Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 for April 10, 2000

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Issue]
[Pages 5026-5121]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 5026]]

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.

April 10, 2000
April 10, 2000

SENATE--Monday, April 10, 2000

The Senate met at 12 noon and was called to order by the President
pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Lord of creation, You have written Your signature in the bursting
beauty of this magnificent spring day in our Nation's Capital. We thank
You for the rebirth of hope that comes with this season of renewal. You
remind us: Behold, I make all things new. As the seeds and bulbs have
germinated in the earth, so You have prepared us to burst forth in
newness of life. We forget the former things and claim Your new
beginning for us. Help us to accept Your forgiveness and become giving
and forgiving people. Clean out the hurting memories of our hearts so
we may be open communicators of Your vibrant, creative spirit as we
tackle problems and grasp possibilities of this day for the sake of our
beloved Nation's future. By Your power. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Thad Cochran, a Senator from the State of Mississippi,
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. The acting majority leader is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I am
pleased to announce that today the Senate will be in a period of
morning business throughout the day with time reserved for Senators
Durbin, Thomas, Craig, Murkowski, and Brownback. Cloture was filed on
the gas tax bill on Friday. Therefore, pursuant to rule XXII, all
first-degree amendments must be filed by 1 p.m. today. By previous
consent, the cloture vote has been scheduled to occur at 2:25 p.m. on
Tuesday. That vote will be the first vote of this week. The Senate will
also consider the marriage tax penalty bill during this week's session
and the budget conference report. Therefore, Senators can expect votes
to occur on Friday.
I thank my colleagues for their attention and cooperation.

____________________

GAS TAX CONSIDERATION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we were able to work our way through the
budget this past week. It took a lot of time and cooperation, but I
think we were able to make a lot of headway. We are disappointed that a
number of our amendments were not adopted.
The good news--and I think we should focus on this a little bit this
morning--is the fact that gas prices are actually declining, on an
average of almost 3 cents a gallon this past week. There is a long way
to go to decline to where they first started picking up, but progress
has been made.
With the vote on the gas tax bill coming up this week, I think we
should recognize that the crisis we did see is certainly being
diminished, if not alleviated. No one is happy about the cost of a
gallon of gasoline. I stopped over the weekend with my daughter, and
she filled up their vehicle's gas tank and commented about the price of
gasoline. That is the way it is. Gas is too high. However, what we are
attempting to do this week is something we should reexamine. We should
recognize that if this bill is passed by the Senate, it will either be
held at the desk indefinitely or would be what we call blue slipped, if
it is sent to the House of Representatives.
We should focus on things other than this legislation. For example,
if the majority is serious about this matter, we could call up H.R.
3081, the House-passed tax bill which concerns the minimum wage. That
is on the Senate Calendar. We could work on that. That would allow
other amendments to be offered that are meaningful.
There isn't anyone in this body who does not want to see a decrease
in the cost of fuel prices. Simply stated, this is not the way to go
about it. OPEC has signaled its willingness to produce more oil. Non-
OPEC nations have agreed to contribute some 700,000 barrels a day to
alleviate this crisis.
We would be better off focusing on doing things so we are not as
dependent on foreign oil. We have to import 55 percent of the oil we
consume in this country. For example, we need to do something to make
sure that the oil that is produced in Alaska is used in the United
States and not shipped to Asia. We have to do something to make sure we
develop a long-term energy policy and do something with alternative
fuels. Solar, wind, and geothermal are areas we need to explore. We
have spent very small amounts of money each year on hydrogen fuel
development; this, some day, will overtake the fossil fuels that we
use.
There are a lot of things we need to do. One of the things we need
not do is try to explain to the American public that we are doing
something by reducing the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax for part of this year.
No. 1, in a number of States, if the Federal tax is knocked off, the
States are obligated by law to pick up that extra 4.3 cents, or
whatever it is, that the Federal Government knocks off.
In short, I think we could be using this time in a much more
productive fashion than debating the 4.3-cent-per gallon tax reduction
which is cosmetic in nature only and is certainly not even a short-term
fix.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the leadership time
is reserved.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be a period for the transaction
of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to
10 minutes each.
Under the previous order, the time until 1 p.m. shall be under the
control of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, or his designee.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA HOCKEY TEAM FOR THEIR
NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today as we begin
business this week to talk about two issues. First, let me describe
what happened Saturday evening on the east coast. There was a hockey
team from the University of North Dakota that went to the east coast to
play in the NCAA Division I hockey championship. When they finished
that competition, the North Dakota Sioux were Division I national
champions once again. In fact,

[[Page 5027]]

it is the seventh Division I national championship for the University
of North Dakota hockey team.
I am an alumnus of that great school, and it was with great pride I
watched the game on television last Saturday evening and saw the North
Dakota Fighting Sioux win that contest. We are the home of great
skaters, great hockey players, and great tradition. This year, once
again, we demonstrated that you don't have to have a 40,000-student
population to be a Division I national champion.
I called the White House this morning and asked if they would invite
that team to the White House, as is often the custom for championship
teams--college football, basketball, and other teams, including
professional teams who have been invited to the White House by the
President to say congratulations to them. I hope he will do the same
for this wonderful group of young men from North Dakota who are now
this Nation's champions in Division I hockey.
So my hat is off to the University of North Dakota. It is a wonderful
school. I am proud to have gotten my undergraduate degree there. I am
increasingly proud year after year as I watch that school. Not only are
they great athletes and hockey players, these are also great students
and good young men. This is an athletic program without parallel around
the country, in my judgment. Again, I congratulate those young men. I
am very proud of them.

____________________

THE SENATE AGENDA

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will discuss for a moment the issues
that face the Congress, where we are and why we are here, and suggest
perhaps a slightly more robust agenda for the next couple of months.
It is now a Monday in April, and it is not quite clear to me what the
agenda will be on the floor of the Senate this week. I guess it is not
quite clear yet to anyone. We know that in the coming weeks we will do
our work as appropriators. I am on the Appropriations Committee, and we
will do our work as appropriators and bring appropriations bills to the
floor of the Senate, and there are some authorization bills that must
get done. But beyond that, it is not quite clear what the agenda is.
Recognizing that my political party, the one I represent in this
Chamber, did not win the election, it is also clear we don't set the
agenda in the Senate. The political system has a unique way of
describing who controls institutions such as this. And those who have
the most members, who get the most votes in a general election, have
the opportunity to control and create an agenda. That is as it should
be. But it is perhaps frustrating for me and others that our agenda is
not nearly as robust as it could or should be.
Let me describe some of the things I think we ought to be doing and
that I hope the majority leader and others will agree at some point in
the coming weeks that we will do.
First, we passed some long time ago a Patients' Bill of Rights. I
didn't support the Senate version of it because I didn't think it was a
good bill. But the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan piece
of legislation coauthored by a Democrat and a Republican in the House
of Representatives. It was a very vigorous battle in the House. They
passed a real Patients' Bill of Rights bill.
It says in this contest of wills between patients, doctors, the
insurance companies, and HMOs, that there are certain rights that
patients ought to have.
Every patient in this country who seeks medical treatment ought to
have the right to understand all of their options for medical
treatment--not just what's the least expensive.
Those who need emergency room treatment ought to be able to expect to
have emergency room treatment when needed.
When a woman falls off a 40-foot cliff and is hauled into an
emergency room comatose, and then the HMO later says: We will not
approve your emergency room cost because you didn't get preapproval for
emergency room treatment--there is something wrong with the system.
Are there certain rights that patients ought to have in this health
care system? The answer yes. Among those are the rights embodied in the
bill in the House of Representatives called the Patients' Bill of
Rights. It is now in conference. It is not likely to produce 67 votes,
unfortunately, under current circumstances because the House-appointed
conferees, who in most cases didn't vote for the bill, sent it to
conference.
The Senate, of course, has a piece of legislation that does not do
the job. But those of us who support a strong Patients' Bill of Rights
remain hopeful that between now and the end of this legislative session
we will pass a bipartisan piece of legislation called a Patients' Bill
of Rights that really provides the rights and the assistance to
patients in dealing with their insurance companies with respect to
their health care treatment.
Juvenile justice: We passed a juvenile justice bill in the Senate.
That bill was passed in Senate legislation that many do not like.
Among the two pieces of legislation that people do not like on that
bill--and the reason I guess it is stalled--is some legislation dealing
with guns. We provided two simple components to that piece of
legislation.
I come from North Dakota. I grew up hunting. I had a gun when I was a
teenager. I pheasant hunted, I deer hunted, and practiced target
shooting. I know about guns. I am not somebody running into this
Chamber saying let's have gun control. That is not my orientation at
all.
But the two pieces dealing with guns that we added to the Juvenile
Justice Act are so sensible. One is mandatory trigger locks for
handguns. When 6-year-olds go to school and shoot another 6-year-old,
ought we not to understand the need for trigger locks on handguns? It
seems to me that is eminently sensible.
Second, the issue of gun shows, and the question of whether at gun
shows that people set up around this country on Saturdays or Sundays
there ought to be an instant check when guns are sold to find out
whether you are selling a gun to a convicted felon.
Go to a gun store anywhere in this country and try to buy a gun. They
are going to run your name through an instant check to find out if you
are a convicted felon because if you are, you cannot buy a gun. But we
have a loophole at gun shows which are big, and getting bigger. There
are more of them. Many feel--including the Senate, incidentally, by a
rather close vote--that we ought to have the opportunity to close that
loophole and say if you are going to buy a gun, it does not matter
whether it is in a gun store or at a gun show, you ought to have to
have your name run through an instant check so we can make sure we are
not selling a gun to a felon.
Those two issues--trigger locks for handguns for the safety of
children in this country, and closing the gun show loophole--have meant
that the juvenile justice bill, which is so important, is now in
conference, and apparently we can't get it out. I hope we can be more
sensible about this and get that bill out of conference, bring it to
the floor of the Senate and the House, and get it to the President for
his signature.
There are other items we continue to struggle with, such as the issue
of school construction.
I have spoken at great length about walking into the Cannon Ball
School and seeing little Rosie Two Bears, a third grader, who says: Mr.
Senator, are you going to build me a new school?
I said: No, I don't have the money to build you a new school, Rosie.
This is a school with 150 kids, one water fountain, two toilets, and
closings of the school building which is not fit for classes, where
sewer gas comes up and they have to evacuate the rooms. Rosie isn't
getting the kind of education we want for her as an American.
When we say let's help rebuild, renovate, and construct some of
America's schools to bring them back up to standard, we are told, no.
You can't do that. That is not the Federal Government's job.

[[Page 5028]]

It is interesting. There was a piece in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, a
rather interesting columnist. He said about 4 or 5 years ago the
Congress decided they were going to spend $8 billion to upgrade jails
and prisons. The State and local governments absolutely spent the money
for jails and prisons. The Federal Government can upgrade the jails and
prisons but not the schools. Is it less important to bring schools up
to standard than a jail or a prison somewhere?
If we can spend $8 billion to improve places to incarcerate
criminals, we ought to be able to spend a few billion dollars to help
kids go into a classroom door in a school that we as parents could be
proud of. That ought to be done in this session of the Congress as
well.
Judicial nominations, we want to get through. We don't have a
committee in this Congress for lost and found. Almost everywhere else--
hotels, airports, every other institution--when you lose something and
ask where the lost and found is, they send you there. There is a lost
and found over there. In Congress there is no place you can go to the
lost and found. Maybe we need a committee on the lost and found. When
these policy issues leave here, you never hear from them again.
I hope that in the coming days Republicans and Democrats together can
decide that there are certain common elements to an agenda that will
strengthen this country and make this a better place in which to live.
I don't believe that we have a circumstance where one side of the
political aisle is all right, and the other side all wrong. That is not
the case. We have good men and women serving in this Chamber on both
sides of the political aisle. But it remains a frustration that in some
areas where we have passed legislation, it gets sent to a conference
somewhere never to be seen again because a small minority refuses to
accept sensible judgments of the majority in both the House and the
Senate.
I think that is the case with the Patients' Bill of Rights with
respect to the vote in the House, and certainly is the case with
juvenile justice and decisions in the Senate on things such as trigger
locks and also closing the gun show loophole.
I hope we can find a way to address some of these important issues in
the coming weeks and months.
I hope we can demonstrate to the American people that we care about
education and health care, address the crime issue in a thoughtful way,
get nominations through this Chamber, and appoint Federal judges to
fill vacancies, which are things that represent part of the agenda that
needs to be completed as soon as possible in the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, are we in a period of morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader is correct. Under the previous
order, the leadership time has been reserved.

____________________

SENATE SCHEDULE

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will talk a few minutes about the schedule
for the week and then comment specifically on some of the issues we
will be addressing during the schedule for Tuesday, Wednesday, and
Thursday.
We have several important issues before the Senate to take up and
hopefully complete action on. One of them is the question of our
national energy policy. That will be brought to the Senate during the
day on Tuesday with a vote on the gas tax issue.
Following that, we will be discussing the marriage penalty tax. This
past Saturday, I had occasion to be in a store and one of the other
customers asked me: Are we finally going to get rid of the unfair
marriage penalty tax? I said we would try to and hoped to do it this
week.
I went on about my business and the customer went on about his. The
customer came back later and said: Do you think you actually will begin
to eliminate the very unfair tax? I said: That is what we are trying to
do.
Then he came back a third time and said: You are going to have a vote
next week? I said: Yes, we are. He asked if he could get the names of
those voting against getting rid of the unfair tax. I said: Yes, it
will be in the Record. Call my office; we will be glad to get it to
you.
That is what we hear in the real world, off of Capitol Hill. People
say this is a real problem.
We have been talking about eliminating the marriage penalty tax for
years. It is time we get it done. We will have that debate on Wednesday
and, I presume, a vote Wednesday or Thursday to see exactly where the
Senate is: Do we want to eliminate the marriage penalty tax or not? I
think we should. I certainly will vote that way.
Before the week is out, we hope to take up a number of Executive
Calendar nominations. We have a number of nominations that we should be
able to clear. We will work with interested Senators and committees
involved on both sides of the aisle to see if we can clear a number of
these nominations.
Last and certainly not least is the fact we will also want to
complete action on the conference on the budget. We completed action on
the budget resolution of the Senate on Friday. I understand the
conferees will be working together during the next 2 days, hopefully,
to file the necessary report by Tuesday night. Then we will have the
necessary debate, whatever time that might be. It could be up to as
much as 10 hours. Then we will have a vote on that conference report
Thursday evening or Friday morning.
That leads me to another point I want to be sure to make early in the
week. As I have notified Senators in the past, during these weeks right
before a recess--in this case the Easter recess--we will go home and be
with our constituents and families. Senators should anticipate the
possibility or even the likelihood of votes on Friday. If we can
complete the work I have outlined by Thursday night then we will not be
in session on Friday. But if for some reason we have not been able to
complete at least the vote on the conference report on the budget, then
we will be in session on Friday. We certainly hope to finish it by noon
on Friday, but that will depend on how much time is needed and when the
Senate wishes to get to a final vote.
I wanted to go over the schedule for the week so Senators know what
to anticipate on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and the possibility even
of Friday votes on the budget resolution conference report.
Now let me go back and talk about some of these issues, to try to
make clear what I am trying to do by moving these bills, and explain
what the situation is with regard to the gas tax, for instance.
There have been those who said the Senate voted last week during the
debate on the budget resolution on a sense of the Senate that basically
the Senate would not temporarily suspend or in any way remove the gas
tax.
The Federal gasoline tax is 4.3 cents a gallon. That was added back
in 1993. But the total amount of the Federal tax is 18.4 cents a
gallon. I remind my colleagues, that does not count the State taxes and
in many cases local taxes on gasoline. Where I am from, we even have,
in addition to the State and Federal taxes, what is known as the
seawall tax.
That is quite curious because quite often we do not see anything
happening on the seawall, but the tax is being collected and spent on
general improvement of roads. Most people do not gripe because we have
a developing area and we want to have good roads. I think that is a
very important thing.
But, as a matter of fact, the total tax on gasoline in most States is
as much as a quarter or a third or more of the total cost of a gallon
of gasoline. So the taxes on gasoline are significant.
With regard to this vote last week, the so-called Byrd sense-of-the-
Senate resolution said it is the sense of the

[[Page 5029]]

Senate that the functional totals in this budget resolution do not
assume the reduction of any Federal gasoline taxes on either a
temporary or permanent basis. What we will be considering today and
tomorrow morning in our gas tax bill is specifically designed to make
certain that highway spending, and thus the functional totals, are not
changed by our gas tax suspension.
Therefore, the spending assumptions in the budget resolution do not
assume the reduction of any Federal gas taxes on either a temporary or
permanent basis. The revenue levels in the budget resolution, however,
do assume a temporary suspension of the 4.3-cent-a-gallon so-called
Gore tax increase.
If the Byrd amendment had been drafted to read, ``it is the sense of
the Senate that the functional totals and the revenue levels in this
budget resolution do not assume . . .'' then it would have had a very
different impact. So I am trying to clarify the difference in what some
people thought the resolution did last week and what we are actually
doing.
Under the budget resolution, there is no question we could have this
debate and have this vote on gas tax because this is what it would do.
It says we would temporarily suspend, just for the remainder of this
year, 4.3 cents a gallon--I will come back to that in a moment--and, if
gasoline prices go to $2 a gallon national average, then the entire
18.4 cents a gallon would be suspended in a gas tax holiday just to the
end of the year.
So when people say, How much would this cost? The first answer is it
would depend on whether or not gasoline reached the national average of
$2 a gallon and when that would occur, when that would take effect.
The amendment language is drafted so this will not affect the highway
trust fund. I want to emphasize that: It will not reduce the funds in
the highway trust fund. It would hold harmless the highway trust fund.
If there is this gas tax holiday, it would come out of the surplus.
I remind my colleagues, we do at this point have a $23 billion on-
budget surplus now; that is, surplus in addition to what we have as a
result of the FICA, Social Security tax. So there is a surplus there.
While we would like to protect that surplus as much as possible and not
use it, or see it used to pay down the national debt, this is what I
think to be a reasonable way to use some of it, if gasoline prices
should actually go up to $2 a gallon.
What I am saying is, there is no difference between what we are
trying to do and what the Byrd sense-of-the-Senate resolution said. He
was trying, I believe, to make sure it did not come out of the highway
trust fund. As a matter of fact, this amendment is drafted in such a
way it does not.
Let me remind my colleagues how we got to this additional 4.3-cent-a-
gallon gas tax. It was added in 1993. In the Senate, it passed on a tie
vote with the Vice President, Vice President Gore, breaking that tie.
There was a big debate about whether or not we should be increasing the
price of gasoline by raising this tax in the first place.
But there was an even more important, very telling point, and that
was, in this case the gas tax would not go into the highway trust fund
but it was going to go into the General Treasury to be used for any
number of purposes by the Federal Government, not to build highways and
bridges and to improve urban mass transportation and rail service or
anything of that nature, just to go into the big, deep, dark hole of
the Federal Treasury.
By the way, I think about $21 billion of gas tax revenue went into
the General Treasury. But then in 1997 Congress changed that and said
no, this is a gasoline tax and it should go, like other gasoline taxes,
into the highway trust fund. So it started going into the highway trust
fund.
With regard to what we are trying to do here, the elite Washington
position is: Oh, what difference does 4.3 cents a gallon make? We can
afford that.
Yes, maybe, if you live and work on Capitol Hill or for the Federal
Government. But if you are out there in the real world, and you are a
working family, and you are driving 100 miles a day round trip to get
to an industrial job, or to get to where your employment is, while it
still will not add up to a lot of money, when you are a blue-collar
worker, when you are a union worker, working at a shipyard or
International Paper mill, a few dollars more a week in the price of
gasoline does make a difference. It comes right out of that family
budget.
So it is typically what you get here in Washington, the elite
attitude: Well, it will not make that much difference. But it is not
only the individual who is paying those higher gas taxes, it also
affects smaller business men and women. It affects barge operators on
our rivers and inland lakes across America. It affects the truck driver
who, by the way, if he is an independent driver--he owns his own rig,
he drives not a few hundred miles a week, he drives many hundreds of
miles a week up and down this country and back and forth across this
country--it is hitting him or her very hard because he is paying this
extra cost to run those trucks.
Or, if you are in a business that involves a lot of trucks, a lot of
heavy equipment, such as road construction or sand and gravel work, you
have seen the cost of doing business go up considerably. It is not a
few dollars, it is not hundreds of dollars, it is thousands of dollars
in cases such as that.
By the way, that comes right out of the bottom line because quite
often you are carrying out a contract for which you have already
submitted a bid, you have a price agreement, and now you see you are
having to take this extra cost right out of getting this job done. So
it is having a real impact.
The next argument against reducing the gasoline tax, or having a gas
tax holiday, is that: Look, this is temporary. It was just a spike up
in the price of gasoline. We did not see it coming. We were caught
napping--according to the Secretary of Energy, Secretary Richardson--
and the OPEC countries will open the spigot up a little bit and
everything will be fine, prices will go back down.
Maybe they will. They have ticked down some in some areas, although I
bought gasoline on Saturday and it cost $1.63 a gallon, and that was
not the premium; premium was more than that. In some places it is more
than that, in some places it is probably less than that. So maybe it
will come down and maybe it will stay down, but I think maybe it might,
as a matter of fact, tick back up because world demand is going to
exceed supply. We are going to be drawing down reserves around the
world. So I am concerned it could go back up, in addition to the fact
it is still very high.
So this is an issue we should think about. We should be careful how
we proceed. But we should have this debate. It is bigger than just
gasoline price and the Federal gas tax, although, I repeat, to a lot of
working people it has had an impact and it will continue to do so.
There is a broader question involved, and that is: What is our
national energy plan? What are we going to do about the price of fuel,
alternative fuels, conservation, environmental impact? All these
questions are looming.
I do not think we have a true national energy plan for the future.
Our dependence on foreign oil has gone from 45 percent of our needs 10
years ago to around 55 or 56 percent now. I think it is going to go
over 60.
What are we going to do? Are we comfortable with that? Are the
American people comfortable with that? I do not think so.
In the early seventies, we had the higher prices. We had the gas
lines. Nobody liked it. People really got mad. We put forth a lot of
effort in Congress to develop a national energy plan and to make
ourselves less dependent on oil. It has not worked. It has gone the
other way.
We need to ask ourselves what we are going to do about this. What if
the OPEC countries and other countries from whom we get our oil decide
to cut the spigot down or cut it off? Economically, we would be in a
real mess quickly.
We have the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is something we did in
the aftermath of the last price increase and the long lines. We have
SPR filled up

[[Page 5030]]

so if we have a national emergency, we can use it for about a month.
Is that enough? Should we do more? What are we going to do in the
broader sense? I view this current upward spike as another knock on the
door, another tap on the shoulder: Hey, America, you have a problem.
You are dependent on Libya and Qadhafi; you are dependent on Iraq for
about 700,000 barrels of oil a day. Are you comfortable with that?
When I go home, I have people come up to me and say: Aren't these the
same people we went to war for a few years ago? And now they are
turning the spigot on and off, and the prices go way low or high. Is
this what we want? I do not think so. It is very dangerous.
Then one may ask: What is going to be done? What can be done? We do
need to look for more oil reserves of our own. We need to give
incentives for our men and women, our independents, our wildcats, the
small operators, and the big ones, to find more reserves, to make use
of these oil wells that are capped right now. There are a few in my own
State and certainly other places around the country. We ought to see if
there are other places we can open up.
The Senate voted last week against an amendment that would have
prevented using the reserves in ANWR in Alaska. I believe we can get at
those oil reserves without causing environmental damage, and we should
do that.
It is not just about more oil. The President said we should look at
alternatives. I agree. What are the alternatives about which we are
talking? One is natural gas. When I sit on my front porch in my
hometown of Pascagoula, MS, looking off to the south and the east, I
see a natural gas well. I believe natural gas is a good alternative. It
is clean, and we can make a lot more use of it if we provide some
incentives for making greater use of natural gas. We have tremendous
reserves of natural gas. So much of it is in the ground; so much has
been capped because it has not been worthwhile to get it out. That is
an alternative that is environmentally safe, and we have lots of it.
That is one option.
Also, in my part of the country we use coal to provide electricity to
our people. It is cheap, and it also is clean-burning coal. Our
companies have taken actions to deal with the emissions problems. Yet
EPA today is putting genuine hard pressure on five companies in
America, including Southern Company in our part of the United States,
that will drive up the cost and will cause real problems using coal as
their fuel supply in the future.
That is one alternative we ought to keep. We ought to find more oil;
we ought to make use of natural gas; we ought to continue to find ways
to burn coal with clean technology, with modern technology, but also
that it is clean coal being burned.
The next thing is nuclear power. Nuclear power is clean. There is
nuclear power already in Europe, China, and Japan. Yet we have been
trying for years and have spent billions of dollars finding a
repository for nuclear waste. The Senate passed a bill, I believe, two
or three times, and the President is threatening to veto a very
carefully thought out procedure of a repository for nuclear waste.
Sooner or later, if we cannot deal with that problem, our nuclear
plants will be faced with the threat of shutting down. If we do not
explore for more oil, if we do not make greater use of natural gas, if
we put limits and make it difficult to use coal, if, as a matter of
fact, we cannot use nuclear power because we cannot come up with a
proper way with which to deal with nuclear waste disposal--talk about
an environmental problem. Deciding how to deal with nuclear waste is
the biggest environmental problem in America today. We have been
batting that ball back and forth for 10 years or more, and we still
have not resolved it.
If not oil, not natural gas, not coal, and not nuclear, what? Solar
and wind? That will help some, but the statistics I have seen show that
will provide a very small percentage of our needs. Ethanol--I have
supported ethanol. I just do not believe wind and solar, ethanol, and
alternative sources beyond the ones I have been talking about will
solve this problem.
I hope, as a result of the debate today and tomorrow, we will admit
that we do not have a national energy policy, that we are dependent on
foreign oil and are going to be for the foreseeable future unless we
sit down, think this through, and come up with some ideas on how to
proceed.
I have urged the committees of jurisdiction--the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, and other
committees--to have joint hearings or have hearings and ask questions
about these long-term problems of how we are going to deal with these
issues. I hope after we have this debate and votes tomorrow, we will
have a broader, general energy package that will begin to address these
long-term problems. I am concerned about it. I hope the Senate will
step up to this issue and make a difference beyond what we have done in
the past.
The second issue on which the Senate will be working this week is the
marriage penalty tax. I believe most Americans have some idea by now of
what it is. There have been different proposals on how to deal with it.
Some of the arguments are: Yes, but if you are married, you get certain
bonuses. I do not think that applies to what we are trying to deal with
here.
The fact of the matter is, if you are a young couple or, as we
realized last week, an older couple--couples married 25 years get hit
with a marriage penalty tax, but for young couples it is particularly
startling.
I found that to be the case with my own family. Our daughter got
married last May. She has been hearing talk about the marriage penalty
tax, so she decided to find out what that would mean for her. She and
her husband both work. Together, they have a pretty good income,
although they are certainly not wealthy, but they are in that middle
bracket. She figured it would cost them about $500 more this year in
taxes because they got married.
By the way, it is going to escalate over the next few years to about
$1,400 a year. This is just basically wrong. We should encourage people
to get married. We should not in any way discourage them by saying: Oh,
by the way, if you do get married, you will pay more in taxes.
Some people will complain the package that came out of the Finance
Committee is too big; that, as a matter of fact, not only did we deal
with the low-income people by increasing what was in the House bill for
the so-called earned-income tax credit, EITC, we also said we will
double the 15-percent bracket and the 28-percent bracket because we do
think if a marriage penalty tax is wrong, it should be wrong for
everybody. It should not be wrong just for the entry-level, lower
income people; it ought to be also unfair for the upper lower income
bracket and the middle-income bracket; as a matter of fact, right
across the board.
But we at least broadened its application to the middle bracket to
make sure, if you have a young couple who are both working--whether
they are in blue-color jobs or whether they are in entry-level
professional jobs--they should have this penalty eliminated.
Senator Moynihan of New York, and others, have an alternative
proposal. I think it is worth considering. In fact, if we could afford
it, I would like to have what we are doing and what Senator Moynihan is
proposing in terms of--I guess it is the income splitting option. But I
think we ought to have that offered and debated.
I think we can come up with a way that we can have a full debate
where there could be amendments with regard to the marriage penalty
legislation. I hope we can reach an agreement on how that would come
up. Then on Wednesday and Thursday, we would debate the alternatives
and we would have a vote. But it is long overdue.
I hope we can do as we did on the Social Security earnings
limitation. We passed it unanimously in the Senate. A lot of people
said: Oh, gee, that was so easy. Why didn't you do it before? We have
been talking about it for 20 years. We couldn't get it done.
They said it cost too much or that senior citizens didn't really need
it or it was a part of a package. But for

[[Page 5031]]

some reason or another--for years and years--it did not happen.
Finally, we isolated it, passed it clean, and passed it overwhelmingly.
The President had a big signing ceremony last week saying: Finally,
we have eliminated the Social Security earnings test. Good. The main
thing is our seniors who are between 65 and 69, who want to continue
working without being penalized in their Social Security benefits, are
going to have that opportunity.
But I think the same is true here. It is clear now we have isolated
it. The marriage penalty tax is not connected to incentives for people
to adopt children. It is not connected to the death tax or the estate
tax. It is not connected to anything else. We are just going to have a
debate about the marriage penalty tax. Senator Hutchison of Texas and
Senator Ashcroft of Missouri, and a number of other Senators on both
sides, are going to say: We ought to do this. This is the way to do it.
But in the end, this is the point: We are going to see this week if
the Senate is for eliminating the marriage penalty tax or not.
The guy in the store where I was shopping is going to have a list of
the names of those who vote against it. I hope the Senate will step up
to this and that we will begin the process of totally eliminating the
marriage penalty tax.
Then, finally, on the budget resolution, I hope we can get a final
agreement on the conference report and that we will pass it before the
end of the week so we can go forward with our appropriations bills.
That is a very important part of what we need to do this year; that is,
pass the 13 appropriations bills for Agriculture, for defense, for the
Interior, and for all the various Agencies and Departments of the
Government, and more importantly for the American people.
We ought to do it earlier than usual. There is no reason why we
should wait until June or July to do the appropriations bills. Let's
get started in May. Let's move them earlier. That is where we can
include things that we think should be done.
For instance, on the foreign relations bill, I think we should
provide aid for Colombia to fight the narcoguerrillas and try to get
control of that drug war there. I think we ought to do it, and do it on
the foreign relations bill.
With regard to Kosovo and defense, the first bill that comes along,
whether it is MilCon--military construction--or the defense bill, I
hope we will add that additional funding. This budget resolution
conference report will get all of that started.
Then I think important, once again, is, we should give credit to the
Budget Committee and to what we are doing in the Congress as a result
of this budget resolution. No. 1, for the third year in a row, we have
the ability to have a balanced budget--3 years running now. Before
that, we had not had one since 1969. Yet this year we have the ability
to do that for a third time, and to protect every cent of the Social
Security trust fund income. Every cent that comes in from FICA taxes
will be preserved and set aside and will not be spent on other Federal
Government spending programs.
I do not know exactly what that amount would be for the coming year,
but it would be significant. I think maybe the figure is approximately
$160 billion, or something close to that. But over a 10-year period, it
will be $1 trillion. By not spending it, that is good for the program,
it is good for technology, and we can pay down the national debt.
Over a 3-year period now, I understand we may have reduced the
national debt by somewhere more than $300 billion. A lot of people
never thought they would see the day come when we would actually begin
to pay down the national debt.
If we stay on the path we are on, if we stay on the trajectory we now
see with technology--and a lot has to happen; we have to have good
fiscal responsibility, monetary policy, stable energy prices, right
across the board--but if those things will stay within the ranges we
are looking for, we could reduce completely the national debt by the
year 2013 or 2015. That has not been done since Andrew Jackson was
President of the United States. That is really an amazing thing.
If we can continue to keep in place policies by congressional
actions, and by monetary policy, and by the administration, and see
economic growth year after year of around 4.5 percent--and in recent
years it has been more than that; but just 4.5 percent--it would have a
tremendous impact on the economy and the explosion of revenue coming
into the Social Security trust fund.
When we come to the point, over the next 2 or 3 years, where we are
going to have fundamental reform of Social Security, to make sure it is
preserved, protected, and, as a matter of fact, it is there for our
children and our grandchildren in a way that will be meaningful to
them, just that growth in the economy of 4.5 percent will give us the
options we need to have a very strong program that will go not just
into the year 2040 but go throughout this century.
I think these are very important issues. This is going to be an
interesting week to have debate. When we complete that budget
resolution, it will be a very positive action and will set the course
for not only this year but well into the rest of this decade.
Mr. President, I have been looking forward to this opportunity to
have this debate and have these votes this week. I look forward to that
process as we go forward.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to restore the
remaining, I believe, 15 minutes of the hour that was reserved on the
Democratic side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

GAS PRICES

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President I enjoyed listening to the majority leader.
I have always worked well with him, although we have different
perspectives and a different philosophy and opinion on some issues. I
have worked with him both in the House of Representatives and here in
the Senate. When I listen to him I am always reminded why I have always
liked him personally. He is a good person. I appreciate his public
service.
There are some things on the agenda, however, that we might not agree
about. I want to comment about a couple of those issues, especially
with respect to an agenda item this week dealing with the repeal of the
4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax, which is set for a cloture vote tomorrow
afternoon here in the Senate Chamber.
My expectation is that the cloture vote will fail. I am not certain
of that, but that is my expectation. Just hearing some of the comments
and some of the statements that have been made previously, I expect
that cloture vote will fail, and I think justifiably so.
Let me describe why.
I think the price of fuel in this country is a pretty tough pill for
the American people to swallow. What has happened is the price of
gasoline has spiked up. It is not because the free market has caused
that. It is because we have a cartel called the OPEC countries that are
limiting production and increasing the international price for their
product.
That is not the free market. That is monopoly pricing. They have the
strength and, I guess, the opportunity to do that. What they have done
is, of course, impose a significant new charge on American families, on
family farmers, producers, manufacturers, drivers, and others.
There was no vote on that. That was something the OPEC countries did.
We didn't have a chance to discuss that or vote on it in the Congress.
The question I ask with respect to the repeal of the 4.3-cent gas
tax--which is, after all, rather small in the scheme of what has
happened to the price of gasoline--is who would get the benefit of
that? Is there a guarantee of

[[Page 5032]]

any kind that the American people would actually get the benefit of the
gas tax reduction? The gasoline tax is not imposed at the pump. The
gasoline tax is imposed up the line. There is no guarantee at all that
if the Congress would repeal the 4.3-cent gasoline tax, that that
savings wouldn't simply be blended into the profits of the large oil
companies. There is no guarantee that the American driver is going to
pull up to a gas pump and find that gasoline prices are 4.3 cents a
gallon less.
The other question is, What is going to happen to make sure we
continue the building of the transportation infrastructure, roads and
bridges, the programs we have already approved in the highway program
that are done with this money? I am told by some: This money will be
made up from the general fund. Where from the general fund? Where do we
get that money? How do we know that will be the case?
Someone once said you should never buy anything from somebody who is
out of breath. There is a kind of breathless quality about bringing
this bill to the floor of the Senate to repeal the 4.3-cent-a-gallon
gas tax.
One of the reasons we heard Members stand up last week and ask some
very tough questions about this is, most of them understand, this is
kind of an immediate, quick reaction that hasn't been thought through
very well. It will not necessarily provide any relief to drivers. There
is no guarantee this 4.3-cent-a-gallon reduction is going to show up at
the pumps.
Secondly, where is the money? Where are we going to make up the
money? Which roads aren't we going to fix or which bridges are not
going to be repaired? Those are questions that need answering this
week. Because they cannot be answered, I think the cloture vote will
fail.
I think this is a pretty good discussion we are having with respect
to energy policy. The majority leader indicated this country doesn't
have much of an energy policy. I don't quarrel with that. We haven't
had much under any administration, as a matter of fact. We are far too
dependent on foreign sources of energy. There is no question about
that. But in many ways this is a helpful discussion because we have had
the discussion in recent years about the globalization of our economy.
How can one stand in the way of the global economy? We are told this
economy is a global economy. Understand it, they say.
Well, where are people going to produce energy in this world? In a
global economy, they will produce energy where it is least expensive to
produce. You can bring up oil under the sands in the Persian Gulf for a
fraction of the cost of bringing up oil in the United States. That is
the global economy, I guess. That is a decision the global economy
helps make.
The majority leader asked the question--I think a very important
question--do we have a national policy with respect to energy and our
desire to be somewhat independent of foreign sources? That is a good
question not just for oil. It is a good question for steel and for a
whole series of things we know are important to the American economy.
We have been told until this time there is nothing that is more
important than globalization of our economy; if steel moves and is
produced elsewhere, so be it. Do the people who say that feel the same
way about oil? Because that is where we are. The oil we consume is
produced elsewhere. We now discover that when a cartel manipulates
artificially the price of oil by restricting supply, Americans get
overcharged. That is part of a monopoly in the global economy that we
do not control.
We need to do a lot of things. This administration is proposing
something I hope the majority leader and others will support in the
area of domestic renewable energy. They are proposing significant new
initiatives in wind energy, which I think make a lot of sense. We have
new technology on wind-generation devices that is remarkable. If we put
some in this Chamber on the right days, we could electrify New York.
In my State, North Dakota, I grew up walking outdoors in the morning
with the wind and the breeze. If you take a map and evaluate what is
the Saudi Arabia of wind energy, it is North Dakota, and a lot of other
northern border States are right behind. Some will say, listening to me
speak, they would have known we ranked high on wind energy. But
seriously, we have an opportunity, with new technology, to capture wind
energy in many parts of this country and extend our energy supply.
The same is true with biomass. The same is true with geothermal, and
natural gas, which the majority leader suggested. Absolutely, we have
wonderful new discoveries in natural gas and deep well finds. We are
doing a lot of that.
We do need to pay attention to the development of oil and the
development of coal, which are important in this country. We also need
to get behind the proposals coming from the Department of Energy and
this President's budget that call for the development of renewable
energy resources and what is called green power--environmentally
friendly sources of power. I mentioned one: wind energy. We need to
fully fund these initiatives.
I hope no one comes to the floor later and says, ``We really care
about our energy supply,'' if before that time they voted against these
initiatives to extend our energy supply by investing in renewable
energy sources. We need to do that.
This, in many ways, is a wonderful discussion. What does the global
economy mean? Does it mean we don't have to worry about dependence on
anything? We are now discovering it means we have to worry about
dependence with respect to oil. What about steel? What about a range of
other economic activities without which a country such as ours will not
long remain a world economic power? This is a great discussion to have.
It is right on point and right on time.
Yes, it is about oil and gas, but it is about much more than that.
When we have this vote on cloture on the 4.3-cent gasoline tax repeal,
I hope it will be preceded by a rather lengthy discussion of a whole
range of these issues. I appreciate the majority leader raising them
today.
I don't intend to support cloture. As I said, there is kind of a
breathless quality of coming to the floor with a 4.3-cent gas tax
repeal that consumers will probably never see, even if we take the 4.3
cents off. I expect it is going into other pockets long before it gets
to the consumer. If it gets done, dye the dollars green and then look
around for green pockets someplace. You won't find green at the gas
pumps. You will find it somewhere upstream. Some bigger enterprise will
pocket that money.

____________________

MARRIAGE TAX PENALTY

Mr. DORGAN. There is no disagreement in the Senate about the marriage
tax penalty, that it ought not exist. We should change it. There are
several different proposals to change it. We ought to come together
with respect to one of those proposals.
I will describe one approach to address the marriage tax penalty. I
am going to be introducing a piece of legislation at some point in the
days ahead with my colleagues, Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, and
Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and perhaps others, that would
dramatically change the income tax system in this country. This
approach would eliminate for a large number of Americans the marriage
tax penalty. I have been working on this a couple of years and
appreciate the work of Senator Gregg and others.
Over 30 countries that have an income tax system allow people to
comply with their income tax without having to file a tax return. How
do they do it? They just manipulate their W-4 that is filed with the
employer to provide a little more information, and their actual
withholding becomes their exact tax liability--no questions. That is
your liability, no return filed, no searching for records, no long line
at the post office on April 15.
Our country can do that. Our country can do it in a way that will
allow 70 million Americans to comply with their income tax
responsibilities on April 15 without having to file an income tax
return. How do we do it? You

[[Page 5033]]

take the W-4 form when you sign in with your employer and you say: I
have four children. I own a home--check that box. Check about three or
four boxes. From that, you provide opportunities for the deduction for,
on average, a mortgage interest deduction, and a couple of other
things. A table is then provided by the Internal Revenue Service that
sets forth the exact amount of taxes that the employer will withhold
and send the IRS, and that is the end of the transaction. You are not
going to be hassled or forced to search for receipts; you are not going
to wait in a long line at the post office to get your income tax return
postmarked by April 15.
Now, in doing that, this plan will also eliminate the marriage tax
penalty. But the plan only applies to people making $50,000 a year or
less in wages, if they are single, or $100,000 a year or less, if they
are married filing jointly. If they have less than $2,500 in other
income such as interest, dividends or capital gains if they are single,
or $5,000 or less in such other income if they are married and filed
jointly, they are eligible to check the box that says, yes, I want to
use the Fair and Simple Shortcut Tax plan, the FASST plan, which means
I don't have to file a tax return. My withholding will be adjusted at
my place of work, and the withholding will be sent to the IRS and there
is no tax return.
Simple, yes. It is the only plan I know of that discusses simplicity.
Everybody who talks about simplifying the tax program, in most cases,
ends up proposing things that will make it horribly complicated. This
will simplify it--but not for everybody.
Some people have unusual income characteristics, with four different
jobs, and investments, and capital gains of $20,000 or $40,000 a year.
It won't work for them. For the majority of the American people whose
only income is their wage at work and they have a de minimis amount of
other income in capital gains or interest--$5,000 a year if they are
married and filing jointly--all that other income will be tax free. So
that is the incentive for savings and investment; that is the right
incentive. All of the wage income--after several major deductions--up
to $50,000 single and $100,000 married filing jointly--will be taxed at
the single lowest rate. This plan extends the bottom rate and provides
a de minimis amount of income tax free and you don't have to file a tax
return anymore.
That makes a lot of sense to me and a fellow named Bill Gale at the
Brookings Institution, who has done a lot of work on this issue of
return-free filing. We are going to introduce legislation, which has
been underway for a year and a half, I hope within the next week. As I
indicated, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire has agreed to cosponsor,
and Senator Durbin and, I hope, others, so we can begin discussing real
simplification for tens of millions of Americans who always do the
right thing. They always file a tax return, they always fill it out
correctly, and they believe as an American it is their responsibility
because we do things, as a country, to provide for a common defense, to
build roads and schools, and to provide for a whole series of things.
They understand their obligation to pay for the cost of a civilized
society, to pay for the cost of democracy. But they ought to be able to
do it in a way that is far simpler than the current system, and that is
what we intend to accomplish with this legislation.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Alaska is recognized.

____________________

THE FEDERAL FUELS TAX HOLIDAY OF THE YEAR 2000

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am very pleased today to join with
the majority leader, Senator Lott, Senator Craig, Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison, and a number of Senators on a very important piece of
legislation that is before this body, entitled ``The Federal Fuels Tax
Holiday of the Year 2000.''
This legislation is necessary because it will put a brake on the
ever-rising gasoline prices that American families face every day.
Unlike the airlines, the American family can't pass on the increased
price in gasoline. Recently, the truckers came to Washington to express
their concerns about the gas tax.
Energy and the cost of energy affects all of us in our lives in
varying ways. So the idea of putting the brake on the ever-increasing
gasoline prices that American families pay each day is very important.
It is my hope that we invoke cloture tomorrow to ensure that the
American motorist and workers get a break.
Our legislation provides a tax holiday for all Americans, from the
gas tax, that Democrats, with Vice President Gore casting the deciding
vote, adopted in 1993. That 30 percent gas tax hike was the centerpiece
of one of the largest tax increases in American history and we believe
with gas prices approaching $2 a gallon in some parts of the country,
the American motorist should not have to continue paying the Gore tax.
I don't know if all my colleagues on the other side would agree with
that nomenclature, but I think it is appropriate since the Vice
President broke the tie which added a 30-percent gas hike.
In addition to temporarily ending the Clinton/Gore gas tax, our
legislation guarantees that if the failed Clinton/Gore energy policies
result in the price of gasoline rising over $2 a gallon, all fuel taxes
will be lifted until the end of the year.
That means the American motorist will be relieved of the 18.4-cent-
per-gallon gas tax. The trucking industry will not have to pay the
24.4-cent-per-gallon diesel tax. Barge operators will be relieved of
the 4.4-cent-per-gallon inland waterway tax, and commercial and
noncommercial aircraft operators will be relieved of the aviation tax.
It is certainly my hope that average gasoline prices do not rise
above $2. But it is clear to me that $2 gasoline is well within the
probability of becoming a reality because despite the administration's
claims of victory about last week's OPEC meeting, Americans should not
expect much, if any, of a price decline at the gas pump. Why? Let's
look at it.
OPEC's decision to increase production by 1.7 million barrels per day
is not, in my opinion, even a hollow victory for the Administration's,
which lobbied for a minimum increase of 2.5 million barrels. The
reality is that there isn't a real 1.7-million-barrel increase by OPEC.
Why do I say that? Let's look at the arithmetic.
OPEC agreed last year to 23 million barrels as their quota of
production. They cheated by an additional 1.2 barrels, moving it up to
24.2. As a consequence, the difference between 1.2 and what they said
we got as an increase of 1.7 is only 500,000 barrels of real increase.
OPEC makes up 15.8 percent of American imports. As a result, we will be
lucky to see another 78,000 barrels of oil in our market.
Will 78,000 barrels make a dent in gasoline prices? Not likely.
Consider that motorists in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area use
more than 121,000 barrels of oil in a single day.
With no relief in sight for the American motorist, we believe that
the Gore fuel tax should be temporarily lifted. That would save
American motorists about 4.4 barrels over the next 8 months.
If gasoline goes above $2, our bill suspends all fuel taxes resulting
in a $19 billion saving to American motorists, truckers, barge
operators, and airlines at the same time that fuel prices are near an
all-time high. I believe the Government should suspend those taxes and
ease the financial burden OPEC has placed on the American motorist and
the industries that rely on fuel to move goods throughout this country.
I know some are concerned, if we suspend these taxes, that the
highway trust fund, which finances roads, bridges, and mass transit,
could be in danger. Again, I would like to put that fear to rest.
Our legislation ensures that the Highway Trust Fund will not lose a
single penny during this tax holiday.

[[Page 5034]]

We require that all monies that would have gone into the fund had the
taxes not been suspended be replaced by other Federal revenue. That
could come from the on-budget surplus, as I have indicated, or from
what I would like to see, which is a reduction of wasteful Federal
spending.
I can assure the American motorist that highway construction projects
this year and next year will be unaffected by the tax holiday that we
are proposing. And when the trust fund is fully restored, all projects
scheduled for beyond 2002 will be completed.
Some of the colleagues believe it is a mistake to establish a
precedent wherein general revenues are used to finance highway
construction. Ordinarily, I might agree with them, but not in this
case.
All of my colleagues should remember that when the Clinton/Gore 4.3-
cent gasoline tax was adopted in 1993, not a single penny of that tax
was dedicated to highway or bridge construction. All the money was
earmarked for Federal spending.
As I stated earlier, it was not until the Republicans adopted the
1997 highway bill that we shifted the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax back to
the highway trust fund.
Further, as I have indicated, Americans have paid $42 billion since
the Gore tax went into effect. Of that $42 billion, $28 billion was
spent not on highways but on general government and went into the
general fund.
Let me repeat that. Of the $42 billion Americans paid under the Gore
tax, $28 billion was spent not on highways but on general government.
I believe under these circumstances that it is perfectly reasonable
for general revenues to be used to repay the trust fund money that
should have been spent on highways.
The question before the Senate today is very simple. Do Senators want
to give American motorists a break at the gas pump when gas prices are
at near record highs?
I think it is important for everybody to understand that we are the
elected representatives of the people. What is their choice? Do the
people want to have relief from the gas tax? Is that their priority?
We have polling information that I will submit for the Record that
indicates overwhelming support for relief at the gas pump. I think the
polling clearly shows that the American public, when offered an
opportunity to reduce taxes, would much rather take it and run.
A Gallup Poll released last week found that although Americans think
high prices are only temporary, they believe several things should be
done to reduce taxes.
Eighty percent of the American people--I hope my colleagues and staff
are listening and will take notes--favor lowering gas taxes. Seventy-
four percent--nearly three out of every four Americans--think that a
temporary reduction of the gas tax is a worthy solution. That is three
out of four.
Think about that. Seventy-four percent of Americans think a temporary
reduction in the gas tax is a worthy solution.
Think about where we are and what the administration is telling us.
First of all, since I have been speaking about policies of the
administration and the position of our Vice President, I want to refer
to an article that appeared on October 23, 1999, in the State Times
Morning Advocate at Baton Rouge, LA. The Vice President says he would
be more antidrilling than other Presidents. More anti-drilling? Let me
read the quote.
``I will take the most sweeping steps in our history to protect our
oceans and coastal waters from offshore oil drilling,'' he said in a
press release. ``I will make sure that there will be no new oil leasing
off the Keys of California and Florida, and then I will go much
further. I will do everything in my power to make sure that there is no
new drilling off these sensitive areas, even in areas leased by
previous administrations.''
He would cancel contracts and leases out there that were made by
previous administrations.
(Mr. CRAIG assumed the Chair.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. He further states: Existing leases and what oil and
natural gas companies could do with them already are the objects of
long-running legal disputes.
He says he would cancel leases in areas already leased by previous
administrations.
These are existing leases; where is the sanctity of a contractual
commitment? I believe if Florida and California don't want OCS
activities off their coast, that is fine; that should prevail if that
is what people want. In Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and my
State of Alaska, where we produce roughly 22 percent of the total crude
oil produced in the United States, these States should go ahead because
they want this. They recognize the alternative is not very pleasant--
and that is to import more oil.
I leave Members with the very ambiguous reference this administration
has given, suggesting things will get better. There is a certain
psychology in reassuring citizens that the price will come down.
However, in reality, the consumption is up, production is down, we are
56-percent dependent on imports, and the forecast is we will be 65
percent in the year 2015 or thereabouts. These are hardly reassuring
notes, taken verbatim from this administration, to suggest things will
get better.
In conclusion, from the CBS ``Early Show'' on March 29, 2000, from
Secretary Richards, the Secretary was being questioned on his view of
whether we could likely see some relief. He states as follows: This
means for the American consumer, gasoline prices will gradually and
steadily decline, according to the Energy Information Administration
and my Department, by as much as 11 cents by the end of September or
the end of summer.
That is quite a while. What do we do in the meantime?
Then he says: The bottom line is, I am just quoting our investigators
and our official people who are saying 11 cents by the end of summer,
possibly 15, 16 cents by the end of the year.
That is an indefinite forecast, in my opinion.
I appeal to the Chair to recognize that we can't believe the
Secretary that the price is coming down. Every Member should support
this legislation because it will keep the pressure on the
administration to ensure it stays below $2 and this tax holiday won't
be a reality. It will give the American consumer a safety net. Think
about that.
The administration says: Don't worry, prices are on the decline. OK,
if prices are on the decline--which I don't believe they are in the
short term or the long term, but we will see who is right or wrong--we
go ahead and pass the elimination of the 18.4-cent-gallon Federal tax,
suspend it for the balance of the year, if the price goes to $2 a
gallon for regular. That is a balance that puts the administration on
notice to practice what they preach. If they preach the prices are
coming down, this will never happen anyway. We are giving the American
consumer a safety net. That safety net is real and it says if the price
goes up to $2 the 18.4 comes off. I think that is a fair balance.
I will show this chart one more time. I find it outrageous. Who do we
look to for imports? We look to Saddam Hussein and Iraq: Last year
300,000; now it is 700,000 barrels a day.
Where does the money go? It is going to Saddam Hussein. We fought a
war over there--remember--in 1991. We lost the lives of 147 U.S. men
and women. We fought a war to keep Saddam out of Kuwait. What did
Saddam do when he lost the war?
Talk about environmental degradation. This is a picture of Kuwait
with the oil fields on fire. We see the fires in the background. Here
is an American with the firefighters helping put that fire out. That is
the kind of guy we are dealing with to depend on imports. We had 23
soldiers taken prisoner over there. It has cost the American taxpayer
$10 billion since the war in 1991 to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in
enforcing the no-fly zones. Within the last week, we did two bombing
runs in Iraq because he was in violation of the no-fly zone, and we had
antiaircraft action.

[[Page 5035]]

Isn't it incredible? We talk about foreign policy or energy policy of
this administration, and we are feeding Saddam Hussein millions and
millions of dollars so he can take that cash-flow and pay his
Republican Guards who keep him alive. He doesn't funnel that into his
economic system for the benefit of his people. He is in cahoots with
the North Koreans, developing missile technology and our bombing
airplanes are carrying his fuel. How inconsistent, how ironic. Talk
about a full circle. We are importing 700,000 barrels a day, we are
bombing him, we are using his oil that we refine to fill up our
airplanes.
I may be reaching a little bit, but this is reality. We are importing
700,000 barrels a day.
It is my understanding this matter will come up tomorrow and we will
have a number of Senators active in the debate on the merits of the
basic presentation.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

ENERGY CRISIS

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for the last number of minutes I have
listened with great interest to the comments of my good friend from
Alaska describing the energy crisis in which our Nation now finds
itself. I use the word ``crisis'' with some reservation because my
guess is most Americans don't think we are in a crisis. They have good
jobs, they probably got raises this year, they feel their jobs are
secure, they have plenty of spendable income, and while they may be
paying 30 or 40 cents or even 50 cents a gallon more for gas this year
than last year, at least the gas is still there and the pump does not
say ``no fuel available,'' they don't sense a crisis.
I traveled home to my State of Idaho this weekend. I drove out to
Dulles Airport. I got on a Boeing 777 that burns tens of thousands of
gallons of fuel in the course of a day and I paid $70 or $80 more for
each one of my tickets because of the cost of jet fuel. As I traveled
across the country I found the airports full of Americans and foreign
travelers. Yet, no sense of urgency or crisis did they appear to feel.
When I got home to my home State of Idaho and began to travel across
the northern end of the State, I saw that spring is breaking out very
quickly in the marvelous wheat belt of northern Idaho that spreads into
Washington and Oregon over to Pendleton and Wala Wala. It is a highly
productive area that oftentimes yields 100 to 110 bushels of wheat per
acre annually without benefit of irrigation.
What was out on those rolling wheat fields this weekend? Large 4-
wheel-drive tractors, oftentimes pulling 40- and 50-foot spreads of
harrows and springtooths, beginning to till the soil, all of them with
a 250- or 400-horse diesel engine under the hood of that tractor,
burning hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel each day.
This year those farmers will be paying another 50 or 60 cents a
gallon for that fuel. Yet this is just the beginning of the growing
season in our Nation. We are now tilling and planting. We will spend
the summer cultivating and spraying to protect our crops from weeds and
insects. Then in the fall, huge combines will roll out on the fields,
once again driven by diesel fuel--a source of energy that has
historically been so abundant in our country and so relatively
inexpensive.
Today, a river conservation group announced that some rivers in our
country are endangered because they have been dammed. In the past
America has placed large dams across some rivers and put large turbines
in the dams to generate electricity. In a relatively cavalier way, this
group said that my river, my Snake River of Idaho, is the most
endangered. Why? Because of dams. They want the dams removed. Yet those
dams produce hundreds of thousands of kilowatts a year to light the
cities of Portland and Seattle, Boise and many other cities and towns.
And somehow, all in the name of the environment, they cavalierly
suggest we start taking down relatively modern structures that produce
large amounts of inexpensive electricity without burning fossil fuels.
The reason I draw these verbal pictures today is that no one senses a
crisis. This administration, for the last 8 years, has not proposed a
single policy initiative that would produce 1 gallon more domestic
crude oil for our Nation. In fact, the Clinton/Gore administration has
done quite the opposite. They, through punitive environmental policies,
have suggested continually that we close more and more federal land to
any further oil and gas exploration and production. They have even
proposed to take down some of the hydro dams I have talked about, once
again all in the name of the environment.
Now, the Clinton/Gore administration has an energy policy of sorts.
They have talked a lot about solar and biomass which is not a bad idea
as long as we don't kid ourselves into believing they will solve all of
our problems. They have also talked about developing more powerful wind
energy technology to produce more power--not a bad idea either.
But the myth of that kind of technology is that to replace the dams
on the lower Snake River with photovoltaic cells or windmills, the
entire State of Idaho would have to be covered with solar cells just to
offset the difference. My guess is there would be a Vice President who
would reject such an idea because the result would be unsightly. It
would destroy the vistas that are so beautiful in my State right now.
It would be uncomely to the American environmental eye. And I would
agree with him.
But I would not agree with this Vice President, when he stands and
says that he will not tolerate drilling offshore California, offshore
Florida, offshore our East coast, or in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. The Clinton/Gore administration has an energy policy of sorts
and the Vice President's desire to take down dams, prevent new oil and
gas exploration, and instead cover my State of Idaho, or Arizona, or
California, with solar cells and wind farms is its hallmark.
The reason I mention these frustrations I have, and I think some
Americans share, is that for a good long while now we have not had a
consistent energy policy for our country that is a combination of all
these things: Research for new technology, conservation so we use less
and gain more from it, while at the same time producing as much of our
own fossil fuel resources as possible.
In just a decade or so, we have increased our electrical generation
by some 200 percent by the use of coal, but we have reduced the sulfur
oxide emissions from coal during that same time by over 20 percent.
Through technology, we are using more fossil fuels more efficiently and
more cleanly and more of our electricity is generated with such fuels.
That is the way you do it. You do not take those kinds of sources off
line; you say those are the sources that can generate the abundance of
power that drives our industries and heats and cools our homes.
So let's be wiser and smarter with our technology than just saying to
a certain political interest, I am with you, we will just take that all
out of production and off line, because it does not fit somebody's
environmental agenda.
Among all the things the rivers conservation group said today, about
taking dams out on the Snake River, there is something they did not
say. They did not say the removal of those dams would destroy the barge
traffic on the Snake-Columbia River system. All of the grain and timber
and paper and coal that now travels the river in barges would have to
move in 18-wheel trucks over the highways of the Pacific Northwest.
Tens of thousands more trucks would have to be employed to haul the
freight and replace the slack water transportation system that would be
destroyed were the dams removed.
Is that an environmentally sound thing to do, to employ thousands and

[[Page 5036]]

thousands more trucks, burning hundreds of gallons of diesel fuel a
day? I think not. But, of course, that is not a headline. That does not
make the kind of press they thought they could make by their release
today, all in the name of the environment, all in the name of saving
fish.
We will probably debate, on this floor in the next decade, the
removal of dams, whether in my State or somewhere else, as it relates
to energy policy and protection of the environment and valuable fish. I
hope at that time the American people can be given all the facts. I
think, when given all the facts and when allowed to view all the
alternatives of technology and retrofitting dams, Americans will
understand that abundant, inexpensive hydro power energy, can be had
along with a clean environment and strong salmon runs.
They will also understand the extent to which farmers and ranchers
need abundant, relatively inexpensive supplies of energy to produce the
food and fiber our Nation needs. Those commodities were being planted
in the soils of north Idaho this weekend by the large 4-wheel-drive
diesel tractors pulling 50-foot spreads of equipment I talked about at
the beginning of my statement. They had to use energy to accomplish it.
I will also discuss legislation, with which we will deal in the near
future, to alleviate some of the concerns about energy policy in the
short term and the cost to the consumer while Congress struggles to
develop a long-term policy to increase energy production in our
country.
I do support legislation that will give us a temporary Federal tax
holiday from energy taxes of the kind thrust upon this country by the
Clinton-Gore administration several years ago when they argued it was
necessary to tax fuel consumption to reduce the deficit structure and
the debt structure of our country.
I did not support the tax then, and several years later I was one of
those who changed the tax from going into the general fund to reduce
the deficit to going into the trust funds of transportation, because up
until this President came to town, we had never taxed the American
people at the gas pump to fund the general fund expenditures of our
Government. We had taxed them only to put it in the transportation
trust funds that build the roads, bridges, and infrastructure all of us
expect and enjoy and the infrastructure on which our economy runs--
goods and services that traffic across America on a daily basis.
One way to give some short-term relief to the American consumer, as
these energy prices have gone up, is to reduce for a short term the
4.3-cent-a-gallon gas tax; take it off the pump; take it away from the
consumer and allow that tax to stay in the consumer's pocket. The
reason is, what does it mean with the current runup in fuel prices?
Matt Lauer said the other day on the ``Today'' show: The energy crisis
may be over in the short term. Meaning the Secretary had been to the
Middle East, he begged and cajoled the producers in the Middle East to
turn the valve on a little bit. Then as the spokesperson for energy
policy in this country, the Secretary announced to the American people
that gas prices were going to come down some maybe. The ``some maybe''
is that maybe they will come down a little bit, but they are still
going to be 40 to 50 cents a gallon higher than they were a year ago.
There is some belief in the marketplace, depending on whom you study
and whom you believe and who has the right information, that the supply
the OPEC nations promised may not be as large as promised and,
therefore, by late summer we could see an average of $2 prices across
this country.
We are going to have to wait and watch for that one. None of us know
what the price of gas will be in July or August, but it is going to be
a lot higher than it was a year ago. It will, in many ways, determine
how the American consumer utilizes his or her free time this year as
they think about a vacation, whether it is in the family car, the van,
or the SUV, or whether it is booking airline tickets to travel across
this country. In all instances, the cost of that leisure time Americans
so enjoy will be substantially more expensive than it was a year ago.
I am talking about leisure time. I am not talking about the weekly
commute, the daily commute. I am not talking about the goods and
services that traffic on America's trucks across our Nation on a daily
basis or the food we buy at the local supermarket, all having been
transported by trucks that are paying substantially more for fuel.
How much more are truckers now paying and how much will they have to
pass through to the consumer as these prices go up?
Diesel fuel costs exceeded $2.10 a gallon in the Northeast this
spring. That is a doubling of cost in about a year. The average
nationwide was about $1.50 a gallon. To the driver of an 18-wheeler
freight truck that traffics America's highways hauling our goods and
services, it will mean an additional $150 to $200 to fill his or her
tank on a daily basis or a 24-hour transportation period. If they are
to stay alive as a business, they have to pass that cost directly
through to the consumer: a little here on food prices; a little there
on the cost of a piece of carpet; a little somewhere else on any of the
goods and services that ultimately the American consumer buys.
Of course, that is the same cost the American farmer is experiencing
when he or she cannot pass it on, because they cannot set the price of
the commodity they will be selling this fall by an extra 10 cents or 15
cents a hundredweight to offset the cost of the diesel fuel and all of
the petrochemicals they will use this year in the production of
America's food sources.
To the consumer--that is you and me--who is commuting to work or
considering a family vacation, another 60, 70, or 80 cents a gallon
could well mean another $10.50 a tankful every time we pull into the
service station. Did they put that in the family budget in January? Did
they really plan to pay $300 or $400 more this year, including their
trips and all of their other expenses? I do not think so. I do not
think anyone considered that. Yet that is what one ought to have
considered if they have a true and honest budget.
That is why, when recently polled, the American people are beginning
to figure out that maybe a 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax reduction for the
short term is a good idea to offset at least some of these new costs in
energy. Eighty percent of them said the Congress of the United States
ought to reduce that tax, at least for the short term, to help
compensate for this runup in energy prices we have seen.
I am talking about short-term policy. It does not produce a gallon
more of domestic crude oil. It does not in any way provide the reliable
sources our country has grown to expect over time in a nation that has
experienced relatively inexpensive energy.
Many of our conservation and environmental friends are saying we
ought to be paying as much as Europe pays or as much as the rest of the
world pays. That is another $1, $2 a gallon, in some instances, and,
therefore, we would rely less upon our vehicles and change our
lifestyles. Some day we might have to do that, but all of those costs
would have to be spread across an economy, and the general cost of
living in this country will go up dramatically.
Mr. President, you and I, as consumers in this economy, will have to
make choices about how we spend our disposable income and how we spend
our income for goods and services. We will have to live a different
lifestyle than the one we currently have, if our attitude is only to
drive up the cost of energy instead of finding conservation sources and
alternative sources and maintaining at least a substantial level of
production of crude oil from our own domestic sources.
Last week, this Senate, by 1 vote, recognized the importance of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a potential producer of 16 billion
barrels of crude oil, production that will be done in a fragile area of
our country but can be done in an environmentally sound way based on
new technologies.
We listen to a Department of Energy that says energy dependence on
foreign sources will go up to 65 percent by the

[[Page 5037]]

year 2010 if we continue the same policy, so says Secretary of Energy
Bill Richardson. What he did not say is that to be 65-percent dependent
upon foreign sources will require an estimated 12,000 more huge oil
tanker dockings each year in the United States. Will that be done
safely? In most instances, it will. Will there be a risk with thousands
and thousands of more of these supertankers on our open oceans? Will
there be some kind of environmental problem? You bet there will. In
fact, that is the weak link in the whole process. We have a Vice
President who says no drilling offshore because of environmental
fragility, and yet by saying that, he is advocating thousands of more
supertankers on the open ocean.
Go back and look at the record over the last decade. We have not had
environmental problems with offshore drilling. But every so often, one
of these big tankers runs ashore and spills crude into very fragile
environmental areas.
So, Mr. Vice President, get honest with the American people. Look at
a total package of energy policy that produces onshore in safe
environmental ways, and that looks at some of the alternatives you are
proposing for wind and solar. I do not deny that any of those has
certain value.
I suggest that our energy basket, as a nation, be full of all kinds
of alternatives but at the same time recognize the base: the
conventional forms of energy that drives our agriculture, that drives
our industry, and that provides us with the kind of lifestyle Americans
expect, and ought to expect, from a free, powerful nation such as ours.
Let me close with these thoughts because we do not often talk about
national security. We talk about ourselves, our personal security, our
family's security, our food security. Those are the things I have been
talking about for the last 10 or 15 minutes. Those are the things that
come to our minds immediately when we think we have to spend more of
our income on them. Is the food going to be there? Can we live the
lifestyle we have had if energy reasonably available?
Here is what Commerce Secretary Daley recently reported to our
President. In all honesty, this report was on the President's desk, but
he wasn't saying anything about it until Senator Frank Murkowski, the
chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, stood up and said: Mr.
President, you have a report on your desk. You ought to talk about it a
little bit. You ought to tell the American people what your own
Commerce Secretary is telling you.
The President wrote to the Secretary that he concurred with the
Secretary's findings and that current policies should aid in dealing
with our dependence on imported oil. Secretary Daley said in his report
that ``. . . imports of crude oil threaten to impair the national
security of this country.''
What does the Secretary mean? He means we are not as stable as we
were, as strong as we were. We are dependent upon foreign sources for a
lot of our energy. We did not send Secretary Richardson to Houston to
talk to the oil producers of Texas or to Anchorage to talk to the oil
producers of Alaska. We sent him to the most unstable political area in
the world, the Middle East. We begged the sheiks, the producers:
Please, please, give us just a little oil. We fought a war for you. We
saved you. We saved your palaces. We saved your airplanes and your
lifestyles and your limousines. Oh, it cost us 140 American lives, but
we saved you. So would you please give us a little oil? Because you are
really cramping our lifestyle. What you are doing may damage our
economy and put hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work.
I do not think Mr. Richardson said it quite like that, but that is
what he, in essence, was saying. He was admitting that we are
vulnerable. That is why Secretary Daley told the President we are
becoming more dependent on foreign sources, our national security is at
risk.
What did the President say? He said: I accept your recommendation
that existing policies to enhance conservation and limit dependency on
foreign oil ought to be continued. But not one energy proposal has come
forth from this administration, except the current budget which has
large increases in solar cell and wind technology budgets and hardly
any increases for nuclear or hydro technology, hardly any increase in
clean coal technology research that could help the large, coal-fired,
electrical-energy-producing plants of our Nation.
The President was warned this year by the Secretary of Commerce. In
1995, the President was also warned by the Secretary of Commerce that
``. . . The Nation's growing reliance on imports of crude oil and
refined petroleum products threatens the Nation's security because they
increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply interruption.'' That was in
1995.
In late 1998, the OPEC nations were scratching their heads. They
weren't making any money with oil prices at $10-a-barrel. So, they
decided to reduce production and drive up prices.
They did just that. We saw crude oil prices, in less than a year, go
from $10 a barrel to $34 a barrel. That is why I am on the floor today.
That is why House Members and Senate Members have been talking about
energy policy in the last several months.
We have known it was coming. We have warned the administration for
years. Six months ago, our colleagues from the Northeast warned of a
runup in home heating fuel prices and what that would do to their
constituents. But has this administration done anything about it? No,
not anything of consequence.
The Vice President has been outspoken about no new offshore drilling.
He has been outspoken about needing higher taxes for fossil fuels so
we would become less reliant upon the internal combustion engine. But
nowhere has he suggested increased domestic oil and gas production.
We will debate this week, and I hope we will pass, a temporary
Federal tax holiday that will allow the American consumer just a little
relief in a time when our Nation's energy policy has failed the
American consume. At the same time Congress will look at both short-
term and long-term policy in an attempt to create more stability in
price and supply.
This is an important issue. We will hear a great deal more about it
in days to come if prices at the pump average $2 a gallon at the height
of the summer driving season.
When I began these comments, I talked about an energy crisis. The
scenario I tried to describe over the last several minutes is that
there is, in fact, a crisis going on in our country. It is relatively
quiet at the moment. But it is a crisis. We aren't producing enough oil
and gas. The White House has no will to build an effective energy
policy and will not tell the American people truth about its failures
in this regard. We need to find ways to increase oil and gas
production, to deal boldly with our neighbors in the Middle East on
matters of their physical security and our energy security. The
administration has not been very firm with our allies. We are there
providing security today, yet we have to beg for our energy.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

IN SUPPORT OF THE DECENNIAL CENSUS

Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, during last week's consideration of S.
Con. Res. 101, the congressional budget resolution, the Senate by voice
vote agreed to a modified amendment (amendment 3028) offered by the
Senator from New Hampshire (Senator Smith) that:

Assume(s) that no American will be prosecuted, fined or in
anyway harassed by the Federal government or its agents for
failure to respond to any census questions which refer to an
individual's race, national origin, living conditions,
personal habits or mental and/or physical condition, but that
all Americans are encouraged to send in their census forms.

There are serious consequences for state, local, and Federal
Government

[[Page 5038]]

when people are missed by the census. There are approximately 1,327
federal domestic assistance programs that use population information in
some way. The breadth of the programs affected that touch families and
businesses throughout the nation clearly spells out the need to ensure
that all Americans are counted. The questions asked by the census
represent a balance between the needs of our nation's communities and
the need to keep the time and effort required to complete the form to a
minimum. Federal and state funds for schools, employment services,
housing assistance, road construction, day care facilities, hospitals,
emergency services, programs for seniors, and much more are distributed
based on census figures.
The percentage of people undercounted in Hawaii--1.9 percent--was
higher than the national average, and the largest component of the
undercount by race was projected to be Asians and Pacific Islanders. I
was so concerned that Hawaii would once more have a higher than average
undercount that on March 14, 2000, I held a forum in Hawaii on the
Census 2000. At that forum, I urge Native Hawaiians and other Pacific
Islanders to take advantage of the 2000 Census as an opportunity to be
accurately represented in data and statistics that will impact our
lives for the next 10 years. During the forum, which was attended by
Congressman Eni Faleomavaega from American Samoa, Hawaii's Lieutenant
Governor Mazie Hirono, representatives from the Census Bureau, U.S.
Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Interior, and various Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander organizations, I strongly urged
everyone to answer their questionnaires.
The Senate agreed to the Smith amendment, as modified, on April 7,
2000. However, if there is no objection, I am submitting to the Record
a statement by Census Director Kenneth Prewitt, regarding the sense of
the Senate amendment, Number 3028 to the concurrent resolution, S. Con.
Res. 101:

The Census Bureau is required by law to collect a complete
response from every resident in America to both the census
short and long forms. Today's sense of the Senate amendment
would undermine the quality of information from both forms.
Census 2000 is not designed by law as a pick and choose
exercise. Serious degradation of census information will
negatively affect economic policy-making, public sector
expenditures and private sector investment for a decade.
The census procedures require enumerators in the non-
response follow up phase to make six attempts to collect
information. Congress would have to advise the Census Bureau
whether six attempts (or even a single attempt) would
constitute harassment.

Kenneth Prewitt,
Director, U.S. Census Bureau,
April 7, 2000.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

TRIBUTE TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION MONTH

Mr. GRAMS. Madam President, Galileo understood the importance
of mathematics when he said, ``Mathematics is the alphabet with which
God has created the universe.'' I proudly rise today in recognition of
Mathematics Education Month. Additionally, I take this opportunity to
applaud the tireless efforts of our nation's math teachers.
The importance of a strong mathematical education is indisputable.
Our math skills prove invaluable on a daily basis. Without them we
could not perform simple tasks such as buying groceries, following a
recipe, or balancing our checkbooks, much less plan for our retirement
or buy a home. Here in Congress, mathematical skills are essential to
comprehending the incredibly complex issues of Social Security reform,
taxes, and the federal budget process.
My home state of Minnesota boasts some of the best math educators in
the country, dedicated men and women who have inspired a lifetime of
learning in countless students. This has been proven time and again by
Minnesota's status as a national leader in ACT and SAT math scores.
Nevertheless, we should continue to make improvements and not be
satisfied with our success.
One organization in my state deserves special accolades for its
ongoing efforts to initiate those improvements. The Minnesota Council
of Teachers of Mathematics is dedicated to the constant betterment of
mathematical education at the elementary, secondary, and college
levels. The Council's advocacy results in an ongoing effort to raise
the bar for better education. I commend its members for their devotion
to creating an awareness and interest in mathematics among young
people.
As classrooms across America labor over long division, tangents and
derivatives this month, it is my hope that students, parents, and
teachers alike will reflect on the significance of mathematics in our
society and join me in celebrating Mathematics Education Month.

____________________

NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK

Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, this week from April 9-15 we
are celebrating the 42nd anniversary of ``National Library Week.'' As a
strong and vigorous supporter of Federal initiatives to strengthen and
protect libraries, I am pleased to take this opportunity to draw my
colleagues' attention to this important occasion and to take a few
moments to reflect on the significance of libraries to our nation.
When the free public library came into its own in this country in the
19th century, it was, from the beginning, a unique institution because
of its commitment to the same principle of free and open exchange of
ideas as the Constitution itself. Libraries have always been an
integral part of all that our country embodies: freedom of information,
an educated citizenry, and an open and enlightened society. They are
the only public agencies in which the services rendered are intended
for, and available to, every segment of our society.
It has been my longstanding view that libraries play an indispensable
role in our communities. From modest beginnings in the mid-19th
century, today's libraries provide well-stocked reference centers and
wide-ranging loan services based on a system of branches, often further
supplemented by travelling libraries serving outlying districts.
Libraries promote the reading of books among adults, adolescents, and
children and provide the access and resources to allow citizens to
obtain reliable information on a vast array of topics.
Libraries gain even further significance in this age of rapid
technological advancement where they are called upon to provide not
only books and periodicals, but many other valuable resources as well.
In today's society, libraries provide audio-visual materials, computer
services, internet access terminals, facilities for community lectures
and performances, tapes, records, videocassettes, and works of art for
exhibit and loan to the public. In addition, special facilities
libraries provide services for older Americans, people with
disabilities, and hospitalized citizens.
Of course, libraries are not merely passive repositories of
materials. They are engines of learning--the place where a spark is
often struck for disadvantaged citizens who for whatever reason have
not had exposure to the vast stores of knowledge available. I have the
greatest respect for those individuals who are members of the library
community and work so hard to ensure that our citizens and communities
continue to enjoy the tremendous rewards available through our library
system.
As we celebrate National Library Week, it should be noted that the
Library of Congress will be 200 years old on April 24, 2000. The
Library of Congress represents the oldest federal cultural institution
in America. As we approach this birthday celebration, we

[[Page 5039]]

should recognize that all libraries represent the cornerstone of
knowledge in our local communities.
My own State of Maryland has 24 public library systems providing a
full range of library services to all Maryland citizens and a long
tradition of open and unrestricted sharing of resources. This policy
has been enhanced by the State Library Network which provides
interlibrary loans to the State's public, academic, special libraries
and school library media centers. The Network receives strong support
from the State Library Resource Center at the Enoch Pratt Free Library,
the Regional Library Resource Centers in Western, Southern, and Eastern
Shore counties, and a Statewide database of holdings totalling 178
libraries.
The State Library Resource Center alone gives Marylanders free access
to approximately 2 million books and bound magazines, over 1 million
U.S. Government documents, 600,000 documents in microform, 11,000
periodicals, 90,000 maps, 20,000 Maryland State documents, and over
19,000 videos and films.
The result of this unique joint State-County resource sharing is an
extraordinary level of library services available to the citizens of
Maryland. Marylanders have responded to this outstanding service by
borrowing more public library materials per person than citizens of
almost any other State, with 67 percent of the State's population
registered as library patrons.
I have had a close working relationship with members of the Maryland
Library Association and others involved in the library community
throughout the State, and I am very pleased to join with them and
citizens throughout the nation in this week's celebration of ``National
Library Week.'' I look forward to a continued close association with
those who enable libraries to provide the unique and vital services
available to all Americans.

____________________

MR. DONALD T. STORCK HONORED AS LUTHERAN LAYMAN OF THE YEAR 2000

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to recognize Mr.
Donald T. Storck, who on Tuesday, April 11, 2000, will be honored by
the Lutheran Luncheon Club of Metropolitan Detroit as its Lutheran
Layman of the Year 2000. This is the 46th year the Luncheon Club has
named a Layman of the Year, and I cannot imagine that any have been
more deserving than Mr. Storck. For over thirty-five years, he has
displayed a dedication to both his community and his church that are
representative of an incredible desire to help others.
Mr. Storck was born in raised in Saint Louis, Missouri. He began
working for General Motors in their St. Louis Chevrolet Plant in 1957.
In 1964, after graduating from Washington University, he was
transferred to the G.M. Building in Detroit, where he worked as an
engineer. He and his wife, Ethel Steinmann, settled down in Royal Oak,
Michigan, and they have lived there, and been members of the St. Paul
Lutheran Church, ever since.
In his thirty-six years in Royal Oak, Mr. Storck has contributed to
the community in many ways. Before recycling had become popular, he was
part of a paper drive activity that raised over $60,000 for building
projects. He has been very active in supporting the Boy Scouts of
America, involving himself in a program at the G.M. Willow Run
Transmission Plant. He sits on the Board of Directors of the Royal Oak
Penguins, a youth swimming club. As a volunteer for Focus: HOPE, he has
spent one Saturday per month delivering food to elderly and shut-in
individuals. He has worked on many Habitat for Humanity projects, is a
teacher of an after-school elementary woodworking class for 1st and 2nd
grade youth at the Huntington Woods Community Center, and a regular
donor of blood and blood platelets.
His devotion to the religious community has been equally impressive.
He currently serves on the Board of Elders and the Board of Trustees of
St. Paul Lutheran Church, and sings in the Men's Chorus and Chancel
Choir. This is in addition to serving as chief chef of the men's
breakfast, a tradition which he founded. He is the current president of
the Lutheran Choralaires, a popular male chorus which performs
regularly throughout the metropolitan Detroit area. He has been a
member of the Lutheran Laymen's League Retreat Committee, and
volunteers time at the group's annual retreat. He has also been very
active in the Lutheran Luncheon Club, serving as its president in 1984-
85, its secretary from 1986-1995, and has sat on the Board of Directors
for the last five years.
Recently, he has donated much of his time to helping Grace Lutheran
Church in Durham, North Carolina. This ministry provides for the
transport of children to and from Belaruse and places these children
with host families while they receive needed surgical and medical care
at the Duke University Hospital. Mr. Storck discovered the ministry
when he was at the Duke University Hospital visiting his youngest
grandchild, Mollie, who died at the age of two after a battle with
leukemia. At a time when Mr. Storck's faith was put to the test, it
never wavered; he remained committed to the church and to helping
others in the name of God.
Madam President, I applaud Mr. Storck on his many contributions to
both his church and his community. He is truly a role model, and I
applaud the Lutheran Luncheon Club for taking the opportunity to
recognize him as such. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I
congratulate Mr. Donald R. Storck on being named the 46th Lutheran
Layman of the Year.

____________________

THE NEED TO SUPPORT THE U.S.T.T.I.

Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I rise today to call attention to
a recent New York Times article, ``India's Unwired Villages Mired in
the Distant Past.'' It is because of the struggles developing nations
face, as illustrated in the article, that I support the United States
Telecommunications Training Institute (USTTI) and their work to
increase access to telecommunications.
The USTTI is a nonprofit joint venture connecting the public and
private sectors, providing tuition-free communications and broadcast
training to professionals from around the world. USTTI is geared toward
meeting the common training needs of the women and men who are bringing
modern communications to the developing world.
The development of the telecommunications industry may be seen as a
solution to economic troubles in developing nations. The New York Times
article I referred to earlier states, ``. . . the wonders of
telecommunications technology--distance learning, telemedicine, the
Internet--offer a way out of the `old India','' where illiteracy,
disease, and poverty punctuate the countryside. This scenario is not
isolated to India, but may be applied to many developing nations
throughout the world. In each instance, a big part of the solution is
the deployment of modern telecommunications technology.
The USTTI has been working to bring modern telecommunication services
to the developing world for 18 years. The USTTI has offered 935
tuition-free courses and has graduated 5,574 men and women who are now
helping to make modern telecommunications a reality in their 161
respective countries. The program participants are government officials
responsible for developing and implementing telecommunications policies
in their countries.
By allowing developing countries to capitalize fully on the increased
educational opportunities provided through the USTTI, countries prosper
economically and connect themselves to the modern world.
Madam President, I ask that the full text of the New York Times
article be printed in the Record.
The article follows:

[From the New York Times, Mar. 19, 2000]

India's Unwired Villages Mired in the Distant Past

(By Celia W. Dugger)

Hyderabad, India, March 15.--Cyber Towers rises from the
campus of a software technology park here, a sleek Internet-
connected symbol of the new India that is feverishly

[[Page 5040]]

courting foreign investment, selling its wares in the global
marketplace and creating wealth at an astonishing rate.
But less than 50 miles away, in the poverty-stricken
village of Sheri Ram Reddy Guda, the old India is alive and
unwell. Illiteracy, sickness and hunger are the villagers'
constant companions. Women and children work in the fields
for less than 50 cents a day. The sole telephone--an antique
contraption of batteries and antennae--almost never works.
Like most of the villagers, Muhammad Hussain, an unlettered
field hand in a ragged loin cloth, has never seen a computer,
but offered that he did once watch an office worker at a
typewriter. ``I saw the fingers moving, but I did not know
what was being written,'' he said.
The chasm between India's educated elite and its
impoverished multitudes worries economists, politicians and
some software entrepreneurs.
Because of the extraordinary success of Indian engineers in
Silicon Valley and the Indian software industry's sales to
American companies, India and the United States have forged
strong economic ties in high technology. President Clinton
will acknowledge those links next Friday with a visit to
Hitec City, where Microsoft, Oracle and Metamor are ensconced
in the air conditioned comfort of Cyber Towers.
But during his five-day whirlwind tour of five Indian
cities, the president will spend little time in the villages,
where almost three-quarters of this country's billion people
still live and struggle for the basic necessities.
At a time when India's software industry is creating a
glamorous digerati and driving a dizzying escalation in stock
values on the Bombay exchange, the boom has stirred a debate
about the country's social and economic priorities, as well
as the potential of high technology to transform the lives of
the poor.
Some, like Chandrababu Naidu, the chief minister of the
southern state of Andhra Pradesh, whose capital is this
bustling city, have an almost messianic faith in technology.
Though fewer than one-half of 1 percent of Indian households
now have Internet access compared with more than a third in
America, the optimists believe that technology is coming that
will make connecting to the New cheap enough for a broader
spectrum of Indians to afford.
``If a television in a school is connected to the Internet,
you can hold literacy classes in the evenings,'' said Randeep
Sudan, who oversees information technology for Mr. Naidu.
``You can deliver the best of content to the worst of
schools. Imagine the potential to revolutionize the
educational process.''
But others worry that the boom may be distracting the
country from its chronic problems and fear that the last
decade's more rapid economic growth--spawned by India's
loosening of restrictions on trade and investment--is leaving
the poor, and the poorer states, further behind, even as the
size of India's middle class has doubled.
This is still a country where half the women and a quarter
of the men cannot read or write; where more than half the
children 4 and under are stunted by malnutrition; where one-
third of the population, or more than 300 million people,
live in absolute poverty, unable to afford enough to eat;
where more than 30 million children 6 to 10 are not in
school.
K.R. Narayanan, India's first president from an untouchable
caste, sounded this alarm in a recent speech.
``We have one of the world's largest reservoirs of
technical personnel, but also the world's largest number of
illiterates,'' he said, ``the world's largest middle class,
but also the largest number of people below the poverty line,
and the largest number of children suffering from
malnutrition. Our giant factories rise from out of squalor.
Our satellites shoot up from the midst of hovels of the
poor.''
Even those who believe that the importance of the $5
billion software industry is overblown acknowledge its
contributions. It has generated 280,000 jobs for the educated
and highly skilled. Those workers, in turn, are creating
demand for housing, refrigerators and other goods that help
the economy grow.
And there is potential for greater growth. A study by
McKinsey & Company, the management consulting firm, forecasts
that India's software industry could earn $87 billion and
employ 2.2 million people before the decade is done.
The success of the industry has also stirred optimism about
India's ability to compete in a global economy. It has
offered capitalist, free market models in a country where
government still plays a central role and has hastened the
tendency of the country's best and brightest young people to
choose careers in business rather than the civil service.
``Every country needs a major success story to lift the
psyche and to be seen as a powerhouse in something,'' said
Krishna G. Palepu, a Harvard Business School professor who is
bullish on the industry. ``This is India's chance. Suddenly,
there's a sense of self-confidence and visibility
internationally.''
But there are also limitations on what high technology can
do to increase the productivity of the entire Indian economy,
at least for now. The industry itself still generates only
about 1 percent of India's gross domestic product and about 1
percent of worldwide software exports.
The country desperately needs to attend to the
fundamentals, most economists say, and some state leaders
like Mr. Naidu concur. It must invest more in primary
education and health care, build a working system of roads
and power grids, reduce subsidies for power and fertilizer
that go mostly to the better-off and generate higher rates of
growth in agriculture and industry, which employ 8 in 10
Indians.
India has lagged behind China, for instance, in educating
its children and increasing its exports of textiles, shoes
and toys--industries that employ huge numbers of less
educated workers in China. By law, India has required those
industries to remain small, typically employing fewer than
100 people per workplace--putting them at a tremendous
disadvantage with China, where such factories employ
thousands.
In the garment trade, India and China started out in 1980
with about the same level of exports, but by 1996, India was
selling $4.6 billion of its goods abroad, compared with
China's $25 billion.
The Indian government is in dire need of revenues to tackle
its daunting ills, but so far the software industry is
contributing relatively little to the country's public
coffers.
Income from software exports is generally exempted from the
38.5 percent corporate income tax. And unlike companies in
other industries, high technology companies do not have to
pay the 40 percent to 60 percent customs duties on computers
and other technology items they import to operate their
businesses.
``The software industry is making gobs and gobs of
profits,'' said Anil Garg, an Indian and a Silicon Valley
entrepreneur who is setting up an office for Aristasoft, the
new company he helped found, in Cyber Towers. ``And yet there
is this huge debate about whether it should pay taxes. I
don't understand. Having taxes is a good problem. The roads
here are broken, for God's sake. The schools are so bad. We
have been the privileged class for so long. It's time for us
to pay back.''
The software technology park of Hitec City and the village
of Sheri Ram Reddy Guda are separated by only a short
distance, yet seem to come from different centuries, and to
stand at opposite poles, emblems of the new and the old
India.
Hitec City is a temple to modernity, with a soaring atrium,
gargling fountains, an on-site A.T.M., basement car parking
and Internet connections for all. The government has created
an island where everything works. There are three separate
power systems, ensuring that the lights will never go out.
And the businesses do not need decent roads; they can deliver
their products via satellite links or fiber-optic cables.
Sheri Ram Reddy Guda, population 400, seems ancient by
comparison. No one here owns a car or even a scooter. The ox
cart is still the primary means of transportation and word of
mouth the main grapevine. There is no health clinic, no cable
television. Raggedy children who should be in school play in
the dirt with toys made from twisted wire.
The village is connected to the main blacktop highway by a
narrow, mile-and-a-half-long dirt road, deeply gouged with
ruts, that is nearly impassable in the rainy season.
Most of the villages are from the formerly untouchable
castes now known as Dalits, and they are grateful to Mr.
Naidu's government for building 23 houses for them. But they
say they desperately need a better road, reliable electricity
and jobs.
The village gets only about eight hours of power a day, and
that is often of such low voltage that it does not operate
the irrigation pumps. When rain is scare, as it is now, the
fields lie parched and work is scarce.
``Chandrababu has not given us the current,'' said an old
man, Baswapuram Yelleah, referring to the chief minister and
waving his handmade hatchet as he gestured angrily with his
hands. ``Our eyes are filled with tears when we see our
fields.''
Yarrea Balamani is a widowed mother of five children, 7 to
18. She and her older children do farm work but lately there
have been no more than 10 days of work in a month. ``If there
was some industry around, we could get work every day,'' she
said. ``That would be better for us. It's a very difficult
life we are living.''

____________________

SANDIA LABORATORY INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL CONFERENCE

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this week marks the tenth
anniversary of the International Arms Control Conference hosted by
Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I extend my
congratulations to Dr. Paul Robinson, Director of Sandia Laboratory for
his support for this unique international conference that draws
hundreds of technical and policy experts from all over the world each
year.

[[Page 5041]]

It is particularly important at this time in history to recognize
this Conference here in the Senate. The conclusion of the Cold War has
offered the United States and the nations of the world an historic
opportunity to increase security in the international system through
seeking cooperative measures that would establish international
standards of behavior useful for improving global security. When the
Senate voted to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997, I am
pleased to say, this nation acted in a committed and positive way to
capitalize on the opportunity we have been afforded.
Events in the past two years, however, have brought America to a
crossroads with respect to the future of arms control. The Senate
recently voted to reject the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty
signed by 155 countries, that would have established an international
standard permanently banning the testing of nuclear weapons in order to
combat the spread of nuclear weapons. I deeply regret that vote by the
Senate, Mr. President, and am committed to find a way to achieve the
goal for which that treaty was negotiated.
Meanwhile, the Russian Duma continues its on again off again
consideration of the START II Treaty to reduce the number of strategic
weapons in our respective arsenals of nuclear weapons. To date, they
have taken no action. Each time a vote in the Duma approaches, an event
occurs that postpones its consideration of this important treaty that
would reduce the nuclear threat between Russia and the United States
and, indeed, to the world as a whole.
Many Russian officials have observed that no further progress in
reducing nuclear arsenals is possible if the United States chooses to
abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which restricts the
ability of the United States and Russia to deploy national missile
defense systems. Many experts and public officials in the U.S.,
however, have concluded that the missile threat from rogue governments
is sufficiently real that the U.S. should move forward on deploying a
missile defense regardless of its impact on strategic relations between
Russia and the United States. The President, however, in signing the
National Missile Defense Act, indicated that before deciding to deploy
a national missile defense system, he would assess the potential impact
of such a decision on arms control regimes that support our national
security. The nation awaits a decision that could occur this summer.
While this critical decision lies ahead, U.S. negotiators have been
meeting with their Russian counterparts to explore a potential
agreement that could permit the U.S. to modify the ABM Treaty in a way
that would not threaten the strategic balance between the two
countries. The outcome of those negotiations is far from certain. The
issues that are involved are complex, and extend beyond the dyadic
relations between the United States and Russia. Other nuclear powers,
notably China, are watching those negotiations very closely to
determine appropriate policy directions regarding their own nuclear
strategy and arsenal.
As the U.S. and Russia examine the thorny, complex issues involving
the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic arms, and
nations of the world consider the Senate's vote against the CTBT, the
world nevertheless remains committed to preventing the proliferation of
nuclear weapons through the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT). That Treaty, ratified by 187 countries, recently
celebrated its 30th anniversary. In 1995, the states parties to that
treaty voted to extend its provisions indefinitely. Later this month,
the Sixth Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference will take place in
New York. Given the events in South Asia during the past year, and the
vote on CTBT in the Senate this winter, the Review Conference will be a
very important convocation at which all states parties, including the
U.S., will be called on to reaffirm their commitment to the provisions
of the NPT.
Given these current conditions in the international environment, it
is indeed timely and vital that efforts such as the International Arms
Control Conference hosted by Sandia Laboratory take place. The meetings
and dialogues that occur at this Conference have provided important
understanding among the international community on major arms control
issues and I am confident will continue to do so as long as the world
seeks to improve security through cooperation.
I salute Sandia, and in particular, Dr. Jim Brown, who founded the
Conference ten years ago and has faithfully served as its organizer and
driving force during the past decade. If the nations of the world will
be able to build upon cooperative understandings reached through arms
control agreements, it will be because of the efforts of people such as
Dr. Brown, who has devoted a career toward that goal. I extend my best
wishes to conference participants and urge them to work hard to build a
safer tomorrow for all of us.

____________________

ALLAN LAW

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise to talk about a truly
extraordinary Minnesotan.
Allan Law has been doing extraordinary work in Minnesota for a very
long time. For more than 30 years he was a public school teacher--which
merits mention in its own right.
But his work did not stop at the end of the school day. He also is
the founder of Minneapolis Recreation Development, Inc., a non-profit
organization, which has been providing constructive recreational
activities for our urban youth. This after-school and weekend program
was developed more than 30 years ago and has been reaching yearly, on
average, 400 of our hardest to reach young people.
During that period, Allan has spent untold hours meeting the needs of
our inner-city youth. Day-in, day-out Allan Law wakes up and works to
make the Twin Cities a better place and the young people living there
stronger and healthier. He provides us with a model of what an
individual, committed to improving a community, can do.
Allan is an inspiration who has been inspiring people for more than a
generation. It is my hope and prayer that he will continue his good
work for another 30 years.
I rise, as schools begin adjourning for the year, to pay tribute to
Allan and his incredible work in making Minneapolis a better place--one
young person at a time.

____________________

NORTH EAST WISCONSIN FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL

Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise to recognize the
contribution of the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council, which
provides fair housing enforcement services in the Fox Valley in
Northeastern Wisconsin. I applaud the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing
Council's fight to end housing discrimination. It is not only wrong,
intolerable and unjust, it's illegal. While we would like to think that
housing discrimination is a thing of the past, it still happens. And
while we would like to think that in this day and age, equal housing
opportunities are available to everyone, too many people are still shut
out of the right to live in a home of their choosing. The more
frequently citizens are reminded of their rights, the more likely they
are to seek justice.
The North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council's greatest
accomplishment has been an ongoing enforcement program. As of March 1,
there have been 906 fair housing complaints filed with the North East
Wisconsin Fair Housing Council. Every year since 1992 there has been a
major pattern and practice study conducted by the North East Wisconsin
Fair Housing Council. Through national competition, the North East
Wisconsin Fair Housing Council has been the primary contractor on three
Fair Housing Initiative Program grants.
The North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council has been at the
forefront of innovative ways to combat illegal housing discrimination.
In 1997 the North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council received a Fair
Housing Initiative Program Grant which provided the

[[Page 5042]]

financial resources to increase attention to complaints from four
targeted populations: Hmong, Native Americans, Hispanics and persons
with disabilities. The North East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council
developed an Enforcement Network Program with eight advocacy agencies
representing those groups. The goals were to develop better
communication with the agencies so they would understand how fair
housing issues impacted their agencies and clients. Relationships with
the agencies were enhanced and more efficient services were provided to
the clients.
Fair Housing is a right for all Americans, and I commend the North
East Wisconsin Fair Housing Council for their efforts.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment:
H.R. 3090. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act to restore certain lands to the Elim Native
Corporation, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 106-258).
By Mr. THOMPSON, from the Committee on Governmental
Affairs, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 1993. A bill to reform Government information security
by strengthening information security practices throughout
the Federal Government (Rept. No. 106-259).

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 183

At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 183, a bill to amend title 10,
United States Code, to authorize certain disabled former prisoners-of-
war to use Department of Defense commissary and exchange stores.

S. 664

At the request of Mr. Breaux, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 664, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a credit against income tax to
individuals who rehabilitate historic homes or who are the first
purchasers of rehabilitated historic homes for use as a principal
residence.

S. 708

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 708, a bill to
improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation's
abuse and neglect courts and the quality and availability of training
for judges, attorneys, and volunteers working in such courts, and for
other purposes consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997.

S. 821

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 821, a bill
to provide for the collection of data on traffic stops.

S. 1487

At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1487, a bill to provide for
excellence in economic education, and for other purposes.

S. 2018

At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2018, a bill
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the update
factor used in making payments to PPS hospitals under the Medicare
Program.

S. 2021

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2021, a bill to prohibit
high school and college sports gambling in all States including States
where such gambling was permitted prior to 1991.

S. 2181

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Moynihan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2181, a bill to amend the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to provide full funding for the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and to provide dedicated funding for
other conservation programs, including coastal stewardship, wildlife
habitat protection, State and local park and open space preservation,
historic preservation, forestry conservation programs, and youth
conservation corps; and for other purposes.

S. 2255

At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Abraham) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2255, a bill to amend the
Internet Tax Freedom Act to extend the moratorium through calendar year
2006.

S. 2271

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2271, a bill to
amend the Social Security Act to improve the quality and availability
of training for judges, attorneys, and volunteers working in the
Nation's abuse and neglect courts, and for other purposes consistent
with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

S. 2272

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2272, a bill to
improve the administrative efficiency and effectiveness of the Nation's
abuse and neglect courts and for other purposes consistent with the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

S. 2299

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2299, a bill
to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to continue State
Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) allotments for fiscal
year 2001 at the levels for fiscal year 2000.

S. 2308

At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2308, a bill to
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to assure preservation of
safety net hospitals through maintenance of the Medicaid
disproportionate share hospital program.

S. 2323

At the request of Mr. McConnell, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Gramm), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2323, a bill to amend the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 to clarify the treatment of stock options under
the Act.

S. 2365

At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2365, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate the 15 percent reduction
in payment rates under the prospective payment system for home health
services.

S. CON. RES. 98

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 98, a
concurrent resolution urging compliance with the Hague Convention on
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

AMENDMENT NO. 3018

At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3018 proposed to
S. Con. Res. 101, an original concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal years
2001 through 2005 and revising the budgetary levels for fiscal year
2000.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

LEGISLATION INSTITUTING A FEDERAL FUELS TAX HOLIDAY

______

GRAHAM AMENDMENT NO. 3083

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. GRAHAM submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill (S. 2285) instituting a Federal fuels tax holiday; as follows:

[[Page 5043]]

At the end add the following:

SEC. __. DELAY IN EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The social security program is the foundation upon
which millions of Americans rely for income during retirement
or in the event of disability.
(2) For nearly two-thirds of seniors living alone, social
security comprises 50 percent or more of their total income.
(3) The medicare program provides essential medical care
for tens of millions of older and disabled Americans.
(4) During the 35-year history of the program, medicare has
helped lift elderly Americans out of poverty and has improved
and extended their lives.
(5) According to the 2000 annual report of the Board of
Trustees of the social security trust funds--
(A) beginning in 2016, payroll tax revenue will fall short
of the amount needed to pay current benefits, necessitating
the use of interest earned on trust fund assets and then the
eventual redemption of those assets; and
(B) assets of the combined retirement and disability trust
funds will be exhausted in 2037.
(6) According to the 2000 annual report of the Board of
Trustees of the social security trust funds, assets in the
medicare health insurance trust fund will be exhausted in
2023.
(7) The Congressional Budget Office has prepared 3
estimates of the non-social security surplus for the next 10
years which range in size from $838,000,000,000 to
$1,918,000,000,000.
(8) The presence of non-social security surpluses present
Congress with the opportunity to address the long-term
funding shortfall facing the social security and medicare
programs.
(b) Delay in Effective Date.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of, or amendment made by, this Act, no such
provision or amendment shall take effect until legislation
has been enacted that extends the solvency of the Federal
Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund under section 201 of the
Social Security Act through 2075 and the Federal Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund under part A of title XVIII of such Act
through 2025.
______

LOTT AMENDMENTS NOS. 3084-3085

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. LOTT submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 2285, supra; as follows:

Amendment No. 3084

Strike all after the first word and insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Fuels Tax Holiday
Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN FUEL TAXES ON GASOLINE, DIESEL
FUEL, KEROSENE, AVIATION FUEL, AND SPECIAL
FUELS, BY 4.3 CENTS, OR TO ZERO.

(a) Temporary Reduction in Fuel Taxes.--During the
applicable period, each rate of tax referred to in subsection
(b)--
(1) shall be reduced by 4.3 cents per gallon, and
(2) if at any time during the applicable period the
national average price of unleaded regular gasoline is at
least $2.00 per gallon (as determined on a weekly basis by
the Secretary of Energy), shall be suspended beginning on the
date which is 7 days after the announcement described in
subsection (d) and for the remainder of the applicable
period, subject to subsection (e).
(b) Rates of Tax.--The rates of tax referred to in this
subsection are the rates of tax otherwise applicable under--
(1) paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 4041(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special fuels),
(2) subsection (m) of section 4041 of such Code (relating
to certain alcohol fuels),
(3)(A) in the case of the reduction under subsection
(a)(1), subparagraph (C) of section 4042(b)(1) of such Code
(relating to tax on fuel used in commercial transportation on
inland waterways), and
(B) in the case of the suspension under subsection (a)(2),
subparagraphs (A) and (C) of such section 4042(b)(1),
(4) clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 4081(a)(2)(A)
of such Code (relating to gasoline, diesel fuel, and
kerosene),
(5) paragraph (1) of section 4091(b) of such Code (relating
to aviation fuel), and
(6) paragraph (2) of section 4092(b) of such Code (relating
to fuel used in commercial aviation).
(c) Special Reduction Rules.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) shall be
applied by substituting for ``4.3 cents''--
(A) ``3.2 cents'' in the case of fuel described in section
4041(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to liquefied petroleum),
(B) ``2.8 cents'' in the case of fuel described in section
4041(a)(2)(B)(iii) of such Code (relating to liquefied
natural gas),
(C) ``48.54 cents'' in the case of fuel described in
section 4041(a)(3)(A) of such Code (relating to compressed
natural gas), and
(D) ``2.15 cents'' in the case of fuel described in section
4041(m)(1)(A)(ii)(I) of such Code (relating to certain
alcohol fuel).
(2) Conforming rules.--
(A) In the case of a reduction under subsection (a)(1)--
(i) section 4081(c) of such Code shall be applied without
regard to paragraph (6) thereof,
(ii) section 4091(c) of such Code shall be applied without
regard to paragraph (4) thereof,
(iii) section 6421(f)(2) of such Code shall be applied by
disregarding ``and, in the case'' and all that follows,
(iv) section 6421(f)(3) of such Code shall be applied
without regard to subparagraph (B) thereof,
(v) section 6427(l)(3) of such Code shall be applied
without regard to subparagraph (B) thereof, and
(vi) section 6427(l)(4) of such Code shall be applied
without regard to subparagraph (B) thereof.
(B) In the case of a suspension under subsection (a)(2)--
(i) section 40(e)(1) of such Code shall be applied without
regard to subparagraph (B) thereof,
(ii) section 4041(d)(1) of such Code shall be applied by
disregarding ``if tax is imposed by subsection (a)(1) or (2)
on such sale or use'', and
(iii) section 6427(b) of such Code shall be applied without
regard to paragraph (2) thereof.
(d) Announcement by Secretary of the Treasury.--Within 2
days of the determination by the Secretary of Energy
described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of the Treasury
shall announce the suspension described in such subsection or
the modification described in subsection (e).
(e) Protecting Social Security Trust Funds.--If upon the
determination described in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary
of the Treasury, after consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, and based on the most recent
available estimate of the Federal on-budget surplus for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001, determines that the suspension
described in subsection (a)(2) when added to the reduction
described in subsection (a)(1) would result in an aggregate
reduction in revenues to the Treasury exceeding such surplus
during the remainder of the applicable period, the Secretary
shall modify such suspension such that each rate of tax
referred to in subsection (b) is reduced in a pro rata manner
and such aggregate reduction does not exceed such surplus.
(f) Maintenance of Trust Funds Deposits.--On April 16,
2000, and, if necessary, on the date described in subsection
(a)(2), the Secretary of the Treasury shall determine the
amount any Federal trust fund would have received in gross
receipts during the applicable period had this section not
been enacted. Such amount shall be appropriated and
transferred from the general fund to the applicable trust
fund in the manner in which such gross receipts would have
been transferred by the Secretary of the Treasury and such
amount shall be treated as taxes received in the Treasury
under the applicable section of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 described in subsection (b).
(g) Applicable Period.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``applicable period'' means the period beginning after
April 15, 2000, and ending before January 1, 2001.

SEC. 3. FLOOR STOCKS CREDIT.

(a) In General.--If--
(1) before a tax reduction date, a tax referred to in
section 2(b) has been imposed on any liquid, and
(2) on such date such liquid is held by a dealer and has
not been used and is intended for sale,
there shall be credited (without interest) to the person who
paid such tax (hereafter in this section referred to as the
``taxpayer''), against the taxpayer's subsequent semi-monthly
deposit of such tax, an amount equal to the excess of the tax
paid by the taxpayer over the amount of such tax which would
be imposed on such liquid had the taxable event occurred on
the tax reduction date.
(b) Certification Necessary To File Claim for Credit.--
(1) In general.--In any case where liquid is held by a
dealer (other than the taxpayer) on the tax reduction date,
no credit amount with respect to such liquid shall be allowed
to the taxpayer under subsection (a) unless the taxpayer
files with the Secretary--
(A) a certification that the taxpayer has given a credit to
such dealer with respect to such liquid against the dealer's
first purchase of liquid from the taxpayer subsequent to the
tax reduction date, and
(B) a certification by such dealer that such dealer has
given a credit to a succeeding dealer (if any) with respect
to such liquid against the succeeding dealer's first purchase
of liquid from such dealer subsequent to the tax reduction
date.
(2) Reasonableness of claims certified.--Any certification
made under paragraph (1) shall include an additional
certification that the claim for credit was reasonable based
on the taxpayer's or dealer's past business relationship with
the succeeding dealer.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the terms ``dealer'' and ``held by a dealer'' have the
respective meanings given to

[[Page 5044]]

such terms by section 6412 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986; except that the term ``dealer'' includes a position
holder, and
(2) the term ``tax reduction date'' means April 16, 2000,
or the date described in section 2(a)(2).
(d) Certain Rules To Apply.--Rules similar to the rules of
subsections (b) and (c) of section 6412 of such Code shall
apply for purposes of this section.

SEC. 4. FLOOR STOCKS TAX.

(a) Imposition of Tax.--In the case of any liquid on which
a tax referred to in section 2(b) would have been imposed
during the applicable period but for the enactment of this
Act, and which is held on the floor stocks tax date by any
person, there is hereby imposed a floor stocks tax in an
amount equal to the excess of--
(1) the tax referred to in section 2(b) which would be
imposed on such liquid had the taxable event occurred on the
floor stocks tax date, over
(2) the amount of such tax previously paid (if any) with
respect to such liquid.
(b) Liability for Tax and Method of Payment.--
(1) Liability for tax.--A person holding a liquid on the
floor stocks tax date to which the tax imposed by subsection
(a) applies shall be liable for such tax.
(2) Method of payment.--The tax imposed by subsection (a)
shall be paid in such manner as the Secretary shall
prescribe.
(3) Time for payment.--The tax imposed by subsection (a)
shall be paid on or before the date which is 45 days after
the floor stocks tax date.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) Held by a person.--A liquid shall be considered as
``held by a person'' if title thereto has passed to such
person (whether or not delivery to the person has been made).
(2) Floor stocks tax date.--The term ``floor stocks tax
date'' means January 1, 2001.
(3) Applicable period.--The term ``applicable period''
means the period beginning after April 15, 2000, and ending
before January 1, 2001.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate.
(d) Exception for Exempt Uses.--The tax imposed by
subsection (a) shall not apply to any liquid held by any
person exclusively for any use to the extent a credit or
refund of the tax referred to in section 2(b) is allowable
for such use.
(e) Exception for Fuel Held in Vehicle Tank.--No tax shall
be imposed by subsection (a) on any liquid held in the tank
of a motor vehicle, motorboat, vessel, or aircraft.
(f) Exception for Certain Amounts of Fuel.--
(1) In general.--No tax shall be imposed by subsection (a)
on any liquid held on the floor stocks tax date by any person
if the aggregate amount of such liquid held by such person on
such date does not exceed 2,000 gallons. The preceding
sentence shall apply only if such person submits to the
Secretary (at the time and in the manner required by the
Secretary) such information as the Secretary shall require
for purposes of this paragraph.
(2) Exempt fuel.--For purposes of paragraph (1), there
shall not be taken into account any liquid held by any person
which is exempt from the tax imposed by subsection (a) by
reason of subsection (d) or (e).
(3) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) Corporations.--
(i) In general.--All persons treated as a controlled group
shall be treated as 1 person.
(ii) Controlled group.--The term ``controlled group'' has
the meaning given to such term by subsection (a) of section
1563 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; except that for
such purposes the phrase ``more than 50 percent'' shall be
substituted for the phrase ``at least 80 percent'' each place
it appears in such subsection.
(B) Nonincorporated persons under common control.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary, principles similar
to the principles of subparagraph (A) shall apply to a group
of persons under common control if 1 or more of such persons
is not a corporation.
(g) Other Law Applicable.--All provisions of law, including
penalties, applicable with respect to the taxes imposed by
chapter 31 or 32 of such Code shall, insofar as applicable
and not inconsistent with the provisions of this section,
apply with respect to the floor stock taxes imposed by
subsection (a) to the same extent as if such taxes were
imposed by such chapter.

SEC. 5. BENEFITS OF TAX REDUCTION SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO
CONSUMERS.

(a) Passthrough to Consumers.--
(1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) consumers immediately receive the benefit of the
reduction in taxes under this Act, and
(B) transportation motor fuels producers and other dealers
take such actions as necessary to reduce transportation motor
fuels prices to reflect such reduction, including immediate
credits to customer accounts representing tax refunds allowed
as credits against excise tax deposit payments under the
floor stocks refund provisions of this Act.
(2) Study.--
(A) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study of the reduction of taxes under
this Act to determine whether there has been a passthrough of
such reduction.
(B) Report.--Not later than September 30, 2000, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall report to the
Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways
and Means of the House of Representatives the results of the
study conducted under subparagraph (A).
____

Amendment No. 3085

On page 2, strike lines 7 and 8.
______

BURNS AMENDMENT NO. 3086

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. BURNS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 2285, supra; as follows:

Strike all after the first word, and insert:

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 4.3-CENT AVIATION FUEL EXCISE TAXES.

(a) In General.--Section 4091(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to rate of tax) is amended by striking
``21.8 cents'' and inserting ``17.5 cents''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 4091(b)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended to read as follows:
``(A) The rate of tax specified in paragraph (1) shall be
zero after September 30, 2007.''.
(2) Section 4091(c)(1) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``13.4 cents'' both places it appears and
inserting ``9.1 cents'', and
(B) by striking ``14 cents'' and inserting ``9.7 cents''.
(3) Section 4091(c) of such Code is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph
(4).
(4) Section 4092(b)(2) of such Code is amended by inserting
``and before the date of the enactment of the __ Act,'' after
``1995,''.
(5) Section 4081(a)(2)(A)(ii) of such Code is amended by
striking ``19.3 cents'' and inserting ``15 cents''.
(6) Section 4081(d)(2) of such Code is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Aviation gasoline.--The rate of tax specified in
subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii) shall be zero after September 30,
2007.''.
(7) Section 4041(c)(3) of such Code is amended to read as
follows:
``(3) Termination.--The rate of the taxes imposed by
paragraph (1) shall be zero after September 30, 2007.''.
(8) Section 6421(f)(2)(B) of such Code is amended by
striking ``financing rate'' and all that follows and
inserting ``financing rate.''.
(9) Section 6427(l)(4)(B) of such Code is amended by
inserting ``and before the date of the enactment of the __
Act,'' after ``1995,''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

TORRICELLI AMENDMENT NO. 3087

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. TORRICELLI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill, S. 2285, supra; as follows:

At the end add the following:

SEC. __. MODIFICATIONS TO DISASTER CASUALTY LOSS DEDUCTION.

(a) Lower Adjusted Gross Income Threshold.--Paragraph (2)
of section 165(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to treatment of casualty gains and losses) is
amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) In general.--If the personal casualty losses for any
taxable year exceed the personal casualty gains for such
taxable year, such losses shall be allowed for the taxable
year only to the extent of the sum of--
``(i) the amount of the personal casualty gains for the
taxable year, plus
``(ii) so much of such excess attributable to losses
described in subsection (i) as exceeds 5 percent of the
adjusted gross income of the individual (determined without
regard to any deduction allowable under subsection (c)(3))'',
plus
``(iii) so much of such excess attributable to losses not
described in subsection (i) as exceeds 10 percent of the
adjusted gross income of the individual.

For purposes of this subparagraph, personal casualty losses
attributable to losses not described in subsection (i) shall
be considered before such losses attributable to losses
described in subsection (i).'', and
(2) by striking ``10 percent'' in the heading and inserting
``percentage''.
(b) Above-The-Line Deduction.--Section 62(a) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross
income) is amended by inserting after paragraph (17) the
following:
``(18) Certain disaster losses.--The deduction allowed by
section 165(c)(3) to the extent attributable to losses
described in section 165(i).''
(c) Election To Take Disaster Loss Deduction for Preceding
or Succeeding 2

[[Page 5045]]

Years.--Paragraph (1) of section 165(i) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disaster losses) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``or succeeding'' after ``preceding'', and
(2) by inserting ``or succeeding'' after ``preceding'' in
the heading.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to losses sustained in taxable years beginning
after December 31, 1998.

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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 Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 26, 2000, at 2:30
p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C.
The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2273, to
establish the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails
National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; and S. 2048 and
H.R. 3605, to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District in the
State of Utah, and for other purposes.
Those who wish to submit written statement should write to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington,
D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge or Bill Eby
at (202) 224-6170.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on April 10, 2000, from 1
p.m.-4 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET--H. CON. RES. 290

On April 7, 2000, the Senate amended and passed H. Con. Res. 290, as
follows:

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of
Representatives (H. Con. Res. 290) entitled ``Concurrent
resolution establishing the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2001, revising the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2000, and setting forth appropriate budgetary
levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005.'', do pass
with the following amendment:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2001.

(a) Declaration.--Congress determines and declares that
this resolution is the concurrent resolution on the budget
for fiscal year 2001 including the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 as
authorized by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 and the revised budgetary levels for fiscal year 2000 as
authorized by section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.

TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Social Security.
Sec. 103. Major functional categories.
Sec. 104. Reconciliation of revenue reductions in the Senate.
Sec. 105. Appropriate levels for Function 920.
Sec. 106. Further appropriate levels for Function 920.

TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

Sec. 201. Congressional lock box for Social Security surpluses.
Sec. 202. Reserve fund for prescription drugs.
Sec. 203. Reserve fund for stabilization of payments to counties in
support of education.
Sec. 204. Reserve fund for agriculture.
Sec. 205. Tax reduction reserve fund in the Senate.
Sec. 206. Mechanism for additional debt reduction.
Sec. 207. Emergency designation point of order in the Senate.
Sec. 208. Reserve fund pending increase of fiscal year 2001
discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 209. Congressional firewall for defense and nondefense spending.
Sec. 210. Mechanisms for strengthening budgetary integrity.
Sec. 211. Prohibition on use of Federal Reserve surpluses.
Sec. 212. Reaffirming the prohibition on the use of revenue offsets for
discretionary spending.
Sec. 213. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 214. Reserve fund to foster the health of children with
disabilities and the employment and independence of their
families.
Sec. 215. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
Sec. 216. Reserve fund for military retiree health care.
Sec. 217. Reserve fund for early learning and parent support programs.

TITLE III--SENSE OF THE SENATE PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Sense of the Senate on controlling and eliminating the
growing international problem of tuberculosis.
Sec. 302. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant.
Sec. 303. Sense of the Senate on tax relief for college tuition paid
and for interest paid on student loans.
Sec. 304. Sense of the Senate on increased funding for the National
Institutes of Health.
Sec. 305. Sense of the Senate supporting funding levels in Educational
Opportunities Act.
Sec. 306. Sense of the Senate on additional budgetary resources.
Sec. 307. Sense of the Senate on regarding the inadequacy of the
payments for skilled nursing care.
Sec. 308. Sense of the Senate on the CARA programs.
Sec. 309. Sense of the Senate on veterans' medical care.
Sec. 310. Sense of the Senate on Impact Aid.
Sec. 311. Sense of the Senate on funding for increased acreage under
the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve
Program.
Sec. 312. Sense of the Senate on tax simplification.
Sec. 313. Sense of the Senate on antitrust enforcement by the
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission
regarding agriculture mergers and anticompetitive
activity.
Sec. 314. Sense of the Senate regarding fair markets for American
farmers.
Sec. 315. Sense of the Senate on women and Social Security reform.
Sec. 316. Protection of battered women and children.
Sec. 317. Use of False Claims Act in combatting medicare fraud.
Sec. 318. Sense of the Senate regarding the National Guard.
Sec. 319. Sense of the Senate regarding military readiness.
Sec. 320. Sense of the Senate on compensation for the Chinese Embassy
bombing in Belgrade.
Sec. 321. Sense of the Senate supporting funding of digital opportunity
initiatives.
Sec. 322. Sense of the Senate regarding immunization funding.
Sec. 323. Sense of the Senate regarding tax credits for small
businesses providing health insurance to low-income
employees.
Sec. 324. Sense of the Senate on funding for criminal justice.
Sec. 325. Sense of the Senate regarding the Pell Grant.
Sec. 326. Sense of the Senate regarding comprehensive public education
reform.
Sec. 327. Sense of the Senate on providing adequate funding for United
States international leadership.
Sec. 328. Sense of the Senate concerning the HIV/AIDS crisis.
Sec. 329. Sense of the Senate regarding tribal colleges.
Sec. 330. Sense of the Senate to provide relief from the marriage
penalty.
Sec. 331. Sense of the Senate on the continued use of Federal fuel
taxes for the construction and rehabilitation of our
Nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems.
Sec. 332. Sense of the Senate on the internal combustion engine.
Sec. 333. Sense of the Senate regarding the establishment of a national
background check system for long-term care workers.
Sec. 334. Sense of the Senate concerning the price of prescription
drugs in the United States.
Sec. 335. Sense of the Senate against Federal funding of smoke shops.
Sec. 336. Sense of the Senate regarding the need to reduce gun violence
in America.
Sec. 337. Sense of the Senate supporting additional funding for fiscal
year 2001 for medical care for our Nation's veterans.
Sec. 338. Sense of the Senate regarding medical care for veterans.
Sec. 339. Sense of the Senate concerning investment of Social Security
trust funds.
Sec. 340. Sense of the Senate concerning digital opportunity.
Sec. 341. Sense of the Senate on medicare prescription drugs.

[[Page 5046]]

Sec. 342. Sense of the senate concerning funding for new education
programs.
Sec. 343. Sense of the Senate regarding enforcement of Federal firearms
laws.
Sec. 344. Sense of the Senate regarding the census.
Sec. 345. Sense of the Senate that any increase in the minimum wage
should be accompanied by tax relief for small businesses.
Sec. 346. Sense of the Senate concerning the minimum wage.
Sec. 347. Sense of Congress regarding funding for the participation of
members of the uniformed services in the Thrift Savings
Plan.
Sec. 348. Sense of the Senate concerning protecting the Social Security
trust funds.
Sec. 349. Sense of the Senate concerning regulation of tobacco
products.
Sec. 350. Sense of the Senate regarding after school programs.
Sec. 351. Sense of Senate regarding cash balance pension plan
conversions.
Sec. 352. Sense of the Senate concerning uninsured and low-income
individuals in medically underserved communities.
Sec. 353. Sense of the Senate concerning fiscal year 2001 funding for
the United States Coast Guard.

TITLE I--LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are the revised levels for
fiscal year 2000 and the appropriate levels for the fiscal
years 2001 through 2005:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution--
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,464,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,501,903,341,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,547,229,399,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,599,474,925,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,655,748,225,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,721,310,999,999.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be changed are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: -$877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: -$12,911,658,996.
Fiscal year 2002: -$24,157,600,996.
Fiscal year 2003: -$30,048,074,996.
Fiscal year 2004: -$36,894,774,996
Fiscal year 2005: -$42,790,999,997.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,467,259,500,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,478,583,890,003.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,503,416,000,003.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,614,843,200,003.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,670,986,800,003.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,731,182,000,003.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution and the revised fiscal year 2000 resolution,
the appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $1,441,461,500,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $1,451,702,341,003.
Fiscal year 2002: $1,470,727,399,003.
Fiscal year 2003: $1,590,481,125,003.
Fiscal year 2004: $1,644,813,025,003.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,706,375,000,003.
(4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this
resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $23,147,500,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $53,473,000,001.
Fiscal year 2002: $76,577,000,001.
Fiscal year 2003: $9,076,200,001.
Fiscal year 2004: $10,975,800,001.
Fiscal year 2005: $14,958,000,001.
(5) Public debt.--The appropriate levels of the public debt
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $5,625,962,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $5,667,144,000,001.
Fiscal year 2002: $5,681,983,000,001.
Fiscal year 2003: $5,768,762,000,001.
Fiscal year 2004: $5,849,465,000,001.
Fiscal year 2005: $5,923,674,000,001.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of the
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $3,455,362,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $3,248,659,000,001.
Fiscal year 2002: $2,995,663,000,001.
Fiscal year 2003: $2,802,939,000,001.
Fiscal year 2004: $2,594,260,000,001.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,364,124,000,001.

SEC. 102. SOCIAL SECURITY.

(a) Social Security Revenues.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the amounts of revenues of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $479,648,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $501,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $524,854,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $547,179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $569,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $597,326,000,000.
(b) Social Security Outlays.--For purposes of Senate
enforcement under section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the amounts of outlays of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000: $322,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001: $331,869,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002: $339,068,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003: $347,733,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004: $357,737,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $368,976,000,000.
(c) Social Security Administrative Expenses.--In the
Senate, the amounts of new budget authority and budget
outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust
Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund for
administrative expenses are as follows:
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $3,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,187,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $3,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $3,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,438,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $3,505,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,473,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $3,541,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,507,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $3,576,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,543,000,000.

SEC. 103. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority, budget outlays, new direct
loan obligations, and new primary loan guarantee commitments
for fiscal year 2000 (as revised) and fiscal years 2001
through 2005 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $291,585,500,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,114,500,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $309,843,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $296,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $309,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $302,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $315,489,200,000.
(B) Outlays, $309,366,200,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $323,193,800,000.
(B) Outlays, $317,463,800,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $331,534,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $327,950,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $21,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,019,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $20,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,625,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $20,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,932,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $21,420,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $21,907,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $22,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,892,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $19,267,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,418,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $19,703,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $19,877,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,593,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $19,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $20,069,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,655,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $20,337,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,900,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $1,081,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$607,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $1,475,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $172,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$264,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $1,202,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$43,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $1,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $1,210,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$85,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $24,487,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $24,936,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,905,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $25,023,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,045,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $25,019,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:

[[Page 5047]]

(A) New budget authority, $25,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,065,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $25,059,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,876,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $35,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $20,894,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $18,950,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $17,965,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,354,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $16,092,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,593,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $7,594,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,141,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $6,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,977,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $8,608,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,864,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $9,356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,677,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,413,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,391,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $13,368,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,331,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $54,352,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,656,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $59,247,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $57,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,486,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $59,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $59,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $59,174,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,418,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,336,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,725,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $9,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,438,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $8,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $8,665,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,823,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $8,657,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,290,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $8,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,904,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $57,688,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,904,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $75,600,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $68,772,000,001.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $76,377,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $73,182,000,001.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $77,280,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $76,065,000,001.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $78,406,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $77,412,000,001.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $79,794,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $78,690,000,001.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $159,224,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $153,473,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $170,815,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $167,436,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $178,911,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $177,766,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $190,951,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $190,300,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $205,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $204,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $221,484,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $220,329,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $199,601,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $199,507,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $218,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $219,005,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $228,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $228,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $249,762,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $249,520,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $265,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,546,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $288,730,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,681,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $238,891,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $248,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $253,236,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $255,424,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $264,844,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $267,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $274,789,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $278,452,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $284,929,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $288,367,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $297,669,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $301,202,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $11,532,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $9,728,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,727,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $11,572,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,572,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $12,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,271,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,020,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,020,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $13,841,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,841,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $46,010,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $48,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $49,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $51,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,010,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $52,619,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,340,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $56,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $55,692,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $27,370,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,013,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $28,210,890,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,345,341,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $28,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,782,399,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $29,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,191,925,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $31,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,021,225,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $32,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,863,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $13,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,727,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $14,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $13,605,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $13,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,768,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,570,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $13,595,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,604,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, $284,491,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,493,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, $286,920,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $286,920,000,001.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, $285,291,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $285,290,000,001.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $279,465,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $279,465,000,001.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $275,502,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $275,502,000,001.
Fiscal year 2005:

[[Page 5048]]

(A) New budget authority, $270,951,000,001.
(B) Outlays, $270,951,000,001.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$3,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$11,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$62,031,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$50,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,729,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$6,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$6,072,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2000:
(A) New budget authority, -$34,315,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$34,315,000,000.
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$38,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$38,366,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$41,943,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$41,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$41,270,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$41,270,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$38,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$38,374,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$40,686,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$40,686,000,000.

SEC. 104. RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE SENATE.

Not later than September 22, 2000, the Senate Committee on
Finance shall report to the Senate a reconciliation bill
proposing changes in laws within its jurisdiction necessary
to reduce revenues by not more than $12,911,658,999 in fiscal
year 2001 and $146,803,109,999 for the period of fiscal years
2001 through 2005.

SEC. 105. APPROPRIATE LEVELS FOR FUNCTION 920.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution the
appropriate levels for function 920 are as follows:
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,431,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$48,461,000,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,229,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,796,000,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$5,287,000,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$7,268,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,570,000,000.

SEC. 106. FURTHER APPROPRIATE LEVELS FOR FUNCTION 920.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the
appropriate levels for function 920 are as follows:
Fiscal year 2001:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,214,890,000.
(B) Outlays, -$48,152,341,000.
Fiscal year 2002:
(A) New budget authority, -$59,729,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$71,395,399,000.
Fiscal year 2003:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$858,925,000.
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$6,779,225,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, -$6,072,000,000.

TITLE II--BUDGETARY RESTRAINTS AND RULEMAKING

SEC. 201. CONGRESSIONAL LOCK BOX FOR SOCIAL SECURITY
SURPLUSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the Social
Security trust funds are off-budget for purposes of the
President's budget submission and the concurrent resolution
on the budget;
(2) the Social Security trust funds have been running
surpluses for 18 years;
(3) these surpluses have been used to implicitly finance
the general operations of the Federal Government;
(4) in fiscal year 2001, the Social Security surplus will
reach $166,000,000,000;
(5) in fiscal year 1999, the Federal budget was balanced
without using Social Security;
(6) the only way to ensure that Social Security surpluses
are not diverted for other purposes is to balance the budget
exclusive of such surpluses; and
(7) Congress and the President should take such steps as
are necessary to ensure that future budgets continue to be
balanced excluding the surpluses generated by the Social
Security trust funds.
(b) Point of Order.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the House of
Representatives or the Senate to consider any revision to
this concurrent resolution, or any other concurrent
resolution on the budget, or any amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that sets forth a deficit for any
fiscal year.
(2) Deficit levels.--For purposes of this subsection, a
deficit shall be the level (if any) set forth in the most
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for
that fiscal year pursuant to section 301(a)(3) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis
of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the House
of Representatives or the Senate, as applicable.
(d) Exception.--Subsection (b) shall not apply if--
(1) the most recent of the Department of Commerce's
advance, preliminary, or final reports of actual real
economic growth indicate that the rate of real economic
growth for each of the most recently reported quarter and the
immediately preceding quarter is less than 1 percent; or
(2) a declaration of war is in effect.
(e) Social Security Look-Back.--If in any fiscal year the
Social Security surplus is used to finance general operations
of the Federal Government, an amount equal to the amount used
shall be deducted from the available amount of discretionary
spending for the following fiscal year for purposes of any
concurrent resolution on the budget.
(f) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (b) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

SEC. 202. RESERVE FUND FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

(a) Allocation.--In the Senate, spending aggregates and
other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be adjusted
and allocations may be revised for legislation reported by
the Committee on Finance to provide a prescription drug
benefit for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003, provided that
this legislation will not reduce the on-budget surplus by
more than $20,000,000,000 total during these 3 fiscal years,
and provided that the enactment of this legislation will not
cause an on-budget deficit in any of these 3 fiscal years.
(b) Exception.--The adjustments provided in subsection (a)
shall be made for a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment
that is offered (in the Senate), that provides coverage for
prescription drugs, if the Senate Committee on Finance has
not reported such legislation on or before September 1, 2000.
(c) Adjustment.--If legislation is reported by the Senate
Committee on Finance that extends the solvency of the
Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund without the use of
transfers of new subsidies from the general fund, without
decreasing beneficiaries' access to health care, and
excluding the cost of extending and modifying the
prescription drug benefit crafted pursuant to section (a) or
(b), then the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
change committee allocations and spending aggregates by no
more than $20,000,000,000 total for fiscal years 2004 and
2005 to fund the prescription drug benefit if such
legislation will not cause an on-budget deficit in either of
these 2 fiscal years.
(d) Budgetary Enforcement.--The revision of allocations and
aggregates made under this section shall be considered for
the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as
allocations and aggregates contained in this resolution.

SEC. 203. RESERVE FUND FOR STABILIZATION OF PAYMENTS TO
COUNTIES IN SUPPORT OF EDUCATION.

(a) Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--Whenever the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources of the Senate reports a bill, or an
amendment thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides additional resources for counties
and complies with paragraph (2), the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of budget
authority and outlays to that committee by the amount of
budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom)
provided by that legislation for such purpose in accordance
with subsection (b).
(2) Condition.--Legislation complies with this paragraph if
it provides for the stabilization of receipt-based payments
to counties that support school and road systems and also
provides that a portion of those payments would be dedicated
toward local investments in Federal lands within the
counties.
(b) Limitations.--The adjustments to the allocations
required by subsection (a) shall not exceed $200,000,000 in
budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) for
fiscal year 2001 and shall not exceed $1,100,000,000 in
budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) for
the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

SEC. 204. RESERVE FUND FOR AGRICULTURE.

(a) Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--If the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate reports a bill on or
before June 29, 2000, or an amendment thereto is offered, or
a conference report thereon is submitted that provides
assistance for producers of program crops and specialty
crops, and enhancements for agriculture conservation programs
that complies with paragraph (2), the appropriate chairman of
the Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of
budget authority and outlays to that committee by the amount
of budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom)
provided by that legislation for such purpose in accordance
with subsection (b).

[[Page 5049]]

(2) Conditions.--Legislation complies with this paragraph
if it does not cause a net increase in budget authority and
outlays of greater than $1,640,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
(b) Limitations.--The adjustments to the allocations
required by subsection (a) shall not exceed $5,500,000,000 in
budget authority and outlays for fiscal year 2000, and
$3,000,000,000 in budget authority (and the outlays resulting
therefrom) for the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

SEC. 205. TAX REDUCTION RESERVE FUND IN THE SENATE.

In the Senate, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may reduce the spending and revenue aggregates and may revise
committee allocations for legislation that reduces revenues
if such legislation will not increase the deficit or decrease
the surplus for--
(1) fiscal year 2001; or
(2) the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

SEC. 206. MECHANISM FOR ADDITIONAL DEBT REDUCTION.

(a) In General.--If any of the legislation described in
subsection (b) does not become law on or before October 1,
2000, then the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate shall adjust the levels in this concurrent resolution
as provided in subsection (c).
(b) Legislation.--The adjustment required by subsection (a)
shall be made with respect to--
(1) the reconciliation legislation required by section 104;
or
(2) the Medicare legislation provided for in section 202.
(c) Adjustments To Be Made.--The adjustment required in
subsection (a) shall be--
(1) with respect to the legislation required by section
104, to decrease the balance displayed on the Senate's pay-
as-you-go scorecard and increase the revenue aggregate by the
amount set forth in section 104 (as adjusted, if adjusted,
pursuant to section 205) and to decrease the level of debt
held by the public as set forth in section 101(6) by that
same amount; or
(2) with respect to the legislation provided for in section
202, to decrease the balance displayed on the Senate's pay-
as-you-go scorecard by the amount set forth in section 202
and to decrease the level of debt held by the public as set
forth in section 101(6) by that same amount and make the
corresponding adjustments to the revenue and spending
aggregates and allocations (as adjusted by section 202).

SEC. 207. EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

(a) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of
legislation as an emergency requirement under section
251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any
statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall
analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all
the criteria in paragraph (2).
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--The criteria to be considered in
determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is
an emergency requirement are--
(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the
proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria
set forth in paragraph (2), the committee report or the
statement of managers, as the case may be, shall provide a
written justification of why the requirement should be
accorded emergency status.
(b) Point of Order.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, a point
of order may be made by a Senator against an emergency
designation in that measure and if the Presiding Officer
sustains that point of order, that provision making such a
designation shall be stricken from the measure and may not be
offered as an amendment from the floor.
(c) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(d) Definition of an Emergency Requirement.--A provision
shall be considered an emergency designation if it designates
any item an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(e) Form of the Point of Order.--A point of order under
this section may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(f) Conference Reports.--If a point of order is sustained
under this section against a conference report the report
shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(g) Exception for Defense Spending.--Subsection (b) shall
not apply against an emergency designation for a provision
making discretionary appropriations in the defense category.

SEC. 208. RESERVE FUND PENDING INCREASE OF FISCAL YEAR 2001
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The functional totals with respect to discretionary
spending set forth in this concurrent resolution, if
implemented, would result in legislation which exceeds the
limit on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2001 set out
in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985. Nonetheless, the allocation
pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to the Committee on
Appropriations is in compliance with current law spending
limits.
(2) Consequently unless and until the discretionary
spending limit for fiscal year 2001 is increased, aggregate
appropriations which exceed the current law limits would
still be out of order in the Senate and subject to a
supermajority vote.
(3) The functional totals contained in this concurrent
resolution envision a level of discretionary spending for
fiscal year 2001 as follows:
(A) For the discretionary category: $602,179,000,000 in new
budget authority and $593,926,000,000 in outlays.
(B) For the highway category: $26,920,000,000 in outlays.
(C) For the mass transit category: $4,639,000,000 in
outlays.
(4) To facilitate the Senate completing its legislative
responsibilities for the 106th Congress in a timely fashion,
it is imperative that the Senate consider legislation which
increases the discretionary spending limit for fiscal year
2001 as soon as possible.
(b) Adjustment to Allocations.--Whenever a bill or joint
resolution becomes law that increases the discretionary
spending limit for fiscal year 2001 set out in section 251(c)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, the appropriate chairman of the Committee on the Budget
shall increase the allocation called for in section 302(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the appropriate
Committee on Appropriations.
(c) Limitation on Adjustment.--An adjustment made pursuant
to subsection (b) shall not result in an allocation under
section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that
exceeds the total budget authority and outlays set forth in
subsection (a)(3).

SEC. 209. CONGRESSIONAL FIREWALL FOR DEFENSE AND NONDEFENSE
SPENDING.

(a) Definition.--In this section, for fiscal year 2001 the
term ``discretionary spending limit'' means--
(1) for the defense category, $310,819,000,000 in new
budget authority and $297,050,000,000 in outlays; and
(2) for the nondefense category, $291,360,000,000 in new
budget authority and $329,183,000,000 in outlays.
(b) Point of Order in the Senate.--
(1) In general.--After the adjustment to the section 302(a)
allocation to the Appropriations Committee is made pursuant
to section 207 and except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,
joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report
that exceeds any discretionary spending limit set forth in
this section.
(2) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply if a
declaration of war by Congress is in effect.
(c) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

SEC. 210. MECHANISMS FOR STRENGTHENING BUDGETARY INTEGRITY.

(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``budget year'' means with respect to a session of Congress,
the fiscal year of the Government that starts on October 1 of
the calendar year in which that session begins.
(b) Point of Order With Respect to Advanced
Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or
conference report that--
(A) provides an appropriation of new budget authority for
any fiscal year after the budget year that is in excess of
the amounts provided in paragraph (2); and
(B) provides an appropriation of new budget authority for
any fiscal year subsequent to the year after the budget year.
(2) Limitation on amounts.--The total amount, provided in
appropriations legislation for the budget year, of
appropriations for the subsequent fiscal year shall not
exceed $23,000,000,000.
(c) Point of Order With Respect to Delayed Obligations.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), it
shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
contains an appropriation of new budget authority for any
fiscal year which does not become available upon enactment of
such legislation or on the first day of that fiscal year
(whichever is later).

[[Page 5050]]

(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect
to appropriations in the defense category; nor shall it apply
to appropriations reoccurring or customary or for the
following programs: Provided, That such appropriation is not
delayed beyond the specified date and does not exceed the
specified amount:
(A) Department of the interior.--Operation of Indian
Programs School Operation Costs (Bureau of Indian Affairs
Funded Schools and Other Education Programs): July 1 not to
exceed $401,000,000.
(B) Department of labor.--
(i) Training and Employment Service: July 1 not to exceed
$1,650,000,000.
(ii) State Unemployment Insurance: July 1 not to exceed
$902,000,000.
(C) Department of education.--
(i) Education Reform: July 1 not to exceed $512,000,000.
(ii) Education for the Disadvantaged: July 1 not to exceed
$2,462,000,000.
(iii) School Improvement Program: July 1 not to exceed
$975,000,000.
(iv) Special Education: July 1 not to exceed
$2,048,000,000.
(v) Vocational Education: July 1 not to exceed
$858,000,000.
(D) Department of transportation.--Grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation: September 30 not to exceed
$343,000,000.
(E) Department of veterans' affairs.--Medical Care
(equipment-land-structures): August 1 not to exceed
$900,000,000.
(F) Environmental protection agency.--Hazardous Substance
Superfund: September 1 not to exceed $100,000,000.
(d) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsections (b) and (c) may be
waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote
of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An
affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the
Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
(e) Form of the Point of Order.--A point of order under
this section may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974.
(f) Conference Reports.--If a point of order is sustained
under this section against a conference report, the report
shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
(g) Precatory Amendments.--For purposes of interpreting
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, an
amendment is not germane if it contains only precatory
language.
(h) Sunset.--Except for subsection (g), this section shall
expire effective October 1, 2002.

SEC. 211. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FEDERAL RESERVE SURPLUSES.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that
transfers from nonbudgetary governmental entities such as the
Federal Reserve banks shall not be used to offset increased
on-budget spending when such transfers produce no real
budgetary or economic effects.
(b) Budgetary Rule.--For purposes of points of order under
this resolution and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974, provisions contained in any bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that
affects any surplus funds of the Federal Reserve banks shall
not be scored with respect to the level of budget authority,
outlays, or revenues contained in such legislation.

SEC. 212. REAFFIRMING THE PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF REVENUE
OFFSETS FOR DISCRETIONARY SPENDING.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to reaffirm
Congress' belief that the discretionary spending limits
should be adhered to and not circumvented by increasing
taxes.
(b) Restatement of Budgetary Rule.--For purposes of points
of order under this resolution and the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, provisions contained in
an appropriations bill (or an amendment thereto or a
conference report thereon) resulting in increased revenues
shall continue not to be scored with respect to the level of
budget authority or outlays contained in such legislation.

SEC. 213. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this concurrent resolution for
any measure shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this concurrent resolution.

SEC. 214. RESERVE FUND TO FOSTER THE HEALTH OF CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES AND THE EMPLOYMENT AND
INDEPENDENCE OF THEIR FAMILIES.

(a) Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--Whenever the Committee on Finance of the
Senate reports a bill, or an amendment thereto is offered, or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that facilitates
children with disabilities receiving needed health care at
home and complies with paragraph (2), the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may increase the spending aggregate
and allocation of budget authority and outlays to that
committee by the amount of budget authority (and the outlays
resulting therefrom) provided by that legislation for such
purpose in accordance with subsection (b).
(2) Condition.--Legislation complies with this paragraph if
it finances health programs designed to allow children with
disabilities to access the health services they need to
remain at home with their families while allowing their
families to become or remain employed.
(b) Limitations.--The adjustments to the spending
aggregates and allocations required by subsection (a) shall
not exceed $50,000,000 in budget authority (and the outlays
resulting therefrom) for fiscal year 2001 and shall not
exceed $300,000,000 in budget authority (and the outlays
resulting therefrom) for the period of fiscal years 2001
through 2005.

SEC. 215. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.

Congress adopts the provisions of this title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
or of that House to which they specifically apply, and such
rules shall supersede other rules only to the extent that
they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change those rules (so far as they relate to
that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.

SEC. 216. RESERVE FUND FOR MILITARY RETIREE HEALTH CARE.

(a) In General.--In the Senate, aggregates, allocations,
functional totals, and other budgetary levels and limits may
be revised for Department of Defense authorization
legislation reported by the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate to fund improvements to health care programs for
military retirees and their dependents in order to fulfill
the promises made to them: Provided, That the enactment of
that legislation will not cause an on-budget deficit for--
(1) fiscal year 2001; or
(2) the period of fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
(b) Revised Levels.--Upon the consideration of legislation
pursuant to subsection (a), the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget of the Senate may file with the Senate
appropriately revised allocations under section 302(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and revised functional
levels and aggregates to carry out this section. These
revised allocations, functional levels, and aggregates shall
be considered for the purposes of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 as allocations, functional levels, and aggregates
contained in this resolution.

SEC. 217. RESERVE FUND FOR EARLY LEARNING AND PARENT SUPPORT
PROGRAMS.

(a) Adjustment.--When the Committee on Education and
Workforce of the House of Representatives or the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate reports
a bill, an amendment is offered in the House of
Representatives or the Senate, or a conference report is
filed that improves opportunities at the local level for
early learning, brain development, and school readiness for
young children from birth to age 6 and offers support
programs for such families, particularly those with special
needs such as mental health issues and behavioral disorders,
the relevant chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
increase the allocation aggregates, functions, totals, and
other budgetary totals in the resolution by the amount of
budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom)
provided by the legislation for such purpose in accordance
with subsection (b) if the legislation does not cause an on-
budget deficit.
(b) Limitations.--The adjustments to the aggregates and
totals pursuant to subsection (a) shall not exceed
$8,500,000,000 on-budget authority (and the outlays resulting
therefrom) for the period fiscal year 2001 through 2005.

TITLE III--SENSE OF THE SENATE PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON CONTROLLING AND ELIMINATING
THE GROWING INTERNATIONAL PROBLEM OF
TUBERCULOSIS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) According to the World Health Organization--
(A) nearly 2,000,000 people worldwide die each year of
tuberculosis-related illnesses;
(B) one-third of the world's total population is infected
with tuberculosis; and
(C) tuberculosis is the world's leading killer of women
between 15- and 44-years old and is a leading cause of
children becoming orphans.
(2) Because of the ease of transmission of tuberculosis,
its international persistence and growth pose a direct public
health threat to those nations that had previously largely
controlled the disease. This is complicated in the United
States by the growth of the homeless population, the rate of
incarceration, international travel, immigration, and HIV/
AIDS.
(3) With nearly 40 percent of the tuberculosis cases in the
United States attributable to foreign-born persons,
tuberculosis will never be eliminated in the United States
until it is controlled abroad.
(4) The means exist to control tuberculosis through
screening, diagnosis, treatment, patient compliance,
monitoring, and ongoing review of outcomes.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assumes that additional
resources should be provided to fund international
tuberculosis control

[[Page 5051]]

efforts at $60,000,000 in fiscal year 2001, consistent with
authorizing legislation approved by the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate.

SEC. 302. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE
CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) in 1998, 33.2 percent of women in the labor force have
children under 14;
(2) in 1998, 65.2 percent of women with children younger
than age 6, and 78.4 percent of women with children ages 6
through 17 were in the labor force, and 41.6 percent of women
with children younger than 3 were employed full-time;
(3) 1,920,000 couples both working and with children under
18 had family incomes of under $30,000 (10.3 percent);
(4)(A) in 1998, 11,700,000 children out of 21,300,000 (55.1
percent) under the age of 5 have employed mothers;
(B) 18.4 percent of children under 6 are cared for by their
fathers at home;
(C) another 5.5 percent (562,000) are looked after by their
mother either at home or away from home; and
(D) in other words, less than a quarter (23.9 percent) of
these children are taken care of by 1 parent;
(5) a 1997 General Accounting Office study found that the
increased work participation requirement of the welfare
reform law will cause the need for child care to exceed the
known supply;
(6) a 1995 study by the Urban Institute of child care
prices in 6 cities found that the average cost of daycare for
a 2-year-old in a child care center ranged from $3,100 to
$8,100;
(7) for an entry-level worker, the family's child care
costs at the average price of care for an infant in a child
care center would be at least 50 percent of family income in
5 of the 6 cities examined;
(8) a large number of low- and middle-income families
sacrifice a second full-time income so that a parent may be
at home with the child;
(9) the average income of 2-parent families with a single
income (a family with children, wife does not work) is
$13,566 less than the average income of 2-parent families
with 2 incomes;
(10) a recent National Institute for Child Health and
Development study found that the greatest factor in the
development of a young child is ``what is happening at home
and in families''; and
(11) increased tax relief directed at making child care
more affordable, and increased funding for the Child Care and
Development Block Grant, would take significant steps toward
bringing quality child care within the reach of many parents,
and would increase the options available to parents in
deciding how best to care for their children.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted
pursuant to this resolution assume--
(1) that tax relief should be directed to parents who are
struggling to afford quality child care, including those who
wish to stay home to care for a child, and should be included
in any tax cut package; and
(2) a total of $4,567,000,000 in funding for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2001.

SEC. 303. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX RELIEF FOR COLLEGE
TUITION PAID AND FOR INTEREST PAID ON STUDENT
LOANS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) in our increasingly competitive global economy, the
attainment of a higher education is critical to the economic
success of an individual, as evidenced by the fact that, in
1975, college graduates earned an average of 57 percent more
than those who just finished high school, compared to 76
percent more today;
(2) the cost of attaining a higher education has outpaced
both inflation and median family incomes;
(3) specifically, over the past 20 years, the cost of
college tuition has quadrupled (growing faster than any
consumer item, including health care and nearly twice as fast
as inflation) and 8 times as fast as median household
incomes;
(4) despite recent increases passed by Congress, the value
of the maximum Pell Grant has declined 23 percent since 1975
in inflation-adjusted terms, forcing more students to rely on
student loans to finance the cost of a higher education;
(5) from 1992 to 1998, the demand for student loans soared
82 percent and the average student loan increased 367
percent;
(6) according to the Department of Education, there is
approximately $150,000,000,000 in outstanding student loan
debt, and students borrowed more during the 1990's than
during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's combined; and
(7) in Congress, proposals have been made to address the
rising cost of tuition and mounting student debt, including a
bipartisan proposal to provide a deduction for tuition paid
and a credit for interest paid on student loans.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that
the levels in this resolution and legislation enacted
pursuant to this resolution assume that any tax cut package
reported by the Finance Committee and passed by Congress
during the fiscal year 2001 budget reconciliation process
include tax relief for college tuition paid and for interest
paid on student loans.

SEC. 304. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the National Institutes of Health is the Nation's
foremost research center;
(2) the Nation's commitment to and investment in biomedical
research has resulted in better health and an improved
quality of life for all Americans;
(3) continued biomedical research funding must be ensured
so that medical doctors and scientists have the security to
commit to conducting long-term research studies;
(4) funding for the National Institutes of Health should
continue to increase in order to prevent the cessation of
biomedical research studies and the loss of medical doctors
and research scientists to private research organizations;
and
(5) the National Institutes of Health conducts research
protocols without proprietary interests, thereby ensuring
that the best health care is researched and made available to
the Nation.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume increased funding
in function 550 (Health) for the National Institutes of
Health of $2,700,000,000, reflecting the commitment made in
the fiscal year 1998 Senate Budget Resolution to double the
National Institute of Health budget by 2003.

SEC. 305. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING FUNDING LEVELS IN
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES ACT.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume that of the amounts provided for elementary
and secondary education within the Budget Function 500 of
this resolution for fiscal years 2001 through 2005, such
funds shall be appropriated in proportion to and in
accordance with the levels authorized in the Educational
Opportunities Act, S. 2.

SEC. 306. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ADDITIONAL BUDGETARY
RESOURCES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) In its review of government operations, the General
Accounting Office noted that it was unable to determine the
extent of improper government payments, due to the poor
quality of agency accounting practices. In particular, the
General Accounting Office cited the Government's inability
to--
(A) ``properly account for and report billions of dollars
of property, equipment, materials, and supplies and certain
stewardship assets''; and
(B) ``properly prepare the Federal Government's financial
statements, including balancing the statements, accounting
for billions of dollars of transactions between governmental
entities, and properly and consistently compiling the
information in the financial statements.''.
(2) Private economic forecasters are currently more
optimistic than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Blue
Chip expects 2000 real GDP growth of 4.1 percent, whereas the
Congressional Budget Office expects 3.3 percent growth. From
1999 through 2005, Blue Chip expects real GDP to grow more
than 0.3 percentage points faster per year than the
Congressional Budget Office does. Using budgetary rules of
thumb, this latter difference translates into more than
$150,000,000,000 over the 5-year budget window.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels contained in this resolution assume that--
(1) there are billions of dollars in wasted expenditures in
the Federal Government that should be eliminated; and
(2) higher projected budget surpluses arising from
reductions in government waste and stronger revenue inflows
could be used in the future for additional tax relief or debt
reduction.

SEC. 307. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REGARDING THE INADEQUACY OF
THE PAYMENTS FOR SKILLED NURSING CARE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) Congress confronted and addressed the funding crisis
for medicare beneficiaries requiring skilled nursing care
through the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999;
(2) Congress recognized the need to address the inadequacy
of the prospective payment system for certain levels of care,
as well as the need to end arbitrary limits on rehabilitative
therapies. Congress restored $2,700,000,000 to reduce access
threats to skilled care for medicare beneficiaries; and
(3) Currently, more than 1,600 skilled nursing facilities
caring for more than 175,000 frail and elderly Americans have
filed for bankruptcy protection.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that--
(1) the Administration should identify areas where they
have the authority to make changes to improve quality,
including analyzing and fixing the labor component of the
skilled nursing facility market basket update factor; and
(2) while Congress deliberates funding structural medicare
reform and the addition of a prescription drug benefit, it
must maintain the continued viability of the current skilled
nursing benefit. Therefore, the committees of jurisdiction
should ensure that medicare beneficiaries requiring skilled
nursing care have access to that care and that those
providers have the resources to meet the expectation for high
quality care.

SEC. 308. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CARA PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume that, if the Congress and the President so
choose, the following programs can be fully funded as
discretionary programs in fiscal year 2001, including--
(1) the Land and Water Conservation Fund programs;

[[Page 5052]]

(2) the Federal aid to Wildlife Fund;
(3) the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grants;
(4) the National Historic Preservation Fund;
(5) the Payment in Lieu of Taxes; and
(6) the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

SEC. 309. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON VETERANS' MEDICAL CARE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) this budget addresses concerns about veterans' medical
care;
(2) we successfully increased the appropriation for
veterans' medical care by $1,700,000,000 last year, although
the President had proposed no increase in funding in his
budget; and
(3) this year's budget proposes to increase the veterans'
medical care appropriation by $1,400,000,000, the level of
funding in the President's budget.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume an increase of
$1,400,000,000 in veterans' medical care appropriations in
fiscal year 2001.

SEC. 310. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPACT AID.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Impact Aid, as created by Congress in 1950,
fulfills a Federal obligation to local educational agencies
impacted by a Federal presence;
(2) the Impact Aid provides funds to these local
educational agencies to help them meet the basic educational
needs of all their children, particularly the needs of
transient military dependent students, Native American
children, and students from low-income housing projects; and
(3) the Impact Aid is funded at a level less than what is
required to fully fund ``all'' federally connected local
educational agencies.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that the Impact Aid
Program strive to reach the goal that all local educational
agencies eligible for Impact Aid receive at a minimum, 40
percent of their maximum payment under sections 8002 and
8003.

SEC. 311. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR INCREASED
ACREAGE UNDER THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
AND THE WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP) have been successful, voluntary,
incentive-based endeavors that over the last decade and a
half have turned millions of acres of marginal cropland into
reserves that protect wildlife in the United States, provide
meaningful income to farmers and ranchers (especially in
periods of collapsed commodity prices), and combat soil and
water erosion. CRP and WRP also provide increased
opportunities for hunting, fishing, and other recreational
activities.
(2) CRP provides landowners with technical and financial
assistance, including annual rental payments, in exchange for
removing environmentally sensitive farmland from production
and implementing conservation practices. Currently, CRP
includes around 31,300,000 acres in the United States.
(3) Similarly, WRP offers technical and financial
assistance to landowners who select to restore wetlands.
Currently, WRP includes 785,000 acres nationwide.
(4) Furthermore, bipartisan legislation has been introduced
in the 106th Congress to increase the acreage permitted under
both CRP and WRP. The Administration also supports raising
the acreage limitations in both programs.
(5) Unfortunately, both CRP and WRP may soon become victims
of their own success and their respective statutory acreage
limitations unless Congress acts. Given the popularity and
demand for these conservation programs, the statutory acreage
limitations will likely exhaust resources available to
producers who want to participate in CRP or WRP. As currently
authorized, CRP has an enrollment cap of 36,400,000 acres and
WRP is limited at 975,000 acres. As of October 1, 1999,
enrollment in CRP stood at approximately 31,300,000 acres and
enrollment in WRP at just over 785,000 acres.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that Congress and
the Administration should take steps to raise the acreage
limits of the CRP and WRP in order to make these programs
available to aid the preservation and conservation of
sensitive natural soil and water resources without negatively
effecting rural communities. Further, such actions should
help improve farm income for agricultural producers and
restore prosperity and growth to rural sectors of the United
States.

SEC. 312. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON TAX SIMPLIFICATION.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the tax code has become increasingly complex,
undermining confidence in the system, and often undermining
the principles of simplicity, efficiency, and equity;
(2) some have estimated that the resources required to keep
records and file returns already cost American families an
additional 10 percent to 20 percent over what they actually
pay in income taxes; and
(3) if it is to enact a greatly simplified tax code,
Congress should have a thorough understanding of the problem
as well as specific proposals to consider.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that the Joint
Committee on Taxation shall develop a report and alternative
proposals on tax simplification by the end of the year, and
the Department of the Treasury is requested to develop a
report and alternative proposals on tax simplification by the
end of the year.

SEC. 313. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION REGARDING AGRICULTURE MERGERS AND
ANTICOMPETITIVE ACTIVITY.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is
charged with the civil and criminal enforcement of the
antitrust laws, including the review of corporate mergers
likely to reduce competition in particular markets, with a
goal of protecting the competitive process;
(2) the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade
Commission is also charged with enforcement of the antitrust
laws, including the review of corporate mergers likely to
reduce competition;
(3) the Antitrust Division and the Bureau of Competition
are also responsible for the prosecution of companies and
individuals who engage in anti-competitive behavior and
unfair trade practices;
(4) the number of merger filings under the Hart-Scott-
Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which the
Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Federal Trade
Commission, is required to review, has increased
significantly in fiscal years 1998 and 1999;
(5) large agri-businesses have constituted part of this
trend in mergers and acquisitions;
(6) farmers and small agricultural producers are
experiencing one of the worst periods of economic downturn in
years;
(7) farmers currently get less than a quarter of every
retail food dollar, down from nearly half of every retail
food dollar in 1952;
(8) the top 4 beef packers presently control 80 percent of
the market, the top 4 pork producers control 57 percent of
the market, and the largest sheep processors and poultry
processors control 73 percent and 55 percent of the market,
respectively;
(9) the 4 largest grain processing companies presently
account for approximately 62 percent of the Nation's flour
milling, and the 4 largest firms control approximately 75
percent of the wet corn milling and soybean crushing
industry;
(10) farmers and small, independent producers are concerned
about the substantial increase in concentration in the
agriculture industry and significantly diminished
opportunities in the marketplace; and
(11) farmers and small, independent producers are also
concerned about possible anticompetitive behavior and unfair
business practices in the agriculture industry.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that--
(1) the Antitrust Division and the Bureau of Competition
will have adequate resources to enable them to meet their
statutory requirements, including those related to reviewing
increasingly numerous and complex mergers and investigating
and prosecuting anticompetitive business activity; and
(2) these departments will--
(A) dedicate considerable resources to matters and
transactions dealing with agri-business antitrust and
competition; and
(B) ensure that all vertical and horizontal mergers
implicating agriculture and all complaints regarding possible
anticompetitive business practices in the agriculture
industry will receive extraordinary scrutiny.

SEC. 314. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING FAIR MARKETS FOR
AMERICAN FARMERS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) United States agricultural producers are the most
efficient and competitive in the world;
(2) United States agricultural producers are at a
competitive disadvantage in the world market because the
European Union outspends the United States (on a dollar/acre
basis) by a ratio of 10:1 on domestic support and by a ratio
of 60:1 on export subsidies;
(3) the support the European Union gives their producers
results in more prosperous rural communities in Europe than
in the United States;
(4) the European Union blocked consensus at the World Trade
Organization ministerial meeting in Seattle because Europe
does not want to surrender its current advantage in world
markets;
(5) despite the competitiveness of American farmers, the
European advantage has led to a declining United States share
of the world market for agricultural products;
(6) the United States Department of Agriculture reports
that United States export growth has lagged behind that of
our major competitors, resulting in a loss of United States
market share, from 24 percent in 1981 to its current level of
18 percent;
(7) the United States Department of Agriculture also
reports that United States market share of global
agricultural trade has eroded steadily over the past 2
decades, which could culminate in the United States losing
out to the European Union as the world's top agricultural
exporter sometime in 2000;
(8) prices of agricultural commodities in the United States
are at 50-year lows in real terms, creating a serious
economic crisis in rural America; and
(9) fundamental fairness requires that the playing field be
leveled so that United States farmers are no longer at a
competitive disadvantage.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that--

[[Page 5053]]

(1) the United States should take steps to increase support
for American farmers in order to level the playing field for
United States agricultural producers and increase the
leverage of the United States in World Trade Organization
negotiations on agriculture as long as such support is not
trade distorting, and does not otherwise exceed or impair
existing Uruguay Round obligations; and
(2) such actions should improve United States farm income
and restore the prosperity of rural communities.

SEC. 315. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON WOMEN AND SOCIAL SECURITY
REFORM.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) without Social Security benefits, the elderly poverty
rate among women would have been 52.2 percent, and among
widows would have been 60.6 percent;
(2) women tend to live longer and tend to have lower
lifetime earnings than men do;
(3) during their working years, women earn an average of 70
cents for every dollar men earn; and
(4) women spend an average of 11.5 years out of their
careers to care for their families, and are more likely to
work part-time than full-time.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that--
(1) women face unique obstacles in ensuring retirement
security and survivor and disability stability;
(2) Social Security plays an essential role in guaranteeing
inflation-protected financial stability for women throughout
their old age;
(3) the Congress and the Administration should act, as part
of Social Security reform, to ensure that widows and other
poor elderly women receive more adequate benefits that reduce
their poverty rates and that women, under whatever approach
is taken to reform Social Security, should receive no lesser
a share of overall federally funded retirement benefits than
they receive today; and
(4) the sacrifice that women make to care for their family
should be recognized during reform of Social Security and
that women should not be penalized by taking an average of
11.5 years out of their careers to care for their family.

SEC. 316. PROTECTION OF BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Each year an estimated 1,000,000 women suffer nonfatal
violence by an intimate partner.
(2) Nearly 1 out of 3 adult women can expect to experience
at least 1 physical assault by a partner during adulthood.
(3) Domestic violence is statistically consistent across
racial and ethnic lines. It does not discriminate based on
race or economic status.
(4) The chance of being victimized by an intimate partner
is 10 times greater for a woman than a man.
(5) Past and current victims of domestic violence are over-
represented in the welfare population. It is estimated that
at least 60 percent of current welfare beneficiaries have
experienced some form of domestic violence.
(6) Abused women who do seek employment face barriers as a
result of domestic violence. Welfare studies show that 15 to
50 percent of abused women report interference from their
partner with education, training, or employment.
(7) The programs established by the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 have empowered communities to address the threat
caused by domestic violence.
(8) Since 1995, Congress has appropriated close to
$1,800,000,000 to fund programs established by the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994, including the STOP program,
shelters for battered women and children, the domestic
violence hotline, and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention injury control programs.
(9) The programs established by the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 have been and continue to comprise a successful
national strategy for addressing the needs of battered women
and the public health threat caused by this violence.
(10) The Supreme Court could act during this session to
overturn a major protection and course of action provided for
in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. In United States
v. Morrison/Brzonkala, the Supreme Court will address the
issue of the constitutionality of the Federal civil rights
remedy under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and may
overturn congressional intent to elevate violence against
women to a category protected under Federal civil rights law.
(11) The actions taken by the courts and the failure to
reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 has
generated a great deal of concern in communities nationwide.
(12) Funding for the programs established by the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 is the only lifeline for battered
women and Congress has a moral obligation to continue funding
and to strengthen key components of the Violence Against
Women Act of 1994.
(13) Congress and the Administration should work to ensure
the continued funding of programs established by the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that, in light of
the pending litigation challenging the constitutionality of
the Federal civil rights remedy in the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 and the lack of action on legislation
reauthorizing and strengthening the provisions of that Act--
(1) Congress, through reauthorization of the programs
established by the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, should
work to eliminate economic barriers that trap women and
children in violent homes and relationships; and
(2) full funding for the programs established by the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 will be provided from the
Violent Crime Reduction Fund.

SEC. 317. USE OF FALSE CLAIMS ACT IN COMBATTING MEDICARE
FRAUD.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the solvency of the medicare trust funds is of vital
importance to the well-being of the Nation's seniors and
other vulnerable people in need of quality health care;
(2) fraud against the medicare trust funds is a major
problem resulting in the depletion of the trust funds; and
(3) chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code (commonly
referred to as the False Claims Act) and the qui tam
provisions of that chapter are vital tools in combatting
fraud against the medicare program.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that chapter 37 of
title 31, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
False Claims Act) and the qui tam provisions of that chapter
are essential tools in combatting medicare fraud and should
not be weakened in any way.

SEC. 318. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NATIONAL GUARD.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Army National Guard relies heavily upon thousands
of full-time employees, Military Technicians and Active
Guard/Reserves, to ensure unit readiness throughout the Army
National Guard;
(2) these employees perform vital day-to-day functions,
ranging from equipment maintenance to leadership and staff
roles, that allow the drill weekends and annual active duty
training of the traditional Guardsmen to be dedicated to
preparation for the National Guard's warfighting and
peacetime missions;
(3) when the ability to provide sufficient Active Guard/
Reserves and Technicians end strength is reduced, unit
readiness, as well as quality of life for soldiers and
families is degraded;
(4) the Army National Guard, with agreement from the
Department of Defense, requires a minimum essential
requirement of 23,500 Active Guard/Reserves and 25,500
Technicians; and
(5) the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Army
National Guard provides resources sufficient for
approximately 22,430 Active Guard/Reserves and 23,957
Technicians, end strength shortfalls of 1,052 and 1,543,
respectively.
(b) Sense of the Senate.-- It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in the resolution assume that the Department
of Defense will give priority to funding the Active Guard/
Reserves and Military Technicians at levels authorized by
Congress in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense
authorization bill.

SEC. 319. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MILITARY READINESS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the Secretary of the Air Force stated that the United
States Air Force's top unfunded readiness priority for fiscal
year 2000 was its aircraft spares and repair parts account
and top Air Force officers have said that getting more spares
is a top priority to improve readiness rates;
(2) the Chief of Naval Operations stated that the aircraft
spares and repair parts account for a top readiness priority
important to the long-term health of the Navy;
(3) the General Accounting Office's study of personnel
retention problems in the armed services cited shortages of
spares and repair parts as a major reason why people are
leaving the services;
(4) the fiscal year 2001 budget request decreases the Air
Force's spares and repair parts account by 13 percent from
fiscal year 2000 expected levels; and
(5) the fiscal year 2001 budget request decreases the
Navy's spares and repair parts account by 6 percent from the
fiscal year 2000 expected levels.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the functional totals in the budget resolution assume
that Congress will protect the Department of Defense's
readiness accounts, including spares and repair parts, and
operations and maintenance, and use the requested levels as
the minimum baseline for fiscal year 2001 authorization and
appropriations.

SEC. 320. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COMPENSATION FOR THE CHINESE
EMBASSY BOMBING IN BELGRADE.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume funds designated to compensate the People's
Republic of China for the damage inadvertently done to their
embassy in Belgrade by NATO forces in May 1999, should not be
appropriated from the international affairs budget.

SEC. 321. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING FUNDING OF DIGITAL
OPPORTUNITY INITIATIVES.

(a) The Senate finds that--
(1) computers, the Internet, and information networks are
not luxury items but basic tools largely responsible for
driving the current economic expansions;
(2) information technology utility relies on software
applications and online content;
(3) access to computers and the Internet and the ability to
use this technology effectively is becoming increasingly
important for full participation in America's economic,
political, and social life; and

[[Page 5054]]

(4) unequal access to technology and high-tech skills by
income, educational level, race, and geography could deepen
and reinforce the divisions that exist within American
society.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that the Committees
on Appropriations and Finance should support efforts that
address the digital divide, including tax incentives and
funding to--
(1) broaden access to information technologies;
(2) provide workers and teachers with information
technology training;
(3) promote innovative online content and software
applications that will improve commerce, education, and
quality of life; and
(4) help provide information and communications technology
to underserved communities.

SEC. 322. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING IMMUNIZATION FUNDING.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) vaccines protect children and adults against serious
and potentially fatal diseases;
(2) society saves up to $24 in medical and societal costs
for every dollar spent on vaccines;
(3) every day, 11,000 babies are born--4,000,000 each
year--and each child needs up to 19 doses of vaccine by age
2;
(4) approximately 1,000,000 2-year-olds have not received
all of the recommended vaccine doses;
(5) the immunization program under section 317(j)(1) under
the Public Health Service Act, administered by the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, provides grants to States
and localities for critical activities including immunization
registries, outbreak control, provider education, outreach
efforts, and linkages with other public health and welfare
services;
(6) Federal grants to States and localities for these
activities have declined from $271,000,000 in 1995 to
$139,000,000 in 2000;
(7) because of these funding reductions States are
struggling to maintain immunization rates and have
implemented severe cuts to immunization delivery activities;
(8) even with significant gains in national immunization
rates, underimmunized children still exist and there are a
number of subpopulations where coverage rates remain low and
are actually declining;
(9) rates in many of the Nation's urban areas, including
Chicago and Houston, are unacceptably low; and
(10) these pockets of need create pools of susceptible
children and increase the risk of dangerous disease
outbreaks.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in the resolution assume that Congress should
enact legislation that provides $214,000,000 in funding for
immunization grants under section 317 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247b) for infrastructure and delivery
activities, including targeted support for immunization
project areas with low or declining immunization rates or who
have subpopulations with special needs.

SEC. 323. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TAX CREDITS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES PROVIDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO LOW-
INCOME EMPLOYEES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) 25,000,000 workers in the United States were uninsured
in 1997 and more than two-thirds of the uninsured workers
earn less than $20,000 annually, according to a Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation report;
(2) the percentage of employees of small businesses who
have employer-sponsored health insurance coverage decreased
from 52 percent in 1996 to 47 percent in 1998; for the
smallest employers, those with 3 to 9 workers, the percentage
of employees covered by employer-sponsored health insurance
fell from 36 percent in 1996 to 31 percent in 1998;
(3) between 1996 and 1998, health premiums for small
businesses increased 5.2 percent; premiums increased by 8
percent for the smallest employers, the highest increase
among all small businesses;
(4) monthly family coverage for workers at firms with 3 to
9 employees cost $520 in 1998, compared to $462 for family
coverage for workers at large firms; and
(5) only 39 percent of small businesses with a significant
percentage of low-income employees offer employer-provided
health insurance and such companies are half as likely to
offer health benefits to such employees as are companies that
have only a small percentage of low-income employees.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that Congress
should enact legislation that allows small businesses to
claim a tax credit when they provide health insurance to low-
income employees.

SEC. 324. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON FUNDING FOR CRIMINAL
JUSTICE.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) our success in the fight against crime and improvements
in the administration of justice are the result of a
bipartisan effort; and
(2) since 1993 the Congress and the President have
increased justice funding by 92 percent, and a strong
commitment to law enforcement and the administration of
justice remains appropriate.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that funds to
improve the justice system will be available as follows:
(1) $665,000,000 for the expanded support of direct Federal
enforcement, adjudicative, and correctional-detention
activities.
(2) $50,000,000 in additional funds to combat terrorism,
including cyber crime.
(3) $41,000,000 in additional funds for construction costs
for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center.
(4) $200,000,000 in support of Customs and Immigration and
Nationalization Service port of entry officers for the
development and implementation of the ACE computer system
designed to meet critical trade and border security needs.
(5) Funding is available for the continuation of such
programs as: the Byrne Grant Program, Violence Against Women,
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants, First Responder
Training, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, Weed and Seed,
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing, State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Drug Courts, Residential
Substance Abuse Treatment, Crime Identification Technologies,
Bulletproof Vests, Counterterrorism, Interagency Law
Enforcement Coordination.

SEC. 325. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE PELL GRANT.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) public investment in higher education yields a return
of several dollars for each dollar invested;
(2) higher education promotes economic opportunity for
individuals; for example recipients of bachelor's degrees
earn an average of 75 percent per year more than those with
high school diplomas and experience half as much unemployment
as high school graduates;
(3) access to a college education has become a hallmark of
American society, and is vital to upholding our belief in
equality of opportunity;
(4) for a generation, the Federal Pell Grant has served as
an established and effective means of providing access to
higher education;
(5) over the past decade, Pell Grant has failed to keep up
with inflation. Over the past 25 years, the value of the
average Pell Grant has decreased by 23 percent--it is now
worth only 77 percent of what Pell Grants were worth in 1975;
(6) grant aid as a portion of student aid has fallen
significantly over the past 5 years. Grant aid used to
comprise 55 percent of total aid awarded and loans comprised
just over 40 percent. Now that trend has been reversed so
that loans comprise nearly 60 percent of total aid awarded
and grants only comprise 40 percent of total aid awarded;
(7) the percentage of freshmen attending public and private
4-year institutions from families whose income is below the
national median has fallen since 1981.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that within the
discretionary allocation provided to the Committee on
Appropriations, the funding for the maximum Pell Grant award
should be at or above the level requested by the President.

SEC. 326. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC
EDUCATION REFORM.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) Recent scientific evidence demonstrates that enhancing
children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual
development before the age of 6 results in tremendous
benefits throughout life.
(2) Successful schools are led by well-trained, highly
qualified principals, but many principals do not get the
training in management skills that the principals need to
ensure their school provides an excellent education for every
child.
(3) Good teachers are a crucial catalyst to quality
education, but 1 in 4 new teachers do not meet State
certification requirements; each year more than 50,000
underprepared teachers enter the classroom; and 12 percent of
new teachers have had no teacher training at all.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that the Federal
Government should support State and local educational
agencies engaged in comprehensive reform of their public
education system and that any public education reform should
include at least the following principles:
(1) Every child should begin school ready to learn.
(2) Training and development for principals and teachers
should be a priority.

SEC. 327. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING
FOR UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) United States international leadership is essential to
maintaining security and peace for all Americans;
(2) such leadership depends on effective diplomacy as well
as a strong military;
(3) effective diplomacy requires adequate resources both
for operations and security of United States embassies and
for international programs;
(4) in addition to building peace, prosperity, and
democracy around the world, programs in the International
Affairs (150) budget serve United States interests by
ensuring better jobs and a higher standard of living,
promoting the health of our citizens and preserving our
natural environment, and protecting the rights and safety of
those who travel or do business overseas;
(5) real spending for International Affairs has declined
more than 40 percent since the mid-1980's, at the same time
that major new challenges and opportunities have arisen from
the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the worldwide
trends toward democracy and free markets;

[[Page 5055]]

(6) current ceilings on discretionary spending will impose
severe additional cuts in funding for International Affairs;
(7) improved security for United States diplomatic missions
and personnel will place further strain on the International
Affairs budget absent significant additional resources;
(8) the United States cannot reduce efforts to safeguard
nuclear materials in the former Soviet States or shortchange
initiatives aimed at maintaining stability on the Korean
peninsula, where 37,000 United States forces are deployed. We
cannot reduce support for peace in the Middle East or in
Northern Ireland or in the Balkans. We cannot stop fighting
terror or simply surrender to the spread of HIV/AIDS. We must
continue to support all of these things, which are difficult
to achieve without adequate and realistic funding levels; and
(9) the President's request for funds for fiscal year 2001
would adequately finance our International Affairs programs
without detracting from our defense and domestic needs. It
would help keep America prosperous and secure. It would
enable us to leverage the contributions of allies and friends
on behalf of democracy and peace. It would allow us to
protect the interests of Americans who travel, study, or do
business overseas. It would do all these things and more for
about 1 penny of every dollar the Federal Government spends.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that additional
budgetary resources should be identified for function 150 to
enable successful United States international leadership.

SEC. 328. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE HIV/AIDS CRISIS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) More than 16,000,000 people have been killed by
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) since the epidemic
began.
(2) 14,000,000 Africans have died as a result of the AIDS
epidemic. Eighty-four percent of the worldwide deaths from
AIDS have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.
(3) Each day, AIDS kills 5,500 Africans, and infects 11,000
more.
(4) By the end of 2000, 10,400,000 children in sub-Saharan
Africa will have lost one or both parents, to AIDS.
(5) Over 85 percent of the world's HIV-positive children
live in Africa.
(6) Fewer than 5 percent of those living with AIDS in
Africa have access to even the most basic care.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the functional totals underlying this resolution on the
budget assume that Congress has recognized the catastrophic
effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, particularly in sub-Saharan
Africa, and seeks to maximize the effectiveness of the United
States' efforts to combat the disease through any necessary
authorization or appropriations;
(2) Congress should strengthen ongoing programs which
address education and prevention, testing, the care of AIDS
orphans, and improving home and community-based care options
for those living with AIDS; and
(3) Congress should seek additional or new tools to combat
the epidemic, including initiatives to encourage vaccine
development and programs aimed at preventing mother-to-child
transmission of the disease.

SEC. 329. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING TRIBAL COLLEGES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) More than 26,500 students from 250 tribes nationwide
attend tribal colleges. The colleges serve students of all
ages, many of whom are moving from welfare to work. The vast
majority of tribal college students are first-generation
college students.
(2) While annual appropriations for tribal colleges have
increased modestly in recent years, core operation funding
levels are still about half of the $6,000 per Indian student
level authorized by the Tribally Controlled College or
University Act.
(3) Although tribal colleges received a $3,000,000 increase
in funding in fiscal year 2000, because of rising student
populations and other factors, these institutions may face an
actual per-student decrease in funding over fiscal year 1999.
(4) Per-student funding for tribal colleges is roughly half
the amount given to mainstream community colleges.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that--
(1) the Senate recognizes the funding difficulties faced by
tribal colleges and assumes that priority consideration will
be provided to them through funding for the Tribally
Controlled College and University Act, the 1994 Land Grant
Institutions, and title III of the Higher Education Act; and
(2) such priority consideration reflects Congress' intent
to continue work toward current statutory Federal funding
goals for the tribal colleges.

SEC. 330. SENSE OF THE SENATE TO PROVIDE RELIEF FROM THE
MARRIAGE PENALTY.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) marriage is the foundation of the American society and
a key institution for preserving our values;
(2) the tax code should not penalize those who choose to
marry;
(3) a report to the Treasury Department's Office of Tax
Analysis estimates that in 1999, 48 percent of married
couples will pay a marriage penalty under the present tax
system;
(4) the Congressional Budget Office found that the average
penalty amounts to $1,400 a year.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the level in this budget resolution assume that the
Congress shall--
(1) pass marriage penalty tax relief legislation that
begins a phasedown of this penalty in 2001;
(2) consider such legislation prior to April 15, 2000.

SEC. 331. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE CONTINUED USE OF FEDERAL
FUEL TAXES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND
REHABILITATION OF OUR NATION'S HIGHWAYS,
BRIDGES, AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) current law, as stipulated in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), requires all Federal
gasoline taxes be deposited into the Highway Trust Fund;
(2) current law, as stipulated in TEA-21, guarantees that
all such deposits to the Highway Trust Fund are spent in full
on the construction and rehabilitation of our Nation's
highways, bridges, and transit systems;
(3) the funding guarantees contained in TEA-21 are
essential to the ability of the Nation's Governors, highway
commissioners, and transit providers to address the growing
backlog of critical transportation investments in order to
stem the deterioration of our road and transit systems,
improve the safety of our highways, and reduce the growth of
congestion that is choking off economic growth in communities
across the Nation;
(4) any effort to reduce the Federal gasoline tax or de-
link the relationship between highway user fees and highway
spending pose a great danger to the integrity of the Highway
Trust Fund and the ability of the States to invest adequately
in our transportation infrastructure; and
(5) proposals to reduce the Federal gasoline tax threaten
to endanger the spending levels guaranteed in TEA-21 while
providing no guarantee that consumers will experience any
reduction in price at the gas pump.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the functional totals in this budget resolution do not
assume the reduction of any Federal gasoline taxes on either
a temporary or permanent basis.

SEC. 332. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION
ENGINE.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume that the Senate will not, on behalf of Vice
President Al Gore, increase gasoline and diesel fuel taxes by
$1.50 per gallon effective July 1, 2000, and by an additional
$1.50 per gallon effective fiscal year 2005, as part of ``a
coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal
of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine
over, say, a twenty-five year period'' since ``their
cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a
mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more
deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again
likely to confront''.

SEC. 333. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A NATIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM FOR LONG-
TERM CARE WORKERS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The impending retirement of the baby boom generation
will greatly increase the demand and need for quality long-
term care and it is incumbent on Congress and the President
to ensure that medicare and medicaid patients are protected
from abuse, neglect, and mistreatment.
(2) Although the majority of long-term care facilities do
an excellent job in caring for elderly and disabled patients,
incidents of abuse and neglect and mistreatment do occur at
an unacceptable rate and are not limited to nursing homes
alone.
(3) Current Federal and State safeguards are inadequate
because there is little or no information sharing between
States about known abusers and no common State procedures for
tracking abusers from State to State and facility to
facility.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
concurrent resolution on the budget assume that a national
registry of abusive long-term care workers should be
established by building upon existing infrastructures at the
Federal and State levels that would enable long-term care
providers who participate in the medicare and medicaid
programs to conduct background checks on prospective
employees.

SEC. 334. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE PRICE OF
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Today, two-thirds of senior citizens in the United
States have access to prescription drugs through health
insurance coverage.
(2) However, it is difficult for many Americans, including
senior citizens, to afford the prescription drugs that they
need to stay healthy.
(3) Many senior citizens in the United States leave the
country and go to Canada or Mexico to buy prescription drugs
that are developed, manufactured, and approved in the United
States in order to buy such drugs at lower prices than such
drugs are sold for in the United States.
(4) According to the General Accounting Office, a consumer
in the United States pays on average \1/3\ more for a
prescription drug than a

[[Page 5056]]

consumer pays for the same drug in another country.
(5) The United States has made a strong commitment to
supporting the research and development of new drugs through
taxpayer-supported funding of the National Institutes of
Health, through the research and development tax credit, and
through other means.
(6) The development of new drugs is important because the
use of such drugs enables people to live longer and lead
healthier, more productive lives.
(7) Citizens of other countries should pay a portion of the
research and development costs for new drugs, or their fair
share of such costs, rather than just reap the benefits of
such drugs.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that the
cost disparity between identical prescription drugs sold in
the United States, Canada, and Mexico should be reduced or
eliminated.

SEC. 335. SENSE OF THE SENATE AGAINST FEDERAL FUNDING OF
SMOKE SHOPS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Smoking begun by children during their teen years and
even earlier turns the lives of far too many Americans into
nightmares decades later, plagued by disease and premature
death.
(2) The Federal Government should leave a legacy of more
healthy Americans and fewer victims of tobacco-related
illness.
(3) Efforts by the Federal Government should seek to
protect young people from the dangers of smoking.
(4) Discount tobacco stores, sometimes known as smoke
shops, operate to sell high volumes of cigarettes and other
tobacco products, often at significantly reduced prices, with
each tobacco outlet often selling millions of discount
cigarettes each year.
(5) Studies by the Surgeon General and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that children are
particularly susceptible to price differentials in
cigarettes, such as those available through smoke shop
discounts.
(6) The Department of Housing and Urban Development is
using Federal funds for grants to construct not less than 6
smoke shops or facilities that contain a smoke shop.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the budget levels in this resolution assume that no
Federal funds may be used by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to provide any grant or other assistance to
construct, operate, or otherwise benefit a smoke shop or
other tobacco outlet.

SEC. 336. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE NEED TO REDUCE
GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) On average, 12 children die from gun fire everyday in
America.
(2) On May 20, 1999, the Senate passed the Violent and
Repeat Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act, by a
vote of 73 to 25, in part, to stem gun-related violence in
the United States.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in function 750 of this resolution assume
that Congress should--
(1) pass the conference report to accompany H.R. 1501, the
Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and
Rehabilitation Act, including Senate-passed provisions, with
the purpose of limiting access to firearms by juveniles,
convicted felons, and other persons prohibited by law from
purchasing or possessing firearms; and
(2) consider H.R. 1501 not later than April 20, 2000.

SEC. 337. SENSE OF THE SENATE SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL FUNDING
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 FOR MEDICAL CARE FOR OUR
NATION'S VETERANS.

(a) It is the sense of the Senate that the provisions in
this resolution assume that if the Congressional Budget
Office determines there is an on-budget surplus for fiscal
year 2001, $500,000,000 of that surplus will be restored to
the programs cut in this amendment.
(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions
underlying this budget resolution assume that none of these
offsets will come from defense or veterans, and to the extent
possible should come from administrative functions.

SEC. 338. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING MEDICAL CARE FOR
VETERANS.

It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the provisions of this resolution assume that if the
Congressional Budget Office determines there is an on-budget
surplus for fiscal year 2001, $500,000,000 of that surplus
will be restored to the programs cut by this amendment; and
(2) the assumptions underlying this resolution assume that
none of the offsets made by this amendment will come from
defense or veterans and should, to the extent possible, come
from administrative functions.

SEC. 339. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING INVESTMENT OF SOCIAL
SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) Government investment of the Social Security trust
funds in the stock market is a gamble Congress should be
unwilling to make on behalf of the millions who receive and
depend on Social Security to meet their retirement needs;
(2) in 1999, the Senate voted 99-0 to oppose Government
investment of the Social Security trust funds in private
financial markets;
(3) in addition to the unanimous opposition of the United
States Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and
Securities and Exchange Commissioner Arthur Levitt also
oppose the idea; and
(4) despite this opposition, and despite the dangers
inherent in having the Government invest Social Security
trust funds in private financial markets, President Clinton
has once again suggested, on page 37 of the Administration's
proposed fiscal year 2001 Federal budget, that the Government
invest part of the Social Security trust funds in corporate
equities.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
resolution assume that the Federal Government should not
directly invest contributions made to the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability
Insurance Trust Fund established under section 201 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401), or any interest derived
from those contributions, in private financial markets.

SEC. 340. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) A digital divide exists in America. Low-income, urban
and rural families are less likely to have access to the
Internet and computers. African American and Hispanic
families are only \2/5\ as likely to have Internet access as
white families. Access by Native Americans to the Internet
and to computers is statistically negligible.
(2) Regardless of income level, Americans living in rural
areas lag behind in Internet access. Individuals with lower
incomes who live in rural areas are half as likely to have
Internet access as individuals who live in urban areas.
(3) The digital divide for the poorest Americans has grown
by 29 percent since 1997.
(4) Access to computers and the Internet and the ability to
use this technology effectively is becoming increasingly
important for full participation in America's economic,
political and social life.
(5) Unequal access to technology and high-tech skills by
income, educational level, race and geography could deepen
and reinforce the divisions that exist within American
society.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the functional totals underlying this resolution on the
budget assume that--
(1) to ensure that all children are computer literate by
the time they finish the eighth grade, regardless of race,
ethnicity, gender, income, geography or disability, to
broaden access to information technologies, to provide
workers, teachers and students with information technology
training, and to promote innovative online content and
software applications that will improve commerce, education
and quality of life, initiatives that increase digital
opportunity should be provided for as follows:
(A) $200,000,000 in tax incentives should be provided to
encourage private sector donation of high-quality computers,
sponsorship of community technology centers, training,
technical services and computer repair;
(B) $450,000,000 should be provided for teacher training;
(C) $150,000,000 for new teacher training;
(D) $400,000,000 should be provided for school technology
and school libraries;
(E) $20,000,000 should be provided to place computers and
trained personnel in Boys & Girls Clubs;
(F) $25,000,000 should be provided to create an E-Corps
within Americorps;
(G) $100,000,000 should be provided to create 1,000
Community Technology Centers in low-income urban and rural
communities;
(H) $50,000,000 should be provided for public/private
partnerships to expand home access to computers and the
Internet for low-income families;
(I) $45,000,000 should be provided to promote innovative
applications of information and communications technology for
underserved communities;
(J) $10,000,000 should be provided to prepare Native
Americans for careers in Information Technology and other
technical fields; and
(2) all Americans should have access to broadband
telecommunications capability as soon as possible and as
such, initiatives that increase broadband deployment should
be funded, including $25,000,000 to accelerate private sector
deployment of broadband and networks in underserved urban and
rural communities.

SEC. 341. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
budget resolution assume that among its reform options,
Congress should explore a medicare prescription drug proposal
that--
(1) is voluntary;
(2) increases access for all medicare beneficiaries;
(3) is designed to provide meaningful protection and
bargaining power for medicare beneficiaries in obtaining
prescription drugs;
(4) is affordable for all medicare beneficiaries and for
the medicare program;
(5) is administered using private sector entities and
competitive purchasing techniques;
(6) is consistent with broader medicare reform;
(7) preserves and protects the financial integrity of the
medicare trust funds;
(8) does not increase medicare beneficiary premiums; and
(9) provides a prescription drug benefit as soon as
possible.

SEC. 342. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FUNDING FOR NEW
EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the budgetary levels in
this resolution assume that Congress' first priority should
be to fully fund the

[[Page 5057]]

programs described under part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.) at the
originally promised level of 40 percent before Federal funds
are appropriated for new education programs.

SEC. 343. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF
FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The Clinton Administration has failed to adequately
enforce Federal firearms laws. Between 1992 and 1998,
Triggerlock gun prosecutions--prosecutions of defendants who
use a firearm in the commission of a felony--dropped nearly
50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800.
(2) The decline in Federal firearms prosecutions was not
due to a lack of adequate resources. During the period when
Federal firearms prosecutions decreased nearly 50 percent,
the overall budget of the Department of Justice increased 54
percent.
(3) It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school
grounds under section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code.
The Clinton Department of Justice prosecuted only 8 cases
under this provision of law during 1998, even though more
than 6,000 students brought firearms to school that year. The
Clinton Administration prosecuted only 5 such cases during
1997.
(4) It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a
juvenile under section 922(x) of title 18, United States
Code. The Clinton Department of Justice prosecuted only 6
cases under this provision of law during 1998 and only 5
during 1997.
(5) It is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a
semiautomatic assault weapon under section 922(v) of title
18, United States Code. The Clinton Department of Justice
prosecuted only 4 cases under this provision of law during
1998 and only 4 during 1997.
(6) It is a Federal crime for any person ``who has been
adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed
to a mental institution'' to possess or purchase a firearm
under section 922(g) of title 18, United States Code. Despite
this Federal law, mental health adjudications are not placed
on the national instant criminal background system
established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note).
(7) It is a Federal crime for any person knowingly to make
any false statement in the attempted purchase of a firearm
under section 922(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code. It
is also a Federal crime for convicted felons to possess or
purchase a firearm under section 922(g) of title 18, United
States Code.
(8) More than 500,000 convicted felons and other prohibited
purchasers have been prevented from buying firearms from
licensed dealers since the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention
Act was enacted. When these felons attempted to purchase a
firearm, they violated section 922(a)(6) of title 18, United
States Code, by making a false statement under oath that they
were not disqualified from purchasing a firearm. Nonetheless,
of the more than 500,000 violations, only approximately 200
of the felons have been referred to the Department of Justice
for prosecution.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
concurrent resolution on the budget assume that Federal funds
will be used for an effective law enforcement strategy
requiring a commitment to enforcing existing Federal firearms
laws by--
(1) designating not less than 1 Assistant United States
Attorney in each district to prosecute Federal firearms
violations and thereby expand Project Exile nationally;
(2) upgrading the national instant criminal background
system established under section 103(b) of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) by encouraging
States to place mental health adjudications on that system
and by improving the overall speed and efficiency of that
system; and
(3) providing incentive grants to States to encourage
States to impose mandatory minimum sentences for firearm
offenses based on section 924(c) of title 18, United States
Code, and to prosecute those offenses in State court.

SEC. 344. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE CENSUS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution and legislation enacted pursuant to this
resolution assume that no American will be prosecuted, fined
or in anyway harassed by the Federal Government or its agents
for failure to respond to any census questions which refer to
an individual's race, national origin, living conditions,
personal habits or mental and/or physical condition, but that
all Americans are encouraged to send in their census forms.

SEC. 345. SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT ANY INCREASE IN THE
MINIMUM WAGE SHOULD BE ACCOMPANIED BY TAX
RELIEF FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.

It is the sense of the Senate that the functional totals
underlying this resolution on the budget assume that the
minimum wage should be increased as provided for in amendment
number 2547, the Domenici and others amendment to S. 625, the
Bankruptcy Reform legislation.

SEC. 346. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING THE MINIMUM WAGE.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume that Congress should enact legislation to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.) to increase the Federal minimum wage by $1.00 over 1
year with a $0.50 increase effective May 2, 2000 and another
$0.50 increase effective on May 2, 2001.

SEC. 347. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE
PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES IN THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN.

It is the sense of Congress that the levels of funding for
the defense category in this resolution--
(1) assume that members of the Armed Forces are to be
authorized to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan; and
(2) provide the $980,000,000 necessary to offset the
reduced tax revenue resulting from that participation through
fiscal year 2009.

SEC. 348. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING PROTECTING THE
SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume that the Congress shall pass legislation
which provides for sequestration to reduce Federal spending
by the amount necessary to ensure that, in any fiscal year,
the Social Security surpluses are used only for the payment
of Social Security benefits, retirement security, Social
Security reform, or to reduce the Federal debt held by the
public.

SEC. 349. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING REGULATION OF
TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Cigarette smoking and tobacco use is the single most
preventable cause of death and disability in the United
States.
(2) Cigarette smoking and tobacco use cause approximately
400,000 deaths each year in the United States.
(3) Health care costs associated with treating tobacco-
related diseases are $80,000,000,000 per year, and almost
half of such costs are paid for by taxpayer-financed
government health care programs.
(4) In spite of the well established dangers of cigarette
smoking and tobacco use, there is no Federal agency that has
authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, distribution,
and use of tobacco products.
(5) Major tobacco companies spend over $5,600,000,000 each
year ($15,000,000 each day) to promote the use of tobacco
products.
(6) Ninety percent of adult smokers first started smoking
before the age of 18.
(7) Each day 3,000 children become regular smokers and \1/
3\ of such children will die of diseases associated with the
use of tobacco products.
(8) The Food and Drug Administration regulates the
manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of nicotine-
containing products used as substitutes for cigarette smoking
and tobacco use and should be granted the authority to
regulate tobacco products.
(9) Congress should restrict youth access to tobacco
products and ensure that tobacco products meet minimum safety
standards.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the budgetary levels in this resolution assume that--
(1) the Food and Drug Administration is the most qualified
Federal agency to regulate tobacco products; and
(2) Congress should enact legislation in the year 2000 that
grants the Food and Drug Administration the authority to
regulate tobacco products.

SEC. 350. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AFTER SCHOOL
PROGRAMS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The demand for after school education is very high,
with more than 1,000,000 students waiting to get into such
programs.
(2) After school programs improve educational achievement
and have widespread support, with over 90 percent of the
American people supporting such programs.
(3) 450 of the Nation's leading police chiefs, sheriffs,
and prosecutors, along with the presidents of the Fraternal
Order of Police, and the International Union of Police
Associations, support government funding of after school
programs.
(4) Many of our Nation's governors endorse increasing the
number of after school programs through a Federal and State
partnership.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that this resolution assumes that the President's level of
funding for after school programs in fiscal year 2001 will be
provided, which will accommodate the current need for after
school programs.

SEC. 351. SENSE OF SENATE REGARDING CASH BALANCE PENSION PLAN
CONVERSIONS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) Defined benefit pension plans are guaranteed by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and provide a lifetime
benefit for a beneficiary and spouse.
(2) Defined benefit pension plans provide meaningful
retirement benefits to rank and file workers, since such
plans are generally funded by employer contributions.
(3) Employers should be encouraged to establish and
maintain defined benefit pension plans.
(4) An increasing number of major employers have been
converting their traditional defined benefit plans to ``cash
balance'' or other hybrid defined benefit plans.
(5) Under current law, employers are not required to
provide plan participants with meaningful disclosure of the
impact of converting a traditional defined benefit plan to a
``cash balance'' or other hybrid formula.
(6) For a number of years after a conversion, the cash
balance or other hybrid benefit formula may result in a
period of ``wear away'' during which older and longer service
participants earn no additional benefits.

[[Page 5058]]

(7) Federal law should continue to prohibit pension plan
participants from being discriminated against on the basis of
age in the provision of pension benefits.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the levels in this resolution assume that pension plan
participants whose plans are changed to cause older or longer
service workers to earn less retirement income, including
conversions to ``cash balance plans,'' should receive
additional protection than what is currently provided, and
Congress should act this year to address this important
issue. In particular, at a minimum--
(1) all pension plan participants should receive adequate,
accurate, and timely notice of any change to a plan that will
cause participants to earn less retirement income in the
future; and
(2) pension plans that are changed to a cash balance or
other hybrid formula should not be permitted to ``wear away''
participants' benefits in such a manner that older and longer
service participants earn no additional pension benefits for
a period of time after the change.

SEC. 352. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING UNINSURED AND LOW-
INCOME INDIVIDUALS IN MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED
COMMUNITIES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) the uninsured population in the United States continues
to grow at over 100,000 individuals per month, and is
estimated to reach over 53,000,000 people by 2007;
(2) the growth in the uninsured population continues
despite public and private efforts to increase health
insurance coverage;
(3) nearly 80 percent of the uninsured population are
members of working families who cannot afford health
insurance or cannot access employer-provided health insurance
plans;
(4) minority populations, rural residents, and single-
parent families represent a disproportionate number of the
uninsured population;
(5) the problem of health care access for the uninsured
population is compounded in many urban and rural communities
by a lack of providers who are available to serve both
insured and uninsured populations;
(6) community, migrant, homeless, and public housing health
centers have proven uniquely qualified to address the lack of
adequate health care services for uninsured populations,
serving over 4,500,000 uninsured patients in 1999, including
over 1,000,000 new uninsured patients who have sought care
from such centers in the last 3 years;
(7) health centers care for nearly 7,000,000 minorities,
nearly 600,000 farmworkers, and more than 500,000 homeless
individuals each year;
(8) health centers provide cost-effective comprehensive
primary and preventive care to uninsured individuals for less
than $1.00 per day, or $350 annually, and help to reduce the
inappropriate use of costly emergency rooms and inpatient
hospital care;
(9) current resources only allow health centers to serve 10
percent of the Nation's 44,000,000 uninsured individuals;
(10) past investments to increase health center access have
resulted in better health, an improved quality of life for
all Americans, and a reduction in national health care
expenditures; and
(11) Congress can act now to increase access to health care
services for uninsured and low-income people together with or
in advance of health care coverage proposals by expanding the
availability of services at community, migrant, homeless, and
public housing health centers.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the functional totals underlying this resolution on the
budget assume that--
(1) appropriations for consolidated health centers under
section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b)
should be increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal
years in order to double the number of individuals who
receive health care services at community, migrant, homeless,
and public housing health centers; and
(2) appropriations for consolidated health centers should
be increased by $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 over the
amount appropriated for such centers in fiscal year 2000.

SEC. 353. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING FISCAL YEAR 2001
FUNDING FOR THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 saved
approximately 3,800 lives in providing the essential service
of maritime safety.
(2) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 prevented 111,689
pounds of cocaine and 28,872 pounds of marijuana from
entering the United States in providing the essential service
of maritime security.
(3) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 boarded more than
14,000 fishing vessels to check for compliance with safety
and environmental laws in providing the essential service of
the protection of natural resources.
(4) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 ensured the safe
passage of nearly 1,000,000 commercial vessel transits
through congested harbors with vessel traffic services in
providing the essential service of maritime mobility.
(5) The United States Coast Guard in 1999 sent
international training teams to help more than 50 countries
develop their maritime services in providing the essential
service national defense.
(6) Each year, the United States Coast Guard ensures the
safe passage of more than 200,000,000 tons of cargo cross the
Great Lakes including iron ore, coal, and limestone. Shipping
on the Great Lakes faces a unique challenge because the
shipping season begins and ends in ice anywhere from 3 to 15
feet thick. The ice-breaking vessel MACKINAW has allowed
commerce to continue under these conditions. However, the
productive life of the MACKINAW is nearing an end. The Coast
Guard has committed to keeping the vessel in service until
2006 when a replacement vessel is projected to be in service,
but to meet that deadline, funds must be provided for the
Coast Guard in fiscal year 2001 to provide for the
procurement of a multipurpose-design heavy icebreaker.
(7) Without adequate funding, the United States Coast Guard
would have to radically reduce the level of service it
provides to the American public.
(b) Adjustment in Budget Levels.--
(1) Increase in funding for transportation.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the
amounts specified in section 103(8) of this resolution for
budget authority and outlays for Transportation (budget
function 400) for fiscal year 2001 shall be increased as
follows:
(A) The amount of budget authority for that fiscal year, by
$300,000,000.
(B) The amount of outlays for that fiscal year, by
$300,000,000.
(2) Offsetting decrease in funding for allowances.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, the
amounts specified in section 103(19) of this resolution for
budget authority and outlays for Allowances (budget function
920) for fiscal year 2001 shall be decreased as follows:
(A) The amount of budget authority for that fiscal year, by
$300,000,000.
(B) The amount of outlays for that fiscal year, by
$300,000,000.
(c) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the provisions of this resolution, as modified by
subsection (b), should provide additional budget authority
and outlay authority for the United States Coast Guard for
fiscal year 2001 such that the amount of such authority in
fiscal year 2001 exceeds the amount of such authority for
fiscal year 2000 by $300,000,000; and
(2) any level of such authority in fiscal year 2001 below
the level described in paragraph (1) would require the Coast
Guard to--
(A) close numerous stations and utilize remaining assets
only for emergency situations;
(B) reduce the number of personnel of an already
streamlined workforce;
(C) curtail its capacity to carry out emergency search and
rescue; and
(D) reduce operations in a manner that would have a
detrimental impact on the sustainability of valuable fish
stocks in the North Atlantic and Pacific Northwest and its
capacity to stem the flow of illicit drugs and illegal
immigration into the United States.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES--H. CON. RES. 290

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair
appoints on behalf of the Senate the following conferees for the budget
resolution: Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Wyden.

____________________

ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 10
a.m. on Tuesday, April 11. I further ask unanimous consent that on
Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and the Senate then be in a period for morning business
until 12:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5
minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski or his
designee, for 75 minutes, and Senator Daschle or his designee, for 75
minutes.
I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from
the hours of 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, for the information of all Senators,
the Senate will convene at 10 a.m. and be in a period for morning
business until 12:30 p.m. A number of Senators have indicated they
would like to speak prior to the cloture vote on the gas tax repeal
legislation. Therefore, there will be up to 2\1/2\ hours for that
debate.
Following the policy luncheons, there will be an additional 10
minutes of debate, to be followed by the vote on

[[Page 5059]]

invoking cloture on S. 2285, the Federal Fuels Tax Holiday.
I now ask unanimous consent that Senators have until 2:20 p.m. on
Tuesday in order to file timely second-degree amendments to S. 2285.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NICKLES. In addition, it was my hope that today we could have
reached agreement for the consideration of the marriage tax penalty.
That is not possible today; however, I still hope that we will be able
to begin consideration of that measure during tomorrow's session. I
will continue to work toward that result. If an agreement is not
reached on Tuesday, it may be necessary to begin the process to move
that bill forward.
I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
stand in adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 3:50 p.m., adjourned until
Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 10 a.m.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

April 10, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Monday, April 10, 2000

The House met at 12:30 p.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Wicker).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC,

April 10, 2000.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Roger F. Wicker to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

MORNING HOUR DEBATES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 19, 1999, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour
debates. The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with
each party limited to not to exceed 30 minutes, and each Member, except
the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip, limited
to not to exceed 5 minutes.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no Members seeking recognition,
pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess
until 2 p.m. today.
Accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until 2 p.m.

____________________

{time} 1400

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt) at 2 p.m.

____________________

PRAYER

The Reverend Dr. Ronald Christian, Lutheran Social Services, Fairfax,
Virginia, offered the following prayer:
O God, with these words and our thoughts, we acknowledge Your
almighty power and recognize our ultimate dependence on Your great
mercy.
So we pray, deliver us in Your might this day from callous hearts so
that we may be agents of your goodness and orderlies of Your
compassion.
Grant that from Your great storehouse of grace, we may receive the
blessings of seasonal weather for the spring planting, comity for all
communities in their life together, and joy in our pursuit of liberty
and justice for all.
Gracious God, dispose our days and our deeds in Your peace.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. TRAFICANT led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
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. 1832. An act to reform unfair and anticompetitive
practices in the professional boxing industry.

The message also announced that the Senate has passed a joint
resolution of the following title in which concurrence of the House is
requested:

S. J. Res. 43. Joint resolution expressing the sense of
Congress that the President of the United States should
encourage free and fair elections and respect for democracy
in Peru.

The message also announced that pursuant to the provisions of Senate
Concurrent Resolution 89 (106th Congress), the Chair, on behalf of the
Vice President, appoints the following Senators to the Joint
Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies--
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott);
the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. McConnell); and
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd).
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 96-114, as
amended, the Chair, on behalf of the Majority Leader, announces the
appointment of the following individuals to the Congressional Award
Board--
Elaine L. Chao, of Kentucky; and
Linda Mitchell, of Mississippi.
The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 93-415, as
amended by Public Law 102-586, the Chair, on behalf of the Majority
Leader, after consultation with the Democratic Leader, announces the
reappointment of the following individuals to serve as members of the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention:
Michael W. McPhail, of Mississippi, to a one-year term;
Dr. Larry K. Brendtro, of South Dakota, to a two-year term; and
Charles Sims, of Mississippi, to a three-year term.

____________________

WASTEFUL SPENDING

(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, bureaucracy is a word we hear every day.
The Federal Government has become so large that it is difficult to
follow how individual agencies are spending taxpayer dollars.
Take the Federal Aviation Administration, for example. The FAA spent
$4 billion on an air traffic control modernization program that was
unreliable, did not work, and was shut down before it was completed.
Mr. Speaker, $4 billion just flew out the window.
The General Accounting Office remains concerned about the agency's
poor accounting and lack of control over costs, as the agency proceeds
with its new $42 billion air traffic modernization program. The GAO has
every reason to be concerned about the FAA's decision-making process.
According to the Department of Transportation's report, FAA employees
are using programs designed to acquaint air traffic controllers with
cockpit operations for personal travel. And as my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from the 17th district of Ohio (Mr. Traficant), would
say, ``Just beam me up, Scotty.''
One employee took 12 weekend trips in a 15-month period to visit his
family in Tampa, Florida, at taxpayers' expense.
Mr. Speaker, the waste of taxpayer dollars just will not fly any
more.

____________________

NEED FOR INVESTIGATION AT WACO

(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, infrared video technology has proven
beyond a reasonable doubt that rapid-fire semiautomatic weapons were
fired into the Branch Davidian compound after the explosive fire had
ignited. Yet all this time, the Justice Department and the FBI have
maintained in their knowledge they never fired into the compound after
or before the fire had started.
Janet Reno further said she believed the FBI was telling the truth.
Beam me up. 80 Americans were killed, many of them innocent women and
children. They continued to lie. Stop the lies. Stop the coverup. Stop
lying to Congress and Congress stop letting agencies get away with it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the need for an investigation into the lies
at Waco.

____________________

BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER TREATMENT ACT

(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, as you know, on May 14, we will celebrate
Mother's Day. To honor that day, I am pleased that the leadership has
agreed to schedule a vote on H.R. 1070, which is the Breast and
Cervical Cancer Treatment Act.
This legislation will provide treatment for low-income, uninsured
working women who are diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer. H.R.
1070 will give States the option of providing Medicaid coverage for
these women if they are screened by the CDC's early detection program
and found to have cancer, that is, the Centers for Disease Control. The
program now provides screening for breast and cervical cancer, but can
you believe it does not provide for treatment? H.R. 1070 will correct
this. If we offer this screening, we must offer the treatment.
Mr. Speaker, the funding for H.R. 1070 is included in the budget
resolution that the House recently passed. It enjoys strong bipartisan
support. Let us do the right thing.
In honor of Mother's Day, let us pass H.R. 1070.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
announces that he will postpone further proceedings today on each
motion to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and
nays are ordered or on which the vote is objected to under clause 6 of
rule XX.
Any record votes on postponed questions will be taken after debate
has concluded on all motions to suspend the rules but not before 6 p.m.
today.

____________________

AUTHORIZING THE 2000 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW
ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN TO BE RUN THROUGH THE CAPITOL GROUNDS

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 280) authorizing the 2000
District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run to be
run through the Capitol Grounds.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 280

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS
LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN THROUGH CAPITOL
GROUNDS.

On June 2, 2000, or on such other date as the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and
Administration of the Senate may jointly designate, the 2000
District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch
Run (in this resolution referred to as the ``event'') may be
run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the journey of the
Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special
Olympics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District
of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for
physical preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of
the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July
31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales,
advertisements, displays, and solicitations on the Capitol
Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the
Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 280 authorizes the 2000
District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run to be
conducted through the grounds of the Capitol on June 2, 2000, or on
such date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate
Committee on Rules and Administration jointly designate.
The resolution also authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the
Capitol Police Board, and the D.C. Special Olympics, the sponsor of the
event, to negotiate the necessary arrangement for carrying out the
event in complete compliance with the rules and regulations governing
the use of the Capitol Grounds.
The sponsor of the event will assume all expenses and liabilities in
connection with the event and all sales, advertisements, and
solicitations are prohibited.
The Capitol Police will host the opening ceremonies for the run
starting on Capitol Hill and the event will be free of charge and open
to the public. Over 2,000 law enforcement representatives, Mr. Speaker,
from local and Federal law enforcement agencies in Washington will
carry the Special Olympics torch in honor of the 2,500 Special
Olympians who participate in this annual event to show their support of
the Special Olympics.
For over a decade, the Congress has supported this worthy endeavor by
enacting resolutions for the use of the grounds. I am proud to support
this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to join forces with my neighbor, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), in supporting this legislation.
Rather than being redundant, I will not give my entire statement
because I believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) has
described the legislation quite thoroughly.
I would like to add that this was started by Eunice Kennedy Shriver,
however, in the mid-1960s as a summer camp for handicapped children;
and now this event has grown to involve, as the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. LaTourette) has stated, 2,500 Special Olympians competing in more
than a dozen events. So I think it is worthy. I support it.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette) for yielding to me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate my strong support for the use of the
Capitol Grounds for the Special Olympics Torch Run. It is very
important and I wholeheartedly support it.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage of the resolution,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 280.
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.

____________________

DEEPEST SYMPATHIES TO THE FAMILIES OF DR. GARY POLIS AND MICHAEL ROSE
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS

(Mr. OSE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deepest sympathies to
the families of Dr. Gary Polis and Michael Rose. The University of
California at Davis community lost two valuable members when these two
men were involved in a tragic boating accident in Mexico's Sea of
Cortez.
Dr. Polis chaired and taught at UC Davis' Environmental Science and
Policy Department. He traveled to Mexico to lead a research expedition
with a group of UC Davis students, Japanese visiting scholars, and
Earth Watch study tour participants. Michael Rose, postgraduate
researcher at the university, was also on that trip. After a routine
visit to a nearby island, the boat they were in capsized. Dr. Polis,
Mr. Rose, and three advising Japanese scholars drowned.
While we understand that words cannot ease the pain everyone
experienced during this tragic time, let us take solace in the fact
that these people died doing the work they so loved and so willingly
shared with the world. Both Dr. Polis and Michael Rose shared the
passion for adventure and learning that epitomizes the spirit of the
university. We were blessed by their distinguished academic
accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, please join me and the entire Davis community in
offering our deepest heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of
Dr. Polis and Michael Rose. Please know that our thoughts and prayers
are with you during this difficult time.

____________________

AUTHORIZING USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR GREATER WASHINGTON SOAP BOX
DERBY

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 277) authorizing the use of the
Capitol grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 277

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL
GROUNDS.

The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (in this
resolution referred to as the ``Association'') shall be
permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on
the Capitol Grounds on June 24, 2000, or on such other date
as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate may
jointly designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be
free of admission charge to the public and arranged not to
interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions to be
prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol
Police Board; except that the Association shall assume full
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to
all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is
authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds, subject to the
approval of the Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound
amplification devices, and other related structures and
equipment as may be required for the event to be carried out
under this resolution.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board
are authorized to make any such additional arrangements that
may be required to carry out the event under this resolution.

SEC. 5. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of
the restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July
31, 1946 (40 U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales,
displays, and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well
as other restrictions applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with
respect to the event to be carried out under this resolution.

{time} 1415

The event is open to the public and free of charge, and the sponsor
will assume responsibility for all expenses and liabilities related to
the event. In addition, sales, advertisements, and solicitations are
explicitly prohibited on the Capitol Grounds in this event.
The races are going to take place on Constitution Avenue between
Delaware Avenue and Third Street, N.W. The participants are residents
of the Washington Metropolitan area and range in age from 9 to 16. This
event is currently one of the largest races in the country, and the
winners of these races will represent the Washington metropolitan area
in the national finals to be held in Akron, Ohio.
I support this resolution. I urge my colleagues' support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), as well as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran), and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton),
and certainly the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the sponsor, for
working together. Certainly there is some bipartisanship on this
committee for sure.
But I want to take a couple minutes to filibuster, hopefully, so that
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who would like to speak, might
make it here. But if he does not, then he can speak on the next one.
So taking that minute, I would like to thank Mr. Rick Barnett and Ms.
Susan Brita of the staff. They probably do more work in the Congress
than any other committee. This little subcommittee passes more
legislation than anybody. They laugh when I say that, but there is an
awful lot of work attached to it.
But I would like to talk about the efforts of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). For years, he has taken this upon himself to make
sure that that soap box derby is conducted, and he does it with a
passion. As my colleagues can see, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), she was right there, and there are other Members probably who
want to speak on it, too.
But I want to just say that the heavy hitter has come in, and I want
to personally pay him that respect, because he has made it a personal
issue. Everybody joins together with him.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this resolution. I am delighted
to join the sponsors of this resolution, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), in supporting
House Concurrent Resolution 277; and that, as we have heard, allows for
participants in the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby to use the
Capitol grounds and race along Constitution Avenue on June 24.
For the past 8 years, I have cosponsored this resolution, and it has
gotten the almost unanimous support of this House, along with the rest
of the Greater Washington Metropolitan Delegation, to promote this
annual community service, which is now in its 63rd year of running.
From 1992 to 1999, the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby has been
considered one of the largest races in the Nation, averaging over 40
contestants each year.
This year, the first Greater Washington Soap Box Derby of the new
millennium expects to top previous enrollment numbers with 50 cars.
Participants in the derby, ranging from ages from 9 to 16, live in
communities in the great State of Maryland, the District of Columbia,
and Virginia. The winners of the local events in June will have the
honor of representing the Washington metropolitan area at the National
Derby Race in Akron, Ohio on July 22.
The derby truly is a community event, with scores of children,
parents, and volunteers working tirelessly to construct and operate the
soap boxes. The region's youth have the opportunity to learn the
lessons of teamwork, competition, and sportsman and sportswomanship, as
well as the physics and mechanics that are involved in building an
aerodynamically-shaped soap box car.
I also want to applaud one of my constituents, George Weissgerber of
Rockville, Maryland, for his work this year as the derby director. I
invite the Members of the House to, not only support this resolution
today, but also to attend the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby on June
24.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this before I introduce my only speaker, from
what I understand, there are many volunteers involved in this derby
that give of their time, and time is money. I think the entire
delegation has worked to really bring in those types of volunteers. I
think that is where they deserve a lot of credit.
I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his efforts for
all of the young people who are involved in this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he consume to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, timing is important, and I had the
opportunity to come into the room just as the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) was talking about my efforts on this matter.
But I would like to mention as well one additional person who sits to
the chairman's right, or to the ranking member's right, chairman-in-
exile, as I call her, Susan Brita, who has been an extraordinary asset
to the House and, frankly, to the committee, the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, for an awful lot of years.
She probably knows as much about these matters, about construction
matters and the General Services Administration and so many other
matters related to our infrastructure as any staffer on this Hill. I
want to thank her for all the efforts she has made. I thank the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), the ranking member, too, for
working very closely with her so he does not make mistakes. It is
always a good judgment that all of us make to have good staff.
Also, I want to thank the chairman, who is not in exile, but who is
on the job, for his efforts and my colleague from Montgomery County,
Mrs. Morella, for rising in support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, we have obviously, as the House of Representatives,
responsibility for this hallowed Hill, this center of democracy in the
world. It is, I think, extraordinarily appropriate that, for the last
few number of years, we have made available a part of this Hill over
which we have authority for an enterprise that has literally taught
thousands and thousands of young people, entrepreneurial spirit,
competitive spirit, family working together, because, although those
young people are responsible for building their carts, they do get some
advice from and counsel from dad and mom and brothers and sisters from
time to time, I know.
But this is truly an American enterprise. The Soap Box Derby is
something that I think all of us have known about for almost all of our
lives. It is an enterprise that takes the contributions of American
business, of American volunteers, and certainly of the young people and
their families.
This will be the 63rd running of the greater Washington Soap Box
Derby, and it will take place as my colleagues have heard, Mr. Speaker,
on June 24 of this year.
This resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, as is
necessary, as I have said, as well as the Capitol Police Board and the
Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the
necessary arrangements for carrying out the running.
That obviously will not be, I think, a difficult job, although the
concerns of the Capitol Police and the Architect must be met and, in
fact, are met. In the past, the full House has supported this
resolution, of course, unanimously.
But I do want to thank all of those in the Washington metropolitan
area. This is not a partisan issue, obviously. The gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) who has spoken, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Davis), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and others spoke
supporting this resolution.
From 1992 to 1999, the greater Washington Soap Box Derby welcomed
over 40 contestants per year which made the Washington, D.C. race one
of the largest in the country. Participants, as my colleagues have been
told, I am sure, range from approximately 9 years of age to 16 years of
age and come from communities in Maryland, the District of Columbia,
and Virginia.
The winners of this local event will represent the Washington
metropolitan area in the national race which will be held, as it has
been through history, in Akron, Ohio on July 22 of this year.
The derby provides our young people with an opportunity to gain
valuable skills, not only in those that I mentioned, but in practical
skills of engineering, aerodynamics, and other skills necessary to make
that go-cart go faster than any other go-cart down that hill. Of course
this is a beautiful Hill, Capitol Hill, to use as they go down on the
west side of our Capitol.
Furthermore, the derby promotes teamwork, a sense of accomplishment,
sportsmanship, leadership, and responsibilities. These are attributes
that we should encourage our young people to carry into adulthood. That
is why this enterprise, like so many others, is critically important.
I, Mr. Speaker, like so many in this Chamber, have the opportunity to
be very much involved in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. They have
a national charter from this Congress, and they report to us annually.
Like the Boys and Girls Club, this enterprise gives young people a
positive focus and positive way to participate in directing their
energy in ways that will result in benefits to themselves and to our
community.
Mr. Speaker, I am more than honored to have been involved in this
effort and thank all of the corporate sponsors, all of the volunteers,
all of the parents, and, yes, certainly all of the young people who
participate in this event. It is right that we give them the
opportunity to do so on this historic Hill. I rise in strong support of
the resolution.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Hoyer) and the entire delegation. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the great chairman of our committee says, there is no
such thing as a Republican soap box and no such thing as a Democratic
derby. I urge passage of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 277, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as
amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

EXPRESSING SENSE OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CONTINUED SYMPATHY FOR
VICTIMS OF OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING ON OCCASION OF 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF
BOMBING

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 448) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives in continued sympathy for the victims of the Oklahoma
City bombing on the occasion of the 5th anniversary of the bombing.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 448

Whereas on April 19, 1995, as the result of an act of
terrorism, a bomb exploded in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
collapsing the north face of the 9-story Alfred P. Murrah
Federal Building;
Whereas April 19, 2000, marks the 5th anniversary of this
tragic event;
Whereas the explosion killed more than 168 people,
including 19 children, and injured more than 700 others in
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and in and around
surrounding buildings;
Whereas the explosion destroyed a childcare facility
located in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 15
children;
Whereas 320 surrounding buildings were impacted from the
explosion;
Whereas flying glass and debris from the explosion were a
major cause of injury; and
Whereas greater awareness and sensitivity to the safe
design and operation of buildings could help make the people
who live and work in and around the buildings safer: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the countless acts of goodwill by the
thousands of volunteers (including those who donated goods
and services), rescue workers, and Federal, State, and local
officials who assisted in the rescue and recovery efforts
following the bombing in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April
19, 1995;
(2) sends continued condolences to the families, friends,
and loved ones who still suffer from the consequences of the
bombing;
(3) pledges to make Federal buildings safer, while still
maintaining a level of openness to the citizens served by the
buildings;
(4) pledges to create an awareness of the dangers of flying
glass and debris resulting from an act of terrorism, an
explosion, or a natural disaster; and
(5) pledges to support efforts to make buildings more
secure for people from flying glass and debris and to promote
the use of available technology to protect people from such
glass and debris.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
House Resolution 448 expresses the sense of the House of
Representatives in continued sympathy for the victims of the Oklahoma
City bombing on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of that bombing.
On April 19, 1995, one of the worst acts of terrorism in the United
States took place. A bomb exploded in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,
collapsing the north face of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. The
explosion resulted in the death of 168 people, including 19 children,
and injuring more than 700 other people in the area.
This resolution recognizes the countless acts of goodwill, of
thousands of volunteers, including those donating goods and services,
who aided in rescue and recovery efforts following the bombing. It also
sends continued condolences to the family, friends, and loved ones who
still suffer from the consequences of that act. It also pledges to make
Federal buildings safer while maintaining a level of openness to its
citizens.
This resolution also pledges to create an awareness of the dangers of
flying glass and debris in the case of such tragedies.
Finally, it pledges to support efforts to make buildings more secure
for people by promoting the use of available technology to protect
people from flying glass and debris.
Two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, our subcommittee received testimony from
Aren Almon-Kok, a young mother who lost her 1-year-old daughter,
Baylee, in this senseless act. This woman has put aside her grief over
this loss to speak out on the dangers of flying glass and to promote
safety in child care centers.
Ms. Almon-Kok has also established a Web site for individuals
concerned about flying glass and child safety at
www.protectingpeople.com.
This awareness is slow in coming to the government; but with the help
of citizens like Aren, those who attend child care centers can be made
safer through conscious efforts on our part. I wholeheartedly support
this resolution. I urge our colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the comments and associate myself with
the words of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) whom I believe
has spoken the predicate elements of this particular resolution.
I would just like to add that the events of April 19, 1995 have
forever changed the ways in which we shall view the safety of American
citizens and all visitors in public places. The tragedy of the bombing
of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City has regrettably become
part of an American history we would prefer not to have to remember.
In the aftermath of this senseless act, however, we saw numerous acts
of great bravery and countless acts of sacrifice and goodwill by many
people. Thousands of volunteers, including Federal, State, and local
personnel and workers, as well as rescue teams from all across this
great Nation, provided immediate help and support. Even today as
Congress convenes, condolences continue to be sent to the victims and
their families.
We are here today to join once again in offering our sympathy and our
prayers to the victims of this tragic bombing.
Mr. Speaker, I close by saying that the Committee on Ways and Means
is working to better secure and make our buildings safe for the
visiting public.
I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I compliment my neighbor, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his efforts in this regard as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1430

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago on April 19, America was
glued to radio and TV broadcasts for the latest news, sights and sounds
for Oklahoma City. The minutes, hours, and days that followed the
senseless destruction of the Murrah Federal Building filled our
citizens with shock, horror, anger, rage, and sadness. Each story of
pain and loss was shared by everyone in America, each story of heroic
rescue by Federal and State safety officials made us proud, and each
memorial service caused us to pause and mourn as a Nation.
The character and resilience of the Federal workforce posted in the
Murrah Federal Building and the people of Oklahoma City remain a symbol
of courage for the Nation, and it is only fitting and appropriate that
the Congress of the United States remember, honor, and commemorate the
5th anniversary of this insane act of terrorism.
And since I have so much time left, Mr. Speaker, if it is not
inappropriate, I ask my neighbor and colleague from Ohio to join me in
a moment of silence for the victims in Oklahoma City.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, on April 19, 1995 the greatest
act of domestic terrorism occurred in my home state of Oklahoma. This
heinous bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building was supposed to strike
fear and terror into the hearts of every Oklahoman and every American.
168 people were killed. Including 19 innocent children. To this day the
image of little Baylee Almon lying lifeless in the arms of an Oklahoma
City firefighter brings tears to my eyes.
However, despite this tragic loss of life, the men who were
responsible for this bombing did not succeed in terrorizing America. In
the aftermath of the bombing, Oklahomans and Americans did not show
signs of fear or terror, they showed signs of love and compassion. I
saw Americans respond not as Republicans or Democrats, not as rich or
poor, not as black or white, not as man or woman, but I saw this
country respond in a difficult time as unified Americans. When I look
back on that terrible day 5 years ago, the first thing I remember is
not the pain, I remember the compassion.
Today, this House stands together to let you know we will never
forget. We will never forget the events that transpired on April 19,
1995; we will never forget the pain we felt, but most importantly we
will never forget the overwhelming love that overcame the pain.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the resolution. And,
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution
448.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. LaTOURETTE. 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 House Concurrent Resolution
277, as amended, House Concurrent Resolution 280, and House Resolution
448, the measures just approved by the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.

____________________

DECLARING ``PERSON OF THE CENTURY'' FOR 20TH CENTURY TO HAVE BEEN
AMERICAN G.I.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 282) declaring the ``Person of the
Century'' for the 20th century to have been the American G.I., as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 282

Whereas the 20th century was a century of conflict between
forces of totalitarianism and dictatorship and forces of
democracy and freedom;
Whereas American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
(collectively referred to as ``G.I.'s'') fought, bled, and
died in a number of conflicts during the 20th century,
including two World Wars, to secure peace and freedom around
the world;
Whereas in large measure due to the heroic efforts of the
American G.I., more people around the world enjoy the
benefits of freedom at the end of the 20th century than at
any other time in history;
Whereas the American G.I., in fighting the forces of
totalitarianism and dictatorship, had a strong personal sense
of right and wrong and did not want to live in a world where
wrong prevailed;
Whereas it may truly be said that during the 20th century
the American G.I. accomplished great things while doing good
things, becoming recognized throughout the world as a
representative of freedom and democracy and, fundamentally,
as a force for good in the face of evil;
Whereas at the end of the 20th century numerous
organizations and publications sought to identify and
designate a ``Person of the Century'' based upon achievements
and contributions during that century; and
Whereas in light of the accomplishments of the Armed Forces
of the United States during that century both in defeating
the forces of tyranny and dictatorship and in embodying a
sense of honor, decency, and respect for mankind, it is
appropriate that the American G.I. be recognized as the
single most significant force affecting the course of the
20th century: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress hereby declares the ``Person of
the Century'' for the 20th century to have been the American
G.I.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

General Leave

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on House Concurrent Resolution 282, now under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a part of the honor of serving North Carolina's 8th
district in the U.S. Congress, I represent Fort Bragg and Pope Air
Force Base. I am continually impressed and made proud by their
dedication, commitment, and patriotism.
We are just turning the corner on a period in which we ask the
American G.I. to do more and more with less and less. As I have gotten
to know these brave men and women, one statement continues to ring in
my ears, the statement made during a military personnel hearing at the
Norfolk Naval Base was, ``Sir, whatever you give us, we will get the
job done.'' The spirit of the American G.I., soldier, sailor, airman,
and Marine, that ``can do spirit,'' is why we honor today the American
G.I. as the Citizen of the Century.
To help make clear why we honor these men and women, let me quote
Stephen Ambrose, author of Citizen Soldiers. ``American soldiers fought
hard to win the war, but strove every step of the way to create
peace.'' My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton), said in a hearing held before the Committee on Armed Services
that this should be the Year of the Troop. I could not agree more. And
it is in that same spirit that I offer this resolution honoring the
American G.I. as the Citizen of the Century.
Quoting Stephen Ambrose again, ``At the core, the American citizen
soldiers knew the difference between right and wrong, and they didn't
want to live in a world in which wrong prevailed. So they fought and
won. And we, all of us living and yet to be born, must be forever
profoundly grateful.''
We are grateful but must never forget what has been done for us, the
Nation and the world, by the American citizen soldier known
affectionately as the American G.I.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Hayes), for introducing this resolution and for bringing it to the
House floor today. As he stated, the 20th century was a century marred
by conflict between forces of totalitarianism and dictatorship and the
forces of democracy and freedom. It was a century of tremendous
turmoil, bloodshed, destruction, and displacement.
But by the end of that century, freedom and democracy flourished in
more places than at the century's start. And this was due most of all
to the courage and the bravery of millions of American G.I.'s:
soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, merchant mariners and coasties,
both active and reserve.
It was the American G.I., known at different periods of the century
by names such as doughboys, Yanks, Buffalo soldiers, Rough Riders, or
the American Expeditionary Force, who carried America's value system
abroad and demonstrated unselfish courage aiding those who struggled
against tyranny and oppression.
It was the American G.I. who helped defeat fascism, Nazism and
Communism.
And it was the American G.I. who undertook the great offensives along
the Western Front, who scoured up the beaches of Normandy and across
the bloody Solomon Islands into Okinawa. It was the American G.I. who
fought in the deserts of North Africa and the jungles of Burma, the
Philippines and Indochina.
It was the American G.I.'s who secured air superiority against the
Germans and continuously supplied an embattled Britain before finally
mastering the sea lanes of the North Atlantic.
The American G.I. secured an uneasy peace on the Korean Peninsula
and, for members of my generation, fought in Vietnam.
Reflecting on the last quarter of the 20th century, it is clear that
the plight of the people of Grenada, Kuwait, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo
would have been considerably different had it not been for the
intervention of America and the American G.I.
Indeed, there is probably not a region of the world whose people have
not benefited from the presence of the American G.I. during the 20th
century.
The role of the American G.I., of course, was not limited to
intervening during crises and war. In fact, we cannot forget it was the
American G.I. most often called to ensure the peace and who most often
delivered and distributed humanitarian aid around the world, whether
following a war or internal crisis, or after a natural or man-made
disaster.
We also cannot forget the hundreds of thousands of American men and
women who served as sentinels of peace and gave their lives defending
freedom and Democratic values.
Many of us have personal friends we served with who are buried in
cemeteries near and far. Some were childhood friends. Others, men and
women that fate and war introduced to us. Each paid another installment
of the great debt that will never be erased as long as there is tyranny
in the world.
Just like the generations before them, they kept up the payments for
all of us. And like their predecessors, they paid in time and effort
and in blood.
I do not know any soldier who went to war for personal gain. They did
not indulge in parlor room debates about politics or the economies of
conflict. They did not engage in finger-pointing or scapegoating.
They reported for duty, and they did so with an intuition about
history and a clear understanding about the Hitlers and the Husseins
who turn up to remind us all that there are things worth sacrificing
for.
General Sherman said, ``War is hell and combat is worse.'' Nobody
wants peace more than the veterans and the G.I.'s. Those of us who have
been there know that there is a better alternative to war. Bobby
Kennedy said that he believed ``many Americans share the broad and deep
hope of a world without war, a world where the imagination and energy
of mankind is dedicated not to destruction but to the building of a
spacious future.''
Mr. Speaker, that is patriotism in the truest, most unadulterated
sense of the word. Let us also hope that the bloodshed and the conflict
that came to characterize the 20th century does not characterize the
21st century.
As my colleague said when he began, the course of the 20th century
was changed for the better as a result of the unselfish courage and
sacrifice of the American G.I. Today, we recognize the contributions of
these men and women by passing a resolution declaring the person of the
20th century to have been the American G.I. I urge support of this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), a steely-eyed fighter pilot. But before he
begins, I wish to identify myself with the most kind and appropriate
and very worthwhile remarks of my airborne friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran of two wars, on active duty
during Vietnam and as a National Guard pilot called to active duty
during the Persian Gulf War, I rise to lend my voice to the chorus of
those who urge this body to honor the American G.I. as the person of
the 20th century.
The United States, through two hot World Wars and a long Cold War,
and numerous wars and conflicts in all the far-flung reaches of this
troubled globe, has been called the arsenal of democracy. Mr. Speaker,
the American G.I. was the bearer of those arms and our American flag.
He was, and still is, the guardian of our and our allies' security and
freedom.
It is fitting that we are here to honor the G.I., the ``Government
Issue'' soldier, the average and anonymous American citizen who became
a soldier by setting down his tools of trade and picking up the
unfamiliar weapons of war. And upon completion of his glorious and
historic task, set them down again and to regain his primary status of
citizen, to enjoy the rights of freedom he secured for others, secured
with his life, his liberty and his sacred honor.
When the call went up, the Nevada ranch hand, the railroad worker,
and the miner answered that call. To stop fascism in its evil tracks in
Europe and the Pacific, the young man rose from his job in the subways
of New York or the fields of California and went to the nearest
recruiting station. And he returned to Asia later on to valiantly
struggle to return peace to the Korean Peninsula. The jungles and skies
of Vietnam rang with the bravery of North Carolina farm boys and the
California college students. And in the hot desert sands of the Middle
East, the young woman from Ohio toiled mightily for our Nation
alongside her fellow soldiers.
Through it all, the sacrifice, dedication, and honor of our soldiers
has been a lamp unto the world, the shining beacon of liberty. The
American G.I. kept our flame of freedom burning brightly through the
grim and dark skies; through blood, sweat and tears; through times of
adulation and, sadly, through times of unreasonable contempt. But stand
they did.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson) for yielding me this time so that I might have this moment to
support this concurrent resolution declaring the American G.I. to be
the person of the century.
I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) for
introducing this resolution and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson) for the work that he has done to further its cause today.
Last December, I joined more than 100 of my House colleagues in
urging Time Magazine to select the American G.I. as its Person of the
Century. And although the magazine did not select the G.I. for its end-
of-the-century cover story, it is more than fitting that the Congress
of the United States recognize our Nation's men and women in uniform
for their contributions.

{time} 1445

The American G.I. changed the course of world history in helping to
defeat fascism and communism. Victorious in World War I, World War II,
down through Operation Desert Storm, bravely fighting in Korea,
Vietnam, and confronting the struggles of the Cold War, U.S. soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines have protected our freedom and given hope
to freedom-loving people around the world.
The American G.I. has played an indispensable role protecting freedom
and preserving the peace through the course of the 20th century. I have
no doubt the American G.I. will continue to make all of us proud in the
next hundred years.
On a more personal note, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that
my family has been represented in the first World War, as my father was
aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in 1918 and our son was in Operation Desert
Storm as a member of the First Cavalry Division. So I am pleased to say
that our family has, through this century, been a part of the opening
and the closing of those victorious moments that made the American G.I.
the person of the century, in my opinion.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kuykendall), a former Marine.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, these remarks are to some extent for me
off the cuff because I did not know this was coming up right before I
was supposed to have some floor duty here.
But the point I would like everyone to think about in honoring these
young G.I.s of America is they are young. Because we do not fight wars
with old people. They are always young. They are young men and young
women who serve in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, Coast Guard,
Air Force, Merchant Marines. And they have all been recognized in
various times for combat actions that they were involved in, or some
were recognized because they showed up. And thank goodness they did not
have a combat action during their time in the service.
We all need to think and look around. If we look at some of us now,
we are a little older, we are a little wider, our hair is a little
grayer, or we have lost some of it. But today there are young men and
women doing the same thing that these veterans did starting clear back
at the turn of the 19th century to the 20th.
And it was America's commitment, America's commitment of its youth
all across the world, that defended freedom and democracy. We were
never committed in an imperialistic mode. We were always committed to
keep a country free, regain its freedom, retain the right to have a
free election in their country.
That is the reason these young men and women should be America's
person of the century. They were young. They did not necessarily know
what they went to do, and yet they stood tall when called and
voluntarily put themselves in harm's way in many cases.
The Nation should recognize this, and I am glad we are doing so and
urge the passage of this resolution.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to commend the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) for introducing this resolution. It is
most appropriate. I support it wholeheartedly. I want to thank the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his leadership in that
regard.
We recently had an event here on Capitol Hill for those veterans in
my congressional district who had served in Normandy who were not able
to go to Normandy for the anniversary 50 years after it had occurred in
1944. Of that number, I was surprised I had almost 100 in my own
district who had served in Normandy. And of the group that attended,
about 65 of those who were able to attend, they brought their families.
We had over 250 people on the Hill.
When I spoke to these veterans and their families, they were so
appreciative of the simple acknowledgment that they had received. The
genuine thanks that these veterans conveyed to us reminded me of how
important it is to take time out to recognize and honor these heroes
from the past. Their sacrifices resulted in the promising future that
is now before us.
I can remember my three older brothers served in the Second World
War, and I remember as a child how we used to have a little banner in
the window with the three stars indicating that they served. There were
some families that had gold stars, which indicated that they had lost
someone in the war who had totally sacrificed. We recognize that the
people in this resolution played an important role in victory.
Now, I want to mention that in 1941 to 1945, over 16 million American
women and men joined forces to combat the Axis powers. Of the 16
million, there were two segments of the population that had never
before been properly integrated into a war effort and had played
significant roles, African Americans and women.
While both groups played a crucial role in the defense of our country
since the Revolutionary War, their efforts during World War II were
especially important. For example, the Tuskegee Airmen and the Women
Army Corps demonstrated their fortitude in battle and forever dispelled
any notions of the capabilities of African Americans and women in
battle.
I enjoyed Brokaw's book ``The Greatest Generation,'' and I think this
resolution confirms and underlines that and says that we in Congress do
recognize those people, the American G.I., whose sacrifices produced an
extended period of peace and warrants our eternal praise.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, once again, I thank the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) for bringing this measure
forward. I would like to thank all the Members who spoke and those who
would have spoken had they been able to today.
But, most important, I would like to thank everyone who sacrificed
and served in our U.S. military over the last century and those who are
serving today. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for
his leadership and for his cooperation and for being a part of this
memorable resolution.
Let me pause for just a moment, if I may, to particularly thank the
moms and the dads, the husbands, the wives, the children who lost loved
ones fighting the wars of this and other centuries.
I lost an uncle flying the Hump in Burma, Charles A. Cannon, Jr. I
never will forget that my grandfather never forgot. When the door bell
rang or the phone rang, he always hoped it was some word that they had
found his son.
So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to bring to the floor a
resolution that declares the American G.I. the person of the 20th
century. As we reached the end of 1999, people throughout the world had
reason to celebrate. Mankind had progressed into a new year, a new
century, and a new millennium. Such occasions provide an opportunity to
reflect upon our past so that we may remember the people, places, and
events that have shaped our culture and our future.
Over the past 100 years, we have enjoyed advancements in almost every
facet of our daily lives. In our Nation in particular, the end of the
20th century served occasion to celebrate an era marked by American
accomplishment. We, as a Nation, tackled and overcame challenges deemed
insurmountable by our forebearers. Most notably, the American
commitment to liberty, justice, and freedom has served as a model for
democracy for peoples around the globe.
Our achievement has not come without its price, however. As former
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell has
expressed, the 20th century can be called many things, but it was most
certainly a century of war. Throughout this period, the forces of
tyranny and dictatorship rose time and again to wage war on an
unsuspecting world. How easy it is to forget those dark moments of our
past. But we must not. We can never take for granted the freedom we, as
Americans, enjoy. Our liberty is not free and always comes with a
price. It has been secured through the years of American sacrifice and
American bloodshed.
That is why I put before the Congress a resolution to recognize the
American G.I. as the most influential figure of the 20th century. I
offer this legislation not to glorify war and the atrocities that
accompany it. To do so would be an insult to every American who made
the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation.
Instead, I wish to commemorate the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines
and coasties, collectively referred to as the American G.I., who left
their families and their homes to fight on foreign soil for a nobler
cause. I offer my resolution to celebrate generations of Americans who
refused to live in a world where wrong prevails. Without their
sacrifice, the history of the 20th century would have taken a very
different course.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the soldiers and airmen
stationed at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. I visit these
installations regularly and over the last 18 months have enjoyed
getting to know the young men and women who proudly serve our Nation.
Their patriotism and sense of duty reflects the same spirit of
generations who served before them. These young men and women would in
a moment's notice defend our Nation from her foes. In honoring these
courageous Americans who fought for this Nation during the 20th
century, we also honor all those who serve today.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 282,
which recognizes the American G.I. as the Person of the Century.
This resolution recognizes the defining role that American soldiers
have played in charting a safe course for our nation and for democracy
around the world. Unlike a certain magazine which recognizes the
discrete accomplishments of individuals in its annual ``Man of the
Year'' issue, the contributions of American soldiers cannot be so
easily defined. The Americans who have served their country in the last
100 years as soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are many, and the
sum of their combined contributions defy a simple summary. Nor should
the heroism of this group be reduced to a brief summary, for this would
only serve to minimize the depth of American sacrifice over the last
century.
Americans fought in two world wars for the basic principles of self-
determination, democracy, and liberty. In both wars, Americans fought
abroad to preserve values that transcended national interest, creating
a foundation for a peaceful Europe and Asia that would have been
unthinkable in the early years of the century. The rejection of
totalitarianism evident in the defeat of the Third Reich continued to
define the contributions of the American GI throughout the century.
Bloody conflicts in Korea and Vietnam tested American resolution, but
the GI unfailingly carried forward the flag in support of liberty and
democracy. The stalwart resolves of the American GI checked Soviet
aggression in Western Europe and contributed directly to the collapse
of the Soviet Empire.
And the fight continues even today. While the official Cold War may
be faded into history, Americans stationed on the front lines in South
Korea, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, or any of a myriad of other countries
continue to play an important role as guarantors of peace and
stability.
Fifty years ago, the second half of the Twentieth Century was dubbed
``America's Century,'' because of the formative role the United States
has played in reshaping the world in our image at the conclusion of
World War Two. I join my colleagues today in recognizing that we owe
the American Century to the steady, faithful efforts of the American
GI, the Person of the Century.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this resolution.
Throughout this sad and bloody century, it was the GI--the American
citizen soldier--who left hearth and home, put his or her personal
plans on hold, and traveled to every corner of the world to save the
concept of democracy and preserve the value of freedom. Despots and
dictators throughout this century were halted in their tracks and
driven back to their lairs because Americans were not, as they thought,
too soft and decadent to resist their battle-hardened armies.
The warlords of Imperial Germany were the first to learn that the
American fighting man was not a pushover. American soldiers at Chateau
Thierry and United States Marines at Bellau Wood brought the German's
last chance offensive in 1918 to a halt. Later, the Doughboys would be
sent into the most difficult terrain in Northern France--the Argonne
Forest--to drive the Germans out of positions that had stymied the
Allies for over four years. Meanwhile the United States Navy was
helping to sweep the seas clear of U-boats and the American Air Service
was dueling in the skies with the students of the Red Baron.
The Nazis of Germany, the Fascists of Italy, and the militarists of
Japan were the next to try to, in Churchill's words, ``plunge the world
into a new Dark Age.'' And again, it was the New World, with all its
power and might, stepping forth to the rescue and liberation of the
Old. Hitler had nothing but contempt for American fighting prowess.
From Kassarine Pass, through Salerno and Anzio, to the maelstrom of
Normandy, all the way to final victory in the heart of Europe--the GI
shattered the same Wehrmacht that had marched through the Arc de
Triomphe and past the Acropolis. In the air, Americans devastated the
Luftwaffe that had terrorized Warsaw and destroyed Rotterdam, and then
laid waste to the Nazi industrial complex.
The Japanese believed that their troops, culturally imbued with the
spirit of Bushido, would easily outfight the soft Americans. They did
not expect that Americans would fight in places such as Guadalcanal,
Tarawa, New Guinea, or Iwo Jima--where uncommon valor was a common
virtue.
The GI managed to so this at the end of supply lines stretching
thousands of miles. They could only do this because their colleagues in
the Navy kept those sea-lanes safe against submarines, surface raiders
and aircraft. The merchant mariners who manned those supply and
transport ships were the unsung heroes of that mission--suffering great
travails as they got their vital cargoes through. Very few stories of
the Second World War are as compelling as the ordeal of Convoy PQ-17,
which suffered terrible losses on its way to Murmansk.
As a result of these sacrifices, most Americans believed that tyranny
was decisively defeated, that the second half of the century would be
free of the perils that market the first. Instead, the GI was forced to
wage a long twilight struggle against another form of totalitarianism--
Soviet Communism--and stand on guard for nearly another 50 years.
American troops were forced to remain in Europe, to hold back the
Iron Curtain from sweeping the entire continent into darkness. Millions
of American families grew to recognize places such as the Fulda Gap and
Rhein-Main air base. The Sixth Fleet patrolled the Mediterranean to a
degree not dreamed of by their ancestors that had stormed the shores of
Tripoli.
In Asia, the Cold War grew hot in Korea, where the term ``Frozen
Chosen'' entered the lexicon. Even now, GI's remain on alert to keep
the North Korean Peoples Army on their side of the DMZ. Further south,
Americans fought, bled, and died in Vietnam--America's longest war--and
our most divisive since our Civil War. At last, all recognize that the
GI's service there was honorable.
Even now, after the global threat of Communism has collapsed, it is
the GI who is called upon when freedom is seriously threatened. From
Kuwait to Kosovo, it is only when the American fighting man arrives,
that the world knows that aggression will be resisted.
There have been many great people this century who have symbolized
the struggle for freedom in the twentieth century--Churchill,
Roosevelt, Reagan--but it is the millions of people behind them, the
American GI's, who actually delivered on that promise. I ask my
colleagues to join me in passing H. Con. Res. 282, to declare that the
``Person of the Century'' is truly the American GI. He enabled us to be
debating in this chamber today.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 282--Declaring the ``Person of the Century'' for the 20th century
to have been the American G.I.
As a co-sponsor of this resolution, I strongly believe that the
United States House of Representatives must officially be on record as
supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time on this floor today for us to
pay full tribute to the importance the American G.I. played in the
history of this century. Our democracy, freedom, and liberty owe
themselves to the sacrifices of the American G.I.
From World War I to the Persian Gulf, the American G.I. has always
stood proud and tall. Ordinary men and women from across every walk of
life, when asked, answered the call to duty.
When we think of the darkest moments of the 20th century, it was
always the American G.I. that stepped into the breach to defend
freedom. It was the G.I. that huddled low while crossing the beach at
Normandy. it was the G.I. that bravely fought in the cold at Cho-San.
It was the G.I. that did their duty, with honor, at Da'Nang. it was the
G.I. that was the lightning in Desert Storm. And, it was the G.I. that
has always stood guard between freedom and tyranny. It is for these
very reasons that the American G.I. should be recognized as the person
of the century.
Defending the Constitution of the United States on foreign soil is
the greatest duty the nation can ask of its citizens. The American G.I.
answered the call to duty and performed it to the highest standard.
What Winston Churchill said of his soldiers rings true for ours,
``Never have so few given so much for so many''.
Mr. Speaker, as we speak today we must never forget our duty to our
veterans. Our veterans were there when the nation called; now we must
be there when they need our help. There can be no compromise when it
comes to veterans' health care. I am proud of the actions we have taken
so far and to the fact that we will not let our veterans down.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am supporting H. Con. Res. 282, a
bill to declare the American G.I. as ``The Person of the Century for
the 20th Century.'' I urge my colleagues to join in supporting this
timely, appropriate measure.
As the year 1999 drew to a close, it became fashionable among pundits
and academians to nominate a person of the century, for the outgoing
20th century. Many such people were selected, including Time magazine's
choice of Albert Einstein. Writing for the New York Times, columnist
Charles Krauthammer presented an eloquent defense of his nominee,
Winston Churchill, without whom, he argued, Britain would have
eventually sought a separate peace with Nazi Germany, drastically
altering history. Many other distinguished journalists and pundits
offered their own choices for this honorable position.
H. Con. Res. 282 takes a different approach to this nomination.
Instead of presenting an individual for the award, it makes a
collective nomination in declaring the American G.I. to be the best
choice for person of the 20th century. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no
better choice for this honor.
In the past century, no group of people have given more of themselves
in the cause of defending freedom and liberty than the American people.
Twice this century the American citizen-soldier left his family and
occupation to take up arms in defending freedom on the continent of
Europe.
The arrival of the first members of the American expeditionary force
served as a vital morale boost to their exhausted British and French
counterparts on the western front in 1917. Later, more than 2 million
American soldiers arrived in France to check the last desperate
offensive of the Kaiser's army and eventually broke the back of
imperial Germany's war effort. Without the contributions of the
American G.I. the western allies surely would have fallen to the German
offensive of 1918 and the U-boat campaign against the British shipping
lifeline.
Twenty-five years later, the American G.I. led the first western
counteroffensive against Nazi Germany and took on imperial Japan almost
single-handedly. Beginning in North Africa, American soldiers rolled
back the German war machine, through Algeria, Sicily, the Italian
peninsula and later from Normandy to Paris to Germany itself. In the
Pacific, American Marines launched a two-pronged island-hopping
campaign from springboards in Hawaii and Australia, supported by our
Nation's Air Force, against Imperial Japanese forces, culminating in
the bitter hard fought conquest of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Backed by an
industrial base with overwhelming production capacity, the American
G.I. liberated Europe from the grip of Nazi totalitarianism and the
Pacific from Imperial Japanese tyranny.
The American G.I. spent the second half of the 20th century defending
freedom from Communist aggression, in Europe, the Middle East, Latin
America and in the Far East. While many during the cold war questioned
American defense of nations with little or no democratic government in
practice, history has vindicated the cold war American G.I. through
today's examples of South Korea, Taiwan and most Latin American
countries, where democracy is both alive and well.
Mr. Speaker, the world would indeed be a much different place today,
were it not for the contributions of the millions of courageous
American citizen-soldiers, who, when called upon by their country,
selflessly put aside their personal interests and stepped forward to
defend freedom and democracy. While we have not done it alone, the
American contribution has almost always meant the difference in
ultimate victory for the United States and her allies.
Accordingly, I strongly support this as befitting legislation, and
strongly urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot support H. Con.
Res. 282. I take a back seat to no one in my support, appreciation, and
admiration for the individuals who served our Nation in the military
over the course of the 20th century. I would support a resolution which
recognized their contributions, although I would far prefer a more
tangible showing of appreciation, such as fulfilling the promises of
health care made to those who served.
I cannot support this resolution, however, for several reasons.
First, it seems to me that the House has enough business on its plate
fulfilling its responsibilities under Article I of the Constitution and
need not enter into an interesting but purely theoretical debate
fostered by a magazine topic.
Secondly, if we were to offer an opinion on the ``Person of the
Century,'' it should actually be a person, not a class or category of
persons. Words have meaning, and as we alter or stretch those meanings,
we may well encourage inaccuracy or stretching of the truth. We have
had enough of that recently.
I also believe that we should not diminish the importance of the
individual human being. The contributions to world history by American
service men and women were accomplished by individuals. A man or woman
is brave; an organization or class of persons is not. We should not
diminish the importance of what a brave individual can do by redefining
``person'' to mean an entire category of persons.
The key question to ask in assessing ``Person of the Century'' is how
would things have been different without him or her. I have my personal
view on who that should be, but my views are better argued in a
magazine article rather than on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H.
Con. Res. 282, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. HAYES. 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.

____________________

HONORING MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES AND FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES WHO
SERVED NATION DURING VIETNAM ERA AND FAMILIES OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO
LOST THEIR LIVES OR REMAIN UNACCOUNTED FOR OR WERE INJURED DURING THAT
ERA

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 228) honoring the members of
the Armed Forces and Federal civilian employees who served the Nation
during the Vietnam era and the families of those individuals who lost
their lives or remain unaccounted for or were injured during that era
in Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the world in defense of United States
national security interests.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 228

Whereas the United States Armed Forces conducted military
operations in Southeast Asia during the period (known as the
``Vietnam era'') from February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975;
Whereas during the Vietnam era more than 3,403,000 American
military personnel served in the Republic of Vietnam and
elsewhere in Southeast Asia in support of United States
military operations in Vietnam, while millions more provided
for the Nation's defense in other parts of the world;
Whereas during the Vietnam era untold numbers of civilian
personnel of the United States Government also served in
support of United States operations in Southeast Asia and
elsewhere in the world;
Whereas May 7, 2000, marks the 25th anniversary of the
closing of the period known as the Vietnam era; and
Whereas that date would be an appropriate occasion to
recognize and express appreciation for the individuals who
served the Nation in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the
world during the Vietnam era: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) honors the service and sacrifice of the members of the
Armed Forces and Federal civilian employees who during the
Vietnam era served the Nation in the Republic of Vietnam and
elsewhere in Southeast Asia or otherwise served in support of
United States operations in Vietnam and in support of United
States national security interests throughout the world;
(2) recognizes and honors the sacrifice of the families of
those individuals referred to in paragraph (1) who lost their
lives or remain unaccounted for or were injured during that
era, in Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the world, in defense
of United States national security interests; and
(3) encourages the American people, through appropriate
ceremonies and activities, to recognize the service and
sacrifice of those individuals.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kuykendall) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thompson) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).

General Leave

Mr. KUYKENDALL. 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. 228.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 228 to
recognize and honor members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees
who served this Nation during the Vietnam era and the families of those
individuals who lost their lives, remain unaccounted for, or were
injured during the Vietnam war.
Twenty-five years ago, we ended our involvement in the Vietnam War.
And unlike World War II or Korea, our objectives for being in the
conflicts in Southeast Asia were not very clear. Why were we there?
What forces of evil or wrongdoing compelled the potential sacrifice of
American lives? What national security or economic interests of the
United States were at stake?
Our involvement in Vietnam sparked tremendous domestic controversy,
largely because we could not answer those questions. Our soldiers came
home without fanfare or ticker-tape parades or their hero's welcome we
have historically showered on returning veterans. Our veterans became
an easy target for those who questioned our participation in Vietnam;
and, as a country, we turned our backs on them.
As a Nation, we struggle to find solutions to world issues that do
not require military force. However, when needed, the young men and
women of this Nation answer our call to service.

{time} 1500

We must never again let the popularity of any war effort be the
measure of when we honor our veterans' service. I will say that again.
We must never again let the popularity of any war effort be the measure
of when we honor our veterans' service. We cannot rewrite our past, but
we can correct those mistakes by acknowledging the service of our
Vietnam veterans, military and civilian.
Let me quote Dan Mauro, a Vietnam veteran, to reintroduce my
colleagues to our Vietnam patriots. In Dan's words, our Vietnam
veterans ``are men and women. We are dead or alive, whole or maimed,
sane or haunted. We grew from our experiences or we were destroyed by
them or we struggle to find some place in between. We lived through
hell or we had a pleasant, if scary, adventure. We were Army, Navy,
Marines, Air Force, Red Cross and civilians of all sorts. Some of us
enlisted to fight for God and country, and some were drafted. Some were
gung-ho, and some went kicking and screaming.
``Like veterans of all wars, we lived a tad bit--or a great bit--
closer to death than most people like to think about. If Vietnam vets
differ from others, perhaps it is primarily in the fact that many of us
never saw the enemy or recognized him or her. We heard gunfire and
mortar fire but rarely looked into enemy eyes. Those who did, like
folks who encounter close combat anywhere and anytime, are often
haunted for life by those eyes, those sounds, those electric fears that
ran between ourselves, our enemies and the likelihood of death for one
of us. Or we get hard, calloused, tough. All in a day's work.''
We recognized the heroism of those who lost their lives in Vietnam
with the creation of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 1993. Today, with
2.5 million visitors annually, this memorial is the most visited place
in the Nation's capital. This memorial is a fitting tribute to the men
and women who served in Vietnam. The wall has helped family members and
friends say a final farewell. It has helped others come to terms with
their Vietnam service. It has taught a generation about the heroism of
those who lost their lives in Vietnam.
It is time now to embrace the service of all our Vietnam veterans,
those who lived, those who died, those still missing, and all of us
whose lives were unalterably changed by the experience. It is for this
reason that House Concurrent Resolution 228 is so important.
May 7, 2000, marks the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam
era. House Concurrent Resolution 228 marks this historic anniversary by
honoring the duty, courage, service and love of family and country
demonstrated by the 2.7 million Americans who served in Vietnam. Let
this resolution also stand as notice to those who serve us now, in
places like the Balkans, Korea, and the Persian Gulf and for the next
generations of patriots: America will stand by you and will praise your
service, bravery, and commitment.
I am proud to have served my country in Vietnam and am honored to be
recognized as a veteran of that war. Today, I am deeply privileged to
salute all who served, lost their lives, were injured or are still
missing in Southeast Asia by supporting this resolution. I thank my
colleague, the gentleman from California, for his service in Vietnam
and his efforts to acknowledge the contributions of Vietnam veterans
and their families. I urge my colleagues in Congress and people across
the Nation to recognize the contributions of these heroes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall)
for bringing House Concurrent Resolution 228 to the floor today. This
resolution allows Congress and the American people to commemorate the
service of the men and women who served in both uniformed and civilian
roles during the Vietnam era. On May 7, 2000, our Nation will observe
the 25th anniversary of the end of that era. This resolution's genesis
are the veterans that I have the honor of representing who live today
at the California veterans home in Yountville in my district. I thank
all of them and, in particular, John Schmucker, Tom Sarciapone, Sam
Hollis, Jr., Robert Moak, and the other members of the Allied Council
of the Yountville veterans home for their generous suggestion for
honoring Vietnam-era service members and Federal civilian workers.
Like so many others before us, my generation was called to arms. Most
of us responded, notwithstanding the controversy and the turmoil the
Vietnam War caused. Seventy-nine of our current House colleagues and 16
Senators served, and several served with extraordinary bravery and
courage. The images of Vietnam are still vivid in our individual and
collective memories. But what is most surprising is the passage of time
since our service.
As I mentioned, May 7 will mark the 25th anniversary of the departure
of the last U.S. servicemen from Vietnam, a departure that closed the
Vietnam era and for many of us an important chapter in our lives.
Between 1961 and 1975, more than 3.4 million Americans served in the
armed services in Vietnam and throughout Southeast Asia. Elsewhere in
the world, other U.S. forces stood as sentinels. Whether it was along
the 38th parallel, at Checkpoint Charlie, the DEW line, Diego Garcia,
or patrolling undetected under the world's oceans, U.S. servicemen and
women ensured the peace.
The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs estimate that more
than 9.2 million active duty, reserve, and guard personnel protected
U.S. national security interests throughout the world during the
Vietnam era. Untold millions of Federal civilian workers also
contributed to our Nation's defense at a time tensions were growing
between world superpowers. On the eve of this anniversary, we pause to
commemorate their service and their sacrifice as well.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution commemorates the sacrifice of every
individual who served our Nation during that period called the Vietnam
Era. As important, the resolution expresses appreciation to the
families of those who died, remain unaccounted for, or who were injured
during the course of their service during this era. While it is defined
in the statute by specific dates, until the last of our missing service
members is found or accounted for, the Vietnam era will never be
completely closed.
I again thank the majority leader, the Democratic leader, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior) for their help in making sure this resolution came to the floor
at this particular time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Kuykendall) for his leadership and urge the support of House Concurrent
Resolution 228.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kuykendall) for introducing this and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) for their support of this issue as well. As a
Vietnam veteran and former fighter pilot, I stand in this well honored
and privileged to speak out in support of this issue.
As my colleagues said, it was just 25 years ago that the Vietnam era
officially ended with the infamous fall of Saigon. Although many
Americans have turned away from this sad chapter in our national
history, this country cannot and it will not turn away from those young
men and women who wrote that history with their blood, their pain, and
their heroic sacrifices. I am proud, as I said, to join my fellow
veterans of the Vietnam War and the rest of our country in honoring the
service and the sacrifice of all these men and women wearing our
Nation's uniform during that very trying time. Let us not forget to
honor the families, those who sacrificed with the parent, the child,
the brother or a sister off in a distant land defending their Nation,
defending our freedom. Some are still in pain with loved ones still
missing and unaccounted for but never forgotten.
Honoring these men and women is the least we can do as we start a new
millennium, as we start a new era. But one thing is and always will be
certain: our need for the types of men and women like these brave
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in Vietnam. We need types that
are as dedicated and selfless as those who were sacrificing their lives
in Vietnam for us.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and thanks I urge all
my colleagues to support this issue. I urge unanimous passage of this
humble recognition and fitting commemoration of our fellow citizens,
Vietnam-era veterans and their families.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member of
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I wish to pay special commendation to my friend and my colleague,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), for introducing this
resolution. I might also note, besides being a very active member of
our committee, he was a member of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam
and served his country well and with dedication during the Vietnam era
and during that conflict. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Kuykendall) for his strong support of this resolution.
Although it may not seem it, 25 years have elapsed since the United
States military forces fought in Vietnam. While not everyone may agree
that the United States should have participated in the conflict, the
matter is we did. More important, hundreds of thousands of patriotic
Americans gave their lives or were wounded while serving this country.
Still others remain unaccounted for. It is only fitting that we
recognize their sacrifice on behalf of our great Nation.
This resolution honors the service of the military members and
civilians who served during the Vietnam era and also recognizes and
honors the families who suffered during this conflict. The heroism and
sacrifices made by these individuals deserve to be recognized, and this
resolution takes that step.
In these days when we consider how best to improve access to health
care for our service members and our military retirees, we must not
forget that our efforts are really aimed at fulfilling a commitment to
servicemen and women who served not just in Vietnam but also in the
Second World War and Korea and the Persian Gulf and elsewhere around
the globe. We owe them for their service and for the promises our
government made to them. We cannot and must not let them down regarding
the very serious issue of health care.
Mr. Speaker, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians
who served in Vietnam did their duty to protect our freedom and gave
hope to the oppressed people of that country. As we approach the 25th
anniversary of the Vietnam conflict, it is wholly appropriate that we
commend the service and sacrifice of those who served. I urge my
colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The newspaper back in my district had a front page story this weekend
with many pictures in the body of it talking about the Vietnam War's
25th anniversary. For each group of people that served in whatever time
period you were in, you cannot help but have your memories come
flooding back when you see these newspaper stories, seeing it now with
the hindsight of history. It is much different than the day we lived
it, when we were serving in that particular capacity.
It is great today as a Member of Congress to be able to recognize on
the Vietnam War's 25th anniversary the service of those men and women
who served with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and myself
in that Southeast Asian conflict. Today, I now have a daughter who
serves, and I now recognize what my parents must have thought when they
put me on a plane for several trips to Asia. It is a different feeling
and yet it is the same feeling you get whether you are doing it today
or you were doing it 25 years ago or 25 years before that. That is the
reason we have these recognitions, because a Nation that ever forgets
to recognize that service has taken one step down a path we do not want
to be on.
I would like to encourage everybody, today in this resolution, to
recognize Vietnam veterans. Just a few minutes ago, we recognized
G.I.'s for the 20th century.

{time} 1515

But everybody should look around and say ``thank you'' to that uncle
or that grandfather or that son or daughter or brother or sister that
you saw serve in the military.
I was proud of my service. All of us that served were proud of our
service, and today Congress has a chance in this resolution to
recognize on the 25th anniversary the service of veterans, both
military and civilian, who served in Southeast Asia. I urge the passage
of this resolution.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 228, a bill to recognize and honor the sacrifice and service of
those members of our Nation's Armed Forces and their civilian defense
counterparts who served during the Vietnam era. I urge my colleagues to
join in supporting this worthy legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the Vietnam war was neither a popular nor a fully
supported conflict among the American public, for a large number of
reasons. The remote location of the fighting, the apparent hesitancy of
two successive administrations to seek a decisive victory, the
deterioration, over time, of the United States' established commitment
to fighting communism in southeast Asia, and the gradual increasing
unpopularity of the war among the Nation's youth all contributed to the
eventual withdrawal of United States forces from South Vietnam, Laos
and Cambodia. A similar, but not quite as severe outcome had occurred
in the earlier Korean conflict.
While the returning G.I's from the Korean war had encountered
indifference from the American population, those returning from Vietnam
were often met with outright hostility. Moreover, it took more than a
decade for proper recognition, in the form of a national memorial, to
be provided for our Vietnam veterans.
There are still a number of unresolved issues from the Vietnam war.
Chief among these is the POW/MIA issue. There still remain over 2,000
unaccounted for servicemembers from the conflict in southeast Asia.
Regrettably, in recent years, many have sought to downplay the need for
the fullest possible accounting of those missing personnel in pursuit
of the establishment of commercial interests in southeast Asia. May
this resolution be of some solace to the families and loved ones of our
missing and POW's that there are many of us in the Congress committed
to a full and final accounting of our missing.
It bears noting that for today's generation entering college, the
Vietnam war is as distant as World War II was to the baby boomer
generation. It is my hope that this resolution will help to preserve
the memory of the dedicated service and ultimate sacrifice made by the
members of our Armed Forces who chose to serve their Nation at a time
when military service was decidedly unpopular.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con.
Res. 228. This Resolution honors the sacrifice that so many Americans
gave during the Vietnam conflict.
There is no way that any American can view the Vietnam Wall without
their heart becoming heavy with both pride and sadness. Although this
war caused so many different views from so many different people, the
one thing that we all can and should agree upon is the honor of the
service of those who served in Vietnam.
They served with the same commitment to honor, duty, and country as
every American has in wars past. They served during a particularly
difficult time in our history. But despite the times, they never
wavered from their devotion to duty. Their actions speak volumes about
their character when you consider that the average age of the American
service person in Vietnam was 19.
Anyone who has read the letters from home between service members and
their families know the tremendous toll that the war took on both. We
must never forget their sacrifice.
Mr. Speaker, there are still open wounds of the heart that have not
healed yet. That is because there is the unresolved cases of our
missing MIAs and POWs. Our families can not be at peace until we know
the whereabouts of their loved ones' remains. Our government must take
every action necessary to resolve these cases as soon as possible.
In sum, Mr. Speaker, today I offer praise and respect to all the
Americans, both military and civilian that served in Vietnam. Their
sacrifice will never be forgotten.
Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall) that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H.
Con. Res. 228.
The question was taken.
Mr. THOMPSON 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.

____________________

FREEDOM TO E-FILE ACT

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 777) to require the Department of Agriculture to
establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the
public to file all required paperwork electronically with the
Department and to have access to public information on farm programs,
quarterly trade, economic, and production reports, and other similar
information, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

S. 777

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 ``Freedom to E-File Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING AND RETRIEVAL.

(a) Establishment of Internet-Based System.--The Secretary
of Agriculture shall establish an electronic filing and
retrieval system that uses the telecommunications medium
known as the Internet to enable farmers and other persons--
(1) to file electronically all paperwork required by the
agencies of the Department of Agriculture specified in
subsection (b); and
(2) to have access electronically to information, readily
available to the public in published form, regarding farm
programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports,
price and supply information, and other similar information
related to production agriculture.
(b) Covered Agencies.--Subsection (a) shall apply to the
following agencies of the Department of Agriculture:
(1) The Farm Service Agency.
(2) The Risk Management Agency.
(3) The Natural Resources Conservation Service.
(4) The rural development components of the Department
included in the Secretary's service center initiative
regarding State and field office collocation implemented
pursuant to section 215 of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6915).
(c) Time-Table for Implementation.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall--
(1) to the maximum extent practicable, complete the
establishment of the electronic filing and retrieval system
required by subsection (a) to the extent necessary to permit
the electronic information access required by paragraph (2)
of such subsection;
(2) initiate implementation of the electronic filing
required by paragraph (1) of such subsection by allowing
farmers and other persons to download forms from the Internet
and submit completed forms via facsimile, mail, or related
means; and
(3) modify forms used by the agencies specified in
subsection (b) into a more user-friendly format, with self-
help guidance materials.
(d) Interoperability.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall ensure that the agencies specified in
subsection (b)--
(1) use computer hardware and software that is compatible
among the agencies and will operate in a common computing
environment; and
(2) develop common Internet user-interface locations and
applications to consolidate the agencies' news, information,
and program materials.
(e) Completion of Implementation.--Not later than two years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall complete the establishment of the electronic filing and
retrieval system required by subsection (a) to permit the
electronic filing required by paragraph (1) of such
subsection.
(f) Progress Report.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to Congress a report describing the progress made toward
establishing the electronic filing and retrieval system
required by subsection (a).

SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF AGENCY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNDS.

(a) Reservation of Funds.--From funds made available for
each agency of the Department of Agriculture specified in
section 2(b) for information technology or information
resource management, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
reserve an amount equal to not more than the following:
(1) For fiscal year 2001, $3,000,000.
(2) For each subsequent fiscal year, $2,000,000.
(b) Time for Reservation.--The Secretary shall notify
Congress of the amount to be reserved under subsection (a)
for a fiscal year not later than December 1 of that fiscal
year.
(c) Use of Funds.--Funds reserved under subsection (a)
shall be used to establish the electronic filing and
retrieval system required by section 2(a). Once the system is
established and operational, reserved amounts shall be used
for maintenance and improvement of the system.
(d) Return of Funds.--Funds reserved under subsection (a)
and unobligated at the end of the fiscal year shall be
returned to the agency from which the funds were reserved,
and such funds shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 4. CONFIDENTIALITY.

In carrying out this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture--
(1) may not make available any information over the
Internet that would otherwise not be available for release
under section 552 or 552a of title 5, United States Code; and
(2) shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
the confidentiality of persons is maintained.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Freedom to E-File Act, introduced by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), requires the United States Department of
Agriculture to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to
enable the public to file with the Department all required paperwork
electronically. In doing so, the act would allow producers, farmers,
and rural America to have access to information on farm programs,
quarterly trade, economic and production reports and other similar
information. The bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood)
allows farmers to do business with the Department of Agriculture over
the Internet.
The rapidly evolving e-commerce economy of the 21st century continues
to assert itself as the future of worldwide commerce. Like any business
today, farmers are using computers and the Internet for a variety of
purposes, including financial management systems and market
information. It is becoming increasingly important to ensure that all
segments of our economy are technologically efficient.
Currently, the United States Department of Agriculture operates in a
progressively antiquated computer environment. The continued use of
such a system threatens to disable producers and farmers from access to
a maturing information technology market. Rural Americans face the very
real potential of being left behind in this era of sweeping
technological advances. It is vital to empower producers and farmers by
providing them with the technological tools to do business via the
Internet with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The continued absence of a viable common computing environment at the
Department will result in the failure to assist the very constituency
it is obliged to serve. The Freedom to E- File Act achieves the most
important objective of allowing the public the access and freedom to do
effective, better business with the U.S. Department of Agriculture via
the Internet.
The globally integrated e-commerce economy demands that private and
public entities move quickly to establish efficient avenues of
commerce. This legislation forces the USDA in the right direction, the
direction of enabling producers, farmers, and rural Americans to
benefit in an age of technological revolution.
Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I want
to commend the gentleman from Illinois for his leadership on this
issue. This legislation is badly needed. Changes at the Department of
Agriculture to get up to speed, even with other government agencies,
much less with what is happening in the private sector, is long
overdue. I also thank the gentleman from Texas for his support of this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 777 as amended by H.R. 852, the
Freedom to E-File Act. H.R. 852 was sponsored by the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood), and I, too, commend him for his leadership in
this area. It was approved by the House Committee on Agriculture on
March 29. It would require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an
Internet-based system to allow farmers and ranchers and other persons
to complete and submit program applications electronically and to have
electronic access to all relevant economic and administrative program
information and data.
The legislation before us today also contains a provision that will
ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture maintains the confidentiality
of persons, and ensures that that information is released only in
accordance with current law.
Mr. Speaker, I have long been a proponent of initiatives at USDA to
provide better service to farmers and ranchers through streamlining and
the use of new technologies, while at the same time saving taxpayer
dollars.
To date, USDA's progress in the information technology arena has been
disappointing. For example, a February 2000 General Accounting Office
report states that USDA's progress in implementing its initiatives,
reorganization, and modernization efforts has been mixed. The report
then identifies two primary reasons for its lack of success, the lack
of a comprehensive plan to guide the modernization effort and the lack
of a management structure with the accountability and authority to
resolve differences among the agencies. These findings give me little
confidence and further validate my concerns that USDA cannot overcome
its stovepipe culture without the intervention of Congress. USDA
recognizes this, and, at certain levels, supports this bill.
Growing numbers of farmers and ranchers are using home computers.
This fact, coupled with budget demands, is putting enormous pressure on
USDA's field service employees. It is, therefore, imperative that USDA
take advantage of the Internet for the efficiencies it can offer. Doing
so will benefit overworked field service staff, save taxpayer dollars,
and allow farmers and ranchers to spend more time on their operations
and less time visiting USDA offices.
For these reasons, I believe USDA must improve electronic access to
its programs and services. Consequently, I support the goals of S. 777,
as amended, otherwise known as the Freedom to E-File Act. While I would
prefer a more comprehensive look at USDA reorganization and
modernization needs, it unfortunately appears that changes at USDA are
only going to be made on an incremental basis.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as
he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the author
of the legislation.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank very much the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his leadership as the chairman of the
subcommittee that held hearings on the bill; and the ranking member of
that subcommittee, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton),
also for her leadership and support; and certainly the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the full committee, for his
encouragement over the last year to move ahead with this important
legislation.
To put it simply, this legislation will bring the Department of
Agriculture into the 21st century by allowing farmers, producers, and
people in rural America to do their business with the USDA over the
Internet. Like any business, farmers are using computers for a variety
of purposes, including financial management, accessing market
information, and utilizing precision agriculture management systems.
As I have traveled around the 14 counties that I represent in central
Illinois, much of which is agriculture, and visited farm families and
visited farm homes, every farmer has a computer today. Every farmer in
America has access to the world. One of the first things that farmers
do in the early morning hours is they get on their computer and they
check the weather. Then in my area they check the price of corn and
beans and livestock. Then they look and see how their stocks are doing,
if they have the good fortune of having that kind of capability to own
stocks.
But then what we are offering them under this legislation is the fact
that they do not have to hop in their truck and go down to the FS
office to file their forms or to find out what the USDA has to offer
them. All of this information will be available to them. After they
check the price of corn and beans and after they check the weather,
they can find out what else is going on at USDA, a marvelous
opportunity. I believe, if given the opportunity, many farmers would
choose to file necessary farm program paperwork from their home or
office computer.
The interesting thing is that, this year alone, 34 million taxpayers
have already filed or will file their income taxes before April 15th
over the Internet, electronically. The Internal Revenue Service has
moved taxpayers into the 21st century; and we should be doing that for
our farmers and ranchers, and particularly for those who represent
large masses of agriculture area, Wyoming, the Dakotas, areas where
farmers and ranchers have to travel long distances. This will avail
them of wonderful opportunities to save time and energy by having
access to this information and filing their forms electronically.
Mr. Speaker, I say that the Freedom to E-File Act is a reasonable,
sensible way to help farmers spend less time filling out paperwork and
more time doing what they know how to do best, which is farming and
ranching. This legislation will not only increase the efficiency of
farmers and ranchers, it will also increase the efficiency of the USDA,
as has been mentioned, by reducing the amount of paperwork that needs
to be filled out in local county offices.
USDA has already started down the road to providing some of the
benefits of the Internet to the American farmer. Freedom to E-File will
provide the Department with the necessary flexibility and resources to
allow USDA to bring agriculture into the Internet age.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest),
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton)
and all the staff people on both sides for your help in crafting this
legislation, and also to USDA. We have kind of brought them along
kicking and screaming in this process, but we think they are with us
now; and we hope that they will be able to implement this legislation
after it is signed by the President.
Finally, Senator Peter Fitzgerald from the other body was most
helpful in having this legislation pass there; and I want to
acknowledge his work and encourage all Members to support this very,
very important legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say in conclusion, I encourage our
colleagues to support this bill. We have heard from the gentleman from
Illinois all of the reasons why this is needed. The disappointment is
that we have not been able to move it faster within USDA, but it is
certainly my hope that all of those who may be in the category of
``foot-draggers'' within the various agencies and various employees of
USDA might take this legislation and the support of many at USDA and
recognize that we will have some additional opportunities this year to
do more in this area of information technology, and, in doing more, we
will be able to serve our farmers more efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those who have been involved in this
legislation; and I urge the support of it.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would join in urging my colleagues to support this
legislation. It is very true that farmers in many respects are some of
our best users of computer technology and the Internet, and it is time
that the Department that is designed to support their efforts moves
into the 21st century, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood)
indicated.

{time} 1530

So I strongly support this bill. I thank the gentleman for his
efforts in this matter.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 777, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on S. 777, the Senate bill just considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until approximately 5 p.m.
Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until approximately 5 p.m.

____________________

{time} 1703

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pease) at 5 o'clock and 3 minutes p.m.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate has passed with an amendment in which the
concurrence of the House is requested, a concurrent resolution of the
House of the following title:

H. Con. Res. 290. Concurrent Resolution establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting
forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2005.

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment
to the resolution (H. Con. Res. 290) ``Concurrent resolution
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting forth appropriate
budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005,'' requests
a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
thereon, and appoints Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Conrad, and Mr. Wyden, to be the conferees on the
part of the Senate.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R.
1501, JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1999

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to announce my intention to offer a
motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 tomorrow.
Pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention
to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501. The form of the
motion is as follows:
Mr. Conyers moves to instruct conferees on the part of the House that
the conferees on the part of the House on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the bill, H.R. 1501, be instructed to insist that the
committee on conference meet and report a committee substitute that
includes both:
One, measures that aid in the effective enforcement of gun safety
laws within the scope of conference and, two, common sense gun safety
measures that prevent felons, fugitives, and stalkers from obtaining
firearms and children from getting access to guns within the scope of
the conference. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-lee of Texas,
Congresswoman Julia Carson, Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald,
and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy are cosponsors of this motion.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H. CON. RES. 290, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001

Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII, and by
the direction of the Committee on the Budget, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 290)
establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government
for fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2000, and setting forth the
appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2002 through
2005, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment
and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
The motion was agreed to.

Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Spratt

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct the conferees
on the budget resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Spratt moves that the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution H. Con.
Res. 290 be instructed, within the scope of the conference,
(1) to insist that the tax cuts set forth in the
reconciliation directives in the concurrent resolution be
reported on September 22, 2000, the latest possible date
within the scope of the conference, and to require that the
reconciliation legislation implementing those tax cuts not be
reported any earlier, thereby allowing Congress sufficient
time to first enact legislation to reform and strengthen
Medicare by establishing a universal Medicare prescription
drug benefit, consistent with section 202 of the Senate
amendment and provisions in section 10 of the House
concurrent resolution, recognizing that more than half of
Medicare beneficiaries without drug coverage have income
above 150 percent of poverty as officially defined; and
(2) to recede to the lower and less fiscally irresponsible
tax cuts in the Senate amendment, which do not include a
reserve fund for additional tax reduction contingent on
improved projects of future revenues, in preference to tax
cuts of $200 billion or more as embodied in the House-passed
Resolution, which Chairman Kasich identified during Budget
Committee markup and House debate on the budget resolution as
a paydown' on the tax cuts proposed by Governor George W.
Bush, in order to conserve the budgetary resources needed for
the universal Medicare prescription drug benefit and for debt
reduction.

Mr. KASICH (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) will be recognized for
30 minutes and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am offering this motion to instruct the House
conferees on the budget resolution, basically to say to the conferees,
let us put the Medicare drug prescription benefit first and foremost,
ahead of everything else. Let us do it ahead of the tax cuts. Let us
put it on a priority schedule, let us go first with it.
Just today we read in the newspaper that Medicare beneficiaries who
do not have drug coverage typically pay at least 15 percent more than
those who have the benefit of insurance. I have the experience just a
week or two ago with visiting a pharmacist in my district who by
mistake had received a billing from an HMO intended for an HMO in
Atlanta, Georgia. And when he opened it up, he saw what the HMO was
paying for drugs like Zocor and Vasotec and Cumadin, as opposed to what
he was paying, and the difference between what he was paying and
charging his customers at his pharmacy and what the HMO was paying was
as much as 65 or 70 percent in favor of the HMO in certain cases. That
is not right.
Mr. Speaker, when we combine that with the fact that drug costs are
going up at a rate that is two or three times the rate of the increase
in health care generally and the elderly, those over 65 and on Medicare
have a greater need for prescription drug benefits than anybody else,
we have a crisis on our hands. One cannot go to any senior citizen
center in my district, and I dare say this is true across America,
without having someone relate some really sad and affecting story about
their problem with obtaining prescription drug benefits.
We just had a study done by Boston University School of Public
Health, they found that a significant fraction of the prescriptions
that are written by doctors for their Medicare patients are never
filled, they cannot afford it. This is a problem that is not only
pressing, it is becoming urgent.
We need to deal with it now. Before we turn to tax cuts, before we
turn to other major budget decisions, we should put this one first and
foremost and try to fit it into our budget. In our budget, the
Democratic budget, we did it the standard and time-honored way. We said
let us have reconciliation directions to the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Commerce, the two committees with
jurisdiction, and tell them, ``By a date certain, get your act
together. Here is $40 billion for the first 5 years, $155 billion for
the second 5 years; within the limits of these resources, report to the
floor a prescription drug benefit that will begin to take effect next
year for Medicare beneficiaries.'' That is the way to do it.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) chose a less compelling way of
doing it. He put $40 billion in a trust fund, so-to-speak, a reserve
fund, and said if the Committee on Ways and Means is able to come up
with a bill that reforms Medicare structurally or does Medicare reform,
then it can also use this $40 billion to report a drug bill. I would
have preferred and did prefer something much more compelling than that,
but at least the gentleman put the $40 billion on the table. The Senate
has done something similar.
What we are saying now is let us not just do this for show, let us
not just do this to tantalize the elderly citizens in our district with
the prospect of getting prescription drug coverage. Let us do it in
earnest. We can do it right now by passing a motion to instruct our
conferees to go to conference and say to the conferees, prescription
drug coverage will come first, and principally this will come first
ahead of tax cuts.
One of the problems I have with the Republican budget resolution is
it puts tax cuts first and foremost, ahead of everything else. Now, our
budget resolution provided for $50 billion in net tax cuts in the first
5 years, and $201 billion over the 10-year period of time. We are for
tax reduction and tax relief too, but we also had other priorities that
we wanted to serve, and not to do tax cuts to the exclusion of those.
The problem we had with their resolution as the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kasich) presented it, their budget resolution, the tax cut could
easily go up to $250 billion over the next 5 years. We showed by charts
in the well of the House, if it went that high, if it went over $200
billion, we not only could not fund the $40 billion for the
prescription drug benefit, you would risk putting the Social Security
trust fund in danger again.
We are saying, put the tax cuts second. Do the prescription drugs
first. Get in earnest about prescription drug coverage. Do that, and
then by a date certain, report your tax bill to the floor; and we will
take it up in due course. But, in first course, let us do prescription
drugs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we want to go back just for a second and review
precisely what was contained in this Republican budget proposal that
passed the other day.
As Members will recall, the first thing we did was to protect 100
percent of the Social Security surplus. That is the first time, I
believe in my lifetime, that that has been done, where the government
will not take money from the Social Security surplus to fund any other
programs.
The second item that we did was we strengthened Medicare and, in
fact, created a $40 billion fund. And this fund is available for the
purposes of funding a prescription drug program that will pass through
the Committee on Ways and Means.
First of all, I would hope that the wealthiest of our seniors would
not qualify for this program. Children in many respects have the lowest
priority in America, and it is a tragedy that our children are
neglected. I begin to wonder if they are neglected because they do not
vote or we do not value them. We value them with our rhetoric, but many
times we do not value them with our actions.
The fact is that a prescription drug benefit for seniors that are in
need of that benefit because they cannot afford it would be right. But
what we would not want to do was take resources that can be used either
to make families stronger through tax cuts or other programs that may
be developed to help our children, to use those dollars to fund the
Medicare program for wealthy senior citizens.

{time} 1715

We would not want to do that. This does not make any sense here in
the 21st century. Members might also recall that we had other actions
in there, including paying down $1 trillion of the national debt, and
in addition to that, tax fairness.
I must say that it would be a mistake for us not to have passed that
earnings limit exclusion program so that our seniors who want to go
out, who want to work, who want to be independent, do not lose social
security in the process. Thank goodness we pushed that program through.
We intend to push other programs like that through, including the
easing of the marriage penalty.
So we want to be able to have a process that allows us to pass these
tax bills that help various segments of our society, and we believe
that is consistent with our program to strengthen Medicare and to
provide a prescription drug benefit.
What is interesting is that President Clinton himself has no
prescription drug benefit in 2001 and 2002. In fact, he makes very
significant reductions in Medicare in order to pay for what program he
is going to create in 2003. Frankly, Democrats ought to be embracing
this program if they would like to see a strengthening of Medicare.
They ought to be really embracing the Republican budget, because we get
about it right away.
Also contained in the Democrat motion to instruct are the incendiary
words ``irresponsible tax cuts.'' To me, that is an oxymoron. There is
no such thing as an irresponsible tax cut. There are plenty of
irresponsible government spending programs, but I do not think there is
such a thing as an irresponsible tax cut.
I do not know what we would call an irresponsible tax cut. Is it
something that lets families keep more of what they earn? Is it
something that lets a senior keep more of what he or she earns, rather
than being penalized through reductions of their social security
benefits? Is a fiscally irresponsible tax cut one that provides relief
to married couples? If people get married today, they can get punished
because they get married. They pay more in taxes. Is that fiscally
irresponsible?
How about for a small businessman who works a lifetime to build a
pharmacy, like my friend, Max Peoples in Westville, Ohio, or friends of
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in Janesville, Wisconsin? They
work a lifetime, and then when they die, they have to visit the
undertaker and the IRS on the same day.
How about reducing or eliminating the death tax so people who work a
lifetime can pass their legacy on to their children, rather than having
to pass it on to the Federal government?
I do not know what it even means when we talk about a fiscally
irresponsible tax cut. It does not make any sense to me. It seems to me
as though we ought to stay with the Republican budget plan. That
Republican budget plan will keep our mitts off of social security,
something that my friends in the majority party were not able to do for
40 years. It is going to strengthen Medicare and provide a prescription
drug benefit starting in 2001.
I am told it will be very soon that Republicans in the House will
unveil their bill. I hope it will be means-tested. We will pay down $1
trillion of the publicly-held debt by 2013. We will continue to promote
tax fairness for families, farmers, and small businesses.
There is no reason to fix something that is not broken, so I would
request that the Members on both sides of the aisle defeat the motion
to instruct the conferees offered by my good friend, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who I have, by the way, a lot of regard
for. He is a very smart man, a very nice man, and I wish everybody
would know him and be the recipient of his kindness and intelligence.
But on this motion, I am forced to say that we should object, stick
with the Republican budget. It will be the better budget for our
seniors, for our children, and frankly, for Americans across the
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his compliments, but I would
point out that a tax cut that precludes us from obtaining the very
priorities they set out in their budget is potentially an irresponsible
tax cut. A tax cut, which we showed here in the well of the House,
which would take us perilously close to invading social security again
surely is not one that we want to undertake. Yet, we are concerned that
the gentleman's resolution leads us in that very direction.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees.
We simply say, before any tax cut, and certainly it is irresponsible to
make sure that we have a tax cut before we achieve the goals that we
want to achieve.
One of the goals stated was that we would have a prescription drug
benefit. Therefore, before any tax cut is enacted, we must make sure
that our senior citizens, especially those rural citizens who live in
rural communities without access to health care, and who pay, by the
way, for their medicine higher rates than those in other urban areas,
we make sure that they have the medicine and the ability to pay to be
free of pain and to live a comfortable life. That is essentially
basically and fundamental, that we make sure that our program is
enacted before we have a serious and a large tax cut.
Older Americans and people with disabilities without drug coverage
typically pay 15 percent more for the same prescription drugs as those
with insurance. Many seniors do not have drug coverage at all, and
therefore, this particular bill is essential for life and the quality
of life that seniors deserve.
The gap between drug prices for people with and without insurance
discounts nearly doubled, from 8 to 15 percent, between 1996 and 1998.
Uncovered Medicare beneficiaries purchased one-third fewer drugs than
those who are covered, but they paid twice as much money. They are
denying themselves a prescribed prescription for their health care, but
yet, they pay twice as much out of pocket.
Overall, all of these beneficiaries have an annual out-of-pocket cost
that is twice as high as those, and with fewer medications.
Chronically ill uninsured Medicare beneficiaries spend over $500 out
of pocket for that same coverage. Rural beneficiaries are particularly,
particularly vulnerable because the infrastructure to provide that
health care is not there.
From what I am hearing, if there is to be an insurance model, I can
tell the Members that we do not have the structure, the HMOs, nor do we
have other structures that can make this accessible to rural citizens.
Rural Medicare beneficiaries are over 50 percent more likely to lack
prescription drug coverage for the entire year than urban
beneficiaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this motion to instruct. It is
urgent, it is timely, and it is vital to the health and welfare of many
millions of senior citizens.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first discuss
what this motion to instruct actually does. The motion to instruct
right now talks about having a prescription drug plan immediately, but
I find it interesting to note that the minority side, when advancing
prescription drug legislation in the Committee on the Budget, was
proposing a prescription drug plan very similar to the President's plan
which did not begin until the year 2003.
More importantly, it dedicated a little over $34 billion to enacting
prescription drug legislation when the Committee on the Budget, the
majority's plan, dedicates $40 billion for prescription drugs beginning
immediately.
Let us go back and remember that the minority side was proposing a
prescription drug plan dedicating less resources starting in 2 years
versus the Republican plan, which dedicated $40 billion starting
immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about some of the benefits of this
budget plan. For 30 years, for 30 years this institution, Washington,
D.C., has been raiding the social security trust fund. People have been
paying their FICA taxes, it has been going into social security, and
people in Washington have been taking that money and spending it on
other totally unrelated items.
This budget seals that trust fund. This budget says, not a penny of
money should come out of social security. Instead, we are going to pay
off the debt and fix the problems we have with social security. That is
what we are trying to do here.
So what happened last year when the President brought his budget here
on the House floor in the State of the Union Address? He called for
dedicating 62 percent to the social security surplus, and 38 percent of
social security would go to finance other government programs.
Last year we said, that is enough. We should dedicate 100 percent of
the social security surplus to social security. That is in fact what we
have achieved. If we take a look at what we have done over the last 2
years with this Congress, we have paid back so much debt that we have
actually stopped the raid on the social security trust fund beginning
last year.
This budget completes that. This budget says no longer will we go
back to the days of red, no longer will we go back to the days of
taking money out of the social security trust fund to spend on other
programs that have nothing to do with social security. Instead, we are
going to pay off our national public debt, we are going to put money
back into social security, and we are not going to let politicians dip
into the social security trust fund.
Last year when the President brought his budget to the floor, he
wanted 62 percent in social security and 38 percent out of it. He
called for creating 84 new government programs, 84 new government
programs in this year's budget, and significantly increasing 160 other
government programs, for a grand total of 244 new programs and higher
spending on new programs in Washington coming from the social security
trust fund.
Mr. Speaker, we have actually achieved a historic goal here. We have
stopped the raid on the social security trust fund. Let us build on
that success. Let us continue to do that. Let us pass the Republican
budget and say no to the motion to instruct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman has done is, with his charts there,
he has set up a straw man. He has attacked a budget that was never
before the House. The minority side's budget, the Democratic side's
budget, called for $40 billion beginning in 2001 for a Medicare
prescription drug benefit. And not only that, to say it once again, we
did it the good old-fashioned way that worked. We said to the Committee
on Ways and Means, by a date certain, here is $40 billion. Report out,
bring to the floor a resolution, a bill that will provide prescription
drug coverage.
They did not have that kind of language in their resolution. Theirs
was totally iffy. That is what we are trying to do here today, stiffen
the resolve of the conferees and see to it that we do indeed get some
legislation that will provide a drug benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the reason this is such an important set
of budget instructions is that this House is balanced on a very
interesting policy point: Should we provide a tax-supported
prescription benefit package for all senior citizens, or should we do
what the Republicans are talking about, and that is, find the poorest
ones and say, here is a little welfare program. Go on and down and
register at the welfare office, and you can get the drug benefit?
The President has proposed that we put a package that covers all
senior citizens. Some of us are not very satisfied with the President's
plan because it is not very generous, but at least, at least it covers
everyone. For us to come out and pass a budget and say that, in the
last resort, if we have a little money left after we have passed all
these tax cuts we are going to give a little drug benefit, that is
simply not good public policy.
The Senate has picked the number of $140 billion in tax cuts. I
personally think that is too much. I do not think we need that. I would
rather pay down the debt.
However, if they are going to do it, let us take the conservative
number in the Senate, the conservative number in the Senate, instead of
this liberal wild spending on the Republican side in the House, and use
that money to give a benefit for all senior citizens.
Now, when we go out and realize what the average senior citizen
spends out-of-pocket, my mother is a perfect example. She lives on the
minimum social security benefit, along with 9 million other widows in
this country, $888 a month. She spends $400 for where she lives and
where she gets her food, okay?

{time} 1730

Now she has $400 and she on average across this country is spending
$200 a month, $2,500 out of pocket, for pharmaceutical costs in this
country. That is simply inexcusable.
We can fix it, but it should be for all senior citizens because even
those who have the benefit now, because of the fact that they work for
some company or they have the insurance policy or whatever at the
moment, may lose it and then where are they? My view is that we should
not drive seniors into poverty before we help them with their
pharmaceutical costs.
Any sensible person looking at the Medicare program today would say
the single biggest problem that we have not dealt with has been the
issue of pharmaceutical costs.
I think that it makes sense to take the Senate number. The Senate is
not overly generous, but at least we would have the $40 million for a
universal benefit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), will control the time allocated to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), a member of both the Committee on the
Budget and the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that over the weekend the Democrats
did a poll. They rush in here with a motion to instruct conferees on
the budget resolution with a time stamp on here of 3:45, not too long
ago. The ink is not even dry on this. They rushed in here with this
motion to instruct conferees. What does it say? It says, know what? We
are getting our brains beat in on this prescription drug benefit. The
Republicans beat us when it came to the budget resolution; they are
beating us when it comes to public relations on prescription drugs
because they know that our original proposal did not have a thing.
The President's proposal did not have a prescription drug benefit.
The original proposal that the Democrats brought forth in the Committee
on the Budget did not have a prescription drug benefit that started
until the third year. In fact, it cut Medicare. Oh, no, we didn't cut
Medicare on beneficiaries. We cut it on providers is what they will
say.
In my area, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) was
saying, in rural areas those kind of cuts will be devastating. They may
say in the third year that they have a prescription drug benefit; but
when all the rural hospitals close, they do not have health care.
Well, this is the situation: we put into our plan instructions that
suggest that there is only one thing that the Committee on Ways and
Means can do with this $40 billion. It can either reform Medicare and
provide a prescription drug benefit or nothing else can happen to that
money except it can be used to pay down the debt. That is it.
What do the Democrats suggest? They came in with a technicality on
the floor right at the end of the budget debate, and they said but we
have a better motion to instruct. They say the Committee on Ways and
Means has to use it. Guess what? If they do not, it does not go to debt
reduction; it does not go to tax relief. Guess where it can go? To a
risky spending scheme that the Democrats have put in place for the last
40 years that wasted social security, that brought us to the point in
time where we had this massive debt in the first place, and now they
want to start all over again.
Mr. Speaker, this is the situation: this is not just a little drug
benefit, as my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott),
suggested. This is the only drug benefit that is going to pass this
particular year because we are not going to pass a drug benefit where
the money, if not spent, can be used for other risky spending schemes.
We are not going to use this money for anything else except for reform
of Medicare and for prescription drugs, different than what the
Democrats' plan does.
So instead of voting for this motion to recommit that was drafted
just a few hours ago, after it is obvious the Democrats took a poll
this weekend, let us vote against this motion to instruct conferees,
which would gut the Medicare reform proposal, which would gut the
prescription drug proposal, and which would not recognize that in 5
days we have tax day and Americans all over the country have been
paying their taxes. This thumbs their noses at the taxpayers of
America.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again let me inform the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Nussle) that we in committee we did not offer a resolution. We brought
our resolution to the floor, and it had $40 billion over 5 years; $150
billion over 10 years for prescription drug coverage; and it was in
reconciliation, mandates to the Committee on Ways and Means, with a
date certain for getting it done.
When we were in committee marking up their budget resolution, we took
their iffy, mushy language and we said let us convert this to a
mandate, let us send it to the Committee on Ways and Means, and we
offered to make it reconciliation language and they refused it. They
rejected it in committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of points. First of all, to my
colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), I took no poll over
the weekend; but I can say when I was running for Congress 6 years ago,
going to senior citizen centers throughout southeast Harris County,
Texas, I ran into more and more seniors who said the biggest concern
they had was the cost of prescription drugs, and the problems that they
had of having to choose between buying their groceries at the end of
the month or buying the pharmaceuticals that were being prescribed to
them by the doctors. That was the issue, and that was the poll. That
was a real poll.
Now let us talk about what this motion to instruct is. I do not think
my friends on the other side have read it. All we are saying, if they
look at the budget resolution, throughout the budget resolution it is
very clear on which dates the Committee on Ways and Means shall, shall
report tax reconciliation language. When we look at the Medicare
language in there, it says if, it says whenever, but it certainly says
nothing about a date certain of what it should be.
My colleagues on the other side have felt the need to use placards. I
do not like these. I wish that we would ban these from the floor; but
if we are going to use them, I am going to show what the Republican
prescription drug plan under Medicare is. It is right here, right here.
Now the American people can see it as well. It is laid out pretty
clearly what the Republican plan is. There is no Republican plan.
Here is the problem: there are about 70 legislative days left in this
Congress. We still have not passed a budget resolution. We have not
passed any appropriations bills. We passed a number of tax cutting
bills, generally scoped toward the upper-income levels, but we do not
even have a prescription drug bill from the Republican side. So I do
not know how they think we are going to get this done; and, in fact,
their budget resolution does not think we are going to get it done
because it says if, whenever.
What Democrats are saying today, what Democrats are saying is let us
make prescription drug benefits for all senior citizens as certain as
they want to make tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans among us. That
is what this resolution is about today. I do not see how they can be
against this. It all fits within the budget numbers that both sides
use. It does not touch one dollar of the Social Security surplus, we
are quite certain on our end.
Their tax cut plan, it can get into the Social Security surplus later
on, but most of my colleagues will be gone by then so all we are saying
right now is let us put prescription drug benefits for senior citizens
on par with their tax cuts, and let us tell the Committee on Ways and
Means that they have to come up with a bill and bring it up before this
Congress adjourns.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for offering this resolution, and
I commend it to all of my colleagues.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu).
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the debate back to the fundamentals of
this budget resolution and away from a lot of the rhetoric, some of
which we have just heard.
Let us talk about what is really in the budget resolution and what is
not. First and foremost, we set aside every penny of the Social
Security surplus. Now there is a lot of rhetoric on the other side
about whether do we protect all of Social Security, do we not protect
all of Social Security? This budget resolution does it, and it does it
for the second year in a row.
We had a budget that was put up by the minority last year that spent
40 percent of the Social Security surplus. We have ended that problem
in budgeting, set aside every penny of the Social Security surplus. We
set aside $40 billion for prescription drug coverage for Medicare
beneficiaries.
Now it is true there is no formal piece of legislation before this
body right now, but that is reflective of the fact that we know we have
to work on a bipartisan basis to try to put together a good piece of
legislation, not just one that provides prescription drug coverage for
Medicare beneficiaries but one that reforms and strengthens the program
and hopefully gives those beneficiaries more options and more choices.
We pay down the debt. We actually set a course to pay down the entire
public debt by 2013. We have tax relief in this legislation. Of course,
we do. We try to make the Tax Code more fair by getting rid of the
marriage penalty, getting rid of death taxes, repealing the Social
Security earnings limit, and giving individuals full deductibility for
their health insurance, and we also invest in defense and education.
I want to focus a little bit in the minute or so remaining, however,
on the debt relief I spoke about, because if one travels anywhere in
this country, people recognize that it is important that we continue
the process of paying down the public debt.
Here is what we have done in just the past 3 years: in 1998, we paid
down over $50 billion in public debt; in 1999, last year, we paid down
over $80 billion. This year we will pay down $163 billion; and, in
fact, over the 4 years, including this budget year that we are debating
now, 2001, we will pay down over $450 billion in debt.
That is because of the determination of this Republican Congress to
set aside funds, not just for social security but also for debt
retirement and to keep that debt going in the right direction.
Now the minority has said repeatedly in this very debate we should
get rid of all of these tax cuts, get rid of any tax cuts and pay down
more debt. Of course we could do that. We could decide not to repeal
the penalty that seniors pay if they choose to continue working and pay
down a little bit more debt, but if we did that it would be wrong. We
could decide not to eliminate the marriage penalty, to keep penalizing
married couples simply because they choose to get married, and pay down
a little bit more debt, but if we did that it would be wrong. It would
be wrong to sustain a Tax Code that is so unfair.
We could refuse to give individuals health insurance deductibility,
but that also would be wrong. We could decide not to give individuals
health insurance deductibility and pay down a little bit more debt, but
again that would simply be the wrong approach to take.
We need a Tax Code that is more fair. We need to continue to pay down
debt, and we need to recognize that what is important is that just as
one views their home mortgage, if they have additional income,
additional funds, they do not pay down their entire home mortgage in
one year. They might put a little bit more toward that mortgage, but
what is most important is that they pay down a little bit every year, a
little bit with every payment. They reduce the size of the mortgage
gradually, and they keep the country and their own budget on a course
of fiscal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to reject the motion to instruct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Sununu) by saying that if he has a $250 billion-plus tax cut instead of
$147 billion, which is what the Senate has proposed, that is $103
billion less debt reduction and $103 billion less to work with, fewer
resources to work with to provide for a Medicare prescription drug
benefit, and that is what this debate is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Weygand).
Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Republican members of the Committee on the
Budget were not there during the process they were going through then
when we actually passed a resolution that they promoted, but they
refuse to understand the actual alternative that we have proposed.
I offered the amendment, I offered the budget amendment in the
committee that actually would provide for the prescription drug
benefit. Nowhere in our amendment, nowhere in our resolution, did we
require this program to begin in 2003.
My dear colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), talked
about that this would not start for another couple of years. That is
not the truth. The Democratic amendment, the proposal that we put
forth, would simply instruct the Committee on Ways and Means to begin
immediately to provide a $40 billion benefit for prescription drugs for
our seniors.
What came out was a plan that I referred to here as the Bentsen plan
that he referred to earlier. This chart that I show right here is the
Republican plan for prescription drugs. It was mushy, as our ranking
member said. It had nothing to it, no substance whatsoever. They
proposed a plan that did nothing for prescription drugs.
Back in Rhode Island where I come from, many seniors who have worked
all their lives are facing now $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 and even $8,000 a
year with prescription drug costs. A small contractor by the name of
Paul Smith and his wife Judy came to me and said, I am 70 years old and
my wife is 66. I have to go back to work part time to pay for my
$8,300-a-year worth of prescription drugs.
We as Democrats and Republicans should not tolerate that whatsoever.
We should be working together to make a plan that is truly a plan, not
a white piece of paper.
What we have proposed is simple. Give the money to the Committee on
Ways and Means to come up with a proposal right now. We are not adverse
to tax cuts. As a matter of fact, our proposal was to have over $50
billion worth of small business tax cuts, but prioritize our business
before the Committee on the Budget; put our seniors first.
Those people who cannot afford prescription drugs should have a plan,
not a blank piece of paper, and that is what the Republican proposal
is.

{time} 1745

It has no substance, no plan, no direction.
Today, what we are asking with this motion with regard to instructing
conferees is put our seniors first, put our seniors above all of those
other groups that really are begging us for tax cuts, but provide our
seniors with a benefit for the prescription drugs.
I recently completed a commission to report on Rhode Island that
showed the comparison between what our seniors pay and what our pets
pay for the very same prescription drug. The very same prescription
made by the same manufacturer, the same FDA requirements, the same
dosage was 83 percent cheaper for my dog than my mother. We treat our
pets better than we treat our senior citizens when it comes to
prescription drugs.
How can we not have a plan? How can we tolerate a white piece of
paper? How can we tolerate what my colleagues have put forward? Vote to
approve the motion to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Does the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry) claim the time from the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) who claimed the time from the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kasich)?
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the
time for purposes of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we are going to protect 100 percent
of Social Security. We did that last year, the first time since 1960.
We are doing it in this year's budget, and we are going to do it in
next year's budget, the plan that we are bringing forward.
We are strengthening Medicare and prescription drugs. We are setting
aside $40 billion to implement our ultimate plan. It is no different
than the motion to instruct the conferees. It is basically a blank
paper. It sets aside money like we do. We retire the public debt by the
year 2013, and we promote tax fairness for families, farmers, and
seniors, and restore America's defense and strengthens support for
education and science.
Our GOP plan ends the marriage penalty. It is interesting, the
Democrats voted for it, but I guess they do not want to cut taxes, but
they voted for it. It repeals Social Security earnings test. They voted
for it but say they do not want to set aside money for a tax cut. We
reduced the death tax. They voted for that, many of them. We expand
educational savings accounts. We increase health care deductibility. We
provide tax breaks for poor communities. We strengthen private pension
plans.
What interests me, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt)
called this an irresponsible tax cut. It is interesting because, in the
next 5 years, we have $10 trillion of revenue. We want a tax cut of
$200 billion. That is 2 percent of all revenue. What is irresponsible
about reducing taxes 2 percent? Maybe it is irresponsible that we are
not doing more.
Then I heard this was wild spending. Only the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) could call tax cuts spending.
I will tell my colleagues what I think is irresponsible. The
President increases taxes by $10 billion in the first year of his plan.
We cut it by $10 billion. We ultimately set aside $200 billion for a
tax cut. We lock in $150 billion. We set aside a reserve of $50
billion. If there is a potential surplus, we will have another $50
billion, just slightly over 2 percent of all revenues that will come in
the next 10 years.
No, a tax cut is not irresponsible unless it is not enough. It is
certainly not spending, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) would call it. It is a tax cut. We give it back to the
American people.
The bottom line, we set aside $40 billion for the Committee on Ways
and Means to bring forward a Medicare plan, a Medicare plan that will
have prescription drugs payments for our seniors. That is what we do,
and that is why we are so strongly in support of our plan.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I stand in favor of this
motion to instruct, which would tell the conferees to make a Medicare
prescription drug benefit a higher priority than a tax cut that would
override all other priorities.
This motion to instruct conferees rejects the House's fiscally
irresponsible $200 billion tax cut which our Republican friends
describe as a down payment on the $483 billion plan outlined by
Governor Bush, a tax cut that would eat up the entire nonSocial
Security surplus and begin to eat into funds borrowed from Social
Security.
Mr. Speaker, we can afford a modest tax cut, but we cannot afford the
kind of tax cut that would compromise the future of Social Security and
Medicare. We need to address the future of Medicare. We need to address
the deficiencies of Medicare. The most striking deficiency, the most
important deficiency is its failure to cover prescription drugs.
We need a prescription drug benefit now, not later. Prescription
drugs now account for about one-sixth of all out-of-pocket health
spending by the elderly. Almost 40 percent of those over age 85 do not
have prescription drug coverage.
Spending and utilization of prescription drugs is growing at twice
the rate of other health spending. Between 1993 and 1998, spending for
prescription drugs increased at an annual rate of 12 percent compared
to about 5 percent for other kinds of health spending.
So this motion to instruct conferees takes the lower tax cut number
in the Senate resolution so that the tax cut does not use all of our
budgetary resources. Then it instructs conferees to use the latest date
possible for tax cuts, September 22, so Congress will have time and
will have the resources to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit
before it acts on the tax cuts.
Mr. Speaker, let us put first things first. Let us support this
motion to instruct conferees.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, seniors in my district are very concerned about the
costs of prescription drugs, and they are glad that we will be
addressing that issue this year. But seniors in my district are also
very concerned about being able to pass along the fruits of their
labors to their children, because many of the seniors in my district
are farmers and ranchers and small business people, and they are
weighed down by the effects of the death tax and their inability to
pass along what they have worked for all their lives to their children
and grandchildren. Many of them are still involved in their farms and
ranches and small businesses. So as taxes go higher and higher, their
costs of production go higher, and it is harder for them to make a
living. So tax relief is an important part of this bill for seniors and
for their children and for their grandchildren.
The budget resolution that the House passed is a good balance that
includes a prescription drug benefit and tax relief, and it also
includes strengthening our country's defense. This budget resolution
increases defense spending 6 percent over last year. It helps us do a
better job of taking care of our people.
But we know that more money alone doesn't solve all of our problems.
We also have to reexamine our commitments and all of the deployments
around the world. We have to address the fact that, in fiscal year
1998, $24 billion of defense spending is in unreconciled transactions.
We do not know where it was spent.
We have got to do a better job of making sure our money is spent
smarter and more effectively, and this budget resolution as well as the
continuing activities of this committee will help get us in that
direction.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, America is completely entranced by the
television show, ``Who Wants to be a Millionaire?'' I think that is the
game that is being played out here on the floor today. The Republicans,
they are starting the game kind of with the faster finger contest.
So what they do is they put a chart together, and they list six
things that they want to accomplish. They want to protect 100 percent
of Social Security. They want to strengthen Medicare. They want to
retire the public debt. They want to promote tax fairness. They want to
restore America's defense, and they want to promote education.
Now, the trick in the fastest finger contest is which order does one
think the Republicans are going to put the answers in. Because we think
and the American people think that the Republicans are really playing a
different game. They think, as we do, that the real game on the
Republican side is who wants to help a millionaire?
So number four down here, yes, they want tax fairness for families,
but the families they are talking about are the families in the country
club. They want big tax breaks. So answer number one for them is
helping the wealthiest families in the country with a big tax cut. But
the Democrats, we are saying our answer is, who wants to help the
elderly? Who wants to help the sick? Who wants to help kids get an
education.
So we are moving up those issues up to number one, two and three.
That is what the Democratic resolution says out here on the floor.
Let us make sure that we get this answer correctly, because there
should be no taxation breaks before medication benefits for senior
citizens in our country. We should ensure that the list, which is up
here as a wonderful set of objectives that the Republican Party is
listing, but they do not tell us what their priorities are. It tells us
nothing about what they want to do first.
If we look back to past history, their first and primary objective is
cutting social programs, especially for senior citizens in our country
so they can have the biggest tax breaks for those that have been most
benefited by the enormous prosperity of the 1990s.
So do not kid ourselves. This is all about who wants to make more
money for more millionaires in our country. That is the game which the
Republicans are playing. The Democrats are just making sure that we get
the order first, prescription drugs to senior citizens before more tax
breaks for millionaires.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) seek unanimous consent to reclaim his time?
Mr. SHAYS. I do, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) controls the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
that the first two tax cuts that went through were ending the marriage
penalty so that young couples would not have to pay $1,400 more, and
ending Social Security penalty, which I think the gentleman voted for,
hardly cuts tax for the wealthy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the budget passed by this Chamber provides the framework
and the foundation for continued prosperity. We know where the
Republican priorities are. In 1993, I came to Washington. I came to
Washington because I watched the other side spend the Social Security
surplus for 40 years. We are now on our way to the 3rd year balancing
the budget by not spending one dime of Social Security.
The Republicans have their priorities right. We are going to
strengthen Medicare by setting aside $40 billion for a prescription
drug program. We are going to work at retiring public debt rather than
accumulating public debt as we did for 40 years. We are going to
promote tax fairness for families, farmers, and seniors. We are going
to restore American defense. We are going to strengthen education in
America.
I want to talk a little bit more about how we strengthen education in
America. We have seen one approach to strengthening education, which is
creating program after program after program here in Washington,
throwing $35 billion into an agency that cannot even keep its own
books. It cannot balance its own books.
What does that mean? It means that it does not even think enough
about our kids to make sure that every dollar that we invest in
education makes it into a classroom, makes it to a child where it
actually can make a difference.
There is a better way. Rather than having an education bureaucracy in
Washington which is mandating to local school districts and to parents
how to spend their educational dollars, in the Republican plan, we
maintain the funding, we increase the funding, but we give it to the
school districts in a way that gives them maximum flexibility.
We increase funding for the Individuals With Disabilities Act. As we
give the school districts and local districts more money, it frees up
their money to move those dollars to the areas that they feel are most
important.
We preserve funding for the Innovative Education Program Strategies.
What is this? This is a very flexible block grant back to local school
districts. It says we trust them to take some of this money and
allocate it to the things that they think are most important. The
President has not even requested funding for this program since 1994.
We reject cuts in impact aid. This is where money flows to local
school districts because they have a significant impact because of
Federal programs and facilities in their districts. We increase
spending for Pell Grants. The Pell Grant program helps lower income
students attend college.

{time} 1800

There is a clear difference. One program says we are going to invest
in Washington; the other says we are going to invest in our local
schools and our local kids.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
this side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt) has 6 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the
gentleman from South Carolina for this motion. I rise to endorse it and
ask my colleagues to accept it.
My district showed a definitive difference in the amount of monies
paid by senior citizens for prescription drugs. It was higher in the
18th Congressional District in Houston than in Canada and in Mexico.
We find that those who are 85 years old, 40 percent of them do not
even have the ability to pay for any drugs. They have no benefit
whatsoever, and we must realize that seniors are living longer.
We also find that seniors are paying twice as much for their
prescription drugs if they are Medicare beneficiaries and they do not
have that provision, and so they are buying one-third less drugs. What
does that mean? It means sicker seniors. That is what it means. Mr.
Speaker, these are individuals who have worked hard in our communities.
Then we find the cost of our prescription drugs, the amount of money
our seniors pay, is far more than any other health need that they have.
And this, I would say to my colleagues, begs for us to have a
prescription drug benefit under the Medicare provisions.
I do not know why it is so difficult. This is something we should
support. I cannot go home and tell my seniors in the 18th Congressional
District that in the United States of America they cannot have a drug
benefit; but yet in Mexico and Canada prescription drugs are cheaper.
I would say it is time now to support this motion to instruct, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Spratt motion to instruct
the conferees on the budget resolution. The Spratt motion sets the
stage for enacting a Medicare prescription drug benefit or other
legislation to improve Medicare before the reporting date for a tax cut
reconciliation bill by setting September 22 as the date for reporting a
tax cut bill protected by reconciliation. Furthermore, the Spratt
motion recedes to the Senate's slightly smaller tax cut and also recede
to the Senate by dropping the reserve fund language in the House-passed
resolution that provides for an additional $50 billion in tax cuts.
While the Republicans propose large tax cuts over the next 5 years
and reconcile the Finance and Ways and Means Committees to report
legislation, Republicans do not show the 10-year cost of this tax cut
which could be as large as the $792 billion that the Republicans
proposed and the American people rejected in 1999. Moreover, the
Republicans do not intend to strengthen or support Medicare due to the
fact that there are no reconciliation instructions to require
legislation that would actually use the $40 billion ``reserve''
earmarked in the budget resolution. In addition, the Republicans have
cut non-defense appropriations while defense significantly increased.
For the third consecutive year Republicans have chosen to provide
large tax breaks for the wealthy. This budget resolution provides at
least $200 billion in tax breaks over the next 5 years for the
financial elite of America. Furthermore, this resolution is a major
down payment for George W. Bush's proposed trillion-dollar tax scheme.
I will not stand by while our children's future is bankrupted to fund
this irresponsible budget resolution.
This budget contains deep cuts in domestic spending by $114 billion
over the next 5 years; fails to provide anything to strengthen Social
Security or Medicare; cuts nondefense discretionary spending by $19.7
billion in 2001 and $138 billion over the next 5 years below the level
needed to maintain purchasing power after adjusting for inflation; and
pretends to reserve $40 billion for a Medicare prescription drug
benefit contingent upon essentially turning Medicare into a voucher
program. Republicans have used slight of hand to hide the facts of
their irresponsible budget by showing the effects of proposed tax cuts
for only the first 5 years and not the full 10-year projections
commonly used during the last 4 years.
I am disappointed in the budget resolution because I do not believe
that it provides adequate investment in our Nation's future. America's
future depends on that of her young people--in providing them adequate
resources and opportunities to become our future leaders including
providing them education and access to adequate health care.
The budget resolution provides inadequate resources for the education
of our young people. I firmly believe that we must focus our attention
and our energy on one of the most important challenges facing our
country today--revitalizing our education system. Strengthening
education must be a top priority to raise the standard of living among
American families and to prolong this era of American economic
expansion.
Education will prepare our nation for the challenges of the 21st
century, and I will fight to ensure that the necessary programs are
adequately funded to ensure our children's success.
We must provide our children access to superior education at all ages
from kindergarten to graduate school. Recent studies emphasize the
importance of quality education early in a child's future development.
And yet despite these studies, the Budget Resolution still inadequately
funds programs that would provide for programs targeting children in
their younger years.
In addition, we need to open the door of educational opportunity to
all American children. It is well known that increases in income are
related to educational attainment. The Democratic budget alternative
rejects the Republican freeze on education funding and allocates $4.8
billion more for education for fiscal year 2001, than the Republican
budget. Over 5 years, the Democratic Party demonstrates its commitment
to education by proposing $21 billion more than the Republican budget
resolution.
The Congressional Black Caucus [CBC] offered an amendment in the
nature of a substitute that promised to invest for the future of our
Nation. The CBC substitute is a budget that maximizes investment and
opportunity for the poor, African-Americans, and other minorities. This
Budget for Maximum Investment and Opportunity supports a moderate plan
to pay down the national debt; protects Social Security; and makes
significant investments in education and training.
The CBC budget requests $88.8 billion in fiscal year 2001 for
education, training, and development. This is $32 billion more than the
Republican budget provides. The CBC substitute proposed a $10 billion
increase over the President's Budget for school construction. Other
projected increases include additional funding for Head Start, Summer
Youth Employment, TRIO programs, Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, and Community Technology Centers. In an age of
unprecedented wealth the CBC has the vision to invest in the American
family and not squander opportunities afforded by a budget surplus.
I will not support the failed policies of the past. Senator McCain
has best characterized this budget resolution as one that is fiscally
irresponsible. I support a budget that invest strengthening Social
Security; provides an affordable prescription drug benefit for all
seniors; helps communities improve public education with quality
teachers, smaller classes, greater accountability and modern schools;
and pay down the national debt. These are the policies that invest in
our children and in the future of our Nation in the 21st century.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to just remind my
colleagues that I was here for 13 years, and I never saw in a Democrat
budget any prescription drugs. In the Republican budget we have
prescription drugs.
It is interesting to note that my colleagues on the other side want
to make it universal, so they want to give millionaires prescription
drugs. Somehow that does not bother them. So I guess they like some
millionaires and not others. I guess taxes, whatever.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the six points of
the Republican budget plan and compare it a bit with the Democrat plan,
or the plans they have had over the last 30 years when they were in
power.
Number one. Last year the House of Representatives passed a measure
that I sponsored, the Social Security Lockbox, by an overwhelming 416
to 12 vote. This budget reinforces that effort by ensuring that Social
Security dollars will not be spent on unrelated programs. It protects
100 percent of the Social Security.
In this budget all of the $166 billion Social Security surplus is off
limits to Clinton-Gore spending. This will be the second year in a row
that Republicans have protected the Social Security surplus.
Secondly, we are strengthening Medicare with prescription drugs. It
sets aside $40 billion to help needy seniors to be able to afford their
prescription drugs; and at the same time, it rejects the $18.2 billion
Clinton-Gore Medicare cuts. The other side would like to cut Medicare.
Point three. Our Federal public debt stands now at $3.6 trillion.
This equates to $56,000 for the average family of four. This year,
nearly $1,000 in taxes from every man, woman, and child in the United
States will be used just to pay the interest on the debt. The
Republican budget resolution leads our Nation on the path towards
eliminating public debt by paying off $1 trillion over the next 5
years. Our budget discipline has already repaid $302 billion since
1998.
Mr. Speaker, those are numbers; but paying off the public debt is not
just about numbers, it is about people. It is about the future of our
Nation. It is about children living in my northern California district
and elsewhere in our Nation that are saddled by this debt unless we pay
it off. This budget takes the bold step for ourselves and future
generations by taking on the challenge to pay off this national public
debt.
The next point it promotes, point number four, is tax fairness for
families. Farmers and seniors. This is not for fat cats, as the other
side would have us believe. It provides for those in the House-passed
marriage tax penalty provision who, on average, pay $1,400 extra just
because they are married.
It also provides for a small business tax relief and education and
health care assistance amounting to $150 billion, and it rejects the
$96 billion growth tax increase over the next 5 years in the Clinton-
Gore budget.
Number five. It restores American defense 6 percent more than last
year for our overdeployed armed forces. The GOP defense budget provides
$1 billion more than the Clinton-Gore plan.
And finally, number six, it strengthens support for education and
science, 9.4 percent more for elementary and secondary education, and
IDEA increases of nearly $2 billion. Also, it fights cancer, AIDS,
diabetes, and other diseases with $1 billion more for NIH, as well as
$1 billion extra for basic research in biology, science, engineering,
and math.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget resolution; and I urge my
colleagues to reject this motion to instruct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, let us put first things first. First things first are
the seniors who cannot afford their medications; who are cutting their
pills in half, cutting the potency, thereby running the risk that they
do not get better earlier. Those are the people who we are trying to
put first; the people who cannot afford their prescription drugs
because they are too expensive.
We have developed all this taxpayer-funded research, and the people
who are supposed to be benefiting from it cannot even afford the drugs
once they are developed. We need to put first things first, and this
motion puts first things first.
Our seniors are being forced to choose between food, fuel, and
prescription drugs. A study that just came out showed that those paying
15 percent more than anybody else are the ones who do not have the
insurance or on Medicare. The ones that are the most vulnerable are the
ones paying the most.
Mr. Speaker, these are individuals who have contributed to their
communities. They have sacrificed; they have worked for their families
and lived their whole lives and tried to make their families and their
communities better. They are the most vulnerable amongst us, and they
are the ones we should help first. Not a very large tax break providing
for the very wealthy people to be able to enjoy, but the most
vulnerable amongst us who need our care and support in their
prescription medication, who have led a full and productive life for
their families and their communities.
Mr. Speaker, this motion is putting first things first.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the right to close.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is
recognized for 2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this is the most
overused chart I think I have seen on the House floor in maybe a dozen
years. It is used by the Republicans and the Democrats alike. And we
would like the Democrats to use it more and keep repeating our themes
because we think it is really a good message.
In fact, I was in Reading, Pennsylvania, the other night and I made a
talk; and I never really talk about the budget but I talked about the
budget, and I said, ``I want you to know what is in it because I am so
amazed that we were able to accomplish the fact that we are going to
keep our mitts off Social Security and keep that surplus there and use
it to fix Social Security for three generations of Americans. Not just
the seniors, but the baby-boomers and particularly the kids, who are
really at risk.''
And we are going to strengthen Medicare. Frankly, Medicare has got to
become a much more free market program. And we have to provide
supplements in private savings accounts in order to really solve the
Medicare problem long term. But at this point we want to strengthen it,
and we want to make sure our seniors have access to the prescription
drugs because, frankly, we may be able to avoid surgeries, for example,
and have a more inexpensive way of keeping people healthy through the
use of prescription drugs.
But we certainly do not want people of real means to qualify for
another entitlement program offered by the Federal Government that,
frankly, takes away from people who are more needy.
We pay down $1 trillion in the publicly held debt. That is better
than Regis Philbin did if we add up all his shows together. We are
going to pay down $1 trillion in the publicly held debt, and we are
going to cut taxes. And we are going to cut taxes for people who pay
taxes.
I am in favor of that. I am not a big fan of cutting taxes for people
who do not pay any taxes. So we are going to have a program that will
help the family farmer and the small businessperson. We are going to
help the married couples. We are going to help everybody who is out
there paying taxes and let them pay a little less and get this
government to clean itself up a little bit.
We are going to restore America's defense. We do not want our troops
to be up against the wall without the training money they need, the
basic supplies that they need.
And, finally, we are going to strengthen support for education. We
believe in basic science. We love the human genome project. As one
philosopher once said, advanced science is sometimes indistinguishable
from magic. And the fact is that human genome project almost looks like
magic; it is so amazing and it offers so much hope to everybody.
So with these six principles, we do not think we ought to change
course. We think we are headed in the right direction. We think this
will strengthen America, will strengthen our families, our communities;
and so I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion of the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Let us stay the course and get this budget done and offer something
to the American people that I believe will improve their lives.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This whole debate began when the President sent us a budget and said
let us do prescription drug coverage; there is a gaping hole in the
comprehensive care we ought to provide in Medicare. And I absolutely
agree with that.
When the Republicans brought their resolution to the Committee on the
Budget, they provided for prescription drug coverage in an iffy
conditional kind of way. The usual procedure in a budget resolution,
the one tool we have to get something done on the Committee on the
Budget, is to impose reconciliation instructions on the committees of
jurisdiction, to tell them by a date certain to report out language to
the House floor so that we can act upon the purpose that we have set
for ourselves.
We, in our resolution on the Democratic side, did just that. We
resorted to the time-honored tool of reconciliation and said to the
Committee on Ways and Means and to the Committee on Commerce, reconcile
the budget; here is $40 billion for the first 5 years, $155 billion
over the next 10 years, establish a prescription drug benefit for
Medicare.
That is all we want to do today. We want to take this iffy, mushy
language now in this resolution and stiffen it up. We want to stiffen
the spine and resolve of the conferees and tell them, go to conference
determined to see that the first order of business of this House is not
tax cuts, it is a prescription drug benefit. Then they can turn to tax
cuts. We do not rule that out.
We provide in our budget resolution for tax reduction of $50 billion
over the next 5 years, $201 billion over the next 10 years, and we say
in this resolution recede to the Senate tax proposal, which is $147
billion.
Why do we say that? Because, Mr. Speaker, going back to a chart I
used repeatedly when we argued this resolution, we think that the other
side is coming perilously close to putting us in the position of being
back in the red, back into the Social Security surplus once again.
The budget resolution the Republicans brought to the floor produces,
according to their numbers, a surplus of $110 billion over 5 years,
provided they can hold discretionary spending below the rate of
inflation to the tune of $117 billion over 5 years. A very big proviso.

{time} 1815

But if they then go from a $150 billion tax cut to a $200 billion tax
cut, that $110 billion is reduced by 50. And then if they do the
prescription drug benefit at 40, they take another 50 off. They are
down to a $110 billion surplus over the next 5 years. By our
calculation, Mr. Speaker, they will have a $10 billion surplus next
year, but every year thereafter they will have a zero surplus.
They are skating on thin ice. They are putting us in danger of
invading the Social Security surplus again. And when that crunch comes,
prescription drug coverage will never get done. That is why we say do
it first.
Now, this is simply a test of their sincerity. If they are earnest,
if they are sincere, if they really want to do prescription drugs, vote
for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following chart for the Record:

THE REPUBLICAN BUDGET RESOLUTION USES UP THE ENTIRE SURPLUS--AND MAYBE MORE
[All figures exclude the Social Security surplus; negative signs indicate savings; dollars in billions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Five years Ten years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBO Surplus w/o Social Security........... 27 15 29 36 42 48 171 893
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax cuts (before use of ``reserve'')............ ........... 10 22 31 42 45 150 750
Non-defense cuts including timing shifts........ 12 -16 -13 -21 -30 -37 -117 -377
Defense......................................... ........... 3 2 2 3 2 12 23
Farm payments................................... 6 1 1 2 2 2 7 18
Extend expiring Customs Service fee............. ........... ........... ........... ........... -1 -2 -3 -13
Medicaid/CHIP access and benefits............... ........... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) 1 2
Interest costs of policies...................... (\1\) 1 1 2 3 4 11 75
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surplus claimed by Republicans............ 8 17 16 20 24 33 110 415
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserve for $50 billion additional tax cuts..... ........... 5 10 10 10 15 50 250
Reserved for Medicare ``reform'' and drugs...... ........... 2 5 8 11 14 40 155
Interest cost of reserves....................... ........... (\1\) 1 2 3 4 10 80
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surplus/Deficit(-) when reserves are used. 8 10 0 0 0 0 10 -70
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ means ``less than $\1/2\ billion''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SPRATT. 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.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will now put the question on each motion to suspend the rules and then
on the motion to instruct conferees on which further proceedings were
postponed earlier today in the order in which that motion was
entertained.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Con. Res. 282, by the yeas and nays; H. Con. Res. 228, by the yeas
and nays; S. 777, by the yeas and nays; and the motion to instruct
conferees on H. Con. Res. 290, by the yeas and nays.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first such vote in this series.

____________________

DECLARING AMERICAN G.I. ``PERSON OF THE CENTURY'' FOR 20TH CENTURY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 282, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 282, as
amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397,
nays 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 36, as follows:

[Roll No. 111]

YEAS--397

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
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
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Thornberry

NOT VOTING--36

Ackerman
Bilbray
Blunt
Borski
Buyer
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Clement
Coburn
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
DeGette
Frost
Gutierrez
Jenkins
Jones (OH)
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Oxley
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Stark
Tanner
Weldon (PA)
Wise

{time} 1837

Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX,
the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on each additional motion to suspend the rules on which the
Chair has postponed further proceedings.

____________________

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the concurrent resolution, House
Concurrent Resolution 228.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, House Concurrent
Resolution 228, 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 399,
nays 0, not voting 35, as follows:

[Roll No. 112]

YEAS--399

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--35

{time} 1845

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, my flight from San Diego,
California to Washington, D.C. was delayed this evening, and I was
unable to record my vote for H. Con. Res. 282 and H. Con. Res. 228. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 282 and
``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 228.

____________________

FREEDOM TO E-FILE ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 777,
as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 777, 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 397,
nays 1, not voting 36, as follows:

[Roll No. 113]

YEAS--397

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Sanford

NOT VOTING--36

Blunt
Borski
Buyer
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Clement
Coburn
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
DeGette
Frost
Gutierrez
Herger
Jenkins
Jones (OH)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Oxley
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sisisky
Tanner
Tierney
Wise

{time} 1852

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the Senate bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to
require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an electronic filing
and retrieval system to enable farmers and other persons to file
paperwork electronically with selected agencies of the Department of
Agriculture and to access public information regarding the programs
administered by these agencies.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House
chamber for roll call votes held the evening of Monday, April 10. Had I
been present I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 282, H. Con.
Res. 228, and S. 777.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 290, CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, FISCAL YEAR 2001

Motion to Instruct Conferees Offered by Mr. Spratt

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
agreeing to the motion to instruct on the concurrent resolution (H.
Con. Res. 290) establishing the congressional budget for the United
States Government for fiscal year 2001, revising the congressional
budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2000, and
setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2005, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198,
nays 201, not voting 35, as follows:

[Roll No. 114]

YEAS--198

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--201

Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Collins
Combest
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--35

Blunt
Borski
Buyer
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Clement
Coburn
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
DeGette
Frost
Gutierrez
Jenkins
Jones (OH)
Lee
Martinez
McCollum
McIntosh
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Owens
Oxley
Pryce (OH)
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ryun (KS)
Schaffer
Sisisky
Tanner
Wise

{time} 1903

Mr. BOEHLERT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr, JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on the following: H. Con. Res. 282; H. Con. Res. 228; S. 277;
and H. Con. Res. 290.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Without objection, the Chair
names the following conferees: Messrs. Kasich, Chambliss, Shays,
Spratt, and Holt.
There was no objection.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM HON. JOE SCARBOROUGH, MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Honorable Joe Scarborough, Member of Congress:

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 27, 2000.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a deposition subpoena for
documents issued by the Circuit Court for Escambia County,
Florida.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Joe Scarborough.

____________________

INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION--KENNETH AND JODI CARLSEN

(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tell a story of Kenneth and
Jodi Carlsen, the father and stepmother of one of the 10,000 American
children who have been abducted internationally.
The United States court system awarded Mr. Carlsen custody of his
daughter and gave visitation rights to the mother. In September of
1993, her mother and her boyfriend picked up Mr. Carlsen's daughter
from school and abducted her to Germany.
When Mr. Carlsen filed for a court hearing in Germany, he was asked
by the German authorities to pay 1,400 to initiate proceedings.
Fourteen months later, he got a hearing and the German Youth Authority
testified that his daughter was settled in her new environment and
objected to being returned to the United States. The Youth Authority
never interviewed Mr. Carlsen and the lower court in Germany denied the
return of his daughter.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Carlsen's daughter was 8 when she was abducted and
now is 15 years old. Since then, she has seen her father only twice and
both times were under strict supervision of the German Youth Authority.
Mr. Speaker, this House has the responsibility and the duty to help
American parents bring their children home. I urge my colleagues to
support H. Con. Res. 293, American children need our help.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). 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.

____________________

TRAIN WHISTLES TO DISRUPT MILLIONS OF LIVES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to highlight a serious
problem that all of America will soon experience. As early as next
January, thousands of cities, towns, villages, and hamlets will be
deafened by the wail of a train whistle. That is right, if the Federal
Railroad Administration's proposed rule on the sounding of locomotive
horns at every highway crossing goes into effect as planned, the
earsplitting sounds of train whistles will wake people at night and
generally disrupt people's lives.
Unfortunately, few Members of Congress know about the problem that
confronts us. As mandated by the Swift Rail Act of 1994, the FRA came
up with rules on train horns, and in January the FRA came out with a
proposed rule.
While I understand that the rule is intended to save people's lives,
the way in which the rule was written will severely impact millions of
people in a negative way. For instance, although the FRA states that
over 74,000 people in Illinois currently living near a crossing that
does not allow whistle-blowing will be severely impacted by this rule,
in reality, according to the Chicago Area Transportation Study, 2.5
million residents in Illinois live within one quarter mile of a
crossing, and would be severely impacted.
This is a tremendous number of people that will be impacted by train
whistles that range from 92 decibels to 144 decibels, an unhealthy
level that rises above the threshold of pain.
So what can be done about this rule? I and other Members of the
Illinois delegation could argue that Illinois, and specifically
Chicago, should have an exception from the FRA's rule because Illinois
has done a good job in reducing accidents at crossings.
In northeastern Illinois, injuries have declined by 70 percent and
fatalities have declined by 65 percent since 1988. During the same
period of time, the number of incidents dropped. Train traffic and
average motor vehicle miles have both increased by 45 percent. Clearly,
Illinois has been doing a good job with a tough assignment, and they
should be allowed to continue with their rail safety program.
But what if this rule does go into effect? In order to avoid the
disruption of the whistles, money is needed to implement alternatives
to whistle blowing, money that local communities do not have. The FRA
estimates costs of $116 million for whistle ban communities based on
assumptions that every community will install the lowest-cost
alternative to whistles.
The Chicago Area Transportation Study estimates the cost of reality-
based alternatives to be between $440 million and $590 million for
whistle ban communities across the Nation. This is a huge amount of
money that our local communities simply do not have, and they will turn
to their Congressmen to help them find the funding.
So I say to my colleagues, join me and others in finding a solution
that is available to everyone. Let us work on this rule so crossings
could be made safer and so people can go along with their lives in a
livable manner.
At the very least, let us increase the amount of money going to grade
crossings by passing my rail safety bill, H.R. 2060, that will double
the amount of money that DOT gives to States for grade crossing safety.
Because when next January rolls around, we had better be prepared for
the train that is coming down the track for all of us.

____________________

THE NAVY'S MANIPULATIVE USE OF PREVAILING WAGES ON GUAM FOR THE PWC BOS
CONTRACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I speak again on the issue of the
implementation of a commercial study, the A-76 program, which basically
is designed to outsource a number of jobs in my home island of Guam.
I rise again to point out some very serious difficulties with this
process, and point out to the Members and especially the Members of the
Committee on Armed Services that these kinds of problems which we are
experiencing in Guam will inevitably be experienced by everyone as they
undergo this A-76 process.
Yesterday on Guam, Raytheon Technical Services commenced their
contract with the U.S. Navy for base operation support functions.
Approximately 800 Federal civil service workers were laid off, and most
of them were immediately rehired by Raytheon under the so-called right
of first refusal to perform the very same jobs as they did last week,
only they will be paid a salary of 40 to 60 percent less.
The Navy has told us that the wages that the contractor is required
to pay are based on a ``prevailing wage determination,'' as is
calculated by the U.S. Department of Labor. These are calculated by a
prevailing wage survey. This survey is a composite of job-specific wage
rates by industry in a particular community. They do not, however,
account for the price of local consumer goods and foodstuffs which must
be purchased in order to survive in that community, so Federal jobs
also include a cost-of-living allowance that makes up this difference.

{time} 1915

The private contractor is not required to pay this. In attempting to
comprehend the situation on Guam between the high cost of consumables
and the depressed prevailing wage rates, we spoke with the Prevailing
Wage section of the Guam Department of Labor. We were informed that the
Guam Department of Labor is responsible for the wage determination for
foreign laborers under the H-2 program and is based on survey results
done on Guam and reflective of local conditions.
Furthermore, the Guam Department of Labor noted that the wages
established as a result of these surveys have complied with the
requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act. The Guam Department of Labor is
aware that the Navy contract with Raytheon is neither in line with Guam
Department of Labor prevailing wage, nor mainland wage standards. Guam
DOL has said that the wage survey for the Navy contract was not done on
island and thus questions the survey's methodology.
Mr. Speaker, the question now begs where did the Navy get this wage
data from? Well, one conclusion that we can draw from these depressed
wages is that they pick the lowest possible salaries as determined from
a whole range of areas of unofficial wage-study areas.
Now, I provide an example. We will use a real live Raytheon job offer
against similar positions on Guam, using the Guam DOL prevailing wage
survey, again a survey that is done under U.S. DOL supervision and is
intended for foreign workers. For administration and accounting
services, under the Navy service contract an accounting clerk is now
being offered a wage of $5.80 an hour, compared with the Guam
prevailing wage rate of $8.48 an hour. For a data entry operator,
Raytheon has offered $11.86 an hour versus the Guam prevailing wage of
$13.25 an hour.
Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous. Not only does it seem that the Navy
was utilizing faulty data of an unknown source, but the Navy is taking
advantage of the fact that the U.S. Department of Labor does not have
sufficient oversight capabilities to enforce the requirements made on
the Navy under the Services Contracting Act.
In fact, under the provisions of the Services Contracting Act, the
Navy is required to request the U.S. Department of Labor to conduct a
wage determination by filing a notice with the U.S. DOL for such a
survey, and I believe that the U.S. Navy has violated this requirement
and thus created an environment whereby wage busting could occur.
Let me just summarize here. What has happened on Guam has happened in
other communities, perhaps unbeknownst to those communities, and will
continue to happen, and that is if the Navy is allowed to compute their
own prevailing wages apart from the actual wages in that community,
they will continue to not only pay the people less than they would have
under the civil service, they will continue to pay them less than even
the prevailing wages in that community.
This has happened on Guam, and it is ironic that if one was a foreign
worker coming to Guam, and this disincentive that is created under the
Guam prevailing wage one would be getting more money today than they
would under this Navy-induced contract with Raytheon. It is an outrage.
I call again upon the Department of the Navy and the Pentagon to halt
this contract, to call for an Inspector General investigation, and I
call for a congressional hearing on this matter.

____________________

ANY PARTICIPATION IN MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT AFFECTS THE
INDEPENDENCE AND SOVEREIGNTY OF UNITED STATES IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE
DISCONTINUED

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Speaker, many have asked me why I have cosponsored
House Joint Resolution 90, which gives Members of this body the
opportunity to vote on the United States continued participation in the
World Trade Organization. A simple answer: I firmly believe that any
participation in multilateral organizations that in any way affects the
independence and sovereignty of these United States is wrong and should
be discontinued.
Unfortunately, it has become obvious that the WTO will be able to
remove jurisdiction over virtually any economic activity from Federal,
State, and local governments. Global elitists have gravitated to the
new centers of power, the transnational corporations, believing that we
are evolving beyond the nation state. If that is the case, we are
moving from a condition of rule under law, created by representative
government, representing all the needs and interests of society, toward
rule by unelected elites representing only the most powerful of
interests, the only entities which have the power and reach across the
world to really influence new international forms such as the WTO.
Corporate governance, in fact, is the newest concept being pressed
forward at the WTO, the OECD, the IMF, and the World Bank. There has
been little written on the topics outside the confines of independent
governance organizations. The independent state is to be replaced with
the corporate state; the concept of the people as sovereigns replaced
by the notion of corporations as the new sovereigns.
The increasing centralization of industries, through monopoly mergers
and acquisitions, has been given much of its global impetus through the
mechanism of the WTO. This anti-competition evolution, when far enough
along, will end any sense of free enterprise being the normal global
market norm. Corporations are not good or evil, but corporate boards
prioritize actions that increase the profitability and power of the
corporation. Their officers increasingly speak and act as if they do
not affiliate or identify with any one country or any one home.
Do the large transnational corporations have the same degree of
concern for the defense of the United States as the average citizen?
What about environmental standards which are the product of our system
of governance, or hard-fought labor protections jeopardized by drastic
wage and labor standard differentials between the United States and the
Third World? What decisions will be made by the unelected, corporate-
influenced members of the WTO in the long run?
Corporatism never implied a need for democracy. We hear about the WTO
adhering to recognized international core labor standards, but we do
not hear how little the wages of foreign workers have increased, how
often they have fallen to new lows, just how little the standards of
living have changed for the average citizens of these countries. The
only way to protect American jobs from further disappearing to lesser
developed countries is by foreign workers receiving higher wages.
Lowering trade barriers is lowering standards, period.
When we read about the growing irrelevancy of national governments in
dealing with the transnational corporations, we must ask where does
that leave the citizens of our Nation? Every nation that is a free
republic, based upon democratic principles, has a citizenry who are the
sole sovereigns. If they are not sovereign, there is no true democracy.
This is why the word sovereignty has real meaning. This is why this
fight for the sovereignty of the United States, challenged by the
emergence of the WTO, is a real fight for the constitutional rights of
each and every American. Many believe the undemocratic WTO, ruling far
from our homeland, can be reformed. I sincerely doubt this, and I ask,
are we really willing to take that kind of a gamble with American
independence, with the liberty that we aspire to for each citizen? I
hope not.

____________________

OUR DEEPEST SYMPATHIES ARE EXTENDED TO THE FAMILIES OF MAJOR GRUBER AND
ALSO STAFF SERGEANT NELSON

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I have been coming to the
floor once a week for the last 2\1/2\ months to talk about our men and
women in uniform that are on food stamps and how I think it is
unacceptable that this Congress, and this government quite frankly,
would ask anyone that would be willing to die for this Nation to be on
food stamps; but tonight, Mr. Speaker, I am here on the floor because
there was a tragedy on Saturday night. I think we all know that a V-22
Osprey on a training mission in Arizona went down and 19 Marines were
killed. It so happens that two of those Marines were from eastern North
Carolina.
Major Brooks Gruber was a pilot on the mission and also there was a
Staff Sergeant William B. Nelson, who was stationed at New River Air
Station in Onslow County, North Carolina.
I just started thinking, as I heard about the terrible tragedy, that
many of us, not just talking about Members of Congress but those of us
around this Nation, we do take our military for granted. I do not think
we intend to do that, but it is just maybe because out of sight out of
mind. But when we hear about a training accident where men and women
are killed, in this case it was 19 men, that it does remind us that our
freedoms are guaranteed by those who are willing to serve.
I just wanted to come to the floor tonight, and I am sure all Members
of Congress would join me in extending our deepest sympathy to the
families of Major Gruber and also Staff Sergeant Nelson, as well as the
other 17 men that were killed on this training flight in Arizona.
I think that it is a reminder to all Americans that the members of
the United States military make the ultimate sacrifice on a daily
basis, whether it is here in this country or outside of the borders of
the United States of America. It is a tragedy, because we think that
our men and women in training are always going to be safe and
protected, but it does not always happen that way. Certainly there is
an investigation going on now. We will find out soon what happened to
the V-22 that made it fail in the air and kill these wonderful, brave
American military Marines, it happens to be in this case.
I am going to cut my remarks short tonight because, again, I sense
the sadness from talking to the Marines in the liaison office today as
I am saddened myself; and again I am sure each and every Member on the
floor tonight is saddened. I do hope, as I close, after extending my
deepest sympathy to the families of these 19 Marines, that those of us
in the House will remember that we do have those on food stamps and
that we will do something before this session of Congress ends to make
sure that we do show those 7,000 men and women in uniform on food
stamps that we care about them and we are going to do something to help
them so they will not be so dependent on food stamps.
Mr. Speaker, I do again extend to the families of these 19 my deepest
sympathies on behalf of my colleagues who serve on the floor of the
United States, the House of Representatives, and while words are
trivial at this time, we thank you for giving your sons to this country
and may God be with you and God bless you through this time of sadness.

____________________

CENSUS DAY PLUS 10

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is census day plus 10. My
message to the American people is, if they have not already filled out
their form, please do so now and mail it in. Be part of this great
civic ceremony.
As of today, over 61 percent of Americans have responded to the
census, with 39 percent to go. This is a critically important milestone
for the 2000 Census, and I am extremely encouraged by the American
people's effort and by the Census Bureau's transparent tabulation
efforts. Just months ago, the General Accounting Office warned that the
initial response rate for the 2000 Census might peak at 61 percent.
Well, with 8 days still to spare, the 2000 Census has reached this
point and forms continue to flow in daily.
I am extremely heartened by the response thus far, and tonight I say
to the remaining 39 percent, please complete your forms. Do it today.
Put it in the mail. As always, this is our main message. Fill out your
form today.
Unfortunately, we have reached 61 percent despite the amazing
comments of some of my Republican colleagues and even Members of the
Republican leadership. With 39 percent of the American people still not
heard from, we have Members of Congress who should all know better
telling the American people that the census is optional. We have
Members of Congress saying that they, and I quote, ``believe in
voluntarily cooperating,'' end quote, with the government; but beyond
that they will not follow the law. Since when did following the law in
this country become a voluntary, optional thing?

{time} 1930

Others have compared the long form to a college exam where some
questions can be skipped. Is it because some people do not know the
answers? I certainly hope not. Do they want participation, or do they
want to make participation optional?
Last week, Census Director Ken Prewitt testified that the initial
response rate for the long form has been almost 12 percent below the
response rate for the households receiving the short form. This is
almost double the differential from the 1990 census and could seriously
threaten the accuracy of the final count.
What is really disheartening is the fact that most of the questions
on the long form have been around for decades. They were part of the
Bush and Reagan census. Even more astonishing about this new-found
concern about the census is that, over 2 years ago, the content of the
long and short forms, while they were being finalized, absolutely every
Member of Congress received a detailed list of the questions to be
asked, including a description of the need for the asking of it, along
with the specific legal requirements supporting it.
Notification of Congress is required by title 13 for a very good
reason, to prevent the very situation we face today, a census effort at
risk because Members of Congress simply do not know or do not care
about the importance of the census data.
Members of Congress received this information with all of the
questions in 1997 and 1998. I know that all of the Members who are
complaining about the census got a copy. Did they not read their mail?
The time for input on the questions was then, not now when they will do
more harm than good.
Even last week, the Republican leadership convened a press conference
supposedly in support of the census. But they went on to urge Americans
to skip questions they were uncomfortable with. Maybe the Republican
leadership should be reminded that the questions asked by the census
represent a balance between the needs of our Nation's communities and
the need to keep the time and effort required to complete the form to a
minimum. Only information required by Congress to manage or evaluate
programs is collected by the census.
Federal and State funds for schools, employment services, housing
assistance, road construction, day care facilities, hospitals,
emergency services, programs for seniors, and much more are distributed
based on census figures.
Also, the Census Bureau uses data acquired from the long form to
establish the baseline for many of the economic reports they release
year-round, including data on the Consumer Price Index and
unemployment. Without accurate data, we would be forced to manage our
economic policies with even less information than we currently have
available.
We should remember that the Census Bureau has gone to great efforts
to make both the short and long forms as brief as possible. The 2000
Census short form contains eight questions, down from nine in 1990. The
2000 Census long form contains 53 questions, down from 57 in 1990, the
shortest long form in decades.
The only new question in the census, which was added with my support
as part of welfare reform, asked for information on grandparents as
care givers.
I am a bit confused, too, because the same people who today are
making such a fuss over the long form just 6 months ago tried to add a
question to the short form which everyone has to complete.
I have a series of editorials from around the country urging
Americans to stand up and be counted for their communities, for their
representation, for their distribution of Federal funds. I would like
to put in the Record an editorial from the Daily News from New York
City, the city that I am proud to represent. The editorial is as
follows:

Stand Up and Be Counted

That's the slogan of Census 2000, and nowhere is that cry
more urgent than in New York. Last time around--10 years
ago--New Yorkers sat down. There was an undercount. And the
state lost out on everything from political representation to
new schools. New York, particularly New York City, must not
let this happen again.
The filing deadline came and went April 1. But the ``Be
counted'' Web site doesn't shut down until tomorrow. So if
you haven't returned your census form, take a few minutes (or
a few seconds, if you have the eight-question short form) and
do so. Now.
And, please, try not to get your dander up about how nosy
some of the questions seem to be. Answers on how you get to
work and what time you leave each morning, for example, can
be used by local officials for highway and mass-transit
improvements. Nobody's tracking your movement. Other answers
will aid in planning for health, housing, education,
employment, police and so forth. As for those racial-
identification categories, just follow the Census Bureau's
advice: Put down whatever race or ethnicity you identify
with. It's simply a part of drawing an accurate population
profile in this multicultural nation.
So far, returns here are hovering about 55%--with some
areas (like central Brooklyn, with a dismal 37%) considerably
lower.
A study by Price Waterhouse Coopers after the 1990 census
determined that New York State was undercounted by 277,000
residents--245,000 of them in New York City. That cost the
city three Assembly seats, a state Senate seat and half a
congressional seat.
As Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Queens), the ranking member of
the House census subcommittee put it: ``It's your future,
don't leave it blank.''

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Schakowsky), an outstanding leader and actually a new Member of
Congress, representing the City of Chicago. She has been very active on
the Subcommittee on Census and has worked very hard to bring up
participation.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman
from New York for her tremendous leadership on assuring a complete
count of all Americans.
I wish I could be as optimistic. Unfortunately, in the city of
Chicago, we are 10th out of the 10 largest cities in the response to
the census so far. My hope is that all responsible elected leaders will
be encouraging people from our States, from our cities and communities
to fill out that census form.
I have heard a lot of political pandering, we all have in our days,
but rarely have I heard anything quite as irresponsible as the trashing
that is going on of the census long form. One would think that some of
those elected officials who are doing it, Members of this body on the
Republican side of the aisle who are doing that, one would think that
they had never seen that form before.
As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) pointed out, every
single Member was able to scrutinize every single question. As a
consequence, we came up with a form, a long form that is, in fact,
shorter than it was in 1990 and adds only one question. All of us are
interested in knowing how many grandparents now are taking care of
children. We hear that all the time from our constituents.
They had total control over what was going to be in there. There were
no complaints in 1990 from them.
How long does it take to get to work? People say, oh, why do you have
to know that? Well, why does one think that we want to know that, so
that we can understand where we need transportation dollars. Do we need
a new road? Do we need more transit to shorten that time? Do we need
more affordable housing so that people can live near the jobs?
Employment questions. What is this new economy about? Let us use the
census to understand that better. Is our prosperity really being
shared? Are there more people who are working for themselves, and are
they making a decent living when they are working at home?
In Illinois, in the Chicago area, in Cook County, we undercounted
enough children in 1990 to fill 78 schools. That is why we need an
accurate count, so that we can make sure that we get the educational
opportunities to our kids.
Now, one listens to John Stossel on 20/20 last Friday night, and one
would think that the census is simply a tool of big government, in
fact, he said a government that is selling dependency, that is his
word, that is what the census is about in his conspiratorial tone.
But who really is using this census data? I would posit that ABC, the
very station he was on, that 20/20 probably uses the census data to
figure out who the audience is, where to sell advertising. The private
sector surely as much as the public sector uses the census data to
figure out where investments should be made, where are we going to put
our money in communities, who is living out there.
This is not a conspiracy of government. This is a partnership with
the people of the United States so that we can distribute public
dollars and private dollars.
We need to be doing the census form for ourselves. This is not a
favor to anybody. This is going to bring results to every single
community. There is not a district in this country that will not be
better served if there is a complete count.
So for any politician to get up and pander and say, oh, you do not
have to fill this out, it is really intrusive, is counterproductive for
their own constituents. Leadership is about explaining to constituents
why this is important, why it is in their interest to fill it out. When
people complain, we encourage them to understand what the real meaning
of this complete count is.
I am so proud to join with the gentlewoman from New York in her work
and so many of us who are trying every single day to make sure that the
people in this country get what they deserve. Anyone who has ever said,
``I send my tax dollars to Washington, what do I get back, am I getting
my fair share?'', if they have not filled out the census form, then
that is not an appropriate question, because if they do not fill out
this form, then they will not be counted.
So I join my colleagues in urging all Americans to get this census
form in. They have got a few more days to do it. I encourage my
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to inform their constituents about the
importance.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Napolitano), another leader for a complete count.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to add to the comments
that my colleagues have made in just the last few minutes. But I, most
of all, want to thank everyone who has completed their census form so
far. Wherever you are, whether you are an American citizen, a recent
immigrant or whoever, you are making a difference for your community
and setting our Nation on the best path for the new century.
For those of you who have not yet filled out and returned your census
questionnaires, please, you have 10 days to finish. Do it today. Do it
now. Do it this very minute. It is not too late.
As of last night, over 60 percent of Americans have completed and
sent in their census form. This is very exciting news. But we must keep
working with the census, with our communities, with our neighborhoods
across the Nation to reach out to the remaining 40 percent of Americans
who have yet to return their census questionnaire.
As we have heard, 61 percent return has already been received. In my
district alone, 68 to 71 percent of the people in the 34th
Congressional District have completed and returned their census form.
The City of Norwalk completed 71 out of 78 percent targeted; Whittier,
70 out of 72; Montebello, 70 out of 73; Pico Rivera, 68 out of 77
percent; Santa Fe Springs, 71 out of 78 percent; Industry, 69 out of a
targeted 33 percent; and La Puente, the best in the area, 70 percent
out of a targeted 67. They have overpassed their target. This is better
than the anticipated rate out of California and nationwide.
However, there are a lot of people that still have to be counted. If
30 percent of our people go uncounted, that is 30 percent less money to
pay for schools. That is less money for repairing our roads, for
funding hospitals, for providing services to our senior citizens and
for our recreational programs for our youth.
Now, we all know that some people have had difficulties with our
census forms, especially the long form which asked 53 questions. Some
people find some of those questions intrusive and awkward. Personally,
I question the way in which the form asked about my race and my
ethnicity. But what I do not question is that it is vitally important
to my community of Norwalk and to my surrounding communities, that I be
a responsible citizen and complete and return my census form.
An important fact to remember, whether one is filling out the long
form or the short form is that one's responses are confidential. The
information one gives is not, I repeat, it is not sold to marketing
firms. It is not handed over to the IRS, nor to the INS, nor to the
FBI. In fact, it is against the law for the Census Bureau to give or
sell information to anyone. That is including this House. The law
works. In the last census of 1990, not one single case of information
leaking occurred.
The Census Bureau has gone to great effort within the mandates of
Congress to make the forms as brief as possible. The 2000 Census short
form contains eight questions, down from nine in 1990, and the long
form contains 53, down from 57 in 1990, the shortest form in history.
The Census Bureau uses long form data as a baseline. That means the
bottom line for every single economic indicator they publish. Without
this accurate baseline, we cannot produce any economic information
needed to run our Nation's economy effectively, to identify the areas
in need, and take on other indicators to be able to help our
communities.
We need a more accurate count of America's blacks, America's
Hispanics, America's Asians, and American Indians. Regardless of what
my colleagues on the other side, regardless of their arguments or what
they state, for us, it is not optional. For us, it is a necessity.
Republicans have done everything possible to harm Census 2000 effort.
We must not fall for their rhetoric. This latest effort to paint
questions which had been on the long form for over 50 years as
intrusive and unneeded is just another attempt to derail the accurate
count of census.
To the people in my district, to the people of the United States and
across this great land of ours, I ask that they please remember how
important it is to their community, to our community. So I plead again,
please complete and return your census form.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Meek), a great leader on a complete count. She even
hosted a public hearing in her district and has been a leader here on
the floor and in the committee work, and I welcome her tonight.

{time} 1945

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I thank my dear colleague, the gentlewoman from
New York. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) hails from New
York, but her influence on the census has gone throughout this country,
and we thank her for that leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to come back again tonight. If the
gentlewoman were to call us in tomorrow, if she were to call us in
every day this week, I would be here, because we do not have enough
voices speaking out for the census.
Regrettably, we have had some ill winds. They came in during the Ides
of March and they are still here, they are still talking. We are trying
our very best to say to the country that the census is a good thing. It
is in the Constitution. It is something that we should do. We keep
talking about we are a Nation of laws. Well, if that is the case, why
can we not stick to our laws? Let us not just use them when they are
customized to fit our political ideas, but to use them at all times.
It is extremely disappointing to see some of my good friends in the
Republican Party saying to all of our constituents that the census is
optional; that they do not have to fill out all the questions; that it
is not mandatory; that citizens do not have to do this. Well, it is. It
is important that all of our constituents fill out the census forms.
Now, it is not too late. We do not have the return I would like to
see in my district. We have, like, 53 percent. I would like to see 66,
76, 90 percent return. But we still have time. We are still going to
churches; we are going to wherever people congregate and saying to
them, fill out the forms. For those who have not filled theirs out yet,
please fill it out and return it. We are doing our very best to help.
I am just really astounded to see that our most noble elevated body,
the Senate, passed a Sense of the Senate Resolution essentially
reinforcing the idea that not completing your form is okay. This is
completely unacceptable. It is completely irresponsible. The Senate
should set a standard for the country instead of undermining an effort
which this Congress has seen fit to participate in.
Now, this thing about the questions, maybe we should not have to go
over that over and over again because the questions are there and they
are not that hard. They are only asking those kind of questions every
10 years. Americans are used to answering questions, particularly
questions that will lead to good representation in their community. It
is going to lead to a good school board member, it will lead to some
good elected representatives, it will lead to some good Congress
persons. Now, that is not a trivial thing.
But there are some radio announcers and disk jockeys and pundits in
this country who are making that just a trivial thing. It is not
trivial when it affects your elected representatives that will go into
a governing body and represent you. People keep saying, We don't have a
voice. You do have a voice. Be counted and you will have a voice,
because there will be enough of you to say, yes, we do deserve another
Congressperson in our area; yes, we do deserve another State
representative in our area; yes, we do deserve another school board
member.
So it is irresponsible and irrational, as far as I am concerned, to
tell people that it is optional; that they should not fill out all the
forms or they should not fill out any of the forms. The time has come
now. We have been talking about the census, and the gentlewoman from
New York has led this thing notably and with great merit throughout
this process. It is time now that our people step up to the plate.
They will not be able to talk, the pundits will not be able to talk
about government does not do what it is supposed to do. They are the
first to criticize government. They say government is not doing what it
should do. Government wants to do it. It is a good thing if people go
out and turn in their census form.
Now, I am a little embarrassed because the governor of my State has
come out saying, ``I take the same position as other Republicans do.''
Well, it is not a good idea, Mr. Governor, to say that you take that
same position and that it is optional. Florida now has 23
representatives in this Congress. If our people do not go out and be
counted, Mr. Governor, you may not have 23 Congresspersons another year
from now.
So we are saying to all the people, support the census. Fill out the
forms. It is not a cursory thing; it is not something that is fly by
night and you can just flippant say, oh, no, we are not going to do it.
It is important. Not only does the lifeblood of your community depend
on it, your roads, your transportation, and your representation.
And particularly poor people and underserved people. My voice goes
out to them every time I stand up. Turn the forms in. You will probably
benefit from it more than a lot of other people because you depend on
government for most of your basic services. Go to it; turn in those
forms. If you need help, call the Census Bureau. If you need help, call
your local Congressperson; wake them up. They are the ones depending on
this count as well as you are.
So I do hope that everyone within the sound of our voices tonight
will go out and be counted. The ball is in their court.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentlewoman will suspend.
The Members will be reminded that it is not in order to characterize
Senate action, nor is it in order during debate to specifically urge
the Senate to take certain action.
Members will be also reminded that they should make their comments to
the Chair and not to the listening or the viewing audience.
The gentlewoman may proceed.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, another of our colleagues, the
gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), had a
conflict and could not stay with us. She was here, however, and I will
submit her statement later for the Record.
Another colleague from Texas, however, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm), is here. This Member holds many leadership positions in this
body. He is the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture and is
the policy chair of the Blue Dogs, in addition to being a leader in
this body on getting a complete and accurate count during the census.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
yielding to me to talk tonight about the general subject we have
already heard our colleagues from California and Florida speaking
about, and that is encouraging, Mr. Speaker, encouraging all Americans
to fill out the form and to send it in.
I guess one of my disappointments tonight is that we do not have the
time equally divided between Democrats and Republicans so that we might
all stand up tonight and encourage people to fill out the forms and to
send them in, instead of some divided voices that we have been hearing
from lately, Mr. Speaker. I think that is not in the best interest of
this House of Representatives. I hope that we, under the Speaker's
leadership, will find ways to encourage all Americans to return their
census forms.
As we have already heard, current figures indicate that 61 percent of
all citizens have returned their forms. This is good news. But that
means 39 percent have not. In Texas, unfortunately, we are running a
bit behind the national average. As of last night, 57 percent of Texans
have responded.
I want to single out a few counties in my district back home that are
not doing as well as California was doing a moment ago, but we are
exceeding the national averages: Hood County, Taylor County, Tom Green
County, and Young County. So to those people living in towns like
Granbury and Tolar, and Abilene and Merkel, and San Angelo and Graham
and Olney, I commend you and encourage you to continue to publicize and
to work to see that your neighbors in fact send their forms in.
It is all the more important for people in rural areas to respond to
the census. In 1990, the census missed approximately 1.2 percent of all
rural residents. We must have an accurate count for rural America also
in order that we might receive our fair share of representation and tax
dollars.
It is very disturbing to me when I look at my rural district and see
that when we get outside of the more populated counties that I
mentioned, that we are way behind in our response rate. This is
disturbing and something that I hope we will in fact be counting soon.
The editors of the San Angelo Standard Times wrote about the
importance of responding to the census in their March 15 editorial whey
they wrote:

Texas probably lost a congressional seat in 1990 because an
estimated 483,000 Texans either refused to be counted or were
missed by census takers. The State also lost nearly $1
billion Federal funding, which is the other primary purpose
of the census now, to determine how much money each State
will receive for roads, education, health care and other
programs.

Mr. Speaker, I would provide the full text of the editorial for the
Record.
Now, I know there are some citizens that are concerned about the long
form. The data is extremely important to administering Federal
programs, everything from housing programs and community development
grants to highways, education and health care. The Census Bureau uses
long-form data as a baseline for every single economic indicator.
Without an accurate baseline, we cannot produce the economic
information to better serve our citizens.
The San Angelo Standard Times editors hit on this point as well when
they wrote:

It is helpful to have a detailed snapshot of the country
and the conditions its citizens are living in, because such
information can be useful to policymakers. While it may be
annoying, there is no real down side. All census information
is confidential and by law cannot be shared either with other
government agencies or private entities.

I think the important thing to point out to our constituents is the
extensive privacy constraints that we, the Congress, have imposed on
the census. Anyone who violates the law and discloses any individual
household data will be subject to 5 years in prison and $5,000 in
fines. The Census Bureau has a great track record of protecting this
data. In 1990, millions of questionnaires were processed without any
breach of trust.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all Americans,
and in particular my constituents in west Texas, who have not returned
their census forms to send them in today. It is not too late. You
deserve to be counted, and it is in your community's best interest and
it is in our Nation's best interest that we count every individual
citizen of America so that our representation in this body and in the
State legislatures around the country will be based on the most
accurate information.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentlewoman from New York and submit
herewith the text of the article I referred to above:

[From the San Angelo Standard Times, Mar. 15, 2000]

Take Time to Fill Out Census Questionnaire

Some West Texans already have received their 2000 census
forms, and the rest will be receiving them in the coming
days.
Those who are ambivalent about filling out the forms need
to remember a couple of things: There are many reasons to
participate and, aside from the time it takes, not a single
reason not to. And considering that the short form--which
will go to 80 percent of households--takes only about 10
minutes to complete, the time argument doesn't hold much
water for most people.
The census has occurred once each decade since the
country's beginning. Originally the purpose was to ensure
proper representation--that is, since congressional seats are
apportioned based on population, it was necessary to know how
many people lived in each state to determine how many
representatives it would send to the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Texas probably lost a congressional seat in 1990 because an
estimated 483,000 Texans either refused to be counted or were
missed by census-takers. The state also lost nearly $1
billion federal funding, which is the other primary purpose
of the census now--to determine how much money each state
will receive for roads, education, health care and other
programs.
Both arguments for participating matter in San Angelo and
Tom Green County as well. The local share of funding is lost
for each person who fails to respond to the census. And with
West Texas being tremendously outgrown by the rest of the
state, our clout in this part of the state is diminished with
each person that is missed.
For the first time, a local committee will undertake an
aggressive outreach effort to try to limit the number of
people who fall through the census cracks. Plans call for
having offices where people can go to get help in filling out
their census forms, and interpreters will be available for
those newer arrivals who need assistance.
It's unfortunate that the Census Bureau got off to a bad
start, putting an extra digit on addresses for letters that
went out recently informing people that their forms would be
arriving and erroneously sending out some information in
foreign languages
Still, that doesn't alter the importance of filling out and
returning the forms, which, when compiled, will tell much
about the nation at the turn of the century.
Some 15 million homes will receive the long form, which
does take longer to fill out (about 38 minutes, the U.S.
Census Bureau estimates) and does ask some questions that
will cause many to wonder why they are necessary.
The answer is that it is helpful to have a detailed
snapshot of the country and the conditions its citizens are
living in, because such information can be useful to policy-
makers. While it may be annoying, there is no real downside--
all census information is confidential and by law cannot be
shared either with other government agencies or private
entities.
Consider it a civic duty that pays dividends--and that only
has to be performed once every decade.

Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
statement, and I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings). He represents the 7th Congressional District in
Maryland. The gentleman from Maryland chairs the Complete Count
Committee for Baltimore and has served on really the oversight
committee for the census, the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for all
that she has done. Ever since the subcommittee was first formed, I
remember that she made it clear that she was going to do everything in
her power to make sure that we had a complete count, and she has
continued to do that. I really thank her not just on behalf of the
Congress of the United States of America but for all Americans for what
she has done. I really do appreciate it.
I also want to take a moment to recognize the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek), who just spoke. She has brought this matter to the
attention of the African American people over and over again. It has
been a major, major concern of the gentlewoman from Florida, and I want
to thank her.
This morning, Mr. Speaker, I visited Windsor Hills Elementary School,
and this is a school in my district which has a number of young people
who are in special education, beneficiaries of Title I funds.
I watched those little children as they put their hands up to their
hearts and said, ``I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America and to the republic,'' and I watched them as they talked
about this one Nation under God. As I watched them, I thought about a
great writer who once said, ``Our children are the living messages we
send to a future we will never see,'' and I could not help but think
about the census, because the census affects them. It will affect them
for the next 10 years.
The fact is those first graders will, in the future, 10 years from
now, be 11th graders. The question is how will they have benefited from
our actions or fail to benefit from our inactions?

{time} 2000

Sadly, we have Members of Congress and prominent leaders of the
Republican party telling the American public that the census is
optional. I could not believe that.
On Friday, the Senate passed a sense of the Senate resolution
essentially reinforcing the idea that not completing one's form is
okay. It is not.
Further, Republican Presidential Nominee, Governor Bush has sided
with the Republican majority in Congress that has objected to the use
of modern scientific methods to provide accurate census data.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman must be reminded
not to characterize Senate actions.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as a candidate for the presidency, his
opposition to using modern scientific methods sends a strong message
that has outreached a minority community those traditionally
undercounted is not genuine.
It is unfortunate but not surprising that compassionate conservatism
does not include the community I represent. Currently, Baltimore City
has a dismal 48 percent response rate. The target was 68 percent.
Despite our best efforts, we cannot improve this rate nor ensure a
complete and accurate census when constituents are bombarded with
messages from elected officials that they do not have to fill out the
form.
I urge naysayers to stop spreading these negative messages and
encourage residents to fulfill their civic duty by completing and
returning their census forms. A complete and accurate Census 2000 will
ensure that education, accessible health care, child care, access to
jobs, and the protection of civil rights are available for all.
Again, those first-graders sitting there and then standing and
pledging allegiance to the flag, where will they be in 10 years? What
will they have accomplished if we do not do what we are supposed to do
and fill out our forms? It is a simple act. And as I told some
constituents the other day, when they fail to fill out that form and
they have five people in their house, that means six people are not
counted.
And so, Mr. Speaker, again our citizens deserve no less. I want to
thank again the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for yielding.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, our next speaker will be the
gentleman from the 42nd Congressional District of California (Mr. Baca)
the inland empire. But before he speaks, I would like to read a short
quote from an editorial published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on
April 2.

A handful of conservative lawmakers in Washington have come
up with a creative response. They're urging constituents to
simply ignore the questions they don't like. That's a cynical
and irresponsible approach from elected officials who should
know better. The census long form might be a nuisance, but
there is no question that it provides useful, sometimes
required, information for Federal agencies to allocate
taxpayers' money for private scholars to conduct research and
for the government to serve citizens more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody could have said it any better.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following entire editorial for the Record:

[From the Star Tribune, Apr. 2, 2000]

Census Ruckus; Don't Boycott the Long Form

One in six American households has received the Census
Bureau's dreaded ``long form'' in recent weeks, and most are
reacting to its 52 detailed questions with an understandable
combination of patience, impatience and procrastination.
But a handful of conservative lawmakers in Washington have
come up with a more creative response. They're urging
constituents to simply ignore the questions they don't like.
That's a cynical and irresponsible approach from elected
officials who should know better. The census long form might
be a nuisance, but there is no question that it provides
useful--sometimes required--information for federal agencies
to allocate taxpayers' money, for private scholars to conduct
important research and for the government to serve citizens
more effectively.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has led the attack,
arguing that the census questionnaire is overlong and
intrusive. But the Census Bureau has added only one item
since 1990, and it provided all the questions for
congressional review two years ago, as required by law.
Rep. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, says the questions are too
personal. When pressed for an example last week, a Coburn
aide cited a question about bathing habits. But it turns out
that the question is actually about mental and physical
disability. As a series of examples, the question asks
whether the respondent has a disability severe enough to
interfere with schooling, holding a job or conducting normal
household activities such as eating and bathing.
Granted, that's personal. But it's also a perfectly good
example of the census' value. Washington hands out billions
of dollars every year to disabled Americans, and every year
skeptical lawmakers ask how many Americans are truly so
disabled that they need government assistance.
The same could be said for the billions of dollars that
Washington spends every year on highways, parks, mortgage
subsidies, tuition assistance and so forth. It would be
irresponsible for Congress to spend the money without good
data on the nation's housing stock, travel habits, recreation
needs and educational deficiencies. And that says nothing
about the small army of scholars who will dig into census
data in coming years to conduct important research on health
care, mobility, poverty, education and countless other
subjects.
Lott and Coburn say their constituents don't trust the
Census Bureau to keep their answers confidential. But
responsible leaders would not inflame groundless suspicions.
They would remind their constituents of the Census Bureau's
excellent 200-year records of vigorously protecting the
confidentiality of personal information.
What's most depressing about the Lott-Coburn critique is
that it's one more effort to depict the government as an
enemy of the people, not an extension of their will.
Americans who want their government to function more
effectively should support a thorough census. A sophisticated
society cannot function without good information about
itself. And for those busy souls who haven't labored through
the long form yet, we trust they'll approach the task more
responsibly than some of their leaders in Washington.

Last Friday, the Senate passed a misguided Sense of the Senate
resolution that will only encourage more Americans not to participate
in this critically important civic ceremony.
Ironically, many of the Senators raising questions also cosponsored
an amendment offered by Senator Helms which would have asked every
American what their marriage status was. Those Senators should realize
that they cannot have it both ways.
It is much too late to be raising these questions.
At this time, I would like to read a few quotes from an editorial
published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune on April 2nd.

A handful of conservative lawmakers in Washington have come
up with a creative response. They're urging constituents to
simply ignore the questions they don't like. That's a cynical
and irresponsible approach from elected officials who should
know better. The census long form might be a nuisance, but
there is no question that it provides useful--sometimes
required--information for Federal agencies to allocate
taxpayers' money, for private scholars to conduct research,
and for the government to serve citizens more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for doing an outstanding job in getting
out the word to all American people of the responsibility that we have
in assuring that every American is counted. It has taken a lot of
effort and a lot of time on her part. I commend her for her part,
because she realizes the importance of what it means to our Nation to
have everyone counted. She is to be commended for her leadership, her
vision, and her foresight in assuring that every State receives its
fair share of dollars. And the only way that it is going to be done is
by doing an accurate count.
By doing an accurate count, I am really appalled at what is going on
and am outraged by what is going on or has been suggested by parties on
one particular side that has said that it is optional to count. It is
not optional. It is our responsibility, it is everybody's
responsibility, it is Americans' responsibility to make sure that we
all are counted. It is irresponsible and unpatriotic not to be counted.
Let me tell my colleagues I stand here as a veteran, a veteran who
has served our country, and many other veterans who have served us,
they believe they have fought to assure that we enjoy those freedoms
that we enjoy today because they were willing to put themselves and to
sacrifice, that we enjoy those freedoms today to make sure that
everyone is counted, that everyone enjoys the freedom that we have to
assure they participate in our American democracy.
They cannot participate in that American democracy if they do not
participate and they are not counted. I ask every individual to
participate. We now have had 61 percent of individuals that
participated at this point. That is not enough. We need 35 percent
additional of the total of Americans to participate in filling out
their forms. We need every individual to fill out their form.
We are in an information age. We need reliable information in order
to make good decisions for this Nation. Without good data, we cannot
administer the laws of this country fairly.
The Census Bureau has long forms on a baseline for every single
economic independent indicator to be published. Without an accurate
baseline, we cannot produce economic information needed to run this
Nation's economics effectively.
Not too long ago, I came here and was elected during a special
election. I voted for the budget at that time. It was the first budget
that I ever voted for. It was approximately a $790 trillion budget.
When I look at that budget, I am saying, how much of that money is
coming back to California? In California we have continued to do an
undercount.
In Fontana recently, we have had a lot of growth and development in
that area. We need to make sure that we do have an accurate count in
that immediate area. We are going to lose a lot of funding that goes
back, monies that need to go back for education, monies that need to go
back for parks and recreation, monies that need to go back for special
ed, monies that need to go back for infrastructure and transportation,
monies that need to go back for health services, monies that need to go
back for senior citizens.
If we do not do an accurate count, we will not get the monies that we
deserve. It is our responsibility to make sure that we receive the
funding that is necessary for all of us. It cannot happen unless we
take our responsibility.
I urge all Americans to make sure they fulfill their obligation, they
take that responsibility. We are in a country where we have those
freedoms. Many other individuals do not have those freedoms. We have
the freedom to complete the form and look at every dollar that we
reserve.
If California wants to reserve its dollars to get back what it
deserves, we need to make sure that an accurate count is done. The only
way that California will get the additional dollars is that we make
sure we do that count.
We have 52 Members in the State of California. We need to continue to
make sure we ask for an accurate count. We need to make sure that
blacks, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, the American-Indian population, and
the total population is actually counted. We need all of them to
participate, to make sure they do fill out their forms, that they are
not frightened and sabotaged by anyone telling them not to complete the
form. I ask them to please complete the form. We urge them. It is
important for this Nation. It is important for our country.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I put a brief quote in from
the Atlanta Journal Constitution on April 3. It says, ``Participation
in the census may also be harmed by the political grandstanding it
continues to inspire.'' Presidential candidate George W. Bush has
criticized the long census sent to one in six American households as
some sort of government intrusion on privacy.
However, the Census Bureau takes very seriously its responsibility to
keep individual responses absolutely confidential. Leakers inside will
be sought out and prosecuted. And hackers on the outside have not been
able to get in. If they were caught, they would be prosecuted. In fact,
the Bureau is working with leading computer security experts to make
sure its data remains untapped.
Mr. Speaker, I include the entire article for the Record:

[From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Apr. 3, 2000]

Constitution: Keep the Census From Becoming Political Fodder and
Participate

Roughly half of America's households did their civic duty
and answered the U.S. Census Bureau's Year 2000 postal survey
by its April 1 deadline. That level of participation is not
nearly good enough if America is to get the accurate picture
of itself essential to governing fairly and efficiently at
local, state and federal levels.
Fortunately, the bureau still has a ``final, final
deadline'' for mail and e-mail replies. It's April 11, the
day it will send out its enumerators to count Americans who
didn't respond. So if you have yet to fill out your census
form, please do so and mail it this week.
Participation in the census may also be harmed by the
political grandstanding it continues to inspire. Presidential
candidate George W. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott (R-Miss.) have criticized the long census--sent to one
in six American households--as some sort of government
intrusion on privacy.
However, the Census Bureau takes very seriously its
responsibility to keep individual census responses
confidential. Leakers inside will be sought out and
prosecuted, as will hackers on the outside. In fact, the
bureau is working with leading computer-security experts to
make sure its data remain untapped.
Is this year's census survey exceptionally burdensome or
intrusive, as its critics suggest? No, the questions on the
long form are almost all similar to those asked in previous
censuses, including the 1990 census conducted when Bush's
father was president. And every question on this year's long
form was presented to members of Congress for their comments
two years ago. To find fault with those queries at this late
date is a cheap shot.
The information being gathered will be used to redraw
political districts, calculate how government benefits like
Medicare are to be shared equitably, and predict public needs
such as mass transit, roads, libraries, schools, fire and
police protection. Census figures from 1990 helped federal
emergency officials determine quickly where shelters were
most needed after Hurricane Andrew smashed south Florida in
1993.
The alternative, as urged by Bush, Lott & Co., would be to
operate government uninformed of its people's needs.

Mr. Speaker, the next speaker is the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald) a leader not only in the census but in the Women's
Caucus. She is the co-chair of the Women's Caucus.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank this
outstanding Member out of the State of New York (Mrs. Maloney) who not
only leads the census and has been absolutely strong in her
deliberations on this issue but is the chairwoman of the Woman's
Caucus. She, too, understands, Mr. Speaker, that of the 4 million
people who were undercounted, 50 percent of those were our children.
And so, this is why, Mr. Speaker, I am appalled a leading presumptive
presidential candidate, a man aspiring to lead this great Nation,
cannot figure out whether he will fill out his own confidential census
form. This is the same man who wants to take charge of the American
people and its government to make public policy based on population
figures that affect our daily lives in health, education,
transportation, appropriations, and other public responsibilities.
Carrying out his own education proposal unveiled last week would
depend upon, Mr. Speaker, accurate data that all of the census
produces. How does he plan to produce an accurate Consumer Price Index
without accurate long form data? Still, he has not committed enough to
government fairness to fill out one of these forms himself.
Now, I have worked with the Census Bureau now for about 2 years to
make sure that they count every hard-to-count group. I spearheaded a
special project to make sure Africans and Caribbean residents in the
Diaspora understood the importance of the census and trusted our laws
of confidentiality governing the process.
I also called on homeless shelters, battered women shelters,
colleges, universities, and families with children to make sure that we
count them, because they will have been historically undercounted
individuals.
Shame on any elected official who would undermine our Nation's effort
to gather vital information we need for appropriations and planning.
The census numbers are extremely important to Government leaders.
In 1990, the census undercounted 486,000 persons in the State of
Texas, causing that State to lose about $1 billion in Federal funding
for health care, housing, transportation, and other Federal programs.
Even California lost $2.3 billion, Mr. Speaker, and a congressional
seat.
Children, the target of this presidential candidate's education
reform package, are one of the most undercounted groups in America. How
many of them fell through the cracks in Texas this past decade because
of underfunded public services? It seems, out of self-interest, one
would want an accurate assessment of one's home State.
Remember, these same officials who do not want residents filling out
census forms oppose using modern scientific methods for a more accurate
census count.
Come now, they cannot have it both ways. If all public leaders, no
matter what party affiliation, would encourage every resident to fill
out and return their forms, we could get the results we need, Mr.
Speaker.
Maybe those now questioning the census have other motives for
spoiling an accurate census count. Maybe they do not want a true
accurate count. Frankly, this reminds me of the 1980s, when South
African apartheid government decided not to count the majority of
African people as South Africans. Did undercounting tens of thousands
of residents who were not acceptable but lived in Johannesberg make
them go away? Did it drive down actual unemployment figures and
increase the real infant mortality rate? Of course not. This
statistical chicanery only lets those in power fool themselves to the
realities they need to face.
The Census Bureau has done a great job and has gone to great lengths
to carry out the mandates of Congress to make sure the forms are as
brief as possible. In fact, the long form is shorter than the 1990 form
by four questions and it is the shortest form in history.
My friends, this is the information age. We need the data from these
forms to administer our public duty in this country fairly. Those
encouraging citizens to voluntarily suppress an accurate count are
doing it as a grave disservice to their State and to Americans across
this Nation.
As leaders, they should know the laws of confidentiality governing
the census in our great country. This is our process governed by our
laws that our courts have upheld. Reasonable and sensible officials
swear to uphold the law. And this law has never been violated. Let us
stop playing games, my friends, with America's future. Follow the
advice of sensible leaders in all political parties. Fill out that
census form, and encourage everyone who comes within their purview to
do the same.
I thank again the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for her
leadership.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), a member of the Census Subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Reform. He has been fighting for an accurate
census through two threatened government shutdowns and a flood relief
bill held hostage. He fought against the designation of the census as
an emergency.
The census has been around since the beginning of our Nation, and he
fought every day to get the funding for the census. He is continuing as
one of our outstanding leaders for a complete and accurate count. I
thank him for all of his hard work.

{time} 2015

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the
discussion this evening, I have been thrilled and delighted. First of
all, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for
her continuing outstanding leadership day after day, night after night.
The gentlewoman talks about leaving no stone unturned. She is talking
about taking a message to the American people. I really do not think, I
say to the gentlewoman, that anybody has ever put more into an issue,
into an idea, into a concept than what she has displayed during these
last 2 years of trying to make sure that there is an accurate count, an
honest count, and that everybody person in this country is, indeed,
counted.
Mr. Speaker, I thank her, along with all of those who have expressed
all of their appreciation. Listening to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Millender-McDonald), I said to myself, if I was not going to fill
out the form, listening to the gentlewoman from California that would
have caused me to grab up a pencil, a pen, or whatever it was that I
could get my hands on, and run to that form and fill it out.
Unfortunately, there are many people in our country who do not
understand the importance. I represent a district that has over 165,000
people who live at or below the level of poverty. Obviously, many of
these individuals are at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, many
of them, obviously, are not as well-educated as some other people.
Obviously, many of them do not understand. I want to thank all of the
people in my community, the churches who have been making the
announcements, who have been trying to convince people on a regular
basis, the volunteers who went out with me on Saturday.
We ran into people who just did not understand. I ran into one woman
who said to us, you know, I am saved and sanctified and filled with the
Holy Spirit, and I am not going to fill out these forms. I said to
myself, yes, you will be saved and sanctified and broke, filled with
the Holy Spirit and your children cannot get daycare. And the Holy
Spirit is going to help you do a lot of things, but the Holy Spirit is
not going to put a daycare center in your neighborhood so that your
grandchildren can go and get early childhood education.
Mr. Speaker, I ran into people who said to us that they did not get
the forms, and I looked in their hallways, and there were the forms on
the floor. I said, well, you did not get it, but it is here; you have
got to pick it up and fill it out and send in the information.
I ran into people who said that we filled it out on the first floor,
but the people on the second floor, I am not sure that they got one.
I make a plea to all Americans, notwithstanding anything that anybody
else might say, and, yes, I have some problems with those who would
encourage people not to fill the forms out, but the real responsibility
is on each and every one of us.
We have an old saying in my community that if you fool me once, shame
on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Notwithstanding what anybody might
say, whether they are elected, appointed, community activists who just
do not understand, anybody that is encouraging you or suggesting that
you should not fill out your form, then, they do not have your
interests at heart.
You have got to say the way that they say at the church that I
attend: it is not my mother, it is not my father, but it is me oh,
Lord. It is not the deacon. It is not the preacher, but it is me. It is
not the Democrats. It is not the Republicans. It is not the House. It
is not the Senate, it is my form, and if I do not fill out my form,
then it means that I do not count.
So I thank the gentlewoman from New York for her leadership, for all
that she has done. Please, Americans, please, residents of the 7th
Congressional District in the State of Illinois, please make absolutely
certain that you count by filling out the form, because if you do not,
then all of America loses.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Illinois. I think what he just said he said it beautifully. Added to
his words are Senator John McCain who recently exhibited the kind of
leadership all Members of Congress should emulate, when he urged all
Americans to fill out the entire census form.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I congratulate certain Members of the other
body who are urging everybody to fill out the form.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend. The
gentlewoman may not characterize legislative positions of Members of
the other body.

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 on the subject of my special order today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the
House that many of the questions are essentially the same questions
approved by former President Ronald Reagan and President Bush, except
that they are less than the questions in 1990. I would ask some of my
more conservative Members to think about that before they criticize the
census.
In the information age, we need reliable information in order to make
good decisions for this Nation. Some Members of Congress must be stuck
in the 18th century. They do not seem to want to know how America is
doing. Without good data, you cannot administer the laws of this
country fairly. Their comments are rash and inappropriate.
The good news for the census is that the Census Bureau is following
the law. It will try to get the long form questions answered, because
the professionals at the bureau do what the law says, the law Congress
passes. They go out and try to get an accurate picture of this country
and report back to Congress. I guess we now know why the 2000 census
was designated an emergency in last year's budget. We just did not know
that some Members of Congress were the ones who would be creating the
emergency.
On average, the long form takes a little over half an hour to
complete. Only information needed to manage or evaluate government
programs is collected by the census. Just a half an hour every 10 years
for good data on your country, a photograph of where your country is
going. The short form just takes several minutes, just several minutes
to be a good citizen. $180 billion a year in Federal money depends on
census data. That is close to $2 trillion over the decade. Clearly that
is reason enough to fill out the long form which, by the way, goes to
only one in six American households.
As I said, Members should remember that they were informed of the
questions that would be in the census over 2 years ago. Every single
Member got a book that had every question, they had the reason for the
question, and they had the congressional law that required it. They had
an opportunity to criticize or complain then. But that time has passed.
Now is the time to urge everyone to participate in this civic ceremony
together as one Nation. It is your future. Do not leave it blank.
Please fill out the form.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a series of editorials across
the country from Seattle to Washington, Sacramento, Palm Beach,
Minneapolis, Atlanta; David Broder in the Washington Post; Gail
Collins, New York Times; Los Angeles, USA Today, Atlanta Journal; along
with many, many other articles that have come out in support of being
good citizens and filling out the long form, being part of an accurate
census.

[From the Seattle Times Company, March 29, 2000]

Overly Overwrought About the 2000 Census

On any given day, citizens are bombarded with dozens of
legitimate, stress-producing worries. The U.S. Census Bureau,
even its much-maligned long-form questionnaire, ought not be
one of them.
Census questionnaires have been mailed to 120 million
American households. The seven-question short form was sent
to most households; a longer, more-detailed, 52-question form
was delivered to one in six households.
Then the yowling began--The Snoops! The invasion of
privacy!
The complaints are nine parts hype, one part hooey.
Two important developments have occurred since the last
census was taken in 1990. The long form got shorter by four
questions, and talk radio got louder.
In fairness to those with census jitters, more people
nowadays are concerned about personal privacy. Frequent calls
by solicitors and marketing companies wear down a person's
patience and goodwill.
Remember, though, the census is the head count prescribed
by the Constitution.
The people who make money by whipping up fear--and those
who buy into it--substitute paranoia for logic.
The loudest concerns focus on question 31 on the long form,
which asks people to report wages, salaries, commissions,
bonuses or tips from jobs. This is not a scary question. The
federal government, the Internal Revenue Service, already
knows the answer for individuals. The Census Bureau is
looking for data to report in the aggregate.
Before people allow themselves to be whipped into an
unnecessary froth, remember the manner in which the data is
reported. It is much like a series of USA Today headlines,
``We're older,'' ``We're more mobile, more diverse'' and so
on. The census doesn't announce that Joe Dokes at 123 Pine
Street does or says anything. Nor does the Census Bureau
share personal information with other agencies.
The questions provide a telling snapshot of America and
help determine how large pots of tax dollars are spent on
social programs, highways and mass transit, and how
congressional seats are distributed among the states. Smile.
A big family portrait is being painted with numbers. Nothing
scary about that.
____

[From the Tulsa World, March 30, 2000]

Coburn: Down for the Count

Rep. Tom Coburn is never going to come to his census. Count
on it.
But the Second District Republican congressman should admit
that the appropriate time to protest queries on the long form
of the Census 2000 questionnaire was more than two years ago
when the questions, all required by law (and who passes law?)
were circulated among members of Congress.
On Wednesday, Coburn essentially urged his Second District
constituents to violate federal law by refusing to complete
certain portions of their long-form questionnaires. One in
six homes receives the long form.
``The Census Bureau's desire for information is out of
control and a violation of privacy rights,'' Coburn said,
adding, however, that his constituents should answer the
``essential'' questions on the short form covering a person's
name, sex, age, relationship, Hispanic origin and race.
The long form asks 27 more questions about 34 subjects,
including marital status, income, mode of transportation to
work and work status for the past year.
Coburn said that if a census worker shows up to collect
omitted information, Oklahomans should ``politely refuse'' to
give it.
Coburn's position doesn't square with that of Gov. Frank
Keating and other leaders who have encouraged Oklahomans to
fill out the forms so that the state can receive the largest
share possible of the $2 trillion in federal funds that are
handed out on the basis of census figures. Some of the
questions in the long form help agencies calculate the
specific needs of a community.
``While I understand the reservations that some Oklahomans
may have with regard to some of the questions on the long-
form census questionnaire, I urge them to complete and
promptly return the entire form to the census bureau,''
Keating said.
Coburn took his position after receiving complaints that
long forms were invasive. He accused the census bureau of
being ``out of control'' and of violating Americans' privacy.
Even some other conservative members of the Oklahoma
congressional delegation, including Rep. Steve Largent and
U.S. Sens. Don Nickles and James Inhofe, do not appear to
embrace Coburn's position.
If the Census Bureau is asking too many nosy questions, the
time to protest is before the questions become law, not in
the middle of a census. We should be able to count on our
elected officials to know what's going on in time to do
something about it.

[From the Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA), March 30, 2000]

Head Count: You've Got Until Saturday to Tackle Those Census Questions

I am one of the army of people hired to help answer
questions about the 2000 census. Many people receiving the
long form understand the questions but are reluctant to
provide answers. They feel the government ``already knows too
much about my personal life and income. And why do they want
to know how many flush toilets I have or how much it costs to
heat my home?''
There are reasons for including these questions as an
adjunct to the main purpose of the census, which is to get a
head count of all people residing in the United States on
April 1, 2000. Let me try to allay some of the
misconceptions.
First, the data is absolutely confidential. Nobody, not the
President, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the INS or any local
police department, will ever have access to your individual
questionnaire. All census workers are sworn to maintain the
confidentiality of the data provided, under penalty of a
stiff fine and a prison term. This confidentiality has not
been breached since the census started in 1790.
Second, the answers that you provide are compiled into
statistics, which are then made available to the public and
all governmental agencies. These statistics are used to
determine how to distribute about $200 billion per year of
federal funds to schools, employment services, housing
assistance, highway construction, hospital services, child
and elderly programs.
When the data show, for instance, that the city of
Chesapeake has had phenomenal growth since the past census,
additional funding to Chesapeake will be forthcoming in many
of the above categories.
Why the questions about toilets and heating costs? The
statistical data on plumbing facilities is used by the U.S.
agriculture and housing departments to determine rural
development policy, grants for residential property
rehabilitation and identification of areas for housing
rehabilitation loans.
Knowledge derived from the census is essential also to the
drawing of samples for all kinds of surveys, for the
computation of birth and death rates and the making of
actuarial tables, and for the analysis of economic
development and business cycles. Above all, the census makes
possible the estimation of future trends and is therefore
part of all kinds of planning--national, state, local,
tribal, citizen groups, business and industry.
Please take the extra time to answer the seemingly
``personal'' questions on your census long form. The official
deadline is Saturday. After April 11, you may be visited by a
census enumerator if you failed to return your questionnaire.
Please don't shoot the messenger. We'll only be doing our job
because you didn't do yours.
Edward Samson,
Chesapeake.
____

[From the Washington Post, March 31, 2000]

Census Bashing

The Census always produces complaints that an intrusive
government is asking for more information then it has a right
to know. Usually the complaints are scattered and come the
fringe. But this year some radio show hosts have taken up the
issue, and now some national politicians who otherwise yield
to none in insisting on law and order are telling
constituents not to answer questions they feel invade their
privacy.
The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, is one such. He
believes that people ought to provide ``the basic census
information'' but that if they ``feel their privacy is being
invaded by [some] questions, they can choose not to answer,''
his spokesman says. Likewise Sen. Chuck Hagel, whose ``advice
to everybody is just fill out what you need to fill out, and
[not] anything you don't feel comfortable with.'' Yesterday,
George W. Bush said that, if sent the so-called form, he
isn't sure he would fill it out, either.
And which are the questions that offend these statesmen?
One that has been mocked seeks to determine how many people
are disabled as defined by law, in part by asking whether any
have ``difficulty . . . dressing, bathing, or getting around
inside the home.'' When it mailed the proposed census
questions to members of Congress for comment two years ago--
and got almost no response--the bureau explained that this
one would be used in part to distribute housing funds for the
disabled, funds to the disabled elderly and funds to help
retrain disabled veterans. Are those sinister enterprisers? A
much-derided question about plumbing facilities is used in
part ``to locate areas in danger of ground water
contamination and waterborne diseases''; one about how people
get to work is used in transportation planning. All have been
asked for years.
Earlier this year, Mr. Lott's Senate complained 94 to 0
that a question about marital status had been removed from
the basic census form. That was said to be a sign of
disrespect for marriage. Come on. This is a critical period
for the census. All kinds of harm will be done if the count
is defective. A politician not seeking to score cheap
political points at public expense might resist the
temptation to demagogue and instead urge citizens to turn in
their forms. But in an election year such as this, that's
apparently too high a standard for some.
____

[From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 31, 2000]

Census Too Important to Ignore

It seems that lots of people are complaining about having
to answer what they claim are invastive questions on this
year's census form. Of course, some of these are people who
willingly give their credit card numbers to telemarketers
offering the latest in siding or to Internet sites that sell
really cool lava lamps.
There are also plenty of members of Congress who are now
all in a huff, saying they sympathize with citizens who are
threatening to refuse to fill out the forms. One wonders what
these guardians of the public good were doing when they
reviewed--and apparently approved of--the same census
questions they are now complaining about. And where they were
10 years ago, when the questions were virtually the same.
The fact is, it's important to fill out the census so the
government has an accurate count and so the average citizen
has adequate representation in Washington and receives his or
her fair share of federal funds.
Admittedly, some of the questions are goofy, and threats to
privacy should be of concern to everyone. But asking how many
toilets you have is hardly sinister. Besides, the government
already knows. Just ask your local assessor.
Government also already knows what race you are and whether
you are a veteran. It keeps records on those kinds of things,
just as businesses keep records of your commercial
transactions.
It's easy to rail against government, but the greatest
threat to privacy is not found in government census forms,
but in the vast databases being built by private companies
about their customers and potential customers.
Want something to worry about? Go to the Internet and
search for information about yourself. What some of you may
learn there is really scary.
And since the census gives the nation a profile of itself,
determines the number of representatives a state has in
Congress and decides where federal funds are distributed, the
information serves a larger public purpose than that gathered
by eBay or Amazon.com.
It is OK to be annoyed by the government for asking all
these fool questions. But it's important to fill out the form
and make sure the annoying information is at least accurate.
Besides, the Census Bureau is barred by law from sharing its
information about individuals for three-quarters of a
century.
So the information on your toilets will be safe for at
least that long.
____

[From the New York Times, April 1, 2000]

Civic Duty and the Census

Some Congressional Republicans are seriously undermining
the 2000 census by suggesting that the national head count,
which officially takes place today, is an invasion of
privacy. That bizarre complaint could discourage the public
from participating in a project that is crucial to the
functioning of state and federal government. The questions on
this year's census form--including questions on household
income, plumbing facilities and physical disabilities--have
been part of the census for decades. The only new question
asks for information on grandparents who are caregivers for
children. In fact, this year's long form is the shortest one
in 60 years. All answers on census forms are kept
confidential. Yet Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has
suggested in recent days that people can simply ignore
questions on the long form--which goes to one out of six
American households--that they find intrusive. A spokesman
for Senator Trent Lott, the majority leader, has made
similarly inappropriate suggestions. Gov. George W. Bush of
Texas has said that people should fill out the forms, but
that if he received a long form, he was not sure he would
want to fill it out either. These comments are irresponsible.
Completing the census form fully and accurately is not
optional; it is a civic duty that is required by law. Senator
Hagel now says that he does not want to encourage people to
break the law, but will introduce legislation to make most of
the questions on the long form voluntary.
The federal government has spent billions of dollars trying
to produce an accurate count as response rates have continued
to decline with each decennial count. Accuracy is critical
because the census is used to apportion seats in Congress,
draw legislative districts within the states and distribute
more than $185 billion in Federal funds. The government uses
information from the long form of the census to allocate
money to communities for housing, school aid, transportation,
services for the elderly and the disabled and scores of other
programs. The data are also necessary to calculate the
consumer price index and cost of living increases in
government benefits.
When individuals fail to give complete information about
their households, they risk shortchanging their communities
of government aid that they may be entitled to. That is why
many state and local government officials are working hard to
increase census response rates in their communities. The
mindless complaints of some politicians could well sabotage
those efforts.
____

[From the Sacramento Bee, April 1, 2000]

Trashing the Census: Irresponsible Bush Comments Could Sabotage Count

Just two days ago before Census Day, as U.S. Census Bureau
officials were urging Americans to cooperate in the crucial
once-in-a-decade national count, Texas Gov. George W. Bush
made their job harder. If he had the long census form, Bush
told a campaign crowd, he's not sure he'd want to fill it out
either. How harmful to this important civic exercise, how
irresponsible and unpatriotic.
Bush's remarks come on the heels of Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott's advice to his fellow Americans not to answer any
questions on the census long form that they believe invade
their privacy. Taken together, those remarks by the leading
Republican in Congress and the likely Republican presidential
nominee can easily be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to
sabotage the 2000 census. They raise questions about the
integrity of the census that are unwarranted, unfair and
irresponsible.
One in six households receives the census long form. Beyond
the basic eight questions about the number, age, and gender
and race or ethnicity of people living in the household, the
long form asks other questions designed to measure the well-
being of Americans, to help government agencies to plan where
to put schools or highways or health funding. Included in the
long forms are 53 questions such as. How many bedrooms in the
house? Has anyone been disabled by health problems in the
last six months? Is there a telephone? What is the income of
the household? Is there indoor plumbing?
By law the responses are strictly confidential. The U.S.
Census cannot share individual household answers with the
IRS, FBI, INS or any other government agency or private
entity.
Moreover, every single question on the long and short forms
is there because of a specific statutory requirement. Most of
these questions have been on the form for decades. The only
new question added since 1990 was put there at the behest of
Republicans in Congress, including Lott. It asks grandparents
whether they are caregivers for their grandchildren. The
wording of each question was reviewed by Congress in 1997 and
1998. Lott, who now raises objections, pushed a resolution
urging the Census Bureau to return to the short form a
question about marital status that it had moved to the long
form.
The census is the law of the land, enacted by the first
Congress. When Bush says he wouldn't fill out the form, he's
saying he's prepared to break the law. When Lott advises
Americans not to answer questions they don't want to answer,
he's telling them to break the law. And although both Lott
and Bush limit their specific objections to the long form,
the impact will inevitably reverberate more widely--to those
who only receive the short form.
In Sacramento, census officials report that the response to
the census is already lagging. Only 39 percent of Sacramento
households have returned the form so far. Every man, woman or
child not counted costs $1,600 in lost federal funds. That's
money that would go to our schools and highways and mental
health and police protection.
Participating in the census is a civic duty, like voting,
serving on juries and defending the country. As duties go,
it's not burdensome, for most people, filling out the long
form is a once-in-a-lifetime chore. With their thoughtless
comments that feed mindless anti-government sentiment--do
they really think they can govern better by knowing less
about America?--Bush and Lott have done a disservice to the
census and the country.
____

[From the Palm Beach Post, April 1, 2000]

The Census Follies

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., should just be
quiet about the census. Greenacres has a complaint. Sen. Lott
doesn't.
The Census Bureau, once again, overlooked at least 1,500
apartments in Greenacres, which were fairly new when it
missed them 10 years ago. The city, apparently tucked out of
government's sight in west-central Palm Beach County, worked
with census officials to make sure everyone is counted. The
city has a gripe.
Sen. Lott, and some others, now say the long census form,
which went to one household in six, is terribly intrusive.
Sen. Lott said recipients can list name and address but
``choose not to answer'' other questions. He didn't complain
in 1997, when he and all members of Congress received a copy
of this year's long form for gathering data that they had
ordered. And guess who cosponsored the law requiring a line
on the form for marital status?
But three years ago, Sen. Lott was in court with other
Republicans insisting on an ``actual enumeration,'' counting
individuals, and no use of sampling techniques. If people
take his advice now, the Census Bureau will have to get the
information Congress requires in the off-years, by sampling.
Maybe by then, it will be able to find Greenacres.
____

[From the Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Apr. 1, 2000]

Don't Leave Census Form Blank

After months of preparation, today marks Census Day, when
our national head count moves into higher gear.
Questionnaires have been mailed to every household. With
much riding on a full and accurate count, it's significant to
look at how we are responding.
As of March 29, 46 percent of households across the country
had already completed and returned their forms. Comparable
rates of response were 43 percent in Tennessee and 41 percent
in Georgia. Hamilton County, at 47 percent, leads the five
counties in our metropolitan area. Within the county, the
town of Signal Mountain shines with a 59 percent response
rate. In contrast, the city of Chattanooga lags with 44
percent answering.
These are only preliminary reports and will be updated
daily. The more meaningful measurements will come on April
27, when Census 2000 enumerators will initiate a series of
follow-up visits and calls to households that have failed to
complete their forms.
By that time, local Census officials expect to have over 60
percent of questionnaires returned. The higher the rate of
response, the sooner they can focus their efforts on counting
population groups and neighborhoods that are harder to reach.
There are plenty of excuses for not complying, but most of
them are not valid. Some people just hate paperwork. Yet the
short form that went to five out of six households takes only
10 minutes or less to complete.
Some fear creeping big-government intrusion. The longer
forms include some questions that may be helpful for
statistical purposes, but many citizens find them too nosy
about their personal lives and home conditions.
Some census questions do go too far, arousing opposition.
And some people will question the promised confidentiality of
their records. By law, no individual response (only
aggregated information) can be legally reported to any other
agency of government.
An official count has taken place every 10 years since
1790. The census is required by the Constitution solely for
the purpose of fairly dividing U.S. House of Representatives
seats among the states on a population basis, and dividing
among the states the votes in the Electoral College, which
actually elects our presidents following the popular vote.
But also of great importance is the fact that billions of
dollars of your tax money are distributed according to the
census count, with more money going where the count is
higher.
Amazingly, some heads of households will forget to include
the names and ages of their children. An estimated 7,000
people were missed in Hamilton County alone during the last
census. The children in those households, if counted, would
have demonstrated the need for our new schools and 139 new
teachers. Overcrowding of schools and classrooms seems a
heavy price to pay for parental omission.
With Census Day upon us, let's resolve to do our personal
part to get it right this time. Count us all in.
____

[From the Memphis Commercial Appeal, Apr. 2, 2000]

Census--Political Bashing Won't Help Achieve Full Count

Mississippi has the lowest response rate of any state so
far to this year's federal census: 38 percent as of late last
week--and 48 percent in DeSoto County--compared to a 50
percent national rate. (Memphis has nothing to brag about,
either, just 39 percent of Memphians have returned their
census forms.)
At the same time, Mississippi is threatened with the loss
of one of its five U.S. House seats in the population-based
reapportionment that will follow the 2000 Census. So you'd
think that officials throughout the state would be bending
over backward to urge residents to take part in the fullest
and most accurate count possible.
Why, then, did Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)
propose that citizens refuse to answer any census questions
they find too ``invasive''? Although the senator insists he
supports maximum participation in the census, it's easy to
see how people who already are suspicious of the federal
government might interpret Lott's suggestion as an invitation
to blow off their civic--and legal--duty to take part in the
national headcount.
Census bashing has become something of a national sport in
recent days, as critics such as Lott allege that the
initiative too often amounts to an invasion of privacy. Texas
Gov.--and presumptive Republican presidential nominee--George
W. Bush said last week that if he had gotten the long (53
question) census form that one of every six households has
received, he wasn't sure he would fill it out.
These defenses of personal privacy ignore the fact that
members of Congress reviewed each of the questions that
appear on the long and short census forms two years ago.
Instead of striking ``intrusive'' questions then, senators
voted unanimously this year to protest the Census Bureau's
removal of a question about marital status.
So it ill behooves lawmakers such as Lott to complain now
about the questionnaire. Remember, too, that many lawmakers
have opposed the use of statistical sampling to correct the
census undercount of millions of Americans because they said
it would violate the ``integrity'' of the process they now
condemn.
It's understandable that some Americans might object to
revealing their income on the census questionnaire, although
individual census data must remain confidential as a matter
of law. It's timeconsuming to gather the information needed
to answer some of the long-form questions accurately, such as
annual utility and insurance costs.
But many of the questions routinely ridiculed by census
bashers--whether residents of a given household have indoor
plumbing, whether they have difficulty dressing or bathing,
how they commute to work--have been asked in previous
censuses without generating controversy. This year's long
form has six fewer questions than the 1990 version.
The questions will yield data that will help federal
official fairly distribute aid to help disabled Americans, to
fight water pollution and to improve local transportation
planning. Are these illegitimate activities?
Bush has proposed allowing parents to use federal Title I
money under some circumstances to send their children to
private or charter schools. That money is distributed
according to census data.
Many Mid-South residents insist they haven't returned their
census forms yet because they haven't gotten them. If that is
a systematic problem, then the Census Bureau must deal with
it, fast.
But that is different matter from encouraging citizens not
to cooperate fully with the national enumeration.
Census officials are making special efforts to get millions
of households to return their census forms this weekend. In
light of the complaints, Census Director Kenneth Prewitt said
he fears many Americans have decided ``this information is
not very important at all.''
Americans have learned to their chagrin that there isn't an
issue, even the constitutionally mandated census, that
politicians can't turn into a matter of partisan division,
especially in an election year.
But how will Sen. Lott respond if Mississippi, because of a
below-average census count this year, does wind up losing a
House seat?
And what is it's Republican seat?
____

[From the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Apr. 3, 2000]

Constitution: Keep the Census From Becoming Political Fodder and
Participate

Roughly half of America's households did their civic duty
and answered the U.S. Census Bureau's Year 2000 postal survey
by its April 1 deadline. That level of participation is not
nearly good enough if America is to get the accurate picture
of itself essential to governing fairly and efficiently at
local, state and federal levels.
Fortunately, the bureau still has a ``final, final
deadline'' for mail and e-mail replies. It's April 11, the
day it will send out its enumerators to count Americans who
didn't respond. So if you have yet to fill out your census
form, please do so and mail it this week.
Participation in the census may also be harmed by the
political grandstanding it continues to inspire. Presidential
candidate George W. Bush and Senate Majority Leader Trent
Lott (R-Miss.) have criticized the long census--sent to one
in six American households--as some sort of government
intrusion on privacy.
However, the Census Bureau takes very seriously its
responsibility to keep individual census responses
confidential. Leakers inside will be sought out and
prosecuted, as will hackers on the outside. In fact, the
bureau is working with leading computer-security experts to
make sure its data remain untapped.
Is this year's census survey exceptionally burdensome or
intrusive, as its critics suggest? No, the questions on the
long form are almost all similar to those asked in previous
census, including the 1990 census conducted when Bush's
father was president. And every question on this year's long
form was presented to members of Congress for their comments
two years ago. To find fault with those queries at this late
date is a cheap shot.
The information being gathered will be used to redraw
political districts, calculate how government benefits like
Medicare are to be shared equitably, and predict public needs
such as mass transit, roads, libraries, schools, fire and
police protection. Census figures from 1990 helped federal
emergency officials determine quickly where shelters were
most needed after Hurricane Andrew smashed south Florida in
1993.
The alternative, as urged by Bush, Lott & Co., would be to
operate government uninformed of its people needs.
____

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 4, 2000]

Don't Toy With the Census

(By David S. Broder)

Something about the census makes Republicans crazy. For the
better part of two years, they battled the scientific
community and the Clinton administration to prevent the use
of statistical sampling techniques to correct for the
undercount of people--mainly low-income, minority, immigrant,
transient and homeless--that marred the 1990 census.
After reaching an impasse in Congress, the Republicans took
the issue to court and had to be satisfied with a Supreme
Court ruling that barred the use of sampling for
apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives but
approved it for everything else.
Then last week, just as the publicity effort to persuade
people to return their census forms was reaching its peak,
several prominent Republicans said that Uncle Sam was getting
too personal in some of the census questions and suggested
that it would be okay for people to skip over those items
they found offensive.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told Mississippi
reporters that if he had received one of the long forms
(delivered to one of every six households) he might have
demurred at answering some of the questions. Texas Gov.
George W. Bush, the GOP's presidential choice, said he hadn't
opened his census form yet but wasn't sure if he would fill
out the whole thing.
Later, both men retreated part-way from their positions
(Bush after learning that he was in the short-form majority)
and said people should return the forms with as much
information as they could in good conscience provide. But
Rep. J. C. Watts of Oklahoma, chairman of the House
Republican Conference, blamed the bureaucracy for including
questions that ``have raised an unprecedented level of
concern,'' and other Republicans said they would introduce
legislation to make responding to the census voluntary,
rather than requiring it by law.
All of this is basically nonsense--the kind of politicians'
talk that gives hypocrisy a bad name even as it has serious
policy consequences. Every single question on the census 2000
form was vetted with Congress two years ago, and every one
has its origin and justification in a requirement included in
a law passed by Congress.
In my files on census topics, I have a March 1998 report
(that's two years ago, folks) titled ``Questions Planned for
Census 2000.'' That same report, I am informed, went to every
member of Congress. In the back of that report is a table
showing the first census in which each category of questions
was asked. One of the questions on census 2000 to which some
Republicans have objected asks for the family income. That
has been asked in every census since 1940.
Another, the subject of much ridicule, asks, ``Do you have
complete plumbing facilities in this house, apartment or
mobile home, that is, hot and cold piped water, a flush
toilet, and a bathtub or shower?'' That question, too, has
been on the long form since 1940.
The plumbing question is asked, along with other measures
of housing adequacy, as a way of targeting federal grants to
the communities where the need for decent housing is
greatest. Is there anyone who doubts that more help should go
to South Central Los Angeles than to Beverly Hills?
The income question is used for a much wider variety of
federal programs. In all, more than $185 billion of federal
grants to state and local governments is distributed on the
basis of census information. One of the major concerns about
the 1990 undercount--which later surveys suggested may have
missed 8 million people while double-counting 4 million
others--is that it deprived areas with large numbers of low-
income people of the assistance they deserved.
A study released last month by the U.S. Census Monitoring
Board and done by the accounting firm Price-waterhouseCoopers
estimated that in 169 metropolitan areas where the poorly
counted demographic groups are concentrated, the likely net
loss of federal assistance may well reach $11 billion in a
decade.
Some of the estimated losses are enormous. The Los Angeles-
Long Beach area, where hospitals, schools and other public
facilities are chronically facing financial crisis, could be
a $1.8 billion loser. Miami has a $300 million stake in an
accurate count; New Orleans, $97 million. And it is not just
the big cities. Flagstaff, Ariz., is at risk for $25
million--in effect, a 3.5 percent local tax or penalty for
the undercount.
There's not a bit of evidence to justify the expressed
concerns that the Census Bureau professionals will violate
the privacy of individual families' responses. There is all
too much proof that a flawed census hurts the most vulnerable
Americans.
It is time the politicians stop messing around with the
census.
____

[From the New York Times, Apr. 4, 2000]

Public Interests; Down for the Count

(By Gail Collins)

How many of you out there have strong reservations about
the United States Census? May I see a show of hands?
I thought so. Everybody's cool. Once again, the radio talk-
show circuit has plunged us into a violent debate about an
issue that stirs the passions of average Americans slightly
less than the cancellation of ``Beverly Hills 90210.''
You have no doubt received a census form, probably the
short one that takes just a few minutes to fill out. The long
form, which goes to about one-sixth of all American
households, contains 53 questions, including whether your
toilets flush and your relatives are all in their right
minds. The answers are going to remain confidential for the
next 72 years; at that point a Ph.D. candidate may grant you
immortality by writing a dissertation on your indoor
plumbing.
Census opponents appear to be mainly opponents of
government, period. (James Bovard, the author of ``Freedom in
Chains,'' called the census ``a scheme for generating grist
for the expansion of the welfare state.'') But they've
created some nervous roiling in Congress. Senator Chuck Hagel
of Nebraska is working on legislation to remove the $100
penalty for failure to answer the questions, even though the
fine hasn't been imposed in decades. He's being assisted by
Senator Charles Robb of Virginia, a Democrat up for re-
election who's determined to leave no group unpandered to.
The census is actually a noble public enterprise. It
represents the founding fathers' breakthrough concept that
people should have power not because of their property or
titles, but simply because they're there. If we cannot expect
election-fevered politicians to be reasonable about, say,
Elian Gonzalez, it does seem they could muster up the grit to
tell folks that they should regard filling out census forms
like voting, and pretend to appreciate the opportunity.
But George W. Bush regards the issue as too hot for
rationality. First he announced that ``all of us need to
encourage people to fill out the census,'' then instantly
added that he could understand why some ``don't want to give
all that information to the government. And if I had the long
form I'm not sure I'd want to, either.''
A spokesman for Mr. Bush said the governor had received the
short form, this year's equivalent of announcing you got a
high draft number. An aid to the Senate majority leader,
Trent Lott, said recently that Mr. Lott was telling people to
just skip over any question they felt was intrusive. Now, the
senator's constituents in Mississippi make out like bandits
when it comes to federal aid, receiving an average of about
$2,000 per person more than they pay in federal taxes. On
behalf of all the states that pay more than they get back,
let me say: Go to it, Mississippians. Skip the long forms,
and the short forms too. We'll give the money to some less
conflicted state, perhaps one that hasn't just received a
contract to build a monster aircraft carrier the Pentagon
doesn't even want . . .
. . . We interrupt this harangue to report that Mr. Lott's
office now says the senator wants everybody to fill out the
forms, and tells people to skip questions only if they
threaten to toss their forms into the river unless their
objections are met. When it comes to penalties for non-
compliance, his spokesman added, ``the senator is completely
agnostic.''
This possibly the first time in history that Mr. Lott's
name has been used in the same sentence with the word
``agnostic.''
For every politician who's trying to distance himself from
the census, there are four others desperately trying to get
their constituents to fill out the forms, and raise their
chances of getting more Federal aid. The governor of Georgia
has gone on television with an ad urging his state to
cooperate ``or our Georgia money will be educating New York
children for another 10 years.''
Now, I'm a little wounded by that. Certainly we New Yorkers
disagree with Georgians about some minor matters, such as the
relative charms of John Rocker. But our elected officials--
appalling as they may be--don't try to scare us into doing
what they want by threatening to give our tax dollars to kids
in Atlanta.
Go yell at the Mississippians for a while.
____

[From the San Francisco Examiner, Apr. 4, 2000]

What Really Counts; Pockets of Non-Cooperation With the Taking of the
U.S. Census Demonstrate an Overreaction to Fears of Invasion of Privacy

In an age of prosperity and sophistication, it's odd but
understandable that people have doubts about so many things.
On subjects ranging from the sanctity of confidential
information to the good will of government institutions, we
have become a nation of skeptics.
We may live in the global village, but command central is
in some place far away, information is collected by unseen
hands and essential decisions about our lives are made
without consulting us.
These disconnects are reasons some people choose to rebel
against seemingly innocuous practices such as the taking of
the federal census every 10 years.
The U.S. Census carries out the useful objective of
counting the noses of the country's populace and collecting
information about their living conditions and habits. But
because individuals have no control over the information once
it leaves their hands, and because governments have not
always guarded privacy, a minor rebellion has erupted.
Five of every six households get the short census form,
which has only seven basic, unintrusive questions. It isn't
causing problems. Every sixth household gets the long form,
which has 53 questions--some of them more personal. It's the
bone of contention.
Some people are refusing to return census forms, even
though that is required by law. Some politicians haven't
helped matters. Republican presidential candidate George W.
Bush said he wasn't sure he would answer all the questions.
Good reasons exist to cooperate. A big enough boycott could
affect how federal money, programs and services are divvied
up. Census workers are redoubling their efforts to make sure
that everyone is counted--which wasn't the case in 1990--so
that every city and region gets its fair share of federal
help.
The Census is a statistical snapshot of the United States.
It tells a lot about who we are as a people and is a
manifestation of e pluribus unum (out of many, one), the
motto that appears on U.S. currency.
It's irresponsible for any politician, especially one who
aspires to be president, to suggest breaking the law by
refusing to fill out census forms. And while skepticism
toward government is healthy, if citizens weigh all factors,
they should be inclined to cooperate with the census takers.
The cure for any potential breaches of confidentiality
isn't refusal to answer. It's strict enforcement of privacy
laws that prohibit the Census Bureau from sharing
confidential information with anyone else, including other
government agencies.
The time to demand changes in the census isn't in the midst
of one. It's in Congress, in the form of legislation that
updates questions, strengthens safeguards and perhaps
increases penalties for violating citizens' privacy.
Census officials need to do a better job of explaining the
agency's existing protections against leaks and other privacy
abuses. Why are Census officials so faceless? It's easier to
trust people you've met, or at least seen on television.
Skeptics are fond of asking to see the evidence. In the
case of the census, we all know there's a potential for
misuse. What true skeptics should be asking is, ``Just where
and when have any abuses occurred?''
Failing a convincing answer, the reasonable course for all
of us--skeptics or not--is to put away any residual fears and
allow ourselves to be counted. For the good of one and all.
____

[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 5, 2000]

Don't Shred the Census

One in six American households are facing a question this
week: is it really necessary to fill out a lengthy census
form that borders on nosy and antiquated? The answer is a
resounding yes.
The head count is especially contentious this time around.
Along with the time required and the odd questions, there is
a political overlay. Republican leaders, including likely GOP
presidential nominee George W. Bush, suggest that folks toss
the form if they feel it is too intrusive. This suggestion is
irresponsible neglect of an important duty.
The census has made its share of mistakes. Some were mailed
incorrectly. Its laundry list of 53 questions takes more than
half an hour to fill out. For city and suburban residents,
who make up the overwhelming majority of Americans, there are
quaint questions about farm income and indoor plumbing. Why
should citizens be bothered with these far-fetched queries?
There are other arguments. High-tech boosters are upset
there are no questions about computer use, a topic that could
use some exploring. But census bureaucrats said they were
under pressure from single-issue groups ranging from pet
lovers to religious leaders for special questions. The census
ended up largely as a repeat of the last one, which will
limit its potential.
But for better or worse, the census remains an essential
task. It asks citizens to complete a picture of their
country, not give away personal secrets. Income, ancestry,
job history and even driving habits are useful ingredients in
depicting America, circa April 2000.
More specifically, the census plays a role in doling out
federal aid and congressional districts. It can be used by
schools, public health and transit agencies in planning.
Change can be measured.
This evolution of the country is exactly why San Francisco
officials, civil rights organizations and school boards are
pushing hard to get every household to fill out the
paperwork. Opponents are wrong to depict a basic government
service as an invasion of privacy.
____

[From the Los Angeles Times, Apr. 5, 2000]

It's the Law, Count on It

Senator Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and a few of
his congressional colleagues seem to have forgotten the oath
they swore to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the
United States. Responding to constituent complaints about
parts of the long-form census questionnaire, they have
suggested that questions that some might consider
objectionable can simply be ignored. That is plainly and
simply, advice to break the law, and considering the source
it's especially reprehensible.
About one household in six--approximately 20 million in
all--was mailed the long census form; all others got a mere
eight questions about the people in the household. The long
form aims to gather information that is essential for
directing certain federal outlays. In the current decade,
expenditures linked directly to census-provided information
could total close to $2 trillion.
So there are a purpose and a policy consideration behind
every census question, no matter how dubious its relevance
may seem. Questions that some find intrusive and none of the
government's business--about indoor plumbing or household
income, for example--contribute to a national economic and
demographic profile that is of great value to both government
and the private sector. This information helps determine
where roads and schools will be built, where Medicare and
Medicaid funds should be channeled, where shopping centers
are best located, where the needs of the disabled may be most
acute. The Census Bureau would have done well to emphasize
this point much earlier.
The census has steadily evolved beyond its limited 18th
century purpose of congressional reapportionment. Those in
Congress who now counsel leaving some census questions
unanswered suffer from a convenient memory lapse: Every one
of the questions, many of which are mandated by statute or
court rulings, was approved by Congress two years ago.
____

[From USA Today, Apr. 6, 2000]

200 Years Plus: Census Nosiness Isn't New

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned George
Washington that taking the first U.S. Census, done in 1790,
wouldn't be easy. A Census taker could wind up with a musket
in the face. And those were the days of a well-regulated
militia.
The Census today faces equal mistrust. This is due to the
public's innate aversion to government prying, amplified by
an unsubtle campaign to discredit the Census as too
intrusive. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., has
told Americans they need not answer questions they find too
invasive. So has Republican presidential candidate George W.
Bush. Sen. Charles Hagel, R-Neb., wants to change the law to
make answering most questions voluntary.
Whether the campaign to malign the long form will affect
results won't be known for weeks. But Kenneth Prewitt,
director of the Census Bureau, testified in Congress on
Wednesday that the return rate is lagging well behind 1990
figures. The Census was aiming for a 61% return over all.
Below that, Congress will have to allocate extra money for
door-to-door head counting.
That's just one reason the anti-Census crowd is giving bad
advice.
Among the others: It's illegal not to answer all of the
questions. And self-defeating. Over 10 years, up to $2
trillion in spending will be directed by Census findings.
Lott's beloved Mississippi, with one of the lowest response
rates and highest illiteracy rates, could be shortchanged on
education dollars. It also could lose private-sector
investment that is guided in part by Census data.
Lastly, the Census isn't uncommonly intrusive. The short
form is the shortest since 1820. The long form, received by 1
in 6 households, is the shortest ever. And some of the most
criticized questions--about employment, disability status,
etc.--have been asked since the 19th century. The question
about income, since 1940. Indeed, Americans give more
personal information, more publicly, when they buy a house,
pay their taxes or fill out a medical form.
Still, the Census raises predictable questions about
nosiness. The long form wants to know about your job and your
mortgage, subjects you might not comfortably share with your
brother, much less Big Brother.
Plainly, the government has done a poor job of preventive
promotion. Worries about privacy are historic, yet the long
form's cover letter barely addresses them.
Most people still answer the forms with speed and candor.
But expecting them every 10 years to remember why they are
providing personal information without immediate
gratification is asking for trouble.
The irony is that many critics today also helped defeat the
use of statical sampling to make the head count more
accurate.
Their understood motive was to prevent a reapportionment of
congressional districts to represent undercounted
populations, which tend to vote Democrat. Opponents demanded
an actual head count, which is less accurate. Now the motive
is simply to align Republican leaders with the public's
general distrust of federal data-gathering.
Finally, let's not forget that Congress had a chance to
review all of the questions two years ago. If they had
problems, that was the time to stand up and be counted.
Today's debate: Census forms, but politics, privacy concerns
needlessly stoke anger.
____

If You Want to Count, Be Counted

(By Lynn Sweet)

Chicagoans have made a lousy initial response to the 2000
census, and the entire state of Illinois is lagging as well.
This is a sort of collective passive-aggressive behavior for
which there is no excuse. And don't start saying that census
questions are intrusive.
The early trend shows that the mail-in responses from
suburban Cook County and the collar counties are running as
much as 20 points higher than the 40 percent from the city.
This will only ensure, if the pace keeps up, that the suburbs
will have more political muscle than they deserve in the
state redistricting that follows each census.
And if Illinoisans don't let themselves be counted, the
potential of losing a seat in the House of Representatives
because of reapportionment will easier become a reality. The
return of Federal funds to Illinois also is dictated largely
by census-driven formulas.
Filling out the census form is a ``marvelous opportunity''
for Americans ``to prove they can reverse the trend of civic
disengagement,'' said Census Bureau director Kenneth Prewitt,
A Downstate Alton native who is a former director of the
National Opinion Research Center at the University of
Chicago.
Across the nation, people are mailing in census forms--
short and long--in disappointing numbers, and Prewitt earlier
this week sounded an alarm because the nationwide response
rate was at 55 percent, below the 61 percent the bureau had
expected by now.
It's not too late to get a mail-in census form by calling
(800) 471-9424. And the numbers still can be vastly improved
as the census moves on to the next phase, where census
employees, called enumerators, start making house calls.
``Someone will be knocking on their door,'' said Prewitt,
though it will make the counting operation needlessly more
expensive. It costs about $3 to process a mail-in form
compared with $35 for a household visit.
The cheap-shot comments of some Republicans--including
Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the GOP presidential candidate,
and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.)--could,
knowingly or not, hijack the census.
On the average, about one in six households gets a long
census form that asks a total of 53 questions, compared with
seven on the short questionnaire.
Lott and Bush suggested that individuals don't answer any
census question they consider impertinent.
``If they are worried about the government intruding into
their personal lives, they ought to think about it,'' Bush
said. Lott was forced to backtrack after he realized that his
home state, Mississippi, is near the bottom when it comes to
mail-in response rates, 47 percent on Wednesday, compared
with 56 percent for Illinois and 58 percent for Indiana. Ohio
is the champ so far, with 62 percent.
Lott and the other complaining congressional Republicans--
no Democrats so far--are whiners and intellectual phonies.
They are objecting to questions that (1) were presented for
review to Congress in 1997 and 1998 and (2) were on census
forms that went out under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George
Bush.
The census has asked about plumbing facilities for decades.
There are bigger privacy issues looming right now, especially
with the Internet, than being asked about flush toilets in
your home.
And for those who don't like the questions about income and
mortgages and the like, well, the government already has a
lot of information from tax returns. The Census Bureau does
not swap data with other agencies. Tax cheaters or people who
keep things from spouses or partners may not like answering
the questions. But there is no right to absolute privacy in
the United States. If there were, height, weight and date of
birth would not be on a driver's license.
Cooperating with the census means getting more from the
government you already are paying for. It is selfish--and
self-defeating--not to be counted.
____

[From the Daily Bruin, Apr. 7, 2000]

Completing Census Form Has Far-Reaching Benefits

Though some people are skeptical of the United States
Census, completing these forms can lead to real benefits--
including better schools and libraries, quality health care
and up-to-date national demographic profiles.
Though the official due date passed nearly a week ago,
residents can still be counted. The Census Bureau reports
that only 55 percent of U.S. residents have returned their
forms so far.
The slow response is caused, in part, by the popular
sentiment that the census, especially the long version of the
form, invades individuals' privacy. While worries about
privacy are understandable, those who fear filling out the
census should remember a consequence of their inaction:
Neglecting to participate can lead to a significantly
inaccurate count.
The short form poses generic questions like name, age,
gender and race, while the longer form asks for more specific
social and economic characteristics, such as individuals'
occupations and housing types. Responses to these questions
help determine how critical resources are distributed and
which areas need those resources the most.
Specifically, demographic information is used to plan for
services like schools, hospitals and roads. It may alert the
government to focus its resources in areas reporting high
rates of unemployment, or pinpoint regions that require
better child care. State and federal governments also
allocate funding to individual counties, cities and
congressional districts for health care, schools and
libraries; all of this information is based on the census
results. The government's support is critical to the
maintenance of these institutions, and so the number of
people who report living in a given community is directly
related to how much financing will be allocated to that
particular community.
The number of inhabitants reported in each region also
determines congressional apportionment. District lines are
drawn with respect to census reports, and the number of
members in the House of Representatives accorded to each
state is also based on census information. If more
underrepresented citizens completed their census forms, they
might begin to claim deserved representation in Congress.
According to the Los Angeles Times, low responses to the
1990 Census deprived California of an estimated $2 billion
and four congressional seats over the last decade. Unless an
increasing percentage of forms are returned, this discrepancy
may only get worse.
Not only can the new census correct the omissions made by
the 1990 version, but the revised questions provide
previously unexplored, yet important, statistical data. The
2000 Census is unique because it allows individuals to claim
mixed ethnic and racial backgrounds. Compiling this
information will give the government a more accurate
perspective on racial dynamics in our society and can only
help in overcoming one of America's biggest social problems--
racial conflict.
Worries about the long form's intrusiveness, however, are
legitimate considering the detailed nature of some questions.
Still, the census count is a vital responsibility that helps
facilitate the functioning of a democratic government.
If you haven't completed the census, you can still do so.
Internet census forms are available until April 15. In
addition, census workers will be following up with non-
respondents by telephone. Go to www.2000.census.gov for more
information.
Take a few minutes to finish the questionnaire, obey the
law and practice some civic responsibility. Make sure your
voice is heard.
____

[From the Atlanta Journal, Apr. 8, 2000]

Conversation Starter: Don't Fall Prey to Paranoia About Questions

(By Harvey Lipman)

Fear is a natural human emotion. It keeps us safe in times
of danger. Fear based on facts is caution, but baseless fear
is just paranoia.
The fact is that the Census Bureau has never released any
of the individual information that it gathers, not to the
IRS, not to the FBI, not to the president, not to anybody.
Never. That is a fact. The information gathered once every 10
years is compiled and the summary information, and only the
summary information, is used to determine allocations
essential to all of us, things like representation in
Congress and federal funding of education.
The Census Bureau has proposed using statistical-sampling
techniques as an alternate, less burdensome way, to obtain
some of the data, but it has been rebuffed by Congress, the
Supreme Court and even The Atlanta Journal. Until such time
as these less invasive methods are permitted, there is simply
no other way to collect this necessary and constitutionally
required information.
We have very few obligations as citizens of this country.
If our participatory form of government is to work we must
honor those obligations. Answering the census is such an
obligation. As an American I am proud to do so, since I have
no evidence whatsoever to fear that my government will
divulge the personal information that I give them.
____

[From the Washington Post, Apr. 9, 2000]

Answer This Question: How Did the Census Become Our Whipping Boy?

(By William Casey)

Ten years ago this month, I was wearing a Boston Red Sox
batting helmet to work.
No, I wasn't playing in the shadow of Fenway Park's
hallowed Green Monster of a wall or tending a BoSox souvenir
concession. The helmet was just a tool I used during my
short-lived career as an enumerator for the 1990 Census. It
was my job to track down miscreants who--for one reason or
another--had not returned their census forms in a timely
fashion. The buildings I covered in downtown Minneapolis were
overflowing with young people, so setting myself up at a
table in the lobby--official headgear in place--seemed a good
way to pull in the curious and disarm the suspicious. As
residents trickled in from shift work or nights out, they
invariably wandered over to see what was up. With a little
pleasant persuasion, presto, the short form--even the long
form!--was complete.
It worked. Back then, anyway.
Today, given the grumbling in some quarters about the
intrusiveness of the 2000 Census, I might need more than a
batting helmet to do that job. We have such unhappy customers
as Mr. M. Smith, a gentleman from Virginia Beach who was so
annoyed by the long form that ``I threw mine in the trash
where it belongs'' and then made his civil disobedience
public in a letter to Norfolk's Virginian-Pilot. (Dear Mr.
Smith: Those questions have been standard on the census for
many decades.)
Then there is Mr. P. Graham of Saline, Mich., who wrote a
letter to the Detroit News accusing the Census Bureau of
promoting ``alienation'' from government and asserting that
most of the long form's 53 questions are ``none of its
business.'' (Dear Mr. Graham: Contrary to popular belief, the
Census Bureau is asking those specific questions at the
direction of Congress, which likes to use the census to
collect information it has decided it needs.)
Add the comments from such Republican heavyweights as
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Texas Gov. George W. Bush
and Oklahoma Rep. Tom Coburn--all of whom have obligingly
bashed the census for allegedly invading the nation's
privacy--and you would think that the Census Bureau has
suddenly transformed itself from an agency that once just
counted noses into one that is just plain nosy.
This is--excuse my bluntness, please--a lot of nonsense.
It's not the Census Bureau or its forms that have changed.
It's us.
Or, more precisely, the fuss is one more dismaying result
of the pervasive presence of consumerism and marketing in our
lives. I find it puzzling, I admit, that people are bent out
of shape by a form sent to them once a decade when--on a
daily basis--they habitually reveal (willingly and
unwillingly) the most private of data to advertisers, health
insurers and Internet companies. Over the past 10 years, even
the simplest sales transaction has become an opportunity to
capture personal details that can be sold and resold (why do
you think the cashier wants to know your phone number?). It's
come to the point where you can rarely sit down to dinner
without receiving a ``courtesy call'' from someone who knows
a lot more about you than just your area code. Those of us
concerned about confidentiality might focus on the staggering
amount of personal information maintained by largely
invisible companies with names like Acxiom and Experian. Yet
people think that they still have their ``privacy'' and that
the government looms as the greatest threat to taking it
away.
How did the census become the whipping boy, the embodiment
of Big Brother, a waste of time, a symbol of oppression? The
Census Bureau has an exemplary history of keeping the data it
collects confidential, but that fact does not seem to have
made a dent in the collective consciousness. It's easier to
blame the census than to confront the world we've created.
Besides functioning as a worker bee on that 1990 census, I
am a long-time user of census information. On both academic
and journalistic projects, I've come to appreciate (and
depend on) the richness and reliability of the material--
which just about anyone can acquire, understand and put to
work in a thousand ways. The notion of turning to particular
census-driven data sets a few years from now and discovering
that the 2000 information is unusable because of ``citizen
noncooperation'' is more than an annoyance. It makes my blood
run cold.
A good deal of the complaining is directed toward the long
form, a questionnaire sent to one of every six households in
the past month. It's about the same length as the 1990
version and shorter than some previous census. There are
changes--additions, deletions, rewordings--but it's basically
the same old thing.
Continuity is a strong factor when it comes to census
matters. It's not as if every 10 years, things start from
ground zero. Just the opposite. The national statistical
snapshots that census results help construct are most useful
when they build on what went before.
It's true that census questionnaires are longer and more
complex than they were in the first half of the 20th
century--but that's hardly surprising. Those were times
before the increased scope of governmental activity and
responsibility that we take for granted today: an era when
there was no Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, no
program of federal assistance to housing, minimal federal
involvement with transportation spending and so forth.
There's a certain irony, however, in the fact that the
census hasn't changed much last time around. Census 2000
mechanics could have been vastly different--more efficient,
more accurate and much less expensive--but they're not.
Carefully field-tested efforts to streamline the counting
process via statistical sampling were opposed during the past
few years for political reasons. It's common knowledge--
although it's typically wrapped in layers of doublespeak--
that Republicans see undercounting in urban areas as equating
to a GOP advantage. (To be sure, if the sampling method
threatened Democratic voting bases, then sides would no doubt
be switched.) A count based on statistical sampling not only
would have been less expensive, it would have helped prevent
the higher levels of background noise we're experiencing at
the moment.
There have always been ample numbers of people who balk at
completing their questionnaires. In 1990, my fellow
enumerators and I had to deal with people who--like our
friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Graham above--were not inclined to
cooperate. Mostly they were reluctant; occasionally they were
almost hostile. But the majority of them completed their
forms when asked to do so directly. Sometimes a chance to
sound off about their objections was required. I was happy to
oblige. ``Whatever it takes'' was my motto--at least during
those six weeks.
This year's census has become a snapshot in a way that I
didn't expect: It reflects not just how we live, but how we
feel about ourselves and our society.
Take, for example, the subject of race. If, as a society,
we are stalemated on issues of race, then how can we expect a
census form to solve them, or even make them clearer? After
reading through the seemingly endless and convoluted choices
that the census short form offers (``If person 1 considers
his/her race to include two or more races . . .''), is it any
surprise that the precooked racial and ethnic categories seem
unsatisfactory? I've heard more than a few people say they
wrote in ``human''--which seems, in fact, like a very human
reaction to the country's current fascination and obsession
with race and ethnicity.
Because the census at its core serves a political purpose--
determining the number of representatives from each state--
the count has always had a political dimension. But I don't
recall the census forms being a hot item in the presidential
election years of 1960 and 1980. This year, it appears, any
issue properly framed and spun is fodder for ``principled''
stands by presidential candidates. One day is could be Al
Gore's sudden, self-serving switch on the Elian Gonzalez
case; the next, it could be George W. Bush, aiding and
abetting census resisters. ``I can understand,'' the GOP
nominee-to-be said, ``why people don't want to give over that
information to the government. If I had the long form, I'm
not so sure I would do it, either.''
Not to be outdone, Nebraska's rising star of a senator,
Republican Chuck Hagel, offered to introduce legislation that
would make question-answering optional. (Memo to the esteemed
Mr. Hagel: The Census 2000 questions were sent to Congress
for review in 1998. No squawk was raised then.) With this
kind of ``leadership'' out there--explicitly undermining a
program that requires individual citizens to pull together in
the interest of the larger whole--no wonder skepticism about
the process is rising.
After litigation over the Census Bureau's proposed use of
statistical sampling went to the Supreme Court--and sampling
was ruled out for apportionment purposes, although its use
for redistricting within states remains an open question--one
might have hoped that by the time April 1, 2000, rolled
around, we would have gotten our act together as a nation and
proceeded with the job. I cannot help but wonder if the
census is falling victim to our new millennium's variety of
cultural solipsism. Societal building blocks such as family,
neighborhood and community are subjected today to a wide
range of pressures--largely destructive. These institutions
were, to a substantial extent, the basis for successful past
censuses. But the principle of doing something for the common
good--for society's good--doesn't stand a chance if society's
leaders won't speak up for it.
On Thursday, I read that hopes are ``dimming for a timely
and accurate count'' in Census 2000. If response rates remain
underwhelming, that will necessitate time-consuming and
expensive enumerator work to track down, cajole, persuade and
gather information from those who have not yet submitted it.
Remember, ``whatever it takes.''
But later on, after things have settled down, perhaps a
lesson regarding the fragility of our social and political
fabric will have been learned. It's often said, but still
true: It's easier to tear things down than it is to build
them up.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an
issue of great importance in the year 2000.
I wish to express thanks to all Americans who are participating in
the Census 2000. You are making an enormous difference to your
community and setting our nation on the best path for the new century.
As of last night, 60% of Americans have completed and sent in their
census forms. Nevertheless, we have much work to do, Mr. Speaker. We
need to reach to the 40% of Americans who have yet to complete their
census forms.
Regrettably in previous weeks, when everyone has been working to
improve the initial response rate, we had Members of Congress,
including prominent leaders of the Republican party, people who should
better, tell the American public that the census was optional.
Unfortunately, the reality remains that the Census Bureau has missed
millions of persons in conducting each decennial census, especially
minorities, the poor, children, newly arrived immigrants, and the
homeless. We cannot allow this to happen again.
For these reasons, of course, it should come as no surprise that I am
disappointed by recent comments by highly respected individuals that
advise Americans not to perform their civic duty. As reported in
numerous news stories, some lawmakers on the other side urged citizens
not to answer questions regarding the long form.
Yet over two years, every Member of Congress received a detailed list
of the questions to be asked on the long form, including a description
of the need for asking it and specific legal requirements supporting
it. The time for input on the question was then. The time to achieve an
accurate census count is now.
The low percentage of census forms being returned in certain cities
with high minority populations is alarming. We must do all we can to
change response rates. These remarks only discourage faster response
rates.
Even the Governor of the State of Texas has said he supports his
party's position against the use of modern statistical methods--methods
that would get a more accurate count of America's African Americans,
Hispanic, Asian American, and American Indian populations.
As a member of the Congressional Caucus Task Force on Census, I am
obliged to convey my concern that no one is left out of the Census
process. Unlike in the 1990 Census where so many minorities were
disproportionately missed or ``undercounted'' as we say, everyone must
be counted in the Census 2000.
Our goal for Census 2000 must be the most accurate census possible.
We all know that accurate census data has proven vital to people of
color, both economically and politically.
Texas lost almost $1 billion due to the 1990 undercount. Over 486,000
Texans were missed in the 1990 Census, which prevented Texas from
securing critically-needed federal funding for health care,
transportation, housing, and community development.
In the city of Houston, 67,000 people were undercounted in 1990.
A comprehensive analysis of federal funding was prepared by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The analysis was one at the request of the
Presidential members of the U.S. Census Monitoring Board. According to
PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the population ``undercount'' similar to that
which occurred in the 1990 Census would cost 26 states a minimum of
$9.1 billion. States with the largest numerical undercounts would be
hit the hardest. California would lose more than $5 billion, Texas
nearly $2 billion, and Florida $5 million. I am particularly concerned
that 120,267 are estimated to be undercounted from Census 2000 in
Harris County, Texas.
Moreover, $185 billion in federal funds are allocated each year based
on each state's respective share of the population, as determined every
10 years by the Census. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers study examined the
15 programs analyzed by the General Accounting Office in its 1999
report on the funding impact of the 1990 census undercount.
The eight programs most affected by the census are Medicaid, Foster
Care, Rehabilitation Services Block Grants, Substance Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Block Grants Adoption Assistance, Child Care and
Development Block Grants, and Vocational Education Block Grants.
Our communities cannot afford to squander the opportunity to secure
desperately needed resources to make these programs available to
everyone. An accurate Census is the only way to assure that local
communities receive their `fair share' of federal spending; an
inaccurate count will shortchange the affected communities for an
entire decade.
Keeping response rates high must remain a primary purpose in
obtaining an accurate census. Recent news stories have only highlighted
this need. Texas has a 33 percent return, but the fourth largest city
in the nation only has 26 percent return. That is the city of Houston.
This is precisely what we must change. Only a high response rate to the
Census 2000 questionnaires will enable our community to secure
desperately needed funds.
And while some have recently raised concerns about the legality or
constitutionality of the long form, those only serve as a distraction.
In fact, the Census Bureau has not prosecuted anyone for not sending in
their Census form since the 1960s. They are interested in getting
complete and reliable data; they do not want to jeopardize the public
trust.
The long form is a sound investment--for a relatively small
additional cost, information of very high quality about a number of
subjects is collected for many geographic areas. The return on this
investment is concrete information that serves the basis for sound
public policy decisions and that supports the accurate allocation of
over billions of dollars.
Community leaders use the long form for planning a wide range of
activities, including neighborhood revitalization, economic development
and improved facilitates and services.
We need the long form to build highways, roads, bridges and tunnels
in areas that need them. And planners need information about where
people live and work and the times they leave for work.
Each long form question provides valuable, indeed essential,
information for important public policy and business decisions.
For example, data from the question on the number of telephones in
the home area is used to help plan local 911 emergency services. They
also are used to help implement the Older Americans Act to provide
emergency and health-care services to homebound seniors without phone
service.
Data from the question on how long it takes to commute to work is
used by federal, state, local and private transportation planners to
help design new roads, bus routes, and mass transit transportation and
to manage traffic congestion, as well as to distribute federal
transportation dollars.
Indeed, data from the question on the veteran's status are used to
plan the location of veteran's hospitals and to efficiently deliver
veterans health-care and nursing services.
Your answers to Census 2000 are absolutely critical to ensure that
every possible dollar is made available to the poor, the sick, and the
neglected in our communities.
The U.S. Census only comes around once every ten years, but its
information is used throughout the decade. Together, let's make sure
that everyone is heard.

____________________

TAX LIMITATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity tonight to discuss
a very important issue that is going to be on the floor of the House of
Representatives this week. It is called the tax limitation amendment.
The tax limitation amendment, known as H.J. Res. 37, is a very, very
simple amendment that was first brought to life some 10 years ago by
the gentleman from the 6th District of Texas (Mr. Barton).
Last week we had a press conference where we talked about, in
essence, the passing of the mantle from the gentleman from Texas to
myself, being the lead for the tax limitation amendment where we will
bring to the floor of the House of Representatives on Wednesday an
opportunity for all Members not only to fully debate but also to vote
on something which I believe is very, very important.
The essence of H.J. Res. 37 is that we are going to make it more
difficult for Washington to raise taxes on America. That is what this
debate is all about. It will be about doing those things that
Washington talks about, making it more difficult by requiring a
supermajority, a two-thirds vote on the floor of the House of
Representatives and in the Senate to raise taxes. Part of what we are
talking about today, we would assume, is just a conservative idea, and
I think that that would be correct. But it is a bipartisan idea. It is
an idea not only that has grassroots all across America, people who are
pro-business but it also has people who consider themselves Democrats,
Democrats even, who understand that raising taxes should not be easy,
because taxes come from people who get up and go to work every day,
work diligently, honest people, taxpayers, and then are giving too much
money to Washington, D.C.
One of the persons who is the cochairman of this effort, a coleader
in this effort, is the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas (Mr.
Hall). This evening I am very honored to have the gentleman from Texas
with me to help not only the discussion about the tax limitation
amendment but also for an opportunity for us to discuss this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas,
a lifelong Democrat, a conservative, and a man who understands it is
important to make it more difficult to raise taxes on taxpayers.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today, of course, to express my support for
the tax limitation amendment. I have been for this amendment from the
word go. I really do not understand that it ought to be a Republican or
a Democratic thrust or a liberal or conservative thrust because I think
it is an American thrust. Requiring a two-thirds vote to raise taxes
would force very serious consideration on this legislation at any time
that they would attempt to raise taxes; and it would require, as the
gentleman from Texas has said, a supermajority vote on any proposal
that would impact the pocketbooks of every hard-working American.
The major test of this legislation would be not what class supports
it. We are in for at least 5 wonderful years in this country. We now
have, rather than the deficits of the 1980s and the 1990s, a surplus;
and we are going to have good times for the next 5, maybe for the next
10, years to have money to be that that we ought to be for people who
have no lobby, pay a lot of it on our debt. That is tantamount to a tax
break for everyone.
I think that if we would go into our district, and I say ``our
district'' because the gentleman and I share districts in Texas. I have
part of Dallas County in my district. He has a much larger part of it.
I have most of Kaufman. He has a part of Kaufman in his district. He
has a part of Smith County which is Tyler; Tyler, Texas. We represent
the same type of people, people who want less government, people who
want to keep the money that they work for, people who want to plan
ahead, people who want to have money in September to buy school clothes
without having the taxes that are put on them, that have been
historically put on them by a 50 percent vote. A lot of those votes
like the Tax Reform Act of 1986 would never have happened if it had
taken a two-thirds vote.

{time} 2030

So I think if they would go out into their district, into any part of
our district, and talk to the first 10 people they see and ask them
would you like to see it a little bit more difficult for the Congress
of the United States to take money out of your left hip pocket, what do
you think their answer would be?
Mr. SESSIONS. Let me say this: the gentleman from Texas, whose
district is literally overlaid on my district, the 4th District
overlaid on the 5th District, very, very similar, the kind of people,
the kind of people's thoughts and ideas, I believe that if you went in
the 4th or 5th Districts of Texas, that people would say, I think
Washington, D.C. has enough money. First of all, they have got enough
money. They don't need to tax us more. They ought to be more efficient.
The second thing I think they would say, as the gentleman has pointed
out, is let us make it more difficult. There is no need to go back to
the American public to ask for a tax increase, especially when we are
in a surplus condition. Right now, today, in America we are working off
of a surplus, and yet we know that there are people in Washington,
D.C., that want more and more and more money.
I would say to the gentleman from the 4th District of Texas that if
we made it more difficult, it would immediately cause this Congress and
the administration, whoever is President, to have to go and look within
the administration, to go look in these agencies to find where there is
waste, fraud and abuse, to find where there was opportunity to save
money, rather than going back to the taxpayer.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I think as the gentleman well knows, we represent
a conservative area. We both represent a part of the old Rayburn
congressional district. We talk about balanced budgets and all that.
Mr. Rayburn had a balanced budget the last 8 years of his service here;
and as he went back home to Bonham, Texas, to die, he looked back over
his shoulder at a balanced budget.
I think we could use some of that good common horse sense now. I
think the people of this country want to be able to keep more of the
money they are making. I just do not believe the argument that we have
a lot more money now, so this amendment is not as important. I think
this amendment is more important now than it was during the deficit
times, because they have more to lose, and it is going to look like it
is easy to put taxes on people.
I just think it is a golden opportunity to raise the bar and protect
hard-working Americans from tax increases in the future that are not
supported by a majority of two-thirds of the people. I think it is
critical that we make a statement that we are committed to controlling
government spending, rather than raising taxes, in order to maintain a
balanced Federal budget.
I just think that the 10 people that I would talk to on Front Street
in Tyler, Texas, or any part of Kaufman County, or any part of the
district we share in Dallas County, we would talk to these people and
ask this simple question; and I think we ought to invite the rest of
the Congress to go home and do the same thing, ask them what do you
think about the fact we are trying to make it a little bit more
difficult to put taxes on you. What do you think their answer would be?
Mr. SESSIONS. Absolutely. I believe the answer from people, if you
talk to people who live in the districts that get up and go to work
every day, they would say, We are very pleased. We love America. We
support government and the essence of what it does. But today there is
more than enough money in Washington, D.C. Make do with what you have.
Do not come back to us. We are out producing, meaning the people back
home, producing not only in efficiencies, but to the economy, to the
local communities and to government, to make it work. This needs to be
a bar that gets raised because it is that important of an issue.
You know that there are several parts of the Constitution that put a
two-thirds vote that is a requirement to be able to pass something. I
believe, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) agrees, that
raising taxes should be one of those things that we make more
difficult, that should require a consensus and a two-thirds vote.
I thank the gentleman. I know that the gentleman has got a dinner
that he has got to go to, but I thank the gentleman for not only
working on behalf of the people of the 4th District of Texas, but also
doing it in a national leadership capacity here tonight. I thank him so
very much for being a part of what we are doing.
Mr. HALL of Texas. I thank the gentleman for the time, and I
certainly am pleased that he has accepted the leadership of this
amendment. I pledge that I will work side by side with the gentleman
and we will work this floor.
I do not know how we are going to come out, but I do know that we are
going to still be swinging at it. I suggest that, no matter how the
vote turns out, that we start anew the day we have either won or lost
it, to working the other end of the situation and asking those 10
people what they think about it, and asking each Member of Congress
here to go home and ask their first 10 people what they think about it.
Maybe we are working at the wrong end of the deal here in Washington,
D.C. Maybe we ought to be working at home.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman so very much.
This evening we are also joined by one of the stalwarts of freedom,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), who is not only a very good
friend of the taxpayer, but a person who understands whose money this
really is we are talking about. At this time I would yield to the
gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Texas, and I thank my
colleague from across the aisle from Texas also for joining us here
tonight.
Mr. Speaker, observers could not help but note the differing tone of
those who preceded us in this Chamber this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I was astounded, but I guess not really surprised, at
the level of bile, the venom, the mean-spiritedness and deliberate
mischarac- terizations that preceded us in this Chamber, and I could
not help but notice the difference, Mr. Speaker, as we come here on a
bipartisan basis.
Our good friend from Texas asked, what would the people at home say?
And, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear repeatedly is how sick and
tired they are of the endless partisan haranguing and insults and
deliberate mischaracterizations of matters of public policy, because,
Mr. Speaker, we are involved in dealing with the public trust. All 435
of us in this Chamber are entrusted with an awesome responsibility, to
represent the peoples of our districts to the best of our ability,
commensurate with full allegiance to the Constitution of the United
States.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would just appeal to the American people to
understand that we are talking about a bipartisan amendment, and, in
the words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), it really should not
be liberal, conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is
quintessentially American, because what will take place on this floor,
through the leadership of my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and
many of others of us, we will come to this floor and ask for a
supermajority vote, ask for 290 of us to line up to say that it should
be harder for Congress to raise taxes on the American people.
We were talking about what folks say at home. The 6th Congressional
District of Arizona, in square mileage almost the size of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. From the small hamlet of Franklin in
southern Greenlee County, north to Four Corners, west to Flagstaff,
south again to Florence, encompassing parts of Phoenix, Mesa,
Scottsdale, a fast growing area, where people come from all over the
country, a near universal lament has been well, you common sense folks
can get some things done, but that is no guarantee that in 2 years if
there is a change in the composition of the Congress, if something
happens, that your hard work will not be reversed.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, that is precisely why we are bringing
this amendment to the floor of the House again, this proposed
amendment, because we believe, just as important, just as challenging
as it is to amend the Constitution of the United States, to deal with
questions such as impeaching a chief executive, or, in the other body,
ratifying international treaties, we believe the same standard should
apply to the Government reaching into the pockets of everyday, hard-
working Americans. That is the key to this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, as is often the case, many of
our States, often characterized as laboratories of democracy, the
places where we apply with our dynamic system of Federalism the
principles of our constitutional Republic, 14 of our 50 states have
already adopted State tax limitation provisions, including my home
State of Arizona, when in 1992 the legislature and the people decided
that a two-thirds vote would be required for any, any, increase in
taxation.
Now, it is important, Mr. Speaker, to make this distinction: this
does not prohibit tax increases, but it does say to the American people
we understand a simple truth. The money does not belong to the
Washington bureaucrats; it belongs to you. And we believe that if you
work hard, play by the rules, want to provide for your family, want to
provide for your children, have an obligation to your parents and other
seniors in your community, are glad to shoulder that obligation, since
it is your money, it should be tougher for Washington to get to it. It
should be a question every bit as important as amending the
Constitution of the United States.
So we will come here again seeking a supermajority to enact this
notion of a higher standard for tax increases. We are reminded over the
last 2 decades, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1990, and, of course, the largest tax
increase in American history, which passed in this Chamber and the
other body by one vote, which was characterized by some in this town,
principally those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, as an
``investment on our future,'' when in fact it really was an assault on
seniors, on children, on Americans who had even left the here-and-now
to go to the hereafter, so excessive was that tax increase it was
retroactive to the first of the year in the grave, if the Congress or a
future administration is tempted again to take the easy way out, to
pickpocket hard-working American citizens, Mr. Speaker, this amendment
would say, whoa, not so fast. Because we are a government of laws,
because we are a government where the first three words of the
Constitution talk about ``We the people.''
We are accountable to the people, and we want to make it more
difficult, we want to raise the standard, so that the same Americans,
whether they are in the 5th or 4th Congressional District of Texas, or
the 6th Congressional District of Arizona, or any district across the
country, will understand that we are going to think long and hard and
have compelling reasons to make a change, should we decide to do so
collectively in this body with the support of the American people. But
that will take away a temptation that has been too often easily
employed.
Let us raise the standard and return to the notion that the money
belongs to the people, not to Washington. I know my friend from Texas
has a few things to say.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman from Arizona has now
clearly laid out is not only the essence of the reason why this is
important to people back home, but I now want to add to those reasons
and talk about why Washington needs to pay attention to the tax
limitation amendment, H.J. Res. 94. I said H.J. Res. 39. That is wrong.
That was last year. I have caught up now. H.J. Res. 94.
We must make it harder for Congress to raise taxes on the American
people. Now, many people would say, Well, Washington has it down. We
have already created a surplus. We are going to have a surplus now for
as far as the eye can see.
I would say that, yes, that probably is true, provided we stay in
power. But there is so much more that must be understood, and that is
that just because the majority party believes that that is the right
thing to do, it does not mean that that is what everybody agrees.
Back in 1995, when we were in the midst of the battle, the battle to
determine that we would have a balanced budget, that we would be able
to work within the confines to balance the budget based upon what the
American people have given us before the Committee on Ways and Means,
Alice Rivlin, the OMB, Office of Management and Budget, personnel
director, said, ``I do not think that adhering to a firm path,'' which
means a balanced budget, that you are going to stick to it, ``for a
balance by 2002 is very sensible.''

{time} 2045

She did not believe it was sensible. It is not always a good policy
to have a balanced budget.
Let me say that that was 1995. Here we are, the year 2000, and lo and
behold, not only does Alice Rivlin represent her boss, and they said in
1995 the way things would be, but here we see it in print now, this
President's budget that he presented, that he took 2 hours to describe
to the American public in the State of the Union Address.
We find out that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have more
tax increases. Even when we are in the middle of trying to not only
take care of and shore up not only social security and Medicare and a
lot of other things, but we have a surplus, and what do they want to
do? They want to raise taxes, a $96 billion tax increase, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore, tax increases.
Yet we know that there was another person, another group of people,
who were right there saying, we will not raise taxes. We are in a
surplus circumstance.
Now what we have to do, because we recognize that we have people who
even when we have a surplus they want more and more and more not only
spending but tax increases, we have to go tell the story. We need to
make it more difficult.
Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker,
as my friend, the gentleman from Texas, was relating not only the
recent history but also the facts and figures amidst the flowery
rhetoric that is so often part of what transpires in Washington, I
could not help but note the successes that we have had as a commonsense
conservative majority, and point out, Mr. Speaker, to the American
people that it is very interesting the way Washington has worked
heretofore.
We have had some success here, and indeed, we have rolled back taxes,
as we were able to enact in the 105th Congress the $500 per child tax
credit; as we were able to work to make sure that there was a higher
level of tax fairness; when in fact just this past week we were able to
procure at long last the signature of the President of the United
States on legislation to end the unfair penalty confronting senior
citizens who chose to work beyond their assigned retirement age;
seniors who, if they were making in excess of $17,000 a year, were
taxed to the tune of $1 out of every $3 of their social security
benefit, lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, that was finally changed.
But I would note for the record that piece of legislation was first
introduced well nigh in excess of two decades ago by the current
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Archer); that our current speaker, when he first arrived here in
1987, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), introduced the self-
same legislation.
While we welcome epiphanies, whether they come in election years or
at other times, we are so pleased that at long last those who resisted
that fundamental act of fairness finally saw the wisdom in letting
seniors hang onto more of their own hard-earned money. Because I think,
Mr. Speaker, that truly defines compassion.
The reason I mention it is because it took so long. The anachronistic
policies of the mid 1930s that accompanied what at that point was a
labor shortage, it took all the way to the dawn of a new century, 70
years, to make that change, the modest but important tax relief we
offered in 1997, which came a decade and a half after the tax relief
offered in the Reagan years.
So it is extremely difficult here to get this institution, to get
those denizens of Washington and those folks in the bureaucracy,
focused on actually letting people hang onto more of their own money.
We have made some progress, as I have just documented.
One of the reasons is institutionally it has been so easy to raise
taxes: A simple majority vote; a chief executive who is of a mind to do
that because of previous Congresses and free-spending ways.
Again, this is not a partisan argument. Our friend, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall), was talking about the days of former Speaker
Rayburn and the balanced budgets that were formulated with a Republican
president, Dwight Eisenhower, and a previous majority in Congress of
the other party. But following that time, whether the days of Speaker
Martin or the days of Speaker Rayburn, that was then and what followed
later was a complete role reversal.
Always, always, always, Mr. Speaker, the notion was, we just need to
raise taxes a little bit more. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to think of
what that says to the family in Payson, Arizona, in my district where
the husband and wife are doing all they can to establish a fledgling
printing business. They are working hard to make that business work,
they are creating jobs in their small communities, they are providing a
service, and more importantly, they are providing for their children.
I think, Mr. Speaker, one of the key problems we have faced as a
people is as follows. For years folks came to this Chamber and asked or
told the American people, you have to sacrifice so Washington can
supposedly do more. That premise, we understand, in the fullness of
time is exactly turned around: Washington bureaucrats should sacrifice,
Mr. Speaker, so that American families can have more.
This tax limitation amendment is the right thing to do because it
changes constitutionally and institutionally the bias toward always
picking the pockets of hard-working Americans. It raises the standard
even as we, in a signal both to Wall Street and to Main Street, in a
new commonsense conservative Congress have at long last instituted
policies of fiscal sanity.
The risky scheme, Mr. Speaker, is to always dip into the pockets of
hard-working citizens. The real test of trust and responsibility is to
make government more responsive, to make governmental decisions more
rational, to reduce the debt and empower everyday hard-working
Americans to keep more of what they earn and send less here.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. Wonderful points.
We believe, I believe, that the thing that Congress should focus on is
to make sure that we are not putting more debt not only on people who
work today, but also for our children and our grandchildren.
This chart so accurately describes this, really, and it goes back to
1941. But as we see, the numbers are small until we head to about 1976.
The numbers are astronomical. They go up to $350 billion in debts. This
is what happened when Republicans and Independents and people who are
from other parties, including Ross Perot, began talking about how
America's greatest days are not behind her, America's greatest days are
ahead; but that it would require responsibility, it would require, as
the gentleman from Arizona said, sanity, the ability to balance and to
comprehend what was happening to America.
So what happened is that a different vision was given. That was, we
should not spend more than what we make. We should take the power that
comes with the money to Washington, D.C. and put it back home. That is
exactly what happened.
We now see where there has been a debt reduction directly as a result
of what we have now accomplished. This did not happen overnight. It was
based on a set of principles which we believe, as Republicans, are
critical to the country. They include that we are going to protect 100
percent of social security. We have now done that.
Lo and behold, 30 years after spending not just some of social
security but all of the surplus from social security, Republicans said
that not only will we not do that, but we are going to make sure that
we lock it away into a lockbox.
Strengthen Medicare with prescription drug coverage, that is what
this marvelous House will be debating in a few short weeks. Forty
billion dollars has been set aside, that is the Republican plan, $40
billion to make sure that citizens, not just like the people in the
Fifth District of Texas, but like people that the gentleman has in
Arizona, who live better lives today because of technology, because of
investment that has been made by the private sector.
Yes, we have great doctors, but we have great drugs. Here is one
thing we know. We understand and know that for every $1 that is spent
on drugs, prescription drugs, we save $4 in hospital stay. It makes
sense. It is the right thing to do.
We made sure that we are going to retire the debt by 2013; not add to
it, not just let it stay out there, but we are going to pay it off a
little at a time. It did not happen overnight, it took 40 years of
Democrat-controlled Congresses to do that. We will get it done by 2013.
We are going to support and strengthen education, technology,
research. We are going to make sure that education and science work
together. That is why we are trying to double, and sticking to it, a
commitment that was made by former Speaker Newt Gingrich that we would
send double funding to NIH, the National Institutes of Health. Because
we understood, and we still get it today, that if we invest in research
and development, if we do the things by letting scientists and others
who can make breakthroughs in not only prescription drugs and
techniques, that what we can do is we can save lives and make life
better.
We will promote fairness for families, farmers, and seniors. Half of
the Fifth District of Texas is rural. Half of the Fifth District of
Texas went through, in an agricultural setting, a terrible drought the
last few years. We need to pay attention to rural America.
Restoring America's defenses. We have been able to accomplish so much
because we were able to put on a sheet of paper the things that are
important to America and Americans. People in the Fifth District of
Texas, like the people in the Sixth District of Arizona, represent the
topsoil of America. It is not the dirt, it is the people. They are the
topsoil of our country. We are paying attention to people. We are going
to get it right, and we are going to balance out the things that are
important in America.
I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from
Texas, for yielding to me.
In listening to the people of Arizona, as the gentleman so eloquently
stated some of the goals there, we look at prescription coverage for
seniors as we try to strengthen Medicare.
I think it is important to make this distinction. Almost two-thirds
of the senior community currently enjoys some prescription drug benefit
through current insurance plans. But I think of the lady in Apache
Junction, Arizona, who works not by choice but out of necessity at a
fast food restaurant because she and her husband are not in a financial
circumstance that enables them to have a complete insurance plan.
So what we say is for the truly needy seniors, for those one-third of
the senior community that have somehow eluded this opportunity at
prescription drug benefits, we want to provide them. But we are being
very careful, because as another one of my constituents reminded me,
she came up one day, Mr. Speaker, and said, J.D., I don't want to end
up seeing my Medicare premiums rise so that I have the honor and
opportunity to pay the prescription bills of Ross Perot.

{time} 2100

I think that is a valid point. We want reasonable, rational reforms
that strengthen Medicare and help those truly needy seniors.
Mr. SESSIONS. It sounds like that part of this debate is now into the
two plans, essentially the two plans that are floating in Washington;
one which would tax all seniors, and as I described in the Fifth
District of Texas where all the seniors in the room would please take
$20 out of their pocket, place them on the table, and then those people
who placed the money, everybody placed the money, then if they did not
need it, based upon their poverty level, if they did not qualify for
prescription drug coverage, just please get up and walk outside the
room. It is about 75 to 80 percent of senior citizens who would be
paying $20 more out of their own pocket.
I would say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), here is a
$20; $20 out of their own pocket every month for about 15 percent of
the seniors who could not afford it. Why did we not come up with a
plan, oh but there is one, the Republican plan, that will say, senior
citizens, all senior citizens, put that money back in their pocket, put
it back in their pocket; we have a budget surplus in Washington, D.C.
We will take care of those people who need it most. We are not going to
tax every senior citizen to help 15 percent of them. Sounds like a
better idea to me.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), for again very eloquently and practically pointing out the
difference.
There is something else we should note. Even as we turn to the
subjects of Medicare and Social Security, the institutional bias that
always asks for tax increases, even as we celebrate in bipartisan
fashion the fact that the President signed into law the end of the
earnings penalty on seniors who chose to work past retirement age and
we restored fairness that had been 70 years in the making, or should I
say 70 years in the waiting, it is worth noting, the gentleman spoke
about the largest tax increase in American history, it
disproportionately affected seniors. It jacked up Social Security
taxes. It hit Americans all across the board but it nailed seniors, and
while we have taken this first step to restore tax fairness, it was
born of another important step that was taken as the President of the
United States was kind enough to come down a couple of years ago and
stand at the podium behind my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), and he said something that was a wonderful rhetorical
flourish, but once we took away the bells and the whistles and the
theatrics it was a shot across the bow and a warning to all American
seniors, and my colleague from Texas I think he has more on that topic
right here as we look at this chart.
Mr. SESSIONS. We do, and I thank the gentleman for mentioning that.
The President of the United States, just a few short years ago, said
Social Security first, Social Security first.
It took the Republican Party and a plan to get that done. We ended
the raid of Social Security because it was the right thing to do. 1998
was the last year that the Congress of the United States will allow the
surplus in Social Security, the hard-earned money that people have put
into it, to then be spent for general budgetary items.
There, as always, are at least two different views. Let us role back
the tape. Let us remember just a year ago, when we talked about the
year 2000, the Republican plan said 100 percent of Social Security,
meaning that if people gave that money for Social Security, it should
only be used for Social Security. It should not be used for something
else. That is what savings plans are about. That is what the government
took it for. The government took the money, it is required by law, and
we believe that 100 percent of it, that is the way it should go.
There was another side. There is another story. The other story in
Washington, D.C. is, the President has his own plan. We understand
that. We are willing to debate it, even on the floor. Of all of the
surplus, the President said 62 percent of the surplus goes to Social
Security, but 38 percent of Social Security goes to new government
spending. How much money are we talking about? We are talking about, in
fact, a lot of money. The surplus in the year 2000, $137 billion. That
is $137 billion that instead of going to general revenue will be put
directly into Social Security.
Now, one would say that is exactly what the gentleman from Arizona
said, and I say, yes, that is close, except that the Democrats are
still holding back our lockbox. They will not allow us to designate it.
So the best we can say is, no money should be spent. The President
still has $85 billion of the $137 billion.
In fact, the gentleman from Arizona and I are getting very good at
this. If I can find my penny, every single penny that is given by an
American for Social Security should only be used for Social Security,
and that is what this is all about.
Mr. HAYWORTH. The gentleman has heard it in his district. One of the
first things I heard, when I was honored and entrusted with this
responsibility of service in the Congress of the United States, at
innumerable townhall meetings across the width and breadth of my
district, was a concern that funds were commingled. There was a fancy
Washington term for it, of course there always is; the bureaucrats
spoke of a unified budget. Well, that is a nice word, but what we
really should have called it, Mr. Speaker, was a commingled budget,
where Social Security money was not set aside and preserved for Social
Security and to the point even now would we have those who lead the
executive branch always talk about these plans for spending and
trusting government more, it is very interesting that they forget about
the basics.
Thank goodness, Mr. Speaker, that a common sense Congress reminds
Washington's bureaucrats and big spenders, no, we need to restore that
firewall. It has been our intent since day one and now we have done it
in our budgetary plans, not a single dime, not a single cent of Social
Security money spent on any other program; all of it, all of it, going
to save and strengthen Social Security. That is the difference, is it
not, Mr. Speaker? Because as I mentioned at the outset, we are
entrusted with this constitutional responsibility. We take an oath of
office and we are given a responsibility, a role, a mandate, an oath,
not to deceive the American people, either by pandering to foreign
governments to solicit campaign donations in what is a cynical, sad and
macabre twist on the notion of having political opponents, and somehow
confusing political opponents with enemies to the point where in a free
society those in the highest offices in our land, who took, presumably
the same oaths of office, entrusted with those responsibilities, would
live up to them. In the same sort of rhetoric here on this House floor,
in a speech two years ago, it was said, let us set aside 62 percent of
the Social Security surplus for Social Security. What was left unsaid,
when we do the math as my colleague pointed out, 38 percent of that
money is set aside for Social Security to go to new government
programs.
Mr. Speaker, it has been said of those who head up the other branch
of government by columnists from their own State, do not listen so much
to what they say; watch what they do.
We best secure America's future by restoring trust, by resurrecting
that firewall, by putting Social Security funds in a lockbox to be used
exclusively for Social Security, by making it more difficult to raise
taxes. Rather than having Washington succumb always to the siren song
of picking the pockets of hard working Americans, we reaffirm the truth
that the money, when all is said and done, does not belong to the
Federal Government or the Washington bureaucrats. It belongs to hard
working Americans and they ought to hang on to more of it and send less
of it here.
Mr. SESSIONS. The gentleman has led directly to the point that I
believe is the essence of the tax limitation amendment, and that is in
the era of surpluses, when the government has effectively, as a result
of the Republican Congress, made sure that Social Security and Medicare
will not be spent, it was given for a reason. It will be used for that
reason. Then lo and behold, we have extra money called a surplus, that
came about, the very essence of it came about because we cut taxes. We
encouraged America not only to go work harder but to work smarter. We
encouraged America to invest in America.
Just a few short years ago, we were worried about all the jobs in
America going offshore. Ten years ago we were told America's greatest
days are behind her. The best education is somewhere else; the best of
technology is somewhere else; the best of future is somewhere else. We
today and every Member of this body tries to take credit for it and
that is okay, of the things that have happened in the last 5 years. It
is the right thing to do for us to understand that we had to balance
the budget; we had to take Social Security off budget; we had to make
sure that we created a surplus.
Now tonight we are talking about making it more difficult to raise
taxes, a simple thing. We want to make it more difficult for Washington
to take your money. H.J. Res. 94, the tax limitation amendment, will be
voted on on Wednesday, will be voted on because it is the right thing
for America today. What is going to happen with more of the money, the
money that is today a surplus? Here is what we are going to do: We are
going to make sure that it goes back to the people who gave it to
Washington. I am not sure they gave it because they wanted to
necessarily, but they gave it and they expect us to do wise things with
it.
Responsibility, here is what we are doing: We want to end the
marriage penalty. Just a few short months ago in January, President
Clinton stood right behind me and he stated he would be more doing away
with the marriage penalty.
We are now talking about repealing the senior earnings limit. The
President of the United States signed that last Friday in the White
House garden. It was beautiful. We are now going to have senior
citizens who are no longer penalized with an unfair tax. The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) worked on that for 30 years.
We want to reduce, eliminate the death taxes. We want to expand
education savings accounts. Lo and behold, in my home I have a 6-year-
old Down's Syndrome little boy who could use the money. We could also,
by spending it efficiently on all sorts of not only educational tools
for our baby, our son, our child, but also to help nurture him to where
he will be able to be self sufficient.
We have a 10-year-old at home, a 10-year-old who every single day
reads every book and takes everything that we can get our hands on,
gobbles it in, understands that his future is the same as our country's
future. We are going to spend more money on education. My son
understands and so does my wife.
We are going to increase health care deductibility. We want every
single working American, and especially those today who are not allowed
to, by law, to be able to deduct their health care. We want every
single person to have health care. Every single person deserves a right
to have their own doctor, not just show up at some clinic, not just to
have a doctor available but their doctor who they know and understand.
We want to provide tax breaks for communities that do not have as
much money as others, and we want to strengthen private pension plans
to where people have an opportunity to save for their future.
What we are talking about is the tax limitation amendment that will
be the crowning jewel on responsibility, it is the crown jewel of
responsibility, to make it more difficult for the Members of Congress
to vote for tax increases. We have enough money. We should do the right
thing and yet we recognize, I recognize, that in this town we have not
flipped everybody.

{time} 2115

The real spenders are still out there, people who will take money.
This is why we have to have a tax limitation amendment, a two-thirds
majority.
Oh, the debate will happen here on the floor, trust me, the debate
where people will stand up and talk about we have got to spend more and
more and more and more and raise taxes more and more.
I would say that discipline and responsibility is what will make the
difference, and the responsibility comes down to what my party stands
for. My party deeply believes that, if we want to have America's
greatest days ahead of her, then we will empower people back home, men
and women, children, small businesses, large businesses, people to
invest in America because they know they can do so because the risk is
not there to say, when one becomes successful, the government in
Washington, D.C. wants their share, too. I think that they would
understand fair share is okay. But in Washington, if one is successful,
that means Washington wants more and more and more and more.
That is why we offer the tax limitation amendment. That is why this
is bipartisan. It is bipartisan. It makes sense, because we want to
create wealth and opportunity for generations to come. We want to get
away from where Washington, D.C. all of a sudden sees where, oh, there
is now an Internet out there, we ought to tax that. There is something
else out there, we have got to raise taxes on that.
We still have been paying, for 70 years, a telephone tax that was
done, ah, to raise money for the war. By the way, that was World War
II.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, it is even more profound than that. In
doing our research, we have crafted, again, bipartisan legislation to
end this. But, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the American people will note
with interest that a luxury tax was imposed on the telephone really
before the advent of the 20th Century. It came in the Spanish American
War.
So, Mr. Speaker, Teddy Roosevelt led the charge up San Juan Hill, and
patrons of this new technology of the telephone, I guess at that time
it was fairly called a luxury, we are paying a luxury tax. Telephone
users since that time up until the present day at the advent of the
Internet is still paying a luxury tax on telephones instituted in the
Spanish American War.
We are taking steps to roll that back. Perhaps that is the most
graphic example of the institutional bias in Washington, D.C. toward
taxes.
Let us not forget that, in fact, what paved the way for the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution that allowed for the direct taxation of
personal income was a Supreme Court opinion that said direct taxation
of personal income would be constitutional provided it was a temporary
measure. That leads to what will transpire in our Committee on Ways and
Means this week, hearings on changing our tax system, on offering real
reform.
But, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for
shouldering the burden of responsibility and leadership and bringing to
the floor the tax limitation amendment. Because real reform starts with
this institutional change where we say, if raising taxes is so
important to us as a people, let us at least raise the standard, make
it difficult, make it more difficult, require a two-thirds majority, a
supermajority, as we do on questions of constitutional amendments, as
we do on questions of impeachment, of constitutional issues.
If we are willing to take these steps, there should be a standard of
accountability and a lack of institutional bias that always favors the
bureaucrat. There should be a leveling of responsibility and a higher
standard to protect the taxpayer. That is the key, the measure that
will be offered by the gentleman from Texas on this floor in the days
ahead. It is an important first step.
Mr. Speaker, as I think about Americans who may be within the sound
of my voice electronically, who may be there pouring over that Form
1040, maybe succumbing to the EZ Form because the hour grows late or
the deadline of April 15, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that those
Americans would take time to write, call, and fax their Members of
Congress to let them know where they stand, to let them say to their
advocates on Capitol Hill, you should advocate the notion that we
should raise the standard and eliminate the institutional bias toward
more and more and more taxation and higher and higher spending.
Just one final amendment to the amendment offered, in a friendly
rhetorical fashion, to the gentleman from Texas. There is really a
better word to use for surplus. Really what we have right now that is
widely referred to as a surplus is, in fact, an overcharge of the
American people who are now taxed at the highest level in our history
parallel only by a period of grave crisis in World War II.
There is no excuse in a time of relative peace, to be assured there
are challenges that confront us internationally, and we must provide
for the common defense, and we are willing to take those steps to
rebuild and restore our national defense, but having said that, there
is no excuse for the American people to be taxed at the same level at
which they found themselves taxed in World War II.
So with this tremendous overcharge, after setting aside a massive
portion for what it was designated for to begin with, strengthening
Social Security, strengthening Medicare, we owe it to the people who
have placed their trust in us to give that overcharge back.
When one pays for something at a store, if one gives a greater amount
of money in that retail exchange, one expects a return, one expects
cash back. With this overcharge, we are saying it is time to give that
money back to the people to whom it belongs.
That is why I applaud the gentleman from Texas, and that is why I
hope Americans, Mr. Speaker, within the sound of my voice will call,
write, fax, e-mail, phone their Congressional Representatives and ask
them to support this tax limitation amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona, from
the 6th District. Tonight we have had my colleagues hear a wonderful
debate about the tax limitation amendment from the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hall), a Democrat from the 4th District of Texas, and the
gentleman from the 6th District of Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). They had the
opportunity to talk about, not only their districts, but their vision
of what America is all about, and it should be more difficult to raise
taxes.
We heard the story about the senior earnings limit, the earnings
limit put on seniors years ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer),
chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, this was the very first
bill that he presented upon being a Member of Congress 30 years ago.
After years of working on this effort, he finally succeeded in giving
the President of the United States, the House, and the Senate, the
other body, the opportunity to agree to this bill, what turned out to
be unanimous. What 5 years before was impossible, because the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Archer) sat in the chair as the majority party
representative to the Committee on Ways and Means, it got signed into
law.
The tax limitation amendment, H.J. Res. 94, will be debated on
Wednesday. I hope my colleagues will join us to support this.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. REYES (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
official business.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. McNulty) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Lipinski, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Underwood, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Jones of North
Carolina) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Mr. Ehlers, for 5 minutes, April 11.
Mr. Sweeney, for 5 minutes, April 12.
Mr. Knollenberg, for 5 minutes, April 12.
Mr. Norwood, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes, April 12.
Mr. Pease, for 5 minutes, April 11.
Mr. Metcalf, for 5 minutes, today, April 11, 12, and 13.
Mrs. Morella, for 5 minutes, April 11.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, for 5 minutes, April 11, 12, and 13.

____________________

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION REFERRED

A joint resolution of the Senate of the following title was taken
from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S.J. Res. 43. Joint resolution expressing the sense of
Congress that the President of the United States should
encourage free and fair elections and respect for democracy
in Peru; to the Committee on International Relations.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 25 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 9:30 a.m., for morning hour debates.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

7001. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--
National Poultry Improvement Plan and Auxiliary Provisions
[APHIS Docket No. 98-096-2] received February 22, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7002. A letter from the Associate Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Marketing Order
Regulating the Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far
West; Revision of the Salable Quantity and Allotment
Percentage for Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil for the 1999-
2000 Marketing Year [Docket No. FV00-985-3 IFR] received
February 22, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
7003. A letter from the Administrator, Risk Management
Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--General Administrative Regulations;
Reinsurance Agreement-Standards for Approval; Regulations for
the 1997 and Subsequent Reinsurance Years--received February
23, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
7004. A letter from the Associate Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Tomatoes Grown in Florida; Partial Exemption From
the Handling Regulation for Producer Field-Packed Tomatoes
[Docket No. FV98-966-2 FIR] received February 23, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7005. A letter from the Administrator, Risk Management
Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Common Crop Insurance Regulations;
Forage Production Crop Provisions; and Forage Seeding Crop
Provisions--received February 23, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7006. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule--Ports
Designated for Exportation of Horses; Dayton, OH [APHIS
Docket No. 99-102-1] received February 22, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7007. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Polyoxyethylated
Sorbitol Fatty Acid Esters; Tolerance Exemption [OPP-300971;
FRL-6490-8] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received February 24, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7008. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Ethoxylated
Propoxylated C12-C15 Alcohols; Tolerance Exemption [OPP-
300973; FRL-6491-3] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received February 24,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
7009. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Dimethyl Silicone
Polymer With Silica; Silane, Dichloromethyl-, Reaction
Product With Silica; Hexamethyldisilizane, Reaction Product
With Silica; Tolerance Exemptions [OPP-300972; FRL-6490-9]
(RIN: 2070-AB78) received February 24, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7010. A letter from the Under Secretary of the Navy,
Department of Defense, transmitting notification of the
Department's decision to study certain functions performed by
military and civilian personnel in the Department of the Navy
(DON) for possible performance by private contractors,
pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2461; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
7011. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Selected Acquisition Reports (SARS)
for the quarter ending December 31, 1999, pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 2432; to the Committee on Armed Services.
7012. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, transmitting the Agency's final rule--
Final Flood Elevation Determinations--received February 22,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
7013. A letter from the Director, Corporate Policy and
Research Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
transmitting the Corporation's final rule--Allocation of
Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for
Valuing Benefits--received February 22, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
7014. A letter from the General Counsel, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Safety Standard for Multi-Purpose Lighters--received February
22, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Commerce.
7015. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Department of
Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule--Criteria
and Procedures for DOE Contractor Employee Protection Program
(RIN: 1901-AA78) received February 22, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7016. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy
Management and Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--Indirect
Food Additives: Adhesives and Components of Coatings and
Paper and Paperboard Components [Docket No. 92F-0111]
received February 22, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7017. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--Indirect
Food Additives: Adhesives and Components of Coatings [Docket
No. 92F-0443] received February 15, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7018. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Drinking Water Tribal
Set-Aside Grants Guidance to Applicants-- received February
4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Commerce.
7019. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Technical Amendment to
the Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for
Certain States for Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of
Ozone [FRL-6542-9] (RIN: 2060-AH10) received February 24,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7020. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Missouri: Final
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program
Revision [FRL-6543-5] received February 24, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7021. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Louisiana: Final
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program
Revisions [FRL-6543-3] received February 24, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7022. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval of the Clean
Air Act, Section 112(l), Delegation of Authority to Three
Local Air Agencies in Washington; Amendment [FRL-6541-2]
received February 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7023. 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
(Killeen and Cedar Park, Texas) [MM Docket No. 98-176 RM-
9363] received February 15, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7024. 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
(Stanfield, Oregon) [MM Docket No. 99-44 RM-9469] received
February 15, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
7025. 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
(Silverton and Bayfield, Colorado) [MM Docket No. 99-76 RM-
9400] received February 15, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7026. 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
(Walton and Livingston Manor, New York) [MM Docket No. 99-10
RM-9435 RM-9688] received February 15, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7027. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USA, Director,
Defense Security Corporation, transmitting a report
containing an analysis and description of services performed
by full-time USG employees during Fiscal Year 1999, pursuant
to 22 U.S.C. 2765(a); to the Committee on International
Relations.
7028. 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:
Addition--received February 29, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
7029. 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 February 22, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
7030. A letter from the Director, Office of General Counsel
and Legal Policy, Office of Government Ethics, transmitting
the Office's final rule--Executive Agency Ethics Training
Programs Regulation Amendments (RIN: 3209-AA07) received
February 14, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
7031. A letter from the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Newcomb's
Snail From the Hawaiian Islands (RIN: 1018-AE27) received
January 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
7032. 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; Pacific Cod by Vessels Catching
Pacific Cod for Processing by the Offshore Component in the
Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.
991223348-9348-01; I.D. 020700A] received February 22, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
7033. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--IFR
Altitudes; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No. 29899; Amdt.
420] received February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7034. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29896; Amdt. No. 1969] received
February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7035. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29895; Amdt. No. 1968] received
February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7036. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29885; Amdt. No. 1967] received
February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7037. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29884; Amdt. No. 1966] received
February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7038. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29864; Amdt. No. 1965] received
February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7039. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29863; Amdt. No. 1964] received
February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7040. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29908; Amdt. No. 1972] received
February 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7041. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29906; Amdt. No. 1970] received
February 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7042. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney JT8D-200 Series
Turbofan Engines [Docket No. 99-NE-32-AD; Amendment 39-11465;
AD 99-26-06] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 11, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7043. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A310 and A300-600
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 96-NM-194-AD; Amendment 39-
11467; AD 99-26-08] received February 11, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7044. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B2 and B4 Series
Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-248-AD; Amendment 39-11475; AD
99-26-15] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 11, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7045. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Model A109A and A109A
II Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-64-AD; Amendment 39-11472;
AD 99-26-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 11, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7046. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Guidance for Project
Eligibility and Design Under the Region IX Tribal Border
Infrastructure Program--received February 4, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
7047. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Determination of Issue Price in the Case of Certain Debt
Instruments Issued for Property [Rev. Rul. 2000-9] received
February 14, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
7048. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration and Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
WTO and Multilateral Affairs, Department of Commerce,
transmitting the Subsidies Enforcement Annual Report to the
Congress; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
7049. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Weighted Average Interest Rate Update [Notice 20000-2]
received February 29, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
7050. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Special Rules Relating to Debt Instruments [Rev. Rul. 2000-
12] received February 29, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 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. COMBEST: Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 852. A bill to
require the Department of Agriculture to establish an
electronic filing and retrieval system to enable the public
to file all required paperwork electronically with the
Department and to have access to public information on farm
programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports,
and other similar information; with amendments (Rept. 106-
565). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. ARCHER. Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 4163. A bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for
increased fairness to taxpayers; with an amendment (Rept.
106-566). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. BLILEY: Committee on Commerce. H.R. 3439. A bill to
prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from
establishing rules authorizing the operation of new, low
power FM radio stations; with amendments (Rept. 106-567).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.

____________________

TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the following action was taken by the
Speaker:

The following action occurred on April 7, 2000

H.R. 1742. Referral to the Committee on Commerce extended
for a period ending not later than April 11, 2000.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. KUYKENDALL:
H.R. 4220. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
add certain firearms related crimes to the list of crimes
giving rise to a presumption of dangerousness for purposes of
hearings on the release of defendants before trial; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ANDREWS:
H.R. 4221. A bill to amend the Service Contract Act of 1965
to require entities that enter into certain services
contracts with the Federal Government or the District of
Columbia to offer the employees that carry out the services
before the award of a contract the right to continue
employment after the award of the contract; to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas:
H.R. 4222. A bill to provide for the establishment of a
task force within the Bureau of Justice Statistics to gather
information about, study, and report to the Congress
regarding, incidents of abandonment of infant children; to
the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. JEFFERSON:
H.R. 4223. A bill to reduce temporarily the duty on
Fipronil Technical; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PETRI:
H.R. 4224. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to reform the financing and conduct of campaigns
for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H.R. 4225. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS); to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. THUNE:
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; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. JACKSON of Illinois:
H.J. Res. 95. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relative to taxing the
people of the United States progressively; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. JACKSON of Illinois:
H.J. Res. 96. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of
citizens of the United States to health care of equal high
quality; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. JACKSON of Illinois:
H.J. Res. 97. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of
all citizens of the United States to an education of equal
high quality; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. TERRY:
H. Res. 467. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that the tax and user fee increases
proposed by the Clinton/Gore administration in their fiscal
year 2001 budget should be adopted; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 274: Mr. Bereuter and Ms. Sanchez.
H.R. 357: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 516: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 518: Mr. Rohrabacher.
H.R. 632: Mr. Oxley.
H.R. 664: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 809: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 860: Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 920: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 960: Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Bonior, Ms. McKinney, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 1071: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1115: Mrs. Fowler and Mr. Costello.
H.R. 1168: Mr. Kingston and Mr. McIntosh.
H.R. 1228: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr.
Ehrlich, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Engel, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1285: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1304: Mr. Boswell.
H.R. 1310: Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, and Mr.
Rush.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Latham, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Terry,
Mr. Green of Wisconsin, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Udall of New
Mexico, Mr. Sessions, Mr. McIntosh, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson
of Texas, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Gilman, and Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 1398: Mr. Hostettler.
H.R. 1413: Mr. Edwards.
H.R. 1495: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 1515: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Weygand, and Mr.
Doyle.
H.R. 1560: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1645: Mr. Bentsen.
H.R. 1806: Ms. Rivers.
H.R. 1885: Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Doggett, and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 1899: Mr. Reynolds.
H.R. 1912: Ms. Carson and Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 1926: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 2002: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 2175: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 2321: Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 2485: Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 2498: Mr. McKeon and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 2543: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 2596: Mr. Dreier, Mr. Cannon, Mr. DeLay, Mrs. Fowler,
and Mr. Sweeney.
H.R. 2640: Mr. Oxley.
H.R. 2641: Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 2722: Ms. Carson.
H.R. 2736: Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin,
Mr. Bonior, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Turner, Ms.
Lofgren, and Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 2790: Mr. Horn and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 2842: Mr. Frost.
H.R. 2883: Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 2892: Ms. Pryce of Ohio.
H.R. 2909: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 2955: Mrs. Clayton.
H.R. 2973: Mr. Portman.
H.R. 3113: Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 3125: Mr. Duncan, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Petersen of
Minnesota, Mr. Traficant, and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 3192: Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr. Greenwood, Ms.
Carson, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Porter.
H.R. 3293: Ms. McCarthy of Missouri, Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Hyde, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Armey, Mr. Minge, Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Collins, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Berry.
H.R. 3301: Mr. Rahall, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Horn, and Mr.
Filner.
H.R. 3319: Mr. Dicks and Mr. Berry.
H.R. 3439: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 3466: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 3485: Mr. Horn.
H.R. 3573: Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Everett, Mrs. Maloney of New
York, and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 3575: Mr. Fletcher.
H.R. 3580: Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Kucinich,
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Meeks of
New York, Mr. Goodling, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Turner, Mr.
Skelton, Mr. Cook, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Gilchrest,
Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 3600: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 3609: Mr. Paul.
H.R. 3634: Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Hoyer.
H.R. 3698: Mr. Cook, Ms. Berkley, Ms. Lee, Mrs. Kelly, Mr.
Hayes, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Combest, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, and Mr.
Pastor.
H.R. 3766: Mr. Gilman, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Weygand, Mrs.
Napolitano, Mr. Luther, Mr. Jefferson, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii,
Mrs. Christensen, and Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 3825: Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Boucher, and Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 3861: Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Lowey, Ms.
Pelosi, Ms. Lee, and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 3915: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mr. Buyer.
H.R. 3916: Mr. Baker, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 3981: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 3983: Mr. Boehner and Mr. Greenwood.
H.R. 4022: Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Hostettler.
H.R. 4033: Mr. Rush, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs.
Jones of Ohio, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Wamp, and Mr. Kind.
H.R. 4036: Mr. Jackson of Illinois and Mr. Evans.
H.R. 4040: Mr. Petri and Mr. Weldon of Florida.
H.R. 4051: Mr. Skeen, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Terry, Mr. English, and Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 4053: Mr. Leach.
H.R. 4059: Mr. Barr of Georgia.
H.R. 4064: Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Cook, Mr.
Leach, Mr. Smith of Michigan, and Mrs. Emerson.
H.R. 4069: Mr. Foley, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 4071: Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Gilman, and Mr.
English.
H.R. 4074: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 4091: Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Sanders, and Mrs. Meek of Florida.
H.R. 4118: Mr. Armey.
H.R. 4149: Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr.
Salmon, and Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 4152: Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 4163: Mr. Tanner, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Terry,
and Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 4199: Mr. Reynolds.
H.R. 4207: Mrs. Bono, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, and Mr. Markey.
H.R. 4218: Mr. Herger and Mr. Dooley of California.
H.J. Res. 77: Mr. Ney.
H. Con. Res. 108: Mr. Bachus.
H. Con. Res. 228: Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr. Rohrabacher, and
Mr. Baca.
H. Con. Res. 262: Mr. Hefley, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr.
Bliley, and Ms. Pelosi.
H. Con. Res. 282: Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Cox, Mr.
Shows, Ms. Danner, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Aderholt,
Mr. Armey, Mr. Baker, Mr. Berry, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bliley, Mr.
Burr of North Carolina, Mr. Camp, Mr. Chabot, Mrs. Chenoweth-
Hage, Mr. Clement, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Dickey,
Mr. English, Mr. Everett, Mr. Goode, Mr. Goss, Mr. Hayworth,
Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Houghton, Mr. Hunter,
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kasich, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Largent, Mr. Latham,
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs. Mink of
Hawaii, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr.
Norwood, Mr. Olver, Mr. Oxley, Mr. Peterson of Pennvylvania,
Mr. Pickering, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Portman, Mr. Roemer, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Shadegg,
Mr. Shaw, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Sisisky, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Stupak,
Mr. Stump, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Toomey,
Mr. Walsh, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Weygand, Mr.
Whitfield, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Chambliss, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Gibbons, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Sweeney, Mrs. Biggert, and Mrs.
Roukema.
H. Con. Res. 295: Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Davis of Virginia, and
Ms. Sanchez.
H. Res. 442: Mr. Stupak.

[[Page 5115]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

April 10, 2000

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

DON'T USE SHORTAGE TO PROMOTE ANWR, COAST DEVELOPMENT

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the recent rise in
energy prices should serve as a wake-up call for the Republican
leadership in Congress. From legislative obstruction that prevents
improved auto fuel efficiency to gutting the budgets for energy
conservation and efficiency programs, the Republicans in Congress have
set the American people up to be exploited by OPEC.
Now, as the predicted crisis hits, the Republicans offer solutions
that are as bankrupt and empty as their legislative record over the
past five years:
Republicans vote for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
oil and gas development.
The Republican Whip declares that ``the cleanest thing you could do
is to drill [for oil] off the coast of California and Florida,''
repealing the moratoria on offshore oil drilling.
Republicans want to repeal the gas taxes that are paying for urgently
needed transportation improvements throughout America.
These are the same leaders who have repeatedly advocated the
abolition of the Department of Energy and promoted the export to Asia
of domestic oil from Alaska, all the while slashing programs designed
to make America less dependent on foreign fuels.
As the Nation prepares for the celebration of Earth Day, these
vigorously anti-environmental initiatives by the Republican leadership
are extraordinarily ill-timed. But that should not come as a great
surprise from a party whose third-ranking leader in the House of
Representatives has been quoted as likening the Environmental
Protection Agency to the Gestapo.
There is no easy or instant solution to make us more energy
independent. Thanks to the budget cuts embraced by the Republican
leadership, we have lost years of critical research and development in
energy conservation and efficiency programs that were requested by the
Clinton administration.
Instead of anti-environmental Republican policies, we should be
working together to make the daily activities of Americans more energy-
friendly. Who wouldn't want to drive a more fuel efficient car, live in
a home that is better insulated, or have utilities which use less water
and electricity? These kinds of measures can save much more oil than
would ever be produced from the Arctic Refuge and without environmental
destruction.
The Republican strategy is to trade energy efficiency for
environmental catastrophe. That is not a sane national energy policy.
That is a choice the American people should not have to make, and it is
a choice they rightly reject.

____________________

HONORING MATTHEW NEMERSON FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY

______

HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the many that have
gathered to pay tribute to one of our community's leading advocates,
Matthew Nemerson. A dear friend and colleague, Matthew has had a
tremendous impact on the city of New Haven.
As president of the Greater New Haven Chamber of Commerce, Matthew
has taken the lead in the revitalization efforts for the city of New
Haven. Representing New Haven and 14 surrounding municipalities, the
chamber is the primary voice for businesses throughout the region. With
an unequaled understanding of the needs of business leaders, Matthew
has led the effort to include the concerns of local businesses in city
revitalization efforts--actively ensuring the creation of a strong and
viable economic climate for the region. It has been an honor and
privilege to work with Matthew on the many issues facing our region.
His profound dedication to the advancement of southern Connecticut has
been an inspiration.
Matthew's commitment to Greater New Haven extends beyond the chamber.
His participation in numerous organizations throughout the region
serves as an example to us all. His efforts on behalf of the Greater
New Haven Urban League, the Greater New Haven United Way, the Greater
New Haven Preservation Trust, the Greater New Haven Arts Council, the
New Haven Scholarship Fund, and the Connecticut Anti-Defamation League
have benefitted countless families across the State of Connecticut.
Matthew also serves as a gubernatorial appointee to the Connecticut
Port Authority and the Connecticut Employment and Training Commission
and a mayoral appointee to the New Haven Coliseum Authority New Haven
Development Corporation. Through his outstanding record of service, he
has demonstrated a unique commitment to addressing the myriad of issues
that face some of our most vulnerable citizens. All of us in the New
Haven area have benefited from his work.
For nearly 13 years, Matthew has led the Chamber of Commerce and the
Greater New Haven community with an unparalleled spirit that has truly
enriched the lives of many. I am proud to join with his wife, Marian,
his two children, Elana and Joy, family, friends and colleagues to
extend my best wishes as Matthew begins a new chapter in his career.
Mere words cannot express our gratitude for all that he has achieved on
behalf of our community--we will certainly miss him.

____________________

A TRIBUTE IN HONOR OF BARBARA HOWELL, BREAD FOR THE WORLD'S DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

______

HON. TONY P. HALL

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Barbara Howell, on the
occasion of the 25th anniversary of her service to Bread for the World,
a nonpartisan Christian citizens' movement against hunger. Barbara
Howell has dedicated her career to fighting for the needs of hungry and
low-income people.
In April 1975, Barbara opened Bread for the World's first Washington,
DC office--just across the street, on the fifth floor of the Methodist
Building on Maryland Avenue. Since then, she has been instrumental in
guiding Bread for the World's efforts to develop and support public
policies to benefit low-income and hungry people in the United States
and overseas. Barbara has provided expert testimony to Congress
numerous times and has met with U.S. Presidents from President Carter
to President Clinton. Due in large part to her leadership and advocacy,
in 1995, the U.S. government implemented a ground-breaking measure to
collect and report data on hunger and food insecurity in the United
States annually.
Perhaps because of the deep love Barbara holds for her own daughters,
Leah and Marya, Barbara has been a tireless advocate for the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
Barbara's work in support of the WIC program has helped ensure its
steady availability to more and more low-income women and their
children--even during periods of time when a number of programs
assisting low-income people were under attack. In 1999, the National
Association of WIC Directors honored Barbara for her longstanding
leadership by giving her their WIC Advocacy Award.
Barbara is a woman of deep faith in God. She holds a master's degree
in religious education from Union Theological Seminary. She has served
her church as an elder and has chaired its missions council. Earlier in
her career Barbara worked as a Methodist chaplain, serving three
universities over a seven year period.
Barbara Howell has devoted her life to bringing justice to the most
vulnerable people in our world. Barbara and her husband Leon spent four
years as free-lance journalists in southeast Asia, writing about
economic, development assistance, and church-related issues. For the
past 25 years, she has been a determined leader on behalf of effective
federal policy for low-income people in the United States and overseas.
She has attended three United

[[Page 5116]]

Nations Women's Conferences--in Copenhagen in 1980, Nairobi in 1985,
and Beijing in 1995.
Barbara is a rare individual, and deserves our heart-felt thanks for
dedicating her life to serving others. I invite you and our colleagues
to join me in thanking Barbara Howell for her distinguished commitment
to making our nation's public policy more just for all people.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DOLORES HUERTA

______

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay a heartfelt tribute to Dolores
Huerta, pre-eminent American labor leader and social activist, on the
occasion of her 70th birthday, which we celebrate today.
Dolores Fernandez Huerta was born April 10, 1930, in Dawson, New
Mexico. The mother of 11 children, the grandmother of 14, and the
great-grandmother of four, she is a hero to farmworkers, to the Latino
community, to women, to the labor movement and to me.
I have known and worked with Dolores for many years, and I can say
that this is a person whose brilliance, incomparable leadership ability
and sheer energy would have propelled her to prominence no matter what
field she might have chosen for her life's work. How very fortunate for
the farmworkers of this nation--and for all of us--that she chose La
Causa, the cause of justice for farmworkers.
I say all of us because our nation is diminished when some among us,
those who do the hard work of harvesting the food we eat, are deprived
of decent wages and working conditions. She organized and co-founded
the United Farm Workers of America with Cesar Chavez in 1965 in the
belief that in the union there is the strength to achieve economic and
civil rights for farmworkers.
In the 35 years since then, she has fired the souls and minds of poor
farmworkers who, thanks to her, can imagine and achieve better lives
for themselves and their children. She is a wellspring of ideas and a
brilliant strategist--I can personally attest to that--but she has also
physically put herself on the line for her fellow workers and has been
subjected to life-threatening injury for it.
It has been my great personal fortune to be able to count Dolores
Huerta as a colleague and a friend. Dolores, for the inspiration that
you provide by your selfless devotion to improving the lives of
farmworkers, for the breakthroughs you have achieved and the goals you
continue to set for all of us, and for your example of a life spent in
service to others, we thank you and wish you a joyous birthday and many
happy returns.

____________________

AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000

______

speech of

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 6, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1776) to
expand homeownership in the United States:

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, a livable community is one where our
families are safe, healthy, and economically secure. A community
without housing options to meet the needs of its residents is not
livable. Clearly, action is needed since many throughout our country
cannot afford to live in the places in which they work. I am pleased to
rise in support of the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity
Act because it creates more housing options and will make our
communities better places to live.
This bill contains several employer-assisted housing opportunities.
These are important tools for bringing the benefits of homeownership to
the citizens who serve us every day. I want to highlight a couple of
outstanding programs in my city of Portland, efforts that H.R. 1776
reinforces.
Police At Home is a mortgage loan incentive program to help police
officers purchase and live in homes in neighborhoods with higher crime
rates. This program gives police officers a personal stake in their
communities. It was created in 1995 through a partnership with our
Mayor's Office, the Portland Police Bureau, the Rotary Club of Albina,
and five lending institutions. Many of the neighborhoods that have
attracted officers under this program have seen a decrease in crime.
This is an excellent example of the kind of partnerships that are a
cornerstone of community policing.
The City of Portland's Hometown Home Loan program offers an array of
benefits to city employees who are purchasing or refinancing a house
within the city limits. A joint program of the City, Fannie Mae, and
Continental Savings Bank, it is open to all benefits-eligible employees
of the City of Portland. It was developed to help City employees become
homeowners, as well as to encourage employees to live in the city where
they work.
Another important item contained in this bill is $275 million for the
Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program. Portland's
effective use of HOPWA dollars is a national model. It offers diverse
housing stock including transitional housing for people who are
homeless and living with AIDS. It also provides permanent housing for
people living with HIV/AIDS at sites such as the Rose Wood Apartments
that includes 36 units of rehabilitated affordable rental housing and
has received HUD's Blue Ribbon Award for Best practice. Nathaniel's Way
is providing housing for HOPWA-eligible families with children.
Supported residential care is provided at such places as Swan House and
Care House. People served by HOPWA funds receive not only housing but
also a variety of social services: legal assistance, health services,
mental health counseling and drug and alcohol intervention.
But the need is greater than ever before. Death rates are declining
and so more and more people are living with the epidemic. In the
Portland region, the unmet need is at least 1000 units of permanent
housing. The funding in this bill will help to address that need.
This legislation represents efforts by the housing industry and the
government to promote best practices and assure money is targeted to
providing more housing. I'm pleased to vote yes.

____________________

AMERICAN HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 2000

______

speech of

HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Thursday, April 6, 2000

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1776) to
expand homeownership in the United States:

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR 1776 however, I
speak to you today to encourage deliberate caution with concern to FHA
and HUD legislation.
Homeownership is a critical building block of strong families and
healthy communities. It has helped many households accumulate wealth,
and a home owned free of mortgage debt is considered an important part
of retirement security.
While the current homeownership rate is at a record high of 66.8%,
the purchase of a first home remains difficult or out of reach for many
young people and low to moderate income families, particularly single-
parent households and minorities.
As the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development said on March 30th:
``The economic boom which has produced the highest homeownership rate
in history has a downside and that is predatory lending.''
Unfortunately, we are now just learning the full meaning of that
statement.
FHA has in some areas, inadvertently fueled a downward spiral created
by purchasing homes, selling to buyers with limited resources or
readiness for ownership, allowing foreclosure and leaving boarded up
houses sitting and pulling a community even further into despair. While
HUD has made a credible start, there is much more that this Congress
must do to ensure that these issues are addressed.

We must repair FHA/HUD lending programs

Baltimore has the highest number of FHA foreclosures per capita in
the nation. Baltimore has become one of the worst manifestations in the
country of predatory lending.
HUD, responding to complaints that federal housing policies have
resulted in tremendous damage to Baltimore neighborhoods, told city
nonprofit agencies last week that it would be willing to halt Federal
Housing Administrations (FHA) foreclosures in some of Baltimore's
hardest hit neighborhoods for eight weeks to have a task force study
what is happening.
I agree that we must find out what is happening and I propose that
there must be the

[[Page 5117]]

formation of a federally led task force that would find a solution to
flipping, predatory lending and FHA disposal of houses the agency
acquires through foreclosures.

We Must Deal with Predatory Lending Practices and Institutions

Just five years ago there were 1,900 loans that went into foreclosure
for the entire year of 1995. In the first 3 months of this year 1,700
loans in Baltimore City have gone into foreclosure.
Some say that HUD has fueled these problems. The agency has relaxed
its control over the issuance of mortgages insured by one of its
agencies, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) allowing lenders to
make questionable loans that often end up in foreclosure.
HUD must have better oversight to make sure that the would-be home
buyer is ready as well as the appraisal process needs to be closely
monitored. HUD contracts out for the appraisal process which has led to
unrealistically high appraisals, which then creates bad loans given by
these ``lenders of last resort.'' As you can see this process continues
on a vicious downward spiral.
The buyers of these home loans often are single mothers with low-wage
jobs who end up defaulting on the mortgages. In cases where FHA insures
the loans, the agency pays off the lender and takes title to the house.
Once HUD pays off the lender and acquires title to a property after
foreclosure, the house often sits vacant for months--depreciating the
value not just of that property but of the neighborhood. HUD then sells
the house on an ``as-is'' basis. Often they are in poor shape and
unattractive to potential homeowners. Which, as a result leads to yet
another phenomenon--they frequently are sold to unscrupulous
speculators who quickly ``flip'' them for a huge markup--sometimes
marking the homes up to 100% of what they were originally purchased
for.

We Must Repair the Damage To These Neighborhoods

I hope that a HUD Task Force on Predatory Lending will find solutions
to this problem.
However, we now must also identify, fund and implement programs to
repair the damage done to these communities and hold the speculators
accountable for their illegal actions. HUD, local governments, and non
profit housing organizations must begin working together now!

____________________

HONORING DR. GERALD AND MARILYN FISHBONE FOR OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY
SERVICE

______

HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, each year the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation
International of Greater New Haven Chapter presents an individual or
individuals with the ``Living and Giving Award,'' recognizing
outstanding contributions to diabetes research and education. It gives
me great pleasure to rise today to honor two of New Haven's outstanding
citizens, my good friends Gerald and Marilyn Fishbone, this year's
recipients of this prestigious award. The Fishbones have been leading
advocates in the fight against diabetes for twenty-five years and I
cannot think of a more appropriate way for the people of New Haven to
express our thanks and appreciation.
Diabetes is the leading cause of new adult blindness, kidney failure,
and premature death. The volunteer efforts of the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation to fund research is an essential part of our national effort
to find a cure. It is the dedication and commitment of people like
Gerry and Marilyn that has fueled the national movement to eliminate
this devastating disease. With unparalleled motivation and spirit, they
have built an impressive record of service to this organization. They
are truly an inspiration to us all.
They are both founding members of the Greater New Haven Chapter of
the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and have both devoted extraordinary
time and energy to this critical endeavor. Gerry is past chairman of
the JDF International Board of Directors and continues to serve on the
board of chancellors. As the chair of the editorial committee, he
oversees the publication of the organization's magazine, COUNTDOWN,
which carries the latest news of research and progress across the
country.
Marilyn was president of the Greater New Haven Chapter of JDF for 7
years and has been a board member since the organization's inception 25
years ago. Testifying before the State Senate, she helped to establish
two Centers for Children with Diabetes--bringing statewide awareness of
the need for continued funding for research and education. Marilyn is
the former director of fundraising for the Greater New Haven Chapter of
JDF. Under her direction the chapter raised more dollars per capita
than any other chapter across the nation--truly one of her greatest
achievements. Drawing on her own personal experiences with the disease,
Marilyn counsels patients and their families, extending a comforting
hand as they face the challenges of the disease. Through their work,
Gerry and Marilyn have been instrumental in the development and success
of the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation.
It is rare to find individuals with the same spirit of giving as we
have found in Gerry and Marilyn. Their hard work has enriched the
organization--making a real difference in the lives of countless
children and families. I am proud to join their children, Scott and
Lisa, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation of Greater New Haven, friends
and supporters, as Gerry and Marilyn are presented with the ``Living
and Giving Award.'' Words cannot express our gratitude for their many
contributions.

____________________

RELEASING FOUR KURDISH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

______

HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting a resolution introduced
today calling for the immediate release from prison of four Kurdish
members of the Parliament of the Republic of Turkey. I want to thank
the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for sponsoring this
resolution of which I am a proud co-sponsor.
Currently, four Turkish parliamentarians of the now banned Kurdish
based Democracy Party [DEP], Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan, and
Selim Sadak, are serving prison sentences simply because they are
Kurds. Leyla Zana, the first Kurdish woman ever elected to the Turkish
Parliament, was chosen to represent the city of Diyarbakir by an
overwhelming majority in October 1991. In 1993, she traveled to the
United States to speak to officials about human rights abuses against
the Kurdish minority in Turkey and to testify before the Congressional
Human Rights Caucus. She was arrested on March 2, 1994 in the
Parliament building and subsequently prosecuted for a so-called
``separatist speech.'' Ever since then Ms. Zana, along with Hatip
Dicle, Orhan Dogan, and Selim Sadak have been jailed for the simple act
of speaking out for their people--the Kurds--the very people by whom
they were elected.
Turkey is a country which claims to be a democracy and is
continuously taking steps to be accepted as a western partner, as seen
with its current European Union candidacy. However, its recent actions
do not show any concrete effort to abide by international human rights
standards. In the last week, it has been reported that the Turkish
military has been massing troops and tanks along the Iraqi border in an
apparent pending offense against the Kurds. Equally as disturbing is
the re-arrest of Turkey's most prominent human rights figure, Akin
Birdal, for a speech he made in 1996 calling for a peaceful resolution
to the conflict between the Turkish state and the Kurdish Workers'
Party [PKK].
If Turkey wants to be treated as an equal partner with the west, it
is time for it to treat all of its citizens with equal rights and a
general respect for human rights. The time has come for Turkey to allow
the Kurdish people the right to speak their language and practice their
culture. Releasing these parliamentarians would show Turkey and the
world that Turkey is ready to respect the human rights of all its
citizens and that it is on the right path to be accepted by the
international community.
We must not continue to ignore or apologize for Turkey's outrageous
behavior. Six years is far too long for these parliamentarians to be in
jail, for speaking out for rights which are guaranteed under the United
Nations Declaration of Human Rights. We must speak out strongly against
these attacks and unfair acts and demand that Turkey end this lawless
assault.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. BOB CLEMENT

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 105, I was unavoidably
detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

____________________

[[Page 5118]]

RECOGNIZING THE STATE CHAMPION MINNECHAUG REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS'
BASKETBALL TEAM

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize and
congratulate the 1999-2000 Minnechaug Regional High School girls'
basketball team. On March 18, 2000, the Falcons captured their third
Massachusetts Division I state championship in the past four years at
the Worcester Centrum, defeating Brockton High School by a score of 68-
61 in a memorable final contest.
The final contest was not an easy one for the Falcons. Minnechaug
trailed by as many as 14 points in the first half, and took its first
lead in the contest with only 1:32 remaining. The comeback was led by
senior Melissa Kowalski, who scored 22 of her 28 points during the
final 10 minutes of the game. Kowalski's efforts, along with the play
of seniors Maureen Leahy and Christal Murphy accounted for all of
Minnechaug's 42 second half points.
A final win in the state championship, as if not impressive enough,
capped off a perfect season of 25 wins and no losses for the Falcons.
The final game was a battle of the undefeated as Brockton also headed
into the final contest with a record of 24 wins and no losses.
Minnechaug arrived at the final games as the Western Massachusetts
champions for the fourth straight year.
Under the leadership and direction of Coach Dave Yelle, Minnechaug
has dominated their competition from around the state. Over the past
four seasons, the Falcons have compiled an outstanding total of 91
wins, including 18 wins in the postseason. Defense had been their
greatest strength, holding opponents to an average of 32 points for the
two playoff contests before the final.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to recognize the Minnechaug Regional High
School girls' basketball team. The seniors are Melissa Kowalski,
Christal Murphy, Abigail Lipinski and Maureen Leahy. Underclasswomen
include Christina Conway, Cheri Murphy, Laura Mulcahy, Erica Bacon,
Katie Clark, Sara McCarthy, Marybeth Maziarz and Julie Sullivan. The
team is coached by Dave Yelle, and he is assisted by Pete Kowalski,
Jason Fenlason and Elizabeth Ouellette. The Falcons are managed by Amy
Gregorius, Tom Loper and Meghan Mitchell and the team trainer is Jason
Patterson.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honored to extend my congratulations to
the 1999-2000 Minnechaug Regional High School girls' basketball team.
Their consistent record of dominance and excellence is certainly worthy
of the attention of this Chamber. I wish Coach Yelle and the state
champion Falcons the best of luck in defending their title next season.

____________________

IN SUPPORT OF H. CON. RES. 282 AND H. CON. RES. 228

______

HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today I am supporting H. Con.
Res. 282, The GI As Person of the Century Act, and H. Con. Res. 228,
Honor Vietnam-era Armed Forces Act. These important bills recognize the
sacrifices endured by our men and women who fought to protect the
freedom we cherish.
Throughout our distinguished history, we have been blessed with the
courage and determination of brave Americans who were willing to
preserve democratic beliefs with their lives. From the gas-filled
trenches of World War I to the flaming deserts of the Gulf War, our
veterans wrote much of the history that transformed the United States
from a young and naive country into a world leader and global
superpower. It's a history lesson that makes you proud to be an
American and respect those who fought for the freedoms we cherish.
Each regional conflict the United States entered there was always one
consistent factors--a brave American in the trenches fighting to stop
aggression. These brave men and women defended the most basic of the
beliefs on which our Nation was created--that freedom is worth putting
our lives in harms way to preserve. We owe them a great deal of
gratitude and respect.
That is why I support legislation that designated the ``American GI''
as the ``Person of the Century''. We honor them because it was their
blood, their resolution, and their love of country that became
infectious and spread from one generation to another.
Lastly, we should never forget those brave men and women who never
returned home from fighting to protect what our flag symbolizes. Many
were either captured or killed. In Vietnam there are still over 2,000
soldiers classified either Prisoners of War or Missing in Action. The
anguish they suffer, as well as their families, is indescribable.
The Honor Vietnam-era Armed Forces Act recognizes the service and
sacrifices by members of the Armed Forces and federal civilian
employees who, during the Vietnam era, served proudly to protect those
in need. This measure also honors the sacrifices and hardships endured
by the families of individuals who lost their lives or remain
unaccounted during this tumultuous era.
Vietnam veterans, like their fallen brethren before them, exemplify a
spirit of nationality and patriotism that continues to thrive today.
Veterans are the unsung heros who define our American heritage. They
are ordinary citizens who answered their call to duty and fought for
something they believed in. They remember the places they were
stationed, their training, and they certainly remember their days in
combat. It is an experience the rest of us can only read about and
marvel at. Although we can never adequately express our thanks to those
who could not return to us, we remember them by supporting the
legislation before us today.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES

______

HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to recognize the Simon
Wiesenthal Center--Museum of Tolerance Library and Archives, an
extraordinary institution in the 29th District of California, which I
represent, that is dedicated to teaching the importance of Holocaust
remembrance and the defense of human rights. The Library and Archives
is being honored this week in conjunction with National Library Week;
chosen by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) as one of
four libraries, nationwide, to receive the first annual National Award
for Library Services.
The Simon Wiesenthal Center Library and Archives' broad collections
document the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and the many other tragic
genocides of the 20th century. The library holdings of over 30,000
books and periodicals document antisemitism, racism, and related
issues, and are available to researchers, media, students and the
public. The archives, containing an extensive array of original
documents, manuscripts, personal narratives, diaries, artifacts,
photographs, magazines, newspaper, maps, and original artwork, have
evolved into a primary research depository for materials dealing with
the Holocaust and the pre-World War II Jewish experience.
In partnership with the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance,
the Library and Archives maintains a number of excellent education
programs to fulfill its mission of teaching the dangers of bigotry and
the importance of tolerance. In addition to answering over 500
inquiries a week, hosts numerous visiting authors, scholars and civic
leaders to bring its message to the community. The Library and Archives
also sponsors a dynamic ''Contact a Survivor'' program of direct,
electronic, eye-witness discussions between Holocaust survivors and
students.
The IMLS award is a tribute to the power of libraries to reach
families and communities across America and around the world, and the
Simon Wiesenthal Center Library and Archives is a deserving recipient.
Under the leadership of Adaire Klein, it continues to make a tremendous
contribution to preserving the lessons of the Holocaust and the legacy
of its victims for future generations. We owe the Simon Wiesenthal
Center, Ms. Klein and her staff a debt of gratitude for this
distinguished record of accomplishment. I thank them for the devoted
service and extend my best wishes for the future.

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS AND GOOD LUCK TO SHEREKA WRIGHT

______

HON. CHET EDWARDS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate a great high school student
and basketball

[[Page 5119]]

player from my Texas congressional district--Shereka Wright--on her
selection as the 1999-2000 Gatorade National High School Girls
Basketball Champion. Shereka was chosen for this honor out of the
454,000 high school girls basketball players across the country. Past
winners of this award include Emmitt Smith, Lisa Leslie, Chris Webber,
Peyton Manning, Tim Couch, Kobe Bryant, and Alex Rodriguez.
Shereka Wright will graduate from Copperas Cove High School in
Copperas Cove, Texas, next month after four tremendous years as a
basketball player. Her long list of achievements already rivals many
professional basketball players.
Just this season, Shereka has averaged 25 points, 10 rebounds, four
assists, three steals, and two blocks per game. Over the course of her
career, she has scored over 3,000 points. That feat places her in the
top-25 scorers of all-time. She has been selected as the Most Valuable
Player of the Nike Tournament of Champions in California twice. She has
also been named to the Conference AAAAA 1st Team All-State in Texas for
four consecutive years.
Shereka's commitment to success off the court is equally impressive.
she truly is a student athlete and has maintained a 3.6 grade point
average. She has also volunteered her time working with the Youth Teen
Summit and summer youth basketball camps.
Shereka will attend Purdue University in the fall. I feel certain she
will continue to be an outstanding player, student, and leader for many
years to come.
I ask Members to join me and offer our heartfelt congratulations on a
job well done and best wishes for continued success, to a student and
athlete--Shereka Wright.

____________________

COMMENDING CHASITY SNYDER

______

HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I commend the courageous acts of
Chasity Snyder, a heroine from Lima, OH. Her extraordinary act of
bravery can serve as an inspiration to us all.

[From People Magazine, March 27, 2000]

Small Marvel

Afloat on her Yellow Jacket, Chas Snyder, 11, saves a pair
of canoeists in peril.
It was one of those delightfully warm days that can fool
the winter-weary into thinking the worst is over. So in Lima,
Ohio, homemaker Cherie Snyder took her daughter Chasity, 11,
down to the reservoir on March 6 to see if they could hook a
few fish. Meanwhile, James H. Moore Sr., 36, a delivery
driver, and Aaron Schafer, 22, a roofer, had already launched
Moore's newly patched canoe on a test run. But the two men
were about 25 yards from shore when the canoe started to
roll. They jumped--without life jackets--into water so frigid
that swimming was nearly impossible. Spotting the men
struggling, Snyder, 30, waded in to try to save them, but
quickly retreated because of the cold.
That's when Chas sprang into action. ``I said, `Chas, no!'
'' recalls her mother. But Chas shouted, ``Mom, I have to!
I've got to do something!'' and then shed her yellow winter
jacket and leaped in. Using the jacket as a flotation device
she paddled out to Moore, who had slipped below the surface,
and dragged him to where he could touch bottom. ``I had
floaties when I was little,'' says Chas, and explains that
the jacket looked similar. Chas then helped Lynn Wallace, 41,
who was on an afternoon walk, rescue Schafer. ``If that
little girl hadn't been there,'' Moore says of Chas, ``I
would be in the funeral home.''
Back home after the rescue, Chas, who lives with Cherie and
her four siblings, says she never doubted she could help the
men: ``My guardian angel and God gave me courage and told me
I could do it and nothing would happen to me.''

____________________

HONORING THE HAMMOND CARPENTER'S UNION LOCAL 599

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to congratulate
some of the most dedicated and skilled workers in Northwest Indiana. On
April 8, 2000, in a salute to their workers' durability and longevity,
the Hammond Carpenter's Union Local 599 recognized their members for 25
years or more of dedicated service. They were recognized during a pin
ceremony banquet to be held on Saturday at the Carpenter's Union Hall
in Hammond, Indiana. These individuals, in addition to the other Local
599 members who have served Northwest Indiana so diligently for such a
long period of time, are a testament to the prototypical American
worker: loyal, dedicated, and hardworking.
The Carpenter's Local 599, which received its charter in 1899,
honored members for their years of devoted service. The members honored
for 55 years of service include: John Giba, Sylvester Reising and
Tensey Roberts. The members honored for 50 years of service include:
Robert J. Busch, Robert Herhold, Earnest Latta, Kenneth Ogden and
Oliver J. Vogeler. The members honored for 45 years of service include:
Louis B. Biedron, Lafayette M. Bundren, William J. Burgess, Guy Casey,
William C. Dowdy, Elmer F. Lucas, Raymond Lukowski and John Sills. The
members honored for 40 years of service include: John M. Davich, Robert
Dimichelle, C. J. Krupinski, Ethard McIlroy, Richard Meyers, John E.
Shoup, William Simmons, Joseph M. Staes and Robert Washington. The
members honored for 35 years of service include: John R. Billings,
Kenneth E. Clayton, James McCready, Harold Neil, Elmer C. Phelps, Jr.,
Paul V. Reppa, Dale R. Robert, Harold Sills and Richard C. Thiel. The
members honored for 30 years of service include: Robert E. Chorba, Glen
E. Flaherty, Jr., Uwe H. Grantz, James Liming, Sr. and Paul W.
Steinhauer. The members honored for 25 years of service include: Denny
L. Crouse, Thomas A. Dorsey, John P. Hindahl, Donald King, Joseph
Lippie and Richard A. Polus.
As Orville Dewey said, ``Labor is man's greatest function. He is
nothing, he can be nothing, he can achieve nothing, he can fulfill
nothing, without working.'' The men and women of Local 599, in addition
to all of the local unions in Northwest Indiana, form the backbone of
our economy and community. Without their blood, sweat, and tears,
Indiana's First Congressional District would not be a place of which to
be proud, it would not be the place I love, nor would it be my home.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my distinguished colleagues join me
in congratulating these dedicated, honorable, and outstanding members
of the Hammond Carpenter's Union Local 599, in addition to all the
hardworking union men and women in America. The men and women of Local
599 are a fine representation of America's union men and women; I am
proud to represent such dedicated men and women in Congress. Their hard
labor and dauntless courage are the achievement and fulfillment of the
American dream.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO REDUCE TEMPORARILY THE DUTY ON FIPRONIL
TECHNICAL

______

HON. WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON

of louisiana

in the house of representatives

Monday, April 10, 2000

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation to reduce
the ad valorem duty on the active ingredient used in a product known as
fipronil technical, an insecticide registered for use on dozens of
crops, in the animal health industry to control fleas and ticks, and
most importantly in urban pest control to stop the spread of
destructive termites.
As many of my colleagues know, the entire Gulf Coast is under attack
by Formosan termites. The invasion is costing homeowners, businesses
and local governments hundreds of millions annually. Biologists have
traced these insatiable termites to twelve states. In my district--New
Orleans--Formosan termites have caused more damage than tornadoes,
hurricanes and floods combined. Experts trace the migration of these
voracious termites to the continental United States back to the return
of World War II cargo ships from the Far East to ports throughout the
country. Since then, the Formosan termite has increased beyond control,
infesting trees, homes and other buildings. Traditional forms of
pesticides do not work on this termite and while efforts are underway
to develop a termiticide that will eradicate the Formosan pests, we
must also consider new products.
We have been working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and with manufacturers of pest control products to bring new products
to the market to help us in our efforts to stop these destructive
insects. A new product, fipronil, was officially registered for use by
the EPA just last September and is being introduced into the market
this month. This new product is applied to the perimeter of buildings
and within three months the termites have died. The chemical is a non-
repellent so the insects carry it to the nest and contaminate it before
the other termites can detect it. Other products take much longer to
produce results and are more labor intensive.

[[Page 5120]]

Fipronil has no domestic producer which would be disadvantaged by the
tariff reduction and other termiticides do not work in the same way
that fipronil does. Fipronil has also been approved for use in treating
trees. We are losing our old historic trees in New Orleans at an
alarming rate to the Formosan termites. This product gives us hope that
we will be able to stop this attack.
My bill allows the makers of this product to bring the active
ingredient into the United States at a reduced tariff rate. The product
is finished, packaged and used in the U.S. creating jobs in both the
manufacturing side as well as the pest control industry.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this
proposal.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, April 11, 2000 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

APRIL 12
9:30 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2001 for the Corporation for National and
Community Service, Community Development Financial
Institutions, and Chemical Safety and Hazardous
Investigation Board.
SD-138
Indian Affairs
To hold oversight hearings on the report of the Academy
for Public Administration on Bureau of Indian Affairs
management reform.
SR-485
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings on S. 2255, to amend the Internet Tax
Freedom Act to extend the moratorium through calendar
year 2006.
SR-253
Judiciary
Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee
To resume oversight hearings on the handling of the
investigation of Peter Lee.
SH-216
Rules and Administration
To resume hearings on campaign finance reform proposals,
focusing on compelled political speech.
SR-301
Joint Economic Committee
To hold hearings to examine reform of the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
311 Cannon Building
10 a.m.
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Securities Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings on multi-state insurance agent
licensing reforms and the creation of the National
Association of Registered Agents and Brokers.
SD-538
Foreign Relations
European Affairs Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine issues dealing with the
Russian presidential elections.
SD-419
Governmental Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the Wassenaar arrangement and
the future of multilateral export control.
SD-342
Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2001 for the Department of Defense, focusing on
missile defense programs.
SD-192
11 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Business meeting to consider S. 2311, to revise and
extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under title
XXVI of the Public Health Service Act, to improve
access to health care and the quality of health care
under such programs, and to provide for the development
of increased capacity to provide health care and
related support services to individuals and families
with HIV disease; the proposed Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network Act Amendments of 2000; the
nomination of Mel Carnahan, of Missouri, to be a Member
of the Board of Trustees of the Harry S Truman
Scholarship Foundation; the nomination of Edward B.
Montgomery, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of
Labor; the nomination of Marc Racicot, of Montana, to
be a Member of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation for National and Community Service; the
nomination of Alan D. Solomont, of Massachusetts, to be
a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation
for National and Community Service; the nomination of
Scott O. Wright, of Missouri, to be a Member of the
Board of Trustees of the Harry S Truman Scholarship
Foundation for the remainder of the term expiring
December 10, 2003; and the nomination of Nathan O.
Hatch, of Indiana, to be a Member of the National
Council on the Humanities for the term expiring January
26, 2006.
SD-430
2 p.m.
Foreign Relations
International Economic Policy, Export and Trade Promotion
Subcommittee
To hold hearings on the status of infrastructure projects
for Caspian Sea energy resources.
SD-419
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Water and Power Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings to examine federal actions
affecting hydropower operations on the Columbia River
system.
SD-366

APRIL 13
9:15 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
Business meeting to consider the nomination of Edward
McGaffigan, Jr., of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; S. 522, to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to improve the
quality of beaches and coastal recreation water; H.R.
999, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to improve the quality of coastal recreation waters; S.
2370, to designate the Federal Building located at 500
Pearl Street in New York City, New York, as the
``Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse'';
H.R. 2412, to designate the Federal building and United
States courthouse located at 1300 South Harrison Street
in Fort Wayne, Indiana, as the ``E. Ross Adair Federal
Building and United States Courthouse''; and S. 2297,
to reauthorize the Water Resources Research Act of
1984.
SD-406
9:30 a.m.
Appropriations
VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2001 for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
SD-138
Energy and Natural Resources
To resume hearings on S. 282, to provide that no electric
utility shall be required to enter into a new contract
or obligation to purchase or to sell electricity or
capacity under section 210 of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978; S. 516, to benefit
consumers by promoting competition in the electric
power industry; S. 1047, to provide for a more
competitive electric power industry; S. 1284, to amend
the Federal Power Act to ensure that no State may
establish, maintain, or enforce on behalf of any
electric utility an exclusive right to sell electric
energy or otherwise unduly discriminate against any
consumer who seeks to purchase electric energy in
interstate commerce from any supplier; S. 1273, to
amend the Federal Power Act, to facilitate the
transition to more competitive and efficient electric
power markets; S. 1369, to enhance the benefits of the
national electric system by encouraging and supporting
State programs for renewable energy sources, universal
electric service, affordable electric service, and
energy conservation and efficiency; S. 2071, to benefit
electricity consumers by promoting the reliability of
the bulk-power system; and S. 2098, to facilitate the
transition to more competitive and efficient electric
power markets, and to ensure electric reliability.
SH-216

[[Page 5121]]

Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SR-253
Judiciary
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-226
10 a.m.
Appropriations
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the National Reading Panel
report.
SD-124
Armed Services
To hold hearings to examine the Department of Defense
anthrax vaccine immunization program.
SR-222
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
To hold hearings on the structure of securities markets.
SD-106
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine issues dealing with
protecting pension assets.
SD-430
2 p.m.
Judiciary
Immigration Subcommittee
To hold hearings on the proposed Mother Teresa Religious
Worker Act.
SD-226
2:30 p.m.
Appropriations
Treasury and General Government Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine certain Internal Revenue
Service reform issues.
SD-192
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings on the United States Forest
Service's proposed revisions to the regulations
governing National Forest Planning.
SD-366
Foreign Relations
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-419
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings on S. 1361, to amend the Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 to provide for an
expanded Federal program of hazard mitigation, relief,
and insurance against the risk of catastrophic natural
disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and
volcanic eruptions.
SR-253

APRIL 25
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Water and Power Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 2239, to authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the endangered
fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
SD-366

APRIL 26
10 a.m.
Appropriations
Defense Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed budget estimates for fiscal
year 2001 for the Department of Defense.
SD-192
Armed Services
Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee
To hold hearings on proposed legislation authorizing fund
for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Defense and
the Future Years Defense Program, focusing on
acquisition reform efforts, the acquisition workforce,
logistics contracting and inventory management
practices, and the Defense Industrial Base.
SR-222
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold hearings on S. 2273, to establish the Black Rock
Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National
Conservation Area; and S. 2048, to establish the San
Rafael Western Legacy District in the State of Utah.
SD-366

APRIL 27
9:30 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings on pending legislation on agriculture
concentration of ownership and competitive issues.
SR-328A

SEPTEMBER 26
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold joint hearings with the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs on the Legislative recommendation of
the American Legion.
345 Cannon Building

POSTPONEMENTS

APRIL 12
10 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings on the disposal of low activity
radioactive waste.
SD-406

APRIL 19
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business;
to be followed by hearings on S. 611, to provide for
administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition
to certain Indian groups.
SR-485