congress but, by nevertheless returning the
enrollment, similarly permitted the Congress to reconsider it
in light of his objections, as contemplated by the
Constitution. Your allusion to the existence of a pocket-veto
power during even an intrasession adjournment continues to be
most troubling. We find that assertion to be inconsistent
with the return-veto that it accompanies. We also find that
assertion to be inconsistent with your previous use of the
return-veto under similar circumstances but without similar
dictum concerning the pocket-veto. On January 9, 1996, you
stated your disapproval of H.R. 4 of the 104th Congress and,
on January 10, 1996--the tenth Constitutional day after its
presentment--returned the bill to the Clerk of the House. At
the time, the House stood adjourned to a date certain 12 days
hence. Your message included no dictum concerning the pocket-
veto.
We enclose a copy of a letter dated November 21, 1989, from
Speaker Foley and Minority Leader Michel to President Bush.
That letter expressed the profound concern of the bipartisan
leaderships over the assertion of a pocket veto during an
intrasession adjournment. That letter states in pertinent
part that ``[s]uccessive Presidential administrations since
1974 have, in accommodation of Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised
the veto power during intrasession adjournments only by
messages returning measures to the Congress.'' It also states
our belief that it is not ``constructive to resurrect
constitutional controversies long considered as settled,
especially without notice or consultation.'' The Congress, on
numerous occasions, has reinforced the stance taken in that
letter by including in certain resolutions of adjournment
language affirming to the President the absence of ``pocket
veto'' authority during adjournments between its first and
second sessions. The House and the Senate continue to
designate the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the
Senate, respectively, as their agents to receive messages
from the President during periods of adjournment. Clause 2(h)
of rule II, Rules of the House of Representatives; House
Resolution 5, 106th Congress, January 6, 1999; the standing
order of the Senate of January 6, 1999. In Kennedy v.
Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974), the court held that
the ``pocket veto'' is not constitutionally available during
an intrasession adjournment of the Congress if a
congressional agent is appointed to receive veto messages
from the President during such adjournment.
On these premises we find your assertion of a pocket veto
power during an intrasession adjournment extremely
troublesome. Such assertions should be avoided, in
appropriate deference to such judicial resolution of the
question as has been possible within the bounds of
justifiability.
Meanwhile, citing the precedent of January 23, 1990,
relating to H.R. 2712 of the 101st Congress, the House
yesterday treated both H.R. 4810 and H.R. 8 as having been
returned to the originating House, their respective returns
not having been prevented by an adjournment within the
meaning of article I, section 7, clause 2 of the
Constitution.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker.
Richard A. Gephardt,
Democratic Leader.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, November 21, 1989.
Hon. George Bush,
President of the United States, The White House, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. President: This is in response to your action on
House Joint Resolution 390. On August 16, 1989, you issued a
memorandum of disapproval asserting that you would ``prevent
H.J. Res. 390 from becoming a law by withholding (your)
signature from it.'' You did not return the bill to the House
of Representatives.
House Joint Resolution 390 authorized a ``hand enrollment''
of H.R. 1278, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act of 1989, by waiving the requirement that
the bill be printed on parchment. The hand enrollment option
was requested by the Department of the Treasury to insure
that the mounting daily costs of the savings-and-loan crisis
could be stemmed by the earliest practicable enactment of
H.R. 1278. In the end, a hand enrollment was not necessary
since the bill was printed on parchment in time to be
presented to you in that form.
We appreciate your judgment that House Joint Resolution 390
was, in the end, unnecessary. We believe, however, that you
should communicate any such veto by a message returning the
resolution to the Congress since the intrasession pocket veto
is constitutionally infirm.
In Kennedy v. Sampson, the United States Court of Appeals
held that ``pocket veto'' is not constitutionally available
during an intrasession adjournment of the Congress if a
congressional agent is appointed to receive veto messages
from the President during such adjournment. 511 F.2d 430
(D.C. Cir. 1974). In the standing rules of the House, the
Clerk is duly authorized to receive messages from the
President at any time that the House is not in session.
(Clause 5, Rule III, Rules of the House of Representatives;
House Resolution 5, 101st Congress, January 3, 1989.)
Successive Presidential administrations since 1974 have, in
accommodation of Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised the veto power
during intrasession adjournments only by messages returning
measures to the Congress.
We therefore find your assertion of a pocket veto power
during an intrasession adjournment extremely troublesome. We
do not think it constructive to resurrect constitutional
controversies long considered as settled, especially without
notice of consultation. It is our hope that you might join us
in urging the Archivist to assign a public law number to
House Joint Resolution 390, and that you might eschew the
notion of an intrasession pocket veto power, in appropriate
deference to the judicial resolution of that question.
Sincerely,
Thomas S. Foley,
Speaker.
Robert H. Michel,
Republican Leader.
____________________
BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL WINNER
______
HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM
of california
in the house of representatives
Monday, September 18, 2000
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Bernardo
Heights Middle School in Rancho Bernardo and its leaders, Principal,
Maureen Newell and Superintendent, Dr. Bob Reeves. Bernardo Heights has
been designated by the U.S. Department of Education as a National Blue
Ribbon School for 2000. I am proud to inform my colleagues that my
district had an amazing
[[Page 18595]]
record of eleven schools selected for that prestigious honor this year.
I would also like to note that the Academy of Our Lady of Peace right
outside my district in San Diego County was also named a Blue Ribbon
School. I applaud the educators, students and communities in each of
the San Diego County schools who pulled together in pursuit of
educational excellence.
Blue Ribbon Schools are recognized as some of the nation's most
successful institutions, and they are exemplary models for achieving
educational excellence throughout the nation. Not only have they
demonstrated excellence in academic leadership, teaching and teacher
development, and school curriculum, but they have demonstrated
exceptional levels of community and parental involvement, high student
achievement levels and strong safety and discipline.
After schools are nominated by state education agencies for the Blue
Ribbon award, they undergo a rigorous overview of their programs, plans
and activities. That is followed with visits by educational experts for
evaluation. Ultimately, those schools which best demonstrate strong
leadership, clear vision and mission, excellent teaching and
curriculum, policies and practices that keep the schools safe for
learning, family involvement and evidence of high standards are
selected for this prestigious award. I am pleased that they are now
receiving the national recognition they are due.
As school and community leaders head to Washington for the Department
of Education awards ceremony, I want to thank them once again for a job
well done. More satisfying than any award, these leaders will have the
lifelong satisfaction of having provided the best education possible
and a better future for thousands of children. I am proud of what they
have achieved, and want to share their achievements so that more people
benefit from their accomplishments. I ask that a summary of Bernardo
Heights Middle Schools' superior work be included in the record:
Located in northern San Diego County, Bernardo Heights Middle School
(BHMS) is one of five middle schools in the award-winning Poway Unified
School District. The school has a sprawling suburban campus where
students are active participants in the learning process. The dynamic
teachers are committed to developing a love of learning that will last
a lifetime. Bernardo Heights has set expectations and academic
standards that foster well being, encourage appreciation of the arts,
and at the same time embrace diversity. BHMS is continuously re-
evaluating their curriculum and the needs of its students. Using parent
input, needs assessments, and up-to-date teaching practices and
methods, their curriculum provides a solid scope and sequence that
assures students will be ready for the 21st Century.
Knowing the pressures and variables of modern society, Bernardo
Heights has developed an array of assistance programs to form a safety
net for students who are at-risk. From parent-teacher-student
conferences to support groups, tutorials to mentoring programs, they do
``whatever it takes'' to provide all students every opportunity to
succeed. Almost 80% of all students scored above the 50th percentile on
the SAT 9 reading, writing and math tests and Average Daily Attendance
(ADA) is at 96.5%. From its unique architecture to the exciting
learning environment within its classrooms, Bernardo Heights Middle
School is a dynamic, active educational center, filled with the promise
of tomorrow.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SERGEANT WILLIAM F. SNELL
______
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Sergeant
William F. Snell, an officer with the California Highway Patrol.
Sergeant Snell is retiring from the California Highway Patrol after 32
years of service to the State of California.
Sergeant Snell began his career as an officer with the California
Highway Patrol in 1968. Upon his graduation from the academy, Sergeant
Snell was assigned to several offices in California, including Baldwin
Park, Riverside, San Bernardino, Central Los Angeles and Santa Ana in
July 1986.
In Santa Ana, Sergeant Snell held several administrative positions.
He was the sergeant in charge of commercial enforcement within the
Santa Ana Area. As sergeant in charge, he directed the commercial
officers within the Border Division area, including San Diego and
Orange County offices.
Sergeant Snell is a dedicated officer who has served the people and
the State of California with highest degree of professionalism. During
his career with the Highway Patrol, Sergeant Snell demonstrated his
outstanding qualities of management and leadership. Sergeant Snell
upheld the mission of the California Highway Patrol to manage and
regulate traffic and to achieve ``safe, lawful and efficient use of the
highway transportation system.'' An officer in the California Highway
Patrol must possess courage, strength, and heroism in the face of the
unknown.
I commend Sergeant Snell for his dedication to the safety of
California's citizens and to the high caliber of service that he gave
to his profession. Colleagues, please join with me in recognizing
Sergeant William F. Snell as a man of dignity, honor and purpose and in
wishing him many happy years of retirement.
____________________
HOW DRUG PROFITS DRIVE DOCTORS TO INCREASE DRUG UTILIZATION
______
HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, at the Department of Justice's prodding,
Medicare and Medicaid are finally going to reimburse drugs at a more
accurate rate. In the past, we have paid for drugs at 95% of the
Average Wholesale Price (AWP)--a wholly artificial and often grossly
inflated price.
The action by HCFA should be welcome by taxpayers. But it should also
be welcome by patients--and not just because patients will now face
lower co-payment amounts. The worst aspect of the AWP pricing abuse has
been that it distorts medical judgment, causing many--not all, but
many--doctors to increase their utilization of drugs on which the
doctors can make the most money on the ``spread'' between the listed
AWP price, and what the actual cost to the provider is.
The following data shows the phenomenon: there is absolutely no
reason that the nation's utilization of ipratropium bromide has
soared--other than doctors can now make over a 100% profit on the
product. If you need ipratropium bromide, you should get it. You should
not be getting it because your doctor makes a bigger and bigger profit
on it.
I think the evidence will show that there are better cancer drug
fighting products available to people, which are not being used because
the doctors make more profit on the poorer quality product.
Reform of the AWP will not only save dollars--it will stop an
insidious form of medical malpractice.
How has Medicare Utilization for the Inhalation Drug Ipratropium
Bromide (HCPCS codes K0518 and J7645) changed as the ``spread'' or
profit that doctors can make on the use of the product has increased?
In 1995, Medicare paid $3.11 for a unit, and that's what it cost the
provider. There was no spread, and Medicare spent $14,426,108 on the
product.
In 1996, Medicare reimbursed $3.75 a unit, but the cost to doctors
was only $3.26, giving a 49 cent profit or a 15% spread. Interest in
the product picked up, with Medicare spending $47,388.622.
In 1997, Medicare's reimbursement was $3.50 a unit, but the
providers's true cost was only $2.15, giving a profit spread of $1.35
or 63%. Sales of the product really starting taking off, and Medicare
spent $96,204,639 on the product.
In 1998 and 1999, Medicare reimbursed $3.34 for a unit. In 1998,
doctors could get it for about $1.70, giving them a profit of 96% or
$1.64 per unit. Sales totaled $176,887,868! In 1999, the drug was
available for $1.60, giving users a 108% profit. We don't have the data
on total 1999 Medicare expenditures on this product yet, but I bet, Mr.
Speaker, that it is higher than ever.
This example is exhibit #1 why we need AWP reform.
____________________
HONORING THE AMERICAN BUSINESS WOMEN'S ASSOCIATION FOR ITS EFFORT TO
ADVANCE WOMEN IN BUSINESS
______
HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the American
Business Women's Association for its dedication to promote the
professional, educational, cultural, and social advancement of business
women.
[[Page 18596]]
September 22, 2000 will mark the 51st anniversary of the founding of
the American Business Women's Association. For over 50 years the
members of this association have recognized that education and skilled
training are crucial in today's technological society. These
enterprising women hold active, responsible positions on all levels of
business and will play an increasingly powerful role in the American
workforce.
The local chapters of the A.B.W.A. have made scholarships available
to students to further their education and have provided financial
assistance to students returning to the workforce by enabling them to
attend college. Through the improvement of individual skills,
leadership abilities, knowledge of diversified business techniques and
business relations, these diverse women continue to ensure the future
advancement of the chapters of the American Business Women's
Association.
I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the women of the
American Business Women's Association for their support and
contributions to the public and private sectors of our country by
helping women advance through education.
____________________
SCOUTING FOR ALL ACT
______
HON. GREG WALDEN
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my most profound
opposition to H.R. 4892, the so-called Scouting for All Act, which
would repeal the federal charter of the Boy Scouts of America. As an
Eagle Scout, a member of the Scout Council, and a lifelong advocate of
Scouting, I am both saddened and dismayed by this misguided attempt to
bully one of the finest youth organizations in America. Since its
inception in 1910, the Boy Scouts have instilled in tens of millions of
young men the ideals of good citizenship, patriotism, and service to
others. Perhaps no organization in our nation's history has done more
to prepare America's youth for the challenges and responsibilities they
will face as adults.
I hope the irony of this legislation is not lost on my colleagues. In
the name of tolerance, the author of this bill is attempting to harness
the power of the federal government to change an organization simply
because it does not share her views. This bill represents an incredibly
arrogant attempt to impose the beliefs of a small minority on a private
institution. And it seeks to demonize one of the most fundamentally
decent groups in America.
Mr. Speaker, the Scout Oath includes the pledge that a Scout will
keep himself ``morally straight.'' Whether one believes homosexuality
is inconsistent with that oath or not, the Boy Scouts of America are
entitled to interpret their oath, as well as set their own criteria for
membership, as they see fit. I would submit to my colleagues that
denying them that right would demonstrate a supreme disrespect for the
right of people to associate freely, which the Constitution guarantees.
The problem with this legislation should be obvious to anyone who
respects the right of Americans to organize themselves as they choose.
The legislative power of this Congress should not be used as a tool to
shape the policies of private organizations in ways that are pleasing
to the political class.
In an age when America's young people are fed a steady diet of
violence and obscenity, it is absurd that Congress is targeting an
institution as wholesome as the Boy Scouts. In an age when school
shootings capture headlines and we busy ourselves combating teen drug
use, it is shameful that some of my colleagues would assail an
organization dedicated to such principled goals as the Boy Scouts. I
urge my colleagues to reject this offensive legislation and send a
clear message to the nation's Scouts that they have both the support
and admiration of the United States Congress.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CHARLES H. TAYLOR
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to flight delays, I
was unavoidably detained in North Carolina yesterday and unable to cast
a vote on Roll Call Votes 477 and 478. Had I been present, I would have
voted YEA on Roll Call Vote 477 and YEA on Roll Call Vote 478. I ask
unanimous consent that the permanent record reflect these intended
votes.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO PERRY HALL ON ITS 225TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a very special
community located in Maryland's 3rd Congressional District. The Perry
Hall community is celebrating its 225th anniversary this year.
Perry Hall is a thriving, suburban community of 40,000 residents
located 10 miles northeast of Baltimore City. It was founded in 1775 by
Harry Dorsey Gough, who purchased a 1,000-acre estate called The
Adventure. He renamed it Perry Hall after his family's home near
Birmingham, England. On that site he built a mansion that became known
for magnificent gardens and distinctive architecture.
In the years during and after the Civil War, German and Irish
families began to settle in the community surrounding the mansion.
These families worked hard and developed a thriving dairy and nursery
industry. In 1875, Eli Slifer and William Meredith bought the ``Perry
Hall'' property, divided it and sold lots to immigrant families, who
then began raising ``stoop crops'' such as celery and carrots.
Perry Hall began its transformation from rural hamlet to suburban
community in the years following World War II. Brick bungalows were
built for returning GI's and their brides. New schools were built to
serve their growing families and the first shopping center arrived in
1961.
In 1981, the transformation was completed with construction of White
Marsh Mall. While the farms and forests of Perry Hall have been
replaced by housing developments, shopping centers and new businesses,
the most important part of Perry Hall still remains: its friendliness
and warmth.
This year, Perry Hall has celebrated it's 225th year with a series of
events, picnics and concerts. The Perry Hall Improvement Association
will cap off this anniversary year with the Millennium Ball on Nov. 3,
2000.
I ask my colleagues to join me in expressing congratulations to all
who live in Perry Hall, Maryland, and in wishing them the best on this
historic anniversary.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF PROFESSOR CARL SWARTZ
______
HON. SAM GEJDENSON
of connecticut
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate Professor Carl
Swartz upon receiving the Educational Excellence and Distinguished
Service Award for 2000. Professor Swartz is a deserving recipient and a
tremendous asset for Three Rivers Community College.
Professor Swartz is a well-respected professor of business at Three
Rivers Community College in Norwich, Connecticut. He has been teaching
courses at Three Rivers since 1971 and has had the distinct honor to
serve as chairman for the business administration and marketing
programs for 14 years. While at Three Rivers, Carl has been an advisor
to the business club and developed new courses in industrial
supervision, salesmanship, labor relations, human resource management
and advertising. Carl has also served on many committees and was a
member of the White House Small Business Advisory Committee during the
Carter administration. In addition, in 1999, Carl received the Congress
of Connecticut Community Colleges Recognition award for his invaluable
work at Three Rivers.
Professor Swartz has gone beyond the role of professor and has been
active in the community as well. He has represented Three Rivers on the
TVCCA Board of Directors, served as a member of the state council on
Vocational Education and written a weekly column for the Norwich
Bulletin. By involving himself in the educational and social aspects of
his students, he has created a solid foundation for the future of our
community.
Mr. Speaker, I Join residents from Norwich in congratulating
Professor Carl Swartz on receiving this prestigious award. He is a
scholar, a teacher and an example for all.
____________________
[[Page 18597]]
RECOGNIZING THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
______
HON. HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the city of Santa
Clarita, California, for its activities on behalf of preserving the
Santa Clara River, located in my district, and for its activities
recognizing National Pollution Prevention Week.
The City of Santa Clarita will hold its annual ``River Rally'' at the
Santa Clara River on September 23, 2000. This event will highlight the
importance of the Santa Clara River. During this annual event, citizens
from throughout the city and the greater Santa Clarita Valley gather
and pick up trash from the banks of the river. The River Rally raises
awareness of the river and pollution prevention measures. The city and
the many business and individuals who participate in the River Rally
deserve our thanks.
The City is holding the River Rally during National Pollution
Prevention Week, which is September 18-24. We all value a clean
environment. In order to achieve that goal, the city of Santa Clarita
has developed a pollution prevention program that is aimed at
protecting the environment and encouraging economic competitiveness.
Santa Clarita is to be commended for taking these steps to safeguard
our environment and raise awareness of the importance of pollution
prevention.
____________________
HONORING RENEE ROSE
______
HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special
person, Renee Rose of San Francisco, California, who is a dedicated
wife, daughter, mother, grandmother, colleague and friend.
Renee Rose is one of those rare individuals who takes care of
everyone she knows. Whether you are simply stopping by her office to
drop something off, or you are a second cousin of a second cousin
looking for a place to stay--Renee will take care of you. She takes
care of everyone, and she is wonderful at it. In a day and age when
people do not even exchange eye contact, Renee is a beautiful reminder
about what people should be all about. And everyone lucky enough to
fall into her care is truly blessed. If only we had more Renee's.
On behalf of the many that have benefited from your numerous
kindnesses, Renee Rose, we rise to celebrate you and your 60th
birthday. We wish you 60 more!
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE BENIGN BRAIN TUMOR CANCER REGISTRIES AMENDMENT ACT
______
HON. BARBARA LEE
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, since 1973, there has been a federal cancer
data collection process in existence. Unfortunately this process failed
to include ``benign'' brain tumors. I have introduced legislation to
include benign brain tumors in the data collection of cancer
registries.
This data will directly help the entire medical system including
public health agencies, scientific research labs, health system public
policy groups and of course the brain tumor groups. The medical system
organizations use cancer data in funding decisions, investigations,
research, and care facilities.
I am pleased to announce the introduction of the Benign Brain Tumor
Cancer Registries Amendment Act.
Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for
children and the third leading cause of cancer death in young adults
ages 15-34.
The greatest increase in brain tumors has been among people 75 years
of age or older.
Only 37 percent of males and 52 percent of females survive five years
following the diagnosis of a primary benign or malignant brain tumor.
Each year, approximately 100,000 people in the United States are
diagnosed with a primary or metastatic brain tumor. Nationwide, the
incidence of brain tumors has increased by 25 percent since 1975 and
the reasons for this increase are unknown.
For many types of tumors, the distinction between benign and
malignant is significant. For tumors of the brain, this distinction is
not as clear.
A tumor, whether malignant or benign, is a collection of cells that
grow as rapidly as malignant tumors, however based on location and
size, even benign brain tumors can be life threatening.
Benign brain tumors account for almost 40 percent of all brain
tumors. Not including these tumors in the cancer registry,
underestimates the incidence of brain tumors in the general population.
Roughly half of all brain tumors are benign. All brain tumors, both
cancerous and benign, are potentially life-threatening.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill and support the thousands
of Americans plagued with this disease.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. GEORGE W. TEUSCHER
______
HON. JAMES C. GREENWOOD
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in its annual meeting in San Antonio, on
October 28, 2000, the American Society of Dentistry for Children will
honor the life's work of George W. Teuscher. Born in 1908, Dr. Teuscher
received his dental degree from Northwestern University in 1929.
Subsequently, he received an MSD degree in pediatric dentistry, an MA
in educational psychology and a PhD in education, with major areas of
study in administration, and English and American Literature. Since the
1930s, Dr. Teuscher has been a dental clinician, researcher, educator,
dental school dean, writer, editor, and lecturer to dentists all over
the world. In 1968 he became Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of
Dentistry for Children. In the thirty two years since, Dr. Teuscher's
editorials regarding child advocacy have expounded on preventive
dentistry and medicine, child behavior, parental concerns, the
importance of education, special needs patients, ethics, social
responsibility, and other topics--all relating to children and their
well being. His writings in the Journal have served as a veritable
archival conscience for the dentist: a thought provoking stream of
awareness regarding children in modern societies. Dr. Teuscher's
writings, along with articles he has selected for publication, have
made the Journal of Dentistry for Children the most widely read and
important international publication in the field. Likewise, his
leadership in the American Society of Dentistry for Children has made
it a renowned and respected child advocacy health organization. To this
day, with undiminished vigor and enthusiasm, 92-year-old Dr. Teuscher
reviews and edits scholarly submissions to the Journal, from dozens of
countries. His skills and talent for this endeavor seem to increase
with each published issue of the Journal, as the years have gone by. As
one of dentistry's great leaders of the 20th century contemplates
retiring from his work with the American Society of Dentistry for
Children, it is with great respect, gratitude, admiration and affection
that the people of the United States and members of the United States
Congress pay tribute to Dr. George W. Teuscher.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JO ANN EMERSON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, on Monday September 18, 2000 1 was
unavoidably detained in Southeast Missouri. I was reviewing a critical
flood control project with the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Dr. Joe Westphall. Had I been present I would have voted
aye on roll call votes 477 and 478.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mrs. CHENOWETH-HAGE. Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 2000, 1 missed two
roll call votes because of unavoidable obligations in Idaho. Had I been
present, I would have voted
[[Page 18598]]
``yea'' on roll call vote 477 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as
Amended, H.R. 5173) and ``yea'' on roll call vote 478 (Motion to
Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 5010).
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CHAPLIAN (COLONEL) WILLIAM C. MORRISON, JR.
______
HON. ROBERT E. WISE, JR.
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to Honor Chaplain (Colonel)
William C. Morrison, Jr., who is retiring from the United States Army
after 24 years of active duty and to congratulate him on being selected
as the new Regional Minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ) in Florida.
William C. Morrison, Jr., has served this great country with dignity,
integrity and honor He is a native of Charleston, West Virginia, and an
ordained minister of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
He graduated from West Virginia State College with a Bachelor of
Science Degree in Business Administration. He completed his theological
studies at Howard University School of Divinity in Washington, D.C.
where he earned the Master of Divinity Degree. He also graduated from
Golden Gate University in San Francisco, California, with a Master of
Business Administration Degree in Management.
Chaplain Morrison received a direct commission into the United States
Army Chaplain Corps on June 15, 1976. He is a graduate of the Chaplain
Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, Division Chaplain Course,
Installation Chaplain Course, U.S. Army Drug and Alcohol Abuse Team
Training, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and the U.S.
Army War College. He has served as an Army Chaplain in assignments at
Fort McClellan, Alabama, Republic of South Korea; Fort Knox, Kentucky;
Washington, DC.; Frankfurt West Germany; and Fort Bliss, Texas. He also
served as the Staff Chaplain of the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee
for the 1984 Presidential Inauguration of Ronald Reagan and George
Bush. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, he served as
the Brigade Chaplain for the 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade.
Before attending the U.S. Army War College, he was the Division
Chaplain for the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell,
Kentucky. Upon graduation from the Army War College, he served as the
Mobilization, Training, and Military operations Chaplain, U.S. Army
Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia. He also served as the Deputy
Command Chaplain, U.S. Army Forces Command. Prior to his current
assignment as Command Chaplain, U. S. Army Materiel Command, he was the
Installation Staff Chaplain, Fort Stewart, Georgia, he is currently
serving as Command Chaplain, U.S. Army Materiel Command. His awards and
decorations include the Legion of Merit Medal, Bronze Star Medal, seven
awards of the Meritorious Service Medal, the Joint Service Commendation
Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal. Southwest Asia
Service Medal (with three stars) , Liberation of Kuwait Medal, and the
Air Assault Badge.
I am especially proud of his accomplishments as a distinguished Army
Officer and Chaplain from my district in Charleston, West Virginia. His
accomplishments speak to his courage, compassion, integrity, and
loyalty to his country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this house please join me in recognizing,
honoring, and congratulating this outstanding army officer, soldier and
clergyman.
____________________
CALIFORNIA'S SESQUICENTENNIAL
______
speech of
HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 13, 2000
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, today, I join my colleagues in celebrating
California's 150 year anniversary of statehood. This is a monumental
time in our history not only as a people from a state but as a
constantly growing and ever changing nation. I am proud and honored to
be a part of such a special event.
Throughout my life, I have been lucky enough to call the 46th
Congressional District in Southern California home. It's experience has
been an honor to not only serve my constituents, but enjoy the many
opportunities that our state has to offer.
Orange County, California is known the world over for it's performing
arts, education and the Anaheim Angels major league base ball team.
Anaheim, California is home to Disney Land, the ``Happiest Place on
Earth'' which has entertained families for over fifty years.
For over a century, my state has been a leader and the very backbone
for economic opportunity in almost every major field. It is this
nations leader in trade and shipping as well as a model for education,
environmental initiatives, and the world's largest entertainment
industry.
The 46th District in California is culturally diverse and represents
the best of what California has to offer. I am deeply honored to
represent those from the 46th Congressional District in California, and
I will continue my responsibility to all who call Orange County,
California home.
____________________
HONORING THE HEROES OF THE 44TH INFANTRY DIVISION
______
HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave
Americans of the 44th Infantry Division. From September 21 to September
24, 2000, the 44th Infantry Division Association will be celebrating
the 55th anniversary of the end of World War II at the Midway Hotel
near Chicago, Illinois. This venue is very appropriate, as the State of
Illinois contributed over eleven hundred soldiers to the 44th Division.
Today, it certainly gives me great honor to remind my colleagues and
the American public of the sacrifice these great men gave for the
freedom and prosperity that is enjoyed by so many.
Maj. General William F. Dean commanded the 44th Infantry Division of
roughly fifteen thousand men, comprising about one-fifth of the 7th
Army. On September 15, 1944, the 44th Infantry landed at Cherbourg,
France, to relieve the 79th Division that invaded Normandy on D-Day.
Forty days later, the 44th received their first attack from axis
forces east of Luneville, France. In midwinter 1944, the 44th Division
fought through the Maginot line, as well as the Vosges Mountains in
northern France. In fact, the first United States soldiers to reach the
Rhine River between France and Germany were members of the 44th
Infantry Division. Along the way, the 44th held off several savage
assaults from German Panzer divisions. In addition, the 44th was called
to relieve two divisions of allied forces that were to be employed in
the Ardennes Forest counteroffensive.
In the beginning of 1945, the 44th Infantry Division was forced into
a defensive posture, as three German divisions, including the elite 17
SS Panzer Grenadier Division, conducted an all-out attack on United
States forces. Amazingly, the brave Americans held off the brutal
attack that would have cut off the allied forces in Alsace, as well as
the Vosges and Hardt Mountains. In mid-March 1945, the division earned
a well-deserved 2-day rest after other allied divisions passed through
their fortification for the final assault on Germany. I should note
that the 44th had undergone 144 days of continuous commitment.
On March 27, 1945, the 44th finally crossed the Rhine and provided
for the capture of Mannheim and Heidelberg. Soon later, the 44th
reached the Danube River and joined with the 10th Armored Division. On
April 25, 1945, these joint forces captured the ancient German city of
Ulm. Finally, the 44th swept into the Austrian Alps, after which
Victory in Europe was gratefully won.
Mr. Speaker, the 44th Infantry Division fought for 203 incredible
days. They captured over 44,000 enemy prisoners, and destroyed
thousands more. During the European campaign, the 44th lost roughly
2,000 men in combat. Since the end of World War II, another 6,000 have
passed on. Today, our country is graced with over 5,000 survivors of
the 44th Infantry Division. With roughly 1,000 World War II veterans
leaving us each day, I am very pleased to see these veterans enjoying
the years that they earned so courageously. Mr. Speaker, I hope these
brave Americans will continue to relate their incredible experiences
gained during the greatest, most noble war ever fought by man.
____________________
[[Page 18599]]
TRIBUTE TO TROOPER ROBERT PEREZ, JR.
______
HON. SHERROD BROWN
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ohio
State Highway Patrol Trooper Robert Perez, who dedicated his life to
law enforcement and assisting people in need. At the age of 24, Trooper
Perez died in the line of duty as a result of a roadside fatality.
Known and respected for his integrity, dedication and ability,
Trooper Perez distinguished himself as a community leader and devoted
family man. Trooper Perez began his law enforcement career as a
Vermilion Ohio Police Explorer, where he had the opportunity to
accompany police officers and gain first hand experience. After
graduating in the 132nd Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy Class in
1999, he served at the Highway Patrol Post at Freemont and then Milan,
Ohio. He was also involved in the Ohio's Trooper Coalition, the Ohio
State Trooper's Association for Safer Ohio and Ohio Trooper's Caring.
Trooper Perez also served as a Member of the Army National Guard and
was a Lorain (Ohio) Corrections Officer.
Trooper Perez took great pride in helping his family. From an early
age, he took care of his brother, sister and mother by mentoring his
siblings and giving his earnings to his mother. Trooper Perez's willing
and giving heart made him a son and brother his family will always be
proud of.
____________________
GENERIC DRUGS SAVE CONSUMERS BILLIONS WHILE INCREASING CHOICE AND
COMPETITION
______
HON. MARION BERRY
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, since the Drug Price Competition and Patent
Restoration Act, better known as the Waxman-Hatch Act, was signed into
law in 1984, generic drugs have been a major source of relief for many
Americans who face extraordinarily high prescription drug prices.
The law struck a balance between the generic pharmaceutical industry
and brand-name companies. It did this by speeding up the approval
process for generic drugs, and also by guaranteeing brand-name
companies a minimum amount of market exclusivity before generics are
allowed to compete.
After the passage of Waxman-Hatch, the generic pharmaceutical
industry grew from a $2 billion industry in 1984 to $8 billion in 1997.
Over the same period, brand-name companies' sales grew from $17 billion
to $77 billion.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic pharmaceuticals
saved consumers $8 to $10 billion dollars in 1994 alone. As fast as
drug prices have been rising in recent years, they would have increased
much faster if consumers had not had access to generic alternatives.
Despite the great benefit generic alternatives have provided to many
patients, I am concerned about the activities some brand-name
manufacturers have engaged in to obstruct generic competition. These
efforts by brand-name companies include using payments to generic
competitors, which are legally entitled to a period of being the
exclusive competitor for 180 days, not to bring their product to
market--in effect, this is buying a perpetual monopoly. Attempts to
spread false information, lobby state legislators to restrict generic
competition, and circumvent the ordinary process by having Congress
pass special legislation granting patent extensions are other examples
of anti-competitive behavior.
I have a great appreciation for what the generic pharmaceutical
industry has done to benefit American consumers, and I am hopeful that
in the not-too-distant future Congress will consider additional pro-
consumer legislation to ensure consumers have increased access to more
affordable generic prescription drugs.
____________________
GENERIC DRUGS AND BRAND NAME DRUGS MEET THE SAME FDA STANDARDS
______
HON. PHIL ENGLISH
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, expanding government prescription drug
programs is one way to ensure Americans have access to the medicine
they need. Another way is to educate them to make better choices among
health care options so that they are able to get the best health care
at a fair price. Part of the education process must include a primer on
generic drugs.
Most Americans do not take advantage of generic drugs and the
substantial cost savings they represent because they do not really know
the truth about them. The truth is, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
holds generic drugs and brand drugs to the exact same standards. The
FDA requires that generics and brands contain the same active
ingredients and deliver the same health benefits. The FDA also monitors
generic manufacturing facilities to ensure that their drug products
maintain high quality and effectiveness.
Generics are safe, effective, and more affordable than brand name
drugs. Let's do our part to make sure more Americans are aware of the
tremendous health care value they can get from generic pharmaceuticals.
____________________
IMPROVE ACCESS TO GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS
______
HON. PETER DEUTSCH
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today to deliver good news for
American consumers, seniors and taxpayers, all of whom are seeking more
affordable medicine. That's right, good news!
Over the next decade, patents on nearly $50 billion worth of brand
name drugs are scheduled to expire. If you assume that generic versions
of those drugs will be introduced at a price 50 percent lower than the
brand price--and that's conservative--Americans will enjoy $25 billion
in savings. That figure is in addition to an estimated $10 billion
Americans are already saving each year through the use of generic
drugs.
With so much profit at stake, we can expect brand drug companies to
do everything in their power to delay the expiration of those patents.
But as representatives of the people, we must put patient health ahead
of profits and vote no on these unfair and unwarranted patent extension
requests.
____________________
DELAY OF CONSIDERATION OF THE FINANCIAL CONTRACT NETTING ACT OF 2000,
H.R. 1161
______
HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, notice of expedited floor
action on H.R. 1161, legislation to insure against potentially
destabilizing legal uncertainties in the financial markets, was
circulated in the House. The Committee on Banking and Financial
Services has reported favorably. In fact, all committees of
jurisdiction on the Financial Contract Netting Act of 2000 have acted.
Controversy on this bill is virtually non-existent. Broad bipartisan
support for the measure is assured. Signature by the President has long
been assumed should Congress complete action of the bill. Moreover, the
bill, as a separate noncontroversial part of the more general and
contentious Bankruptcy Reform Act, has passed both the House and the
Senate. The bankruptcy legislation itself has not, of course, been
finally adopted due to its long-pending conference and highly
contentious provisions.
Yesterday, the netting bill was pulled from consideration on the
suspension calendar. The precipitous action of the Republican
leadership calls into very serious question the ability of Congress,
given the short time until adjournment, to enact this vital legislation
under the most favorable of circumstances.
H.R. 1161, while highly technical and complex legislation, has broad
support because of the critical need it fills. The legislation is a top
priority of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. It is
essential to provide an orderly structure through which financial
corporations can work out their debts in bankruptcy without
destabilizing financial markets. It is consensus, must-pass
legislation.
In contrast, the successful conclusion of the longstanding conference
on the Bankruptcy Reform Act is increasingly in doubt, because of
fundamental problems and substantial controversy surrounding that
underlying legislation. Apparently, companies supporting passage of
that controversial legislation have now mustered the political clout to
block the non-controversial H.R. 1161. I deplore what I view
[[Page 18600]]
as a cynical effort by some industry lobbyists to hold the vital
netting legislation hostage. Doing so will not save the otherwise
controversial bankruptcy bill, and such tactics are irresponsible in
the extreme. Not only are they contrary to good and necessary public
policy, they are also very risky for many of the affiliated banks and
brokerage firms of the obstructing companies involved. These firms are
also active in the very sophisticated financial markets which risk
being thrown into disarray in the event of failure of a major domestic
or, indeed, foreign financial institution, absent the netting
legislation.
The Financial Contract Netting Act is essential to ensure that
financial markets function smoothly, especially in the event of the
failure of a large institution. Monetary experts have been strongly
urging the approach of H.R. 1161 since the Promisel Report in 1991.
From then to the present, the need for this legislation has become more
acute each year, because of the increasingly outdated nature of
statutes which are supposed to set the bankruptcy and receivership
rules for financial firms. The rise of the $40-50 trillion swaps market
is the main force which has rendered these statutes increasingly
irrelevant and effectively inoperable.
Under H.R. 1161, a bankrupt financial firm's debts, that are related
to financial instruments in the exposed process of transfer, can be
quickly reduced to clear, single amounts owed to other healthy
financial companies, according to their respective claims. Under
present law, such simplification might well not be able to occur due to
inconsistencies among governing statutes. Needless litigation and
disavowal of debt could therefore occur. Such disruption is highly
risky in an environment where clarity regarding debt obligations and
payment is a must if our value and claims transfer system is to work
with the flawlessness demanded by this increasingly sophisticated
economy.
The public dangers here are quite real. I deplore the fact that
companies pressing for bankruptcy legislation seem focused only on
their narrow interests without giving due consideration to stability of
the financial markets these companies heedlessly jeopardize and the
broader issues confronting American finance. In particular, potential
financial disruptions due to stresses on the energy supply and in the
currency markets make the netting legislation imperative before
Congress adjourns sine die.
I urge expeditious and independent action on the netting legislation.
____________________
ADVO 100TH RECOVERY
______
HON. NICK LAMPSON
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to congratulate
ADVO, Inc., in its recovery of the 100th missing child that has been
featured on its Have You Seen Me? direct mail cards.
For fifteen years, ADVO has made a strong commitment to aiding in the
recovery and return of missing children. In partnership with the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the United
States Postal Service, ADVO launched the America's Looking for Its
Missing Children program in 1985. Reaching an estimated 79 million home
each week with pictures of missing children, the familiar Have You Seen
Me? cards are constant reminders to the public that hundreds of
thousands of children are missing annually in our country. In total,
more than 40 billion pictures of missing children have been distributed
to date.
And Americans have responded in an unprecedented way. ADVO announced
on July 31st that the recent joyous reunion of a 5-year-old
Pennsylvania girl with her mother, following an 18-month abduction, is
the 100th safe recovery of a missing child resulting from the familiar
mail cards.
One in six children is found as a direct result of programs like
ADVO's. It takes just a few seconds of your time to stop, look and
think about the children that are featured on posters, on the cards,
and on television. Each time you see one, you're presented with an
opportunity to reunite a family with their missing child. Once again,
congratulations to ADVO on its continued commitment to this very worthy
cause.
____________________
IN HONOR OF CHARLES AMPAGOOMIAN, SR.
______
HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the life of a man who,
throughout his life, gave unselfishly of himself to his town, his
community, and his nation. The son of Armenian immigrants, Charles
Ampagoomian Sr. was a life long resident of Northbridge (Whitinsville)
which has honored him with the dedication of a bridge in his memory.
In 1939, at the age of 17, Mr. Ampagoomian enlisted in the Army where
he served until the outbreak of World War II. Serving with the 885th
Bombardment Squadron of the Fifteenth Air Force Staff Sergeant
Ampagoomian served his nation with honor participating in the campaigns
of North Apennines, Naples, Foggia, Southern France, Rome, Arno, Air
Combat Balkans, Rhineland, Po Valley, and Northern France. During his
service, Staff Sergeant Ampagoomian was recognized by the Army with
numerous decorations including the American Theater Campaign Ribbon,
Good Conduct Medal, Distinguished Unit Badge with I Oak Leaf Cluster,
GO #3325 Hq 15th AF 44, European, African and Middle Eastern Theater
Campaign Ribbon, Victory Medal, and American Defense Service Medal with
Clasp.
Following the War, Mr. Ampagoomian returned to his native Northbridge
(Whitinsville) working for 35 years as a truck driver and union member.
He was active in his community serving as past commander of the
Whitinsville Veterans of Foreign Wars, a Member of the Board of
Trustees of the Armenian Apostolic Church, on the Advisory Board of St.
Camilis Hospital, and on the Northbridge Democratic Town Committee.
I know that the entire town of Northbridge joins with me in honoring
the memory of Charles Ampagoomian Sr. a man who was dedicated to family
and community. Congratulations to his family on this honor.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I underwent corrective surgery on my hand
yesterday, and was not present to record my vote during the
consideration of legislation under Suspension of the Rules.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 477, for I
supported similar Debt Lockbox legislation in July; and I would have
voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 478.
____________________
UPON THE DEATH OF ROBERT P. RASCOP, FORMER MAYOR OF SHOREWOOD, MN,
VISIONARY ENVIRONMENTALIST AND DEDICATED MINNESOTA PUBLIC SERVANT
______
HON. JIM RAMSTAD
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to salute a remarkable and
visionary public servant from my area in Minnesota who passed away
recently.
By any measure of merit, Robert P. Rascop of Shorewood, Minnesota,
was one of our nation's best and brightest--a gifted business leader
and a truly remarkable local government leader.
He had very special leadership skills, indeed. Bob passed away
September 12 after a tragic accident. Bob will be sorely missed by all
of us who admired and respected his remarkable public stewardship.
Bob lived in Shorewood for a quarter of a century, near the shores of
his beloved Lake Minnetonka Bob and his loving wife of 35 years, Carol,
raised their children Mary and Larry there.
A gifted business leader with NCR for 34 years, Bob still dedicated
much of his time, energy and talent to his community. He was a member
of the Shorewood City Council and, from 1981 to 1988, Mayor. His
leadership was critical during those years as developmental pressures
required good planning by city leaders--and strong principles. Bob
Rascop was a thoughtful man of the utmost integrity.
For fully two decades, Bob was very active with the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District, an organization which attempts to strike a
delicate balance so that both present users and future generations will
be able to enjoy Lake Minnetonka.
Bob helped the LMCD with its important work with his great intellect,
impressive array of people skills and sense of humor. Deliberations
were fair, everyone was heard. And, in
[[Page 18601]]
the end, Lake Minnetonka's environment was the top priority.
All of us who love Lake Minnetonka owe Bob Rascop a deep debt of
gratitude. His vigilance and environmental expertise have been
instrumental in protecting Lake Minnetonka. I will always be grateful
to Bob for his exceptional leadership and visionary guidance, and my
thoughts and prayers are with his wonderful family.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. VAN HILLEARY
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, September 18, I was unavoidably
detained from the House Chamber when my flight from Tennessee to return
to Washington was canceled. Had I been present I would have cast my
vote as follows: rollcall 477--``yes''; rollcall 478--``yes.''
____________________
HATCH-WAXMAN ACT LOOPHOLES MUST BE CLOSED
______
HON. ALAN B. MOLLOHAN
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, the modern day pharmaceutical marketplace
was established by passage of the 1984 Drug Price Competition and
Patent Term Restoration Act. The act, commonly known as the Hatch/
Waxman Act, gave brand companies longer patent periods to provide them
with financial incentive to innovate. The act also gave generic drug
companies a streamlined approval process, so they could bring less-
costly versions of drugs to market quickly after patents expired.
The Hatch/Waxman Act worked well. Brand companies introduced hundreds
of new drugs and grew to become the most profitable industry in the
world. Meanwhile, generic companies were able to provide the public
with drugs that cost significantly less.
Unfortunately, the brand drug companies were not satisfied with their
astounding success. They are now using loopholes in the Hatch/Waxman
Act to file frivolous administrative and legal challenges to keep
generic competitors out of the marketplace. For example, brand
companies are exploiting loopholes in the act to keep generic versions
of drugs such as Taxol for cancer and Losec for ulcers out of the
marketplace. Each day the brand companies succeed in delaying generic
competition, they reap windfall profits at the expense of patients.
The Hatch/Waxman Act is a good law that will be made great when the
loopholes are closed and fairness returns to the pharmaceutical
marketplace.
____________________
HATCH/WAXMAN ACT
______
HON. RON PACKARD
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the Hatch/Waxman Act was signed
into law to bring order to the pharmaceutical economy and benefit the
American consumer. This Act was enacted in response to rising drug
prices and assertions by drug companies that long regulatory delays
increased costs for consumers. The Act served as a compromise between
the competing interests of generic and brand name drug manufacturers.
Under the Act, brand drug companies received extended patent periods.
The patent extensions were designed to enable brand companies to make
greater profits, which allow for more research. The Act also provided
generic drug companies with the right to develop less-costly generic
versions of brand drugs as the patents expire.
The Act has been a success for two reasons. First, it provides brand
name and generic drug companies with incentives to provide better
quality products for consumers; and second, it encourages the brand
name industry to dedicate more of its profits to research and
development of new drugs under a set patent expiration date.
The best way to ensure continued investment in new drug research is
to make sure the Hatch/Waxman Act is enforced fairly and consistently.
By doing this, we can give the American public greater access to
innovative and affordable medicine, and drug companies will have the
incentives intended by Congress to continue to provide their services.
____________________
HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. TOM UDALL
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, Friday, September 15 marked the
beginning of ``Hispanic Heritage Month.'' Our country's history has
been richly enhanced by the contributions Hispanic-Americans have given
us. I am happy to take part in recognizing these contributions. In my
home state of New Mexico we are proud of our Hispanic heritage, which
reflects the influence of many cultures.
Not only has New Mexico's history been shaped in part by its Hispanic
heritage, but so has the history of our entire Southwest. Indeed, the
reach of that Hispanic heritage extended into our eastern manufacturing
centers in the 19th Century. It is sad that this rich contribution to
our national history is often overlooked. But as the Hispanic presence
in our country grows, we cannot continue to ignore the part of the
American heritage that played itself out predominantly in--but not only
in--the huge territory comprised of what is now the states of New
Mexico, Arizona, Texas, California, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and even
Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Louisiana. (I say ``predominantly in''
because the first continuing Hispanic presence in our country is
generally recognized as having occurred in St. Augustine, Florida.)
To return to New Mexico and my district, New Mexico may have been
traversed by Alvaro Nunez Cabeza de Baca as early as 1536. However, New
Mexico became the object of focused exploration in 1540. In that year
Francisco Vasquez de Coronado led an expedition into New Mexico and
then out across the Great Plains. This was the first documented
encounter between New Mexico's Native American communities and Hispanic
explorers--encounters that varied in the degree of conflict that
occurred between the members of our indigenous cultures and those
explorers, but encounters that also began a centuries-long process of
cultural exchange and mutual adaptation that eventually shaped the
Hispanic Southwest.
Unfortunately, the next 400 years of Hispanic history in New Mexico--
and, indeed, in the Southwest--have been neglected and overlooked. And
this rich history has also been inappropriately obscured under the
cover of past prejudices. Even the use of the term ``Spaniard'' in
referring to those early European explorers and settlers ignores the
fact that many of those Spaniards came from other European countries--
Italy, Flanders, Germany, Greece and even Ireland and England. And
while some Spaniards undoubtedly visited and explored New Mexico in
search of riches, and Spanish missionaries were intent on converting
Native Americans to Christianity, it is clear that most of the early
Spanish colonists came to find a new life for themselves in a new land.
And others, it has become increasingly clear, came to escape the
Inquisition and find a measure of religious freedom for themselves.
The Spanish Crown's first effort to actually settle New Mexico
occurred in 1590. Gaspar Castano de Sosa led a wagon train of Spanish
and Portuguese settlers--many of them possibly Sefarad, Iberian Jews--
from the area near present-day Monterrey, Mexico up the Rio Grande and
then north along the Pecos River to ``winter over'' at Pecos Pueblo in
New Mexico. The Jamestown, Virginia settlement was still seventeen
years in the future. And Plymouth Rock, Massachusetts, was thirty years
away. In the spring of 1591 Castano de Sosa was arrested at Santo
Domingo Pueblo, New Mexico through the machinations of a rival Spanish
government official. Castano de Sosa had moved his fledgling colony to
this location by that time. Following his arrest he was marched back to
Mexico City, tried, convicted of illegal settlement and then ordered to
serve a sentence of hard labor on Spanish ships employed in the
Oriental trade. He was killed in a shipboard uprising without ever
learning that his appeal of the sentence had been successful and the
Spanish Crown had ordered him back to New Mexico as its first governor.
In 1597, after it was clear that Castano de Sosa had forfeited his
life, the Spanish Crown selected Juan de Onate y Salazar to resettle
New Mexico. A number of the members of the Onate settlement expedition
had participated in the original settlement efforts led by Gaspar
Castano de Sosa. Juan de Onate established his first capitol and
settlement--named San Gabriel del Yunque-Yunque--at the Pueblo of
[[Page 18602]]
San Juan de los Caballeros, NM. By about 1605 the capitol had been
moved to the location it has occupied continuously for almost four
hundred years--Santa Fe, New Mexico. This makes Santa Fe the oldest
State capital in the United States, pre-dating the landing at Plymouth
Rock by more than ten years. While its founding has been attributed to
Don Pedro de Peralta in 1610, more recent evidence indicates that it
was actually settled at an earlier date.
Hispanic influence now permeates New Mexico. From the dawn of the
16th century, supplies and communications came into the area along the
Camino Real del Tierra Adentro--the Royal Road of the Interior--that
still stretches 2,000 miles from Mexico City to Santa Fe. For the next
two centuries and better, caravans periodically made the six-month trek
northward. They brought new crops and agricultural techniques, which
were combined with those of New Mexico's pre-historic Native American
Pueblo communities. They brought cattle and sheep and taught the Native
Americans how to raise them. They introduced horses and the wheel,
opening the door to the worlds of transportation, commerce and
technology. They brought mining and metal-working techniques that were
used to produce weapons, tools and jewelry. They brought their cuisine,
which over the ensuing centuries has been synthesized into the unique
cooking tradition that is so quintessentially New Mexican.
Over the two centuries that followed this original settlement effort,
New Mexico found itself increasingly on the fringe of the portion of
the Spanish empire administered from Mexico City--the portion referred
to as ``New Spain.'' New Mexico's early economic promise failed to
develop. It was a frontier long before the pioneers on our Atlantic
seaboard began their westward venturing, then trekking. And while that
frontier was not an economic engine for New Spain, it became a
marketplace for inter-cultural exchange and the formulation of the most
unique blend of cultures in our country.
The descendants of those original ``Spanish'' settlers of multi-
national origin were joined by a second wave of settlers following the
Native American uprising of 1680 and the resettlement of New Mexico by
the forces of the Spanish Crown led by Diego de Vargas in 1692. At
annual trade fairs in Taos, Santa Fe or other locations, the Spanish
settlers joined with members of the Native American Pueblos to trade
with the nomadic Comanche, Navajo, Apache, Kiowa, Ute and other tribes.
Members of those tribes left their tribal communities to settle among
the Spanish settlers--sometimes willingly, and sometimes because they
were captured and forcibly kept as servants. Spanish settlers also were
forcibly patriated to nomadic tribes. And in the process, New Mexican
culture gained many unique characteristics. And to the degree
intermarriage occurred between the Native Americans in the Pueblo
communities and the Spanish settlers there also occurred an exchange of
cultures. By the middle of the 18th century a new culture was added to
the general mix as French traders began to enter New Mexico and to
marry into New Mexico's families.
In the 19th Century, New Mexico took, for a time, a more prominent
place in the stream of our national commerce when the Santa Fe Trail
opened. Hispanic New Mexicans quickly took advantage of this play of
fortune, and by the time that the United States incorporated the
Southwest into our national territory, Hispanics dominated trade on the
Santa Fe Trail. This created the longest continuous trade route in
North America, extending from East Coast factories and import houses
all the way to Mexico City and beyond. However, as patterns of commerce
began to shift around the time of the Civil War, Hispanic New Mexican
traders found difficulty in shifting to the larger-scale operations
necessary to survive in an increasingly competitive world of national
commerce. The place of New Mexico as an important juncture for national
and international commerce also began to lose ground as the Santa Fe
Trail began to be displaced by the Oregon Trail and then the trans-
national failroads. By the late 19th Century, New Mexico had, once
again, been relegated to a ``frontier.''
Nonetheless, New Mexico has thrived in spite of its struggle to
recapture its former place in our national framework. It has slowly
begun to turn the tide at the same time that it has hung onto a
treasured way of life steeped in cultural tradition. To this day,
many--if not most--of the Hispanic communities in my district still
hold their annual fiestas celebrating nearly a half-millenium of New
Mexican religious traditions and beliefs. The Santa Fe Fiesta--the
oldest continuing festival in our country--draws thousands of visitors
every year. Family and community life and values sustain our
communities. And cultural traditions and institutions are everywhere.
This blending of cultures that occurred in New Mexico has followed
the general pattern of what occurred throughout New Spain--and, indeed,
throughout the sphere of Spanish influence in the New World. While
there were many hostile conflicts during that process, what cannot be
disputed is that the accommodation of ``Old World'' ideas and culture
to the ``New World'' was nowhere as complete as within the limits of
the Spanish Empire. Almost nowhere else in our country did so many
Native American communities manage to survive their contact with the
settlers of European heritage. Throughout the Hispanic world the
pervasiveness of the Spanish-flavored outlook of this new blending of
cultures led to the application of the term ``la Raza.'' While this
term has often been translated as ``the Race,'' this literalist
translation misses the meaning--because the term is a predominantly
cultural, not racial or ethnic reference. And it is a term--like its
contemporary English twin ``Hispanic''--that expresses pride in those
whose cultural tradition incorporates this blending of cultures under
the auspices of the world view inherited from not only the first
Spanish settlers of the New World, but also of the peoples who joined
them in expanding and broadening that world view.
So while New Mexico has its own unique place in the history and
culture of Hispanics, it also shares so much in common with those other
parts of the Western Hemisphere that evolved and developed under the
same process. We celebrate that richness during Hispanic Heritage Month
every year. It is only fitting. We must recognize and embrace the part
of our national heritage that not only represents a coming together of
so many cultures, but that continues to embrace and welcome those who
want to enlarge their world. And so New Mexico, as one stirring example
of the history and culture of Hispanics--a mosaic where various
cultural ingredients intermingle and complement each other, while often
retaining a basic identity--serves as a model for the highest ideals of
our society.
Let us then look toward the future during this time of celebration
and recognition of Hispanics. As opportunities begin to multiply in new
and advanced fields, we must assure that Hispanics are afforded the
education and training that will allow them to continue to contribute
in much-need ways to our society. And in New Mexico, let us share our
pride in our Hispanic heritage. We are living proof that people from
different backgrounds can work together for common goals. I join all my
colleagues in celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15 to
October 15.
____________________
REACTION TO INDIAN PRIME MINISTER
______
HON. DAN BURTON
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week the Indian Prime
Minister spoke in this very chamber to a joint session of Congress. In
addition, he will meet with several American leaders, including
President Clinton and perhaps both major-party Presidential candidates.
When he meets with these leaders, they must bring up the issue of human
rights and self-determination.
India claims to be a democracy, but in truth there is no democracy in
India. It is a militant Hindu fundamentalist state. Christians, Sikhs,
Muslims, Dalits, and other minorities suffer severe oppression and
atrocities at the hands of Hindu fundamentalists.
Just last month, a priest in India was kidnapped, tortured, and
paraded through town naked by militant Hindu nationalists. The Indian
government has refused to register a complaint against the kidnappers.
This is the latest act in a campaign of terror against Christians that
has been going on since Christmas of 1998. This campaign has seen the
murders of priests, 5 of which were beheaded; rape of nuns, Hindu
militants burning a missionary and his two sons to death in their van,
the destruction of schools and prayer halls, and other anti-Christian
atrocities. Most of these activities have been carried out by allies of
the government or people affiliated with organizations under the
umbrella of the RSS, the parent organization of the ruling BJP, which
was founded in support of Fascism.
And its not just Christians, where more than 200,000 have been
murdered in Nagaland since 1947, who are in danger in India. Over
250,000 Sikhs have been murdered since 1984, and well over 70,000
Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, as well as tens of thousands of other
minorities by Indian security forces. We cannot accept this kind of
brutality and tyranny from a government that claims to be democratic.
[[Page 18603]]
Last year, India denied the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on torture and
extrajudicial killings permission to visit the country. And since the
1970's, Amnesty International & other human rights groups have been
barred from areas in India. Even Cuba allows Amnesty in! In 1999 Human
Rights Watch issued their annual report that noted, ``Despite
government claims that `normalcy' has returned to Kashmir, Indian
troops in the state continue to carry out summary executions,
disappearances, rape and torture''. (Human Rights Watch Report; India:
Human Rights Abuses Fuel Conflict, July 1, 1999.)
And, while the Prime Minister talks today about a strong relationship
with the U.S., just last year his Defense Minister led a meeting with
Cuba, China, Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and Libya to construct a security
alliance. The Indian Express quoted the Defense Minister in explaining
that this security alliance was intended ``to stop the U.S.''
India is not a country to be trusted. India introduced the nuclear
arms race to South Asia, it supported the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan and it votes against us in the United Nations. Its time
that India clean up its human rights violations and ends its anti-
Americanism. And, let Kashmir determine its own fate as it was promised
nearly 50 years ago to by offering a referendum for self-determination.
If it is a democracy, it should let its own people vote on their
future.
Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan group of 17 Members of Congress, including
myself, have written a letter to President Clinton urging him to press
the Prime Minister on issues of self-determination for Khalistan, human
rights, and release of political prisoners. I'd like to submit a copy
of the letter into the Record, as well as a press release from the
Council of Khalistan that sheds more light on the issue.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2000.
Hon. Bill Clinton,
President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari
VaJpayee will be visiting you from September 13 to September
17. It is important that you press him on the issue of the
persecution of Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other
minorities by the Indian government.
Press Trust of India reported on August 25 that a Christian
priest in Gujarat was kidnapped, tortured, and paraded
through town naked. This attack was not an isolated incident.
Since Christmas 1998, priests have been murdered, nuns have
been raped, a missionary and his two sons were burned to
death in their van by members of the RSS, which is the parent
organization of the ruling BJP, schools and prayer halls have
been attacked and destroyed. Yet the Indian government
refuses to take any action against the people who perpetrate
these atrocities.
During your trip to India, 35 Sikhs were murdered in the
village of Chithi Singhpora, Kashmir. The Ludhiana-based
International Human Rights Organization investigated this and
separately the Movement Against State Repression and the
Punjab Human Rights Organization conducted an investigation.
Both of these investigations have proven that the Indian
government carried out this massacre. The Indian government
has admitted that the five Muslims they killed on the claim
that they were responsible for the massacre were innocent.
Now they have arrested two more people, claiming that they
were responsible for this massacre. Yet despite the fact that
so-called ``militant'' groups almost always claim
responsibility for incidents they are responsible for, nobody
has emerged to claim responsibility for the killings in
Chithi Singhpora.
The Politics of Genocide by Indejit Singh Jaijee reports
that the Indian government has murdered more than 250,000
Sikhs since 1984. These figures were derived from figures put
out by the Punjab State Magistracy. India has also killed
more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over
70,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens of thousands of
Dalits, Assamese, Tamils, Manipuris, and others. According to
Amnesty International, there are thousands of political
prisoners being held in illegal detention without charge or
trial in ``the world's largest democracy.''
India is a hostile country. Last year the Indian Defense
Minister led a meeting with Cuba, China, Iraq, Serbia,
Russia, and Libya to construct a security alliance ``to stop
the U.S.'' India openly supported the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan. It tested five nuclear warheads, beginning the
nuclear arms race to South Asia. And it refuses to allow the
Sikhs, Kashmiris, Christians, and other minority nations and
peoples decide their own political future in a free and fair
vote, as democratic countries do. America has repeatedly
granted this opportunity to Puerto Rico and Canada has
permitted Quebec to do so. Why can't the ``world's largest
democracy'' settle these issues the democratic way?
America is the bastion of freedom for the world. We cannot
accept this kind of brutality and tyranny from a government
that claims to be democratic. We call on you to press Prime
Minister Vajpayee on the issues of human rights and self-
determination for Khanistan, Christian Nagalim, Kashmir, and
all the minority nations and peoples living under Indian
rule.
Sincerely,
Edolphus Towns, Donald M. Payne, Wally Herger, Lincoln
Diaz-Balart, Cynthia McKinney, Dan Burton, James
Traficant, John T. Doolittle, James Rogan, James
Oberstar, Peter King, Roscoe Bartlett, Randy ``Duke''
Cunningham, Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Philip M. Crane,
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, George P. Radanovich.
____
[Press Release Council of Khalistan]
U.S. Congress: India Is a ``Hostile Country''
Letter Urges President to Press Indian Prime Minister on Self-
Determination for Khalistan, Human Rights, Release of Political
Prisoners
Washington, D.C., September 13, 2000--A bipartisan group of
17 Members of the U.S. Congress have written a letter to
President Clinton urging him to press Indian Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who arrives for a state visit today, on
issues of self-determination for Khalistan, human rights, and
release of political prisoners. The letter called India ``a
hostile country.''
``We call on you to press Prime Minister Vajpayee on the
issues of human rights and self-determination for Khalistan,
Christian Nagalim, Kashmir, and all the minority nations and
peoples living under Indian rule,'' the Members of Congress
wrote. The Members noted the recent incident in which a
priest in Gujarat was kidnapped, tortured, and dragged naked
through the streets. This incident is part of a pattern of
repression against Christians that has been going on since
Christmas 1998, they noted. They also took note of the
massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chithi Singhpora during the
President's visit to India in March, which two independent
investigations have proven was carried out by the Indian
government. They wrote about the murders of over 250,000
Sikhs since 1984, over 70,000 Muslims since 1988, more than
200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, and tens of
thousands of other minorities by the Indian government. ``We
cannot accept this kind of brutality and tyranny from a
government that claims to be democratic,'' they wrote.
They also wrote, ``India is a hostile country. Last year
the Indian Defense Minister led a meeting with Cuba, China,
Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and Libya to construct a security
alliance, `to stop the U.S.','' they noted. They also wrote
that India introduced the nuclear arms race to South Asia and
that it supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The lead sponsor of the letter was Representative Edolphus
Towns (D-NY). Other co-signers include Representative Wally
Herger (R-Cal.); Representative Donald M. Payne (D-NJ);
Representative Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.); Representative
Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.); Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-
Md.); Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee; Representative
Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-Cal.); Representative James
Traficant (D-Ohio); Representative Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-
American Samoa); Representative John T. Doolittle (R-Cal.);
Representative Philip M. Crane (R-Ill.); Representative James
Rogan (R-Cal.); Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.);
Representative James Oberstar (D-Minn.); Representative
George P. Radanovich (R-Cal.); and Representative Peter King
(R-NY).
Indian security forces have murdered over 250,000 Sikhs
since 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State
Magistracy and human-rights organizations. These figures were
published in The Politics of Genocide by Inderjit Singh
Jaijee. About 50,000 Sikh political prisoners are rotting in
Indian jails without charge or trial. Many have been in
illegal custody since 1984. India is in gross violation of
international law. Since 1984, India has engaged in a
campaign of ethnic cleansing in which about 50,000 Sikhs were
murdered by the police and secretly cremated, according to
Justice Ajit Singh Bains, chairman of the Punjab Human Rights
Organization, in an interview broadcast on ``Ankhila Punjab''
radio in Toronto, Canada. The Indian Supreme Court described
this campaign as ``worse than a genocide.''
``On behalf of half a million Sikhs in the United States, I
would like to thank Congressman Towns and every Member who
signed this letter,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President
of the Council of Khalistan, the government pro tempore of
Khalistan, the Sikh homeland that declared its independence
from India on October 7, 1987. ``We thank our friends in both
parties for their support for freedom in South Asia. This
letter can help focus the attention of the United States and
India on the important democratic values of self-
determination and human rights,'' he said. ``The willingness
of these Members of Congress to call India a hostile country
also advances freedom in South Asia by helping to frustrate
India's drive for hegemony in the region,'' he said. He
predicted that ``the breakup of India
draws closer every day and Khalistan will be free in this
decade.''
____________________
[[Page 18604]]
STUDENT CONGRESSIONAL TOWN MEETING
______
HON. BERNARD SANDERS
of vermont
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding
work done by participants in my Student Congressional Town Meeting held
this summer. These participants were part of a group of high school
students from around Vermont who testified about the concerns they have
as teenagers, and about what they would like to see the government do
regarding these concerns.
I submit these statements in the Congressional Record, as I believe
that the views of these young persons will benefit my colleagues.
Hon. Bernard Sanders in the House of Representatives
on behalf of HEATHER MOYLAN, GEORGE (BUD) VANA, IV and MATTHEW JENNESS
Regarding GENDER REQUIREMENT IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION--May 26, 2000
HEATHER MOYLAN: Today we would like to propose that new
legislation be introduced regarding gender equity,
legislation that would repeal any sections of affirmative
action that make reference to gender in the workplace.
Affirmative action is defined as actions taken to provide
equal opportunities as an admission for employment for
minority groups or women.
Traditionally society has dominated by the male gender.
Today, however, advancements have been made for women in
regards to jobs, sports and education. Affirmative action
legislation and its close cousin, Title 9 have had a lot of
important and beneficial progress for women in all of their
endeavors. In most cases quality is already a reality.
Statistics show in some cases there is a female advantage and
of course there is still progress to be made. The legislation
and enforcement by the government, once crucial, has run its
course. The American people have become accustomed to gender
equality.
States have created their own legislation. Institutions and
public and private sectors have their own regulations, and in
summary the law has done all that it can do. The danger now
exists that the law may be abused with so-called reverse
discrimination suits.
MATTHEW JENNESS: Last night I went out and I found
information to back this up; with looking at the job rate
between male and female and I found that the participation
rate percentage was in 1948, 32 percent female and 86.9
percent male. In 1979, 50 percent female and 78 percent male,
and in this year, 2000, 75 percent male and 60 percent
female. So from that I figure that a 60 percent--there is a
pretty good margin there, it is close, and the ten percent
may be people who chose to be--females choosing to take
traditional roles in the family.
GEORGE VANA, IV: I get to show you some stuff, I guess. Now
this is a graph of high school attendance percentage. These
are 14- and 15-year-olds. This right here is the male bar and
that represents 80.2 percent attendance and this represents
female attendance which is 85.6 percent, and this is I guess
preliminary to what we are getting to here.
CONGRESSMAN SANDERS: So that chart shows there are more
girls in high school than boys.
GEORGE VANA, IV: This is college enrollment and it is the
same trend basically. 41.7 percent of 18- and 19-year-old
males attend college, and I guess it is 51.3 percent of
females, age 18 to 19 years old attend college. These are
based on the United States Census Bureau. And then we are
also going to look at male versus female education
accomplishments, and you can see here that education
attainment which basically signifies some degree of some sort
is much, much higher nowadays within females. These are
numbers in the thousands, 46,888,000 females now attain
higher educational status compared to 29,343,000 males. And
current college enrollment, also in the millions, is we have
about 6,905,000 males in college right now as opposed to
8,641,000 females, so a gap exists now I guess and that would
almost be in favor of females where affirmative action
legislation many years ago served to increase these numbers.
____
Hon. Bernard Sanders in the House of Representatives
on behalf of FALINDA HOUGH, DANIELLE MORGAN and WENDY PRATT
Regarding HOUSING FOR TEEN MOTHERS--May 26, 2000
WENDY PRATT: My name is Wendy and we are teen moms, young
mothers who have a lot of problems with housing, and we would
like it if we had a program for us to work through to get
help with getting housing for us. Our school put together a
program called Independence and it is for single mothers with
one child and I have a child and a child on the way, so that
is not a program that I can link, go through because I am
going to have two children, and it is just so hard for me to
find someplace to stay.
DANIELLE MORGAN: I am 16 and I have an eleven-month-old
son. I live at my mother's house which includes me and my
son, my mother, my six-year-old little brother and my
stepfather, and that is somewhere that I really do not want
to be right now because one thing is that it is hard to
parent when you are also being parented. I can not do what I
want with my son because my parents are interfering with
that. And I have been told that because of past college
students and just younger people that rented apartments in
Burlington, they wrecked the apartments, we are not allowed
to do that anymore and I feel that is unfair to me and my
friends and whoever else is going through the same things I
am going through because I feel that I deserve my own space
for me and my child.
There is the Lund Home and I have lived there, I lived
there when I was pregnant, and I feel that is a very good
program. But then when you leave there, there are some people
that are ready for something more. And I will be 17 in August
and I feel like I could have my own apartment and my own
space to live in. I thank Lund is for a beginning process for
people that need to learn more things, but I have already
been there and now I am stuck. I have nowhere else to go.
FALINDA HOUGH: Actually I am in the same situation as
Danielle. It is hard to live in your house where you are also
being parented and your parents are trying to tell you how to
raise your kid. And there should be other opportunities for
us as far as the Lund Center, but you cannot go there if you
have two children, so it is hard for other people to go
there. And there should be more housing for us where we can
live.
____
Hon. Bernard Sanders in the House of Representatives
on behalf of PAULA DUFRESNE and KATHLEEN SHEVCHIK
Regarding DATE/ACQUAINTANCE RAPE--May 26, 2000
KATHLEEN SHEVCHIK: Good morning, Congressman Sanders,
fellow students and those attending this event.
Today we come before you to express our concern about a
crisis: date and acquaintance rape. After researching in
depth about date and acquaintance rape, we feel a definite
need for change in the near future. In out society there
needs to be more awareness and knowledge available for
students. There are many factors leading to rape whether it
is alcohol, drugs or even Rapinol slipped into a drink, this
is a serious problem needing a definite solution.
Acquaintance rape is defined as any non-consensual sexual
activity between two or more people who know each other. Here
are some facts. 60 percent of all rape victims know their
assailants, but 92 percent of adolescent rape victims know
their assailants. On college campuses one in every four women
is a victim of rape. 84 percent of these women knew their
assailant and 57 percent of those rapes happened on a date.
Congressman Sanders, I will enroll as a freshman next year
in college, and after this research I am scared that I could
be another statistic. Date rape is about power and control,
not romance and passion. Many women think it could never
happen to them, but they are simply not educated enough on
this issue.
What we are proposing today is the need for schools to
provide more education on date and acquaintance rape. Women
need to become more aware of their surroundings and
situations that lead to rape. Men must be portrayed as a part
of the solution, not just the source of the problem.
PAULA DUFRESNE: We think there should be an educational
program nationwide. This program should inform both men and
women on all aspects of date rape. We feel this program
should be attended twice; once entering high school and once
entering college. We feel that this program should have group
discussions about when sexual activity is considered rape,
how to be more assertive, and to realize that no always means
no. There should also be the victims of date rape and even
possibly their assailants. This program would create more
awareness to everyone. It would bring so much positive to
schools and even to individuals. The knowledge should be
given out before the students have to use it. We strongly
believe that no action will only insure that an unacceptable
situation remains unchanged. In conclusion, we will leave you
with the words of Katie Ripley, a college student who wrote
The Morning After, Sex, Fear and Feminism on Campuses.
``Today's definition of rape has stretched beyond bruises to
threats of death or violence to involve emotional pressure
and the influence of alcohol.''
____________________
[[Page 18605]]
BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL WINNER
______
HON. RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Scripps
Ranch High School in Scripps Ranch and its leaders, Principal, David
LeMay and Superintendent, Alan Bersin. Scripps Ranch has been
designated by the U.S. Department of Education as a National Bule
Ribbon School for 2000. I am proud to inform my colleagues that my
district had an amazing record of eleven schools selected for that
prestigious honor this year. I would also like to note that the Academy
of Our Lady of Peace right outside my district in San Diego County was
also named a Blue Ribbon School. I applaud the educators, students and
communities in each of the San Diego County schools who pulled together
in pursuit of educational excellence.
Blue Ribbon Schools are recognized as some of the nation's most
successful institutions, and they are exemplary models for achieving
educational excellence throughout the nation. Not only have they
demonstrated excellence in academic leadership, teaching and teacher
development, and school curriculum, but they have demonstrated
exceptional levels of community and parental involvement, high student
achievement levels and strong safety and discipline.
After schools are nominated by state education agencies for the Blue
Ribbon award, they undergo a rigorous review of their programs, plans
and activities. That is followed with visits by educational experts for
evaluation. Ultimately, those schools which best demonstrate strong
leadership, clear vision and mission, excellent teaching and
curriculum, policies and practices that keep the schools safe for
learning, family involvement and evidence of high standards are
selected for this prestigious award. I am pleased that they are now
receiving the national recognition they are due.
As school and community leaders head to Washington for the Department
of Education awards ceremony, I want to thank them once again for a job
well done. More satisfying than any award, these leaders will have the
lifelong satisfaction of having provided the best education possible
and a better future for thousands of children. I am proud of what they
have achieved, and want to share their achievements so that more people
benefit from their accomplishments. I ask that a summary of Scripps
Ranch High School's superior work be included in the record:
Scripps Ranch High School, San Diego, California, opened in 1993,
modeling its curriculum on Second to None: A Vision of the New
California High School, the 1992 report from the California State
Department of Education Task Force. Strong academics, modern
technology, a wide variety of electives, block scheduling, advisory
periods, and the integration of academic and career curricula are
Second to None fundamentals and the foundation of the learning
environment at Scripps Ranch High School (SRHS). An innovative and
quality staff presently serves an ethnically diverse 2,063 student
population.
All students participate in a 23-minute CORE (Career Opportunities,
Reading, and Exhibitions) advisory period that meets two days each
week. The CORE period is used to mentor students, promote school-to-
career activities, and to advance literacy through reading. Staff
members keep the same CORE students throughout their high school years.
Because of this continual mentoring in a 25 to 1 ratio, each student
has a link to a staff member who knows and cares about them and can
refer them for assistance when a need arises. The heart and soul of
SRHS lies in its staff. Their dedication to teaching and students is
obvious to anyone who visits a classroom or attends an extracurricular
event. Teachers not only sponsor clubs and coach teams, they attend and
support student events and activities throughout the school year. This
school began with pride in its foundations, continues to build on its
reputation of excellence, and is ever ready to enhance its programs to
benefit the students that it serves.
____________________
DEBT RELIEF LOCK-BOX RECONCILIATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
______
speech of
HON. WALTER B. JONES
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Monday, September 18, 2000
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my
colleagues to support the Debt Relief Lockbox Reconciliation Act.
According to the Department of Treasury, our national debt stands at
over $5.6 trillion. Every man, woman, and child owes $21,000 for that
debt. Even in these strong economic times, that debt remains an
albatross over the prosperity of future generations. This legislation
takes steps to correct that problem. It would ensure that the vast
majority of the surplus is reserved for two important purposes: (1) to
ensure that the Medicare and Social Security are preserved and (2) to
reduce the public debt. We have a moral obligation to uphold these
principles. Not only are they critical to Americans today, but they
will greatly impact American generations of tomorrow.
The bill introduced by my friend and colleague from Kentucky would
reduce the publicly held debt by an additional $240 billion in FY01 and
would protect all of the Social Security and Medicare surpluses. By
using 90% of the projected FY01 surplus, we are making a good-faith,
common-sense effort to put an end to all publicly held debt by 2012,
keeping with the promises made when I was first elected in 1994.
Instead of spending this money on more unnecessary federal programs in
Washington, we are putting a real downpayment on a better future for
America. I urge my colleagues to join me this week in voting that
future.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. WALTER B. JONES
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, September 19, 2000
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last night I was meeting
with constituents in North Carolina and unavoidably missed rollcall
votes 477 and 478.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No.
477 and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 478.