[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10309-10345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
  Almighty God, You give the hour and provide us with power; You bless 
each day and show us the way; You plan our week and reveal Your truth 
to those who seek. We pray for the Senators as they confront the busy 
schedule of the week ahead. Help them to trust You. Care for their 
families and loved ones. Lift the burdens they carry. Give them the 
assurance that they are never alone. You are the unseen presence in 
every moment, during every conversation, before each decisive decision, 
and throughout each meeting. Remind them of Your availability, Your 
affirmation, Your assurance. May this day and all the hours of the week 
ahead be as one constant conversation with You, a flow of prayer as 
natural as breathing out tension and breathing in Your strength. You 
are Sovereign of this Nation, Lord of this Senate, and Saviour of our 
lives. Amen.

                          ____________________



                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable Slade Gorton, a Senator from the State of Washington, 
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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is recognized.

                          ____________________



                                SCHEDULE

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period for 
morning business until 2 p.m., with Senators Durbin and Thomas in 
control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will resume 
consideration of the Department of Defense appropriations bill. 
Amendments to the bill are expected to be offered and debated during 
today's session. Any votes ordered with respect to those amendments, 
however, will be scheduled to occur on Tuesday at a time to be 
determined. As a reminder, all first-degree amendments to the Defense 
appropriations bill must be filed by 3 p.m. today.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). 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. Under the previous order, there will now be a 
period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the 
hour of 2 p.m., 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. For that time, the Senator from South Dakota is recognized.

                          ____________________



    LOCAL TELEVISION AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNET NONDISCRIMINATION ACT

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I 
filed this past week to H.R. 3709, the Internet Nondiscrimination Act. 
This amendment has a twofold purpose. First, it highlights the need to 
act on S. 2097, the Launching Our Communities' Access to Local 
Television Act of 2000. This critical legislation passed the Senate by 
a unanimous, 97-0, vote on March 30 of this year. The House version of 
this bill, H.R. 3615, also passed by an overwhelming 375-37 margin. Yet 
here we are 2\1/2\ months later with no effort to move this bipartisan 
legislation forward toward enactment.
  In the meantime, the other body has considered an extension of the 
Internet tax moratorium for an additional 5 years. I supported the 
original Internet Nondiscrimination Act which created a 3-year 
moratorium on new taxes on the Internet while we considered the various 
ramifications of e-commerce taxation issues.
  That original moratorium does not expire until next October. Yet here 
we are 16 months in advance of that expiration preparing to consider an 
additional 5-year expansion. Not only that, but with this new 
legislation, we renege, frankly, on a promise made under the 1998 act 
which grandfathered existing State taxes on Internet services. That 
agreement was essential to securing the overwhelming support which S. 
442 ultimately received.
  I believe we should not be placing taxes on access to the Internet, 
but that is not the issue. The issue is the implementation of already 
existing sales tax responsibilities. Sales tax is a critical component 
of State and local revenues, especially in States such as South Dakota 
that do not have an income tax. More than half of our State budget 
derives from the sales tax. That is the money that goes to education, 
crimefighting, and other essential services. This online-commerce 
loophole in sales tax collection results in an unfair situation for 
South Dakota merchants, and threatens the treasuries of State and local 
governments with the loss of millions of dollars in revenue. There is a 
great need for State tax laws to be applied to all sales regardless of 
whether the sales are made at a local store, over the Internet, or by 
any other means.
  H.R. 3709 does not foreclose the possibility of collecting sales tax 
on products purchased over the Internet. In fact, it is silent on this 
issue. That silence, however, is almost as dangerous to State and local 
government as an explicit rejection of equal treatment for brick and 
mortar stores. By filing this amendment to H.R. 3709, I want it made 
clear that I will oppose this legislation moving forward until it 
establishes a comprehensive review of Internet-related tax policy.
  I remain absolutely opposed to any new tax on the Internet. Internet 
usage ought to be encouaged and kept affordable. Public policy ought to 
promote tax-free Internet access, but it makes no sense that some sales 
are subject to sales tax while others are not. We need a level playing 
field for everyone. It is up to each individual State and municipality 
to decide for itself whether it wants to have a sales tax--but once 
that decision is made, it ought to apply uniformly to sales without 
regard to the particular technology utilized in making the sale. This 
correction must be considered in the context of any effort to extend 
the ongoing Internet tax moratorium.
  Although there are many pieces of critical legislation which would 
serve to highlight the tax fairness issues raised by H.R. 3709, I want 
to focus on S. 2097, the local-into-local television act.
  Under legislation we passed this past year, satellite companies are 
for the

[[Page 10310]]

first time free to broadcast local network programming into local 
markets. That ability has already benefited thousands of viewers and 
promoted competition in the broadcast delivery industry. What S. 2097 
seeks to accomplish is to make that benefit a reality for Americans who 
live outside the largest 40 television markets.
  Like many of my colleagues, I represent a State, South Dakota, with 
rural viewers that should not be left out of the information age. South 
Dakota is one of the 16 States that do not have a single city among the 
top 70 markets. Sixteen States have no television markets within the 
top 70. Without this loan guarantee, markets such as Sioux Falls and 
Rapid City will never get local-into-local service, and rural South 
Dakotans will not have an opportunity to receive their local networks 
over the satellite signals.
  This proposal is more than just getting sports or entertainment 
programming over your local channels. It is a critical way to receive 
important local news, storm information, road reports, school closing 
information, and civic affairs information.
  Rural Americans need the same opportunity to access their local 
networks as do our urban friends. This legislation will provide that 
opportunity.
  We have worked very hard in the Banking Committee and on the floor to 
achieve strong bipartisan legislation. Senators Sarbanes, Baucus, 
Gramm, Burns, and others worked diligently to find the accommodations 
to satisfy everyone's concerns. We have a final product which will 
ultimately result in local-into-local broadcasting for rural America, 
and it does so in a fiscally responsible manner that limits the 
taxpayer exposure.
  The overwhelming vote in both the House and Senate demonstrates the 
soundness of this legislation. It is absolutely critical for the 
millions of Americans who live outside our major urban areas. It is the 
promised missing component of last year's Satellite Home Viewer 
Improvements Act.
  This issue has aroused the greatest level of constituent concern in 
many States in quite some time. S. 2097 provides a fiscally responsible 
and prudent response to the concerns raised by thousands of our 
constituents, protecting the taxpayer interests while at the same time 
helping to provide this service. I intend to offer this legislation to 
every vehicle possible this year until we have the opportunity to 
finish what we started and provide this essential service to all 
Americans.
  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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                        VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, since Columbine, thousands of Americans 
have been killed by gunfire, and yet Congress is refusing to act on 
sensible gun legislation. Until we act, one of us who is trying to get 
legislation passed will read the names of those who lost their lives 
through gun violence in the past year and will continue to do so every 
day while the Senate is in session. In this way, we hope to remember 
those who have died and to bring closer the day when fewer die from gun 
violence.
  Following are the names of some of the Americans who were killed by 
gunfire 1 year ago today, on June 12, 1999:

       Tyrand Baxter, 24, Atlanta, GA;
       D'Ante Bonds, 18, Oakland, CA;
       Kenneth Davis, 17, Chicago, IL;
       Moises Moctezuma, 49, Charlotte, NC;
       Kevin Parks, 26, Chicago, IL;
       Cornell Rogers, 31, Washington, DC;
       Reginald Rogers, 21, St. Paul, MN;
       David Sapp, 42, Charlotte, NC;
       Joseph Shruga, 69, Detroit, MI;
       Yong S. Suoh, 44, Chicago, IL;
       Javier Velasquez, 23, San Antonio, TX;
       Joel Vives, 27, Miami-Dade County, FL;
       Charles Wachholtz, 80, Dallas, TX;
       Antwan Wimberly, 24, Atlanta, GA; and
       Timothy Young, 21, Charlotte, NC.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the names of those who were killed by gunfire last year on the days 
June 10 and June 11, which was last weekend when the Senate was not in 
session.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                             June 10, 1999

       Vincent Bolden, 32, Minneapolis, MN;
       Sandy Curtis, 37, Gary, IN;
       Bynum Gordon, 44, Atlanta, GA;
       Dimetrio Hernandez, 33, Houston, TX;
       Marvin E. Jordan, 18, Chicago, IL;
       Adam Lawrence, 48, New Orleans, LA;
       Benjamin Matthews, 36, Kansas City, MO;
       Terrance McLeod, Jr., 25, Detroit, MI;
       Hayde Montalbo-Valdes, Minneapolis, MN;
       Dolores Mueller, 64, St. Louis, MO;
       Nicholas Osborne, 20, Bloomington, IN;
       Raphael Rivera, 14, Harrisburg, PA;
       Brandy Sessions, 20, Rochester, NY;
       Stymie Thomas, 20, Chicago, IL;
       Unidentified male, 37, Long Beach, CA;
       Unidentified male, 26, Long Beach, CA; and
       Unidentified male, 28, Long Beach, CA.


                             June 11, 1999

       Wallace Brumfield, San Francisco, CA;
       Jerry Joseph Dawson, 47, Detroit, MI;
       Kimani Evans, 25, Miami-Dade County, FL;
       Majio Hanna, 40, Detroit, MI;
       Kevin James, 29, Baltimore, MD;
       David M. Jones, 26, Madison, WI;
       Isaac Maldonado, 22, Holyoke, MA;
       John Morrison, 34, Miami-Dade County, FL;
       Michael Northington, Detroit, MI;
       Harvey J. Pierce, 45, Madison, WI;
       David L. Shaw, 18, Memphis, TN;
       Robert L. Turner, 78, Oklahoma City, OK;
       Lajon Wright, 25, New Orleans, LA;
       Unidentified male, 57, Norfolk, VA; and
       Unidentified male, 31, San Jose, CA.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator is recognized for 20 minutes.

                          ____________________



                         PRIVACY ACT VIOLATION

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have not a speech but a story to tell. 
The name of that story could very well be ``What Would Have Happened To 
Frankie Vee?'' Now, they say confession is good for the soul. I confess 
that during the Memorial Day recess a couple weeks ago I did not work 
during the whole recess. I spent some time with my family, with my 
wife, with my daughter Katie, her husband Brad, their baby, and some of 
the other kids, and we went to south Texas where we own some property. 
There is a little town down there called Port Isabel. There is a 
restaurant there that none of the tourists go to. It is just the local 
people who go there. It is right there on the channel that goes out 
ultimately to the gulf.
  There is a guy down there who sings. You sit down and you have 
dinner. He has these machines he turns on; they make music. He has a 
microphone, and he sings. He has a beautiful voice. The reason I like 
it is he sings the kind of songs I know such as ``Your Cheatin Heart'' 
and ``Lord, Help Me, Jesus,'' and songs like that. While he is singing, 
his wife sways to the music with her eyes closed. It is just a 
beautiful setting there.
  This was going on when all of a sudden a light went on, and I do not 
know how this happened, but I was looking at this guy, who is just an 
ordinary person--he is about my age. He has gone through tough times in 
his life like I have. He has made money; he has lost money; but he is 
just a very typical American. He is someone who has to obey the laws, 
has to work hard, and has to pay taxes. What occurred to me was that if 
Frankie Vee had blatantly and knowingly and wrongfully committed a 
crime like Kenneth Bacon, blatantly and knowingly and willingly 
committed a crime, he would not be singing there and spreading joy in 
the hearts of many while his wife is swaying. He would be serving time 
in a Federal penitentiary.
  I am not outraged; I am not mad; and I am not feeling any anxiety 
about this. I guess the best way to characterize my feelings after the 
last 7\1/2\ years of this administration using the

[[Page 10311]]

Justice Department to protect its friends and to punish its enemies is 
just something that I feel numb about. I am proud of two of the 
mainstream media--only two--that have been willing to write about these 
things. And that is Fox News and the Washington Times.
  So in this case, we have talked about comparing the crime that was 
committed by Kenneth Bacon with other crimes that were committed--and I 
am going to talk about that in just a minute--by other people in other 
administrations. But what occurred to me was that every citizen out 
here, whether in Wyoming or Oklahoma, has to obey the law and has to be 
punished under the law if that person disobeys the law, and that he 
would be prosecuted if there was justification for prosecution and then 
would be punished accordingly--except in this administration.
  On Thursday, May 25, which was the eve of the Memorial Day recess 
when we left for about a week, the Clinton administration perpetrated 
another outrage to add to its long trail of operations, I guess you 
would say. In the face of the Pentagon inspector general's firm 
conclusion that Kenneth Bacon and Clifford Bernath violated the Privacy 
Act and broke the law and committed a crime, the Secretary of Defense 
announced that he would do nothing to hold these men accountable for 
their actions. And this neatly follows the earlier decision of the 
Justice Department not to prosecute after engaging in a 2-year coverup.
  Now, as I have said before, this case has broad implications for what 
has been done to the rule of law and to the concept of honesty and 
integrity in Government over the past 7\1/2\ years. Above all else, the 
systemic undermining of these time-honored principles constitutes the 
true and lasting legacy of the Clinton and Gore administration. Time 
after time after time, again and again, the Justice Department and 
Janet Reno have used that Department to protect the President's 
political friends and to punish the President's political enemies.
  Today, as a result of this case, there are millions of Federal 
employees who are on notice that the information contained in their 
confidential Government personnel records cannot be protected from 
politically motivated disclosures. They are on notice that the Privacy 
Act can be violated with impunity even when the perpetrators are caught 
redhanded.
  In an additional outrage, we find that the administration now wants 
the taxpayers to pay the legal bills for those two individuals during 
this process.
  This is a letter we have uncovered, after it had been covered up, 
that the Office of the General Counsel is writing to Mr. Kaser, U.S. 
Department of Justice, requesting that the taxpayers pay the legal fees 
of Kenneth Bacon and Clifford Bernath. I ask unanimous consent that at 
the conclusion of my remarks this letter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Let's quickly recap what happened. In March of 1998, 
about 8 weeks into the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Pentagon public 
affairs director, Kenneth Bacon, got a phone call from Jane Mayer, who 
Jane Mayer was a long-time Clinton supporter and friend of the Clinton 
administration. She was an old friend of Kenneth Bacon. They worked 
together on the Wall Street Journal for years before. And she got a 
letter. She was then working on a story for the New Yorker magazine. 
Mayer informed Bacon that she had evidence that a key witness in this 
Presidential scandal, Linda Tripp, had been arrested for larceny as a 
teenager. Tripp was and still is a civilian employee of the Federal 
Government at the Pentagon. Mayer wanted to know how Tripp had replied 
to question No. 21 on her security clearance form, asking if she had 
ever been arrested. If she had answered no, which Linda Tripp did, then 
public disclosure of this information in conjunction with the new 
evidence that Mayer said she had would have been clearly damaging to 
Tripp's credibility and her reputation and would discredit her as 
someone who was bringing charges against the President.
  Soon thereafter, it was discovered that Tripp's teenage arrest was 
the result of a juvenile prank perpetrated against her. The judge in 
the case told her in a laughing way that it was a funny trick and her 
record would be clear. Nevertheless, Mayer's story was published and 
the damage to Tripp was done. She was discredited forever.
  I would characterize that as saying Mr. Bacon had conspired with Ms. 
Mayer to implement ``a scheme to defame and destroy the public image of 
Linda Tripp with the intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the 
conduct and outcome of pending investigations and prosecutions.'' That 
is exactly what the two of them did to Linda Tripp.
  The reason I am reading this is because that is the exact language of 
20 years ago when Chuck Colson committed this same crime at the 
beginning of the Watergate era. The court said Colson implemented ``a 
scheme to defame and destroy the public image of Daniel Ellsberg with 
the intent to influence, obstruct, and impede the conduct and outcome 
of pending investigations and prosecutions.''
  That is exactly the same thing Kenneth Bacon did. The actions of 
Bacon and Bernath immediately became the subject of the Pentagon IG 
investigation to determine if they had violated the Privacy Act which 
is designed to prevent the disclosure of confidential information on 
Government employees.
  The IG quickly concluded that, yes, indeed, they did violate the 
Privacy Act. In July of 1998, the IG made a criminal referral to the 
Justice Department so the case could be prosecuted, but nobody knew it. 
The fact the IG had concluded the report was covered up by the Justice 
Department for 2 years. The Justice Department sat on the case for 2 
years doing nothing--a classic foot-dragging, stonewalling Clinton 
coverup.
  Finally, in March of this year, they quietly announced no one would 
be prosecuted in this case. And they call it a Department of Justice. 
The Department said it concluded Bacon and Bernath ``didn't intend to 
break the law'' when they made the disclosure of the Tripp information, 
as if that is ever a legitimate excuse for anything.
  I suggest if the Senator who is occupying the chair were driving down 
a Wyoming highway at 100 miles an hour and were pulled over by a 
highway patrol and he said, ``I didn't intend to break the law,'' that 
everything would be fine.
  This is how the process works. Once the Justice Department refuses to 
prosecute, even after a criminal referral for prosecution has taken 
place, the very least that can happen to a person is the boss of the 
individual who is offending may take some kind of personnel action.
  It was turned over to the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen. He was 
charged with evaluating the conclusions of the IG report and taking any 
action he deemed appropriate, such as firing both of them. Keep in 
mind, this should not even have happened. This should not have taken 
place because by this time, there should have been a criminal 
prosecution.
  This brings us to 2 weeks ago, Thursday, when Cohen announced what he 
deemed appropriate. He sent Bacon and Bernath personal letters 
expressing disappointment in their actions, making a clear point they 
were not letters of reprimand and will not be placed in their personnel 
records. It is not even a slap on the wrist. In other words, he did 
nothing. He did not fire anyone. He did not fine anyone. He did not 
suspend anyone. He took the IG's conclusion that the Privacy Act was 
broken and walked away without exacting any measure of accountability 
or justice. It is unbelievable.
  He did, however, publicly release the IG report and related 
documents, and these clearly show the inspector general unhesitatingly 
concluded that Tripp's privacy was compromised, that the Privacy Act 
was violated, and that the law was broken. This was in the IG report. 
The IG totally rejected Bacon's and Bernath's contorted arguments to 
the contrary.

[[Page 10312]]

  In addition, the IG report clearly shows that no serious 
investigation was ever conducted into the involvement of other Clinton 
administration officials or friends outside the Pentagon, such as those 
in the White House who may have been involved in orchestrating this 
smear of Linda Tripp.
  I urge my colleagues to read an article that was in the Washington 
Times on Saturday, May 27, 2000. It lays out clear evidence that Bacon 
and Bernath did not act alone in this matter, as they claim. There is 
evidence the IG did not adequately follow up. Yet it is the kind of 
evidence that, as Clinton friend Dick Morris has said, would lead to a 
conclusion any 6 year old could understand; namely, that Bacon and 
Bernath most certainly did not act alone.
  I ask unanimous consent this article from the Washington Times to 
which I just referred be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 2.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I will chronologically reconstruct what 
happened in this case. It is important I be redundant so that people 
will understand and that it will not be forgotten and covered up.
  On March 12, 1998, New Yorker magazine writer Jane Mayer, a former 
Wall Street Journal reporter, called Kenneth Bacon who used to work 
with Mayer at the Wall Street Journal, asking him about a question on 
Linda Tripp's personnel file for a story she was writing.
  On March 13, the very next day, Bacon tasks Clifford Bernath, then a 
Pentagon public affairs deputy, with answering Mayer's question. 
Bernath writes in his journal: ``Ken has made clear it's a priority.''
  Further, in March of that same year, the New Yorker story claims 
Tripp violated the law.
  In March, Defense Secretary William Cohen calls the disclosure 
``certainly inappropriate, if not illegal.'' Cohen continued: Tripp's 
file ``was supposed to be protected by the privacy rules.'' The DOD 
inspector general's investigation is initiated.
  An investigation was initiated in March of 1998.
  In April of 1998, Cliff Bernath was deposed by Judicial Watch. 
Bernath was accompanied by a battery of Government lawyers from the 
Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the White House, in 
addition to one from Williams & Connolly appearing on behalf of the 
First Lady who was then a defendant in the FBI file suit.
  Over the next 6 hours, Bernath proceeded to change his story. He had 
previously insisted the request was handled in a routine way. In this 
deposition, he concedes that it was a high-priority issue by Ken Bacon.
  On May 21, 1998, at a Pentagon press conference, Ken Bacon declined 
comment--as he has since repeatedly--to the press, including refusing 
to deny whether the White House directed him to release that 
information on the grounds that the IG was still investigating.
  On July 10, 1998, Federal Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Defense 
Department to seize the computer of a Pentagon staffer who admits 
releasing information on Tripp's security clearance form. Lamberth 
ruled that the Department's inspector general should check the computer 
because the Pentagon aide, Clifford Bernath, deleted documents, 
although Bernath claimed none of the deleted documents concerned Tripp.
  Jumping forward to February 9, 2000, at a House Armed Services 
Committee hearing, Secretary Cohen had no answer to the question from 
Representative Buyer on where the DOD report was, in what stage it was. 
We found out the report was concluded almost 2 years before that 
question was asked.
  I have to add a personal note in defense of Bill Cohen. I do not 
believe he knew. I think the White House covered that up and the 
Justice Department covered up the fact that the report was concluded 
almost 2 years before that hearing. I do not believe Cohen actually was 
aware of that.
  On March 6, 2000--this brings the Federal court back in--Federal 
Judge Lamberth signed an order requiring DOD to produce records 
concerning the release of information in Tripp's DOD files and 
information on any attempts to withhold information from the public 
and/or investigators about the details of that release.
  Then on March 13, 2000, Judge Royce Lamberth stated:

       The Tripp release presents such a clear violation of the 
     Privacy Act.

  Lambert said:

       The court finds it impossible to fathom how an internal 
     investigation into such a simple matter could take so long to 
     conclude.

  In fact, even though that statement was made by the judge in the 
court records on March 13, 2000, that internal investigation had been 
concluded in July 1998, nearly 2 years before.
  In previous talks on the floor, I have had occasion to compare this 
crime with a crime that was committed 20 years before. I have done so 
because when you talk about what President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore have allegedly done in terms of getting foreign contributions, 
which are a violation of law, there is nothing really precedented about 
that that we can go back and compare with someone else who was 
prosecuted.
  In this case, the crime that was committed by Kenneth Bacon, and 
perhaps more people with him, is a crime exactly like the crime that 
was committed 20 years before by Chuck Colson.
  Let's go back and see just what Chuck Colson did. This is what he 
said and did, in his own words. This is going back to 1971:

       . . . I got hold of derogatory FBI reports about Ellsberg 
     and leaked them to the press.

  He said further, in 1976:

       I happily gave an inquiring reporter damaging information 
     compiled from secret personnel files.

  I know, again, this is exactly the same thing that we now have a 
confession by Kenneth Bacon that he did. He got ahold of derogatory 
reports about Linda Tripp. And then he happily gave them to an 
inquiring reporter--the same thing.
  So what happened to Colson? Colson was sentenced by U.S. District 
Court Judge Gerhard Gesell to a prison term. On April 7, 2000, in a 
deposition, he provided the New Yorker writer Jane Mayer with Tripp 
information. In other words, he admitted it. He admitted that. There is 
no question about whether or not he committed this crime. There is no 
doubt about it, no dispute about it.
  Bacon said: I am sorry that I did not check with our lawyers or check 
with Linda Tripp's attorneys about this.
  Sorry? Sorry really didn't cut it for Chuck Colson. Chuck Colson 
ended up in a Federal penitentiary. Colson committed the crime in July 
1971. He admitted his guilt and pleaded on June 3, 1974, and was 
sentenced to the Federal penitentiary on June 21, 1974.
  Bacon committed his crime in March of 1998. He admitted what he had 
done in June of 1998. The Pentagon inspector general referred the 
matter for criminal prosecution in July of 1998. So now 2 years later, 
in April, May, and June of 2000, the Clinton Justice Department says it 
is going to take a pass, hoping nobody will see or hear about this at 
this late date. After all, 2 full years had transpired since the report 
was concluded.
  So Colson went to jail and served time in prison. If there were 
justice and equal application of the law, Bacon would go to jail and 
serve time in prison.
  Is this the first time the Clinton administration has been involved 
in lawbreaking and corruption? Not hardly. It has almost become a way 
of life--Travelgate, Filegate, Buddhist Temple fundraisers, illegal 
foreign campaign contributions, the compromise of high-technology 
nuclear secrets to the Chinese, not to mention perjury and obstruction 
of justice. The list goes on and on.
  Why is this important? It is all about a concept. It is as basic to 
America as the concept of going to church on Sunday. That concept is: 
Equal application of the law.
  Chuck Colson realized he did the wrong thing. Chuck Colson, in a book

[[Page 10313]]

that he wrote in 1976, called ``Born Again,'' stated:

       I happily gave an inquiring reporter damaging information 
     about Ellsberg's attorney, compiled from secret FBI dossiers.

  He said:

       . . . I pleaded guilty after being told by Watergate 
     prosecutor Leon Jaworski that my conviction would deter such 
     a thing from [ever] happening again.

  That is a quote.
  I suggest that it has happened again, and they are hoping no one will 
notice.
  I refer to an article that was written on June 12--a current 
article--in the Weekly Standard by Jay Nordlinger. The question is: 
``Why Didn't Bacon Get Fried?'' That is the name of the article. I will 
quote a few things from it. Jay Nordlinger wrote:

       It's just a small matter, in all the Clinton grossness, but 
     it counts. Linda Tripp was the victim of a dirty, and 
     illegal, trick. It was played on her by her own bosses at the 
     Pentagon. And now those men--Kenneth Bacon and Clifford 
     Bernath--have escaped with the wispiest slaps on the wrist. 
     This is ho-hum for the Clinton administration; but it is a 
     reminder of how unlawful and indecent this administration has 
     been.

  Further in the article he talks about Joseph diGenova, who is a 
former U.S. attorney with long experience in this area.
  Quoting from the same article, diGenova is quoted as saying:

       The treatment of Bacon and Bernath suggests that the 
     Privacy Act will be enforceable only in civil lawsuits filed 
     by the victims. If there's no adverse action--not even a 
     letter that goes into somebody's file--there's no deterrence 
     here. None whatsoever.

  The article by Jay Nordlinger further states:

       The president and his men have a bit of history with the 
     Privacy Act. You perhaps remember Passportgate. Toward the 
     end of the 1992 presidential campaign, it was learned that 
     political appointees in the Bush State Department had rifled 
     through candidate Clinton's passport files and those of his 
     mother. Democrats demanded an independent-counsel 
     investigation. They got one--led by diGenova. One of the 
     officials involved, Elizabeth Tamposi, was dismissed. The 
     acting secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, offered to 
     resign over the matter. (President Bush refused). Said 
     Clinton, in his first press conference [after he had been 
     elected President of the United States], ``If I catch anybody 
     doing [what the passport-file offenders did], I will fire 
     them the next day. You won't have to have an inquiry or 
     rigmarole or anything else.''
       About a year later, Passportgate had something of a 
     reprise, this time featuring appointees in Clinton's own 
     State Department. A few of them got hold of Bush-
     administration personnel files and leaked them to Al Kamen of 
     the Washington Post.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this article be printed at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 3.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Finally, I guess it begs the question, What can be done 
now? I mentioned that the media, the mainstream media, has pretty much 
ignored this. They like Kenneth Bacon. He was a member of the media. 
They are not going to do anything about it, I have decided.
  Fortunately, the Washington Times has done something about it. 
Fortunately, Fox News has done something about it. But there is 
something that can be done. When the new administration takes office, 
and a new Attorney General comes in, the Bacon-Bernath lawbreaking 
should be referred again for criminal prosecution. A professional 
Justice Department, freed from corrupt partisan influences, should 
prosecute this case and uphold the law.
  Such a referral can easily be added to a list of such referrals on 
other matters which are already being contemplated, as Representative 
Dan Burton, who is the chairman of the appropriate House committee, 
mentioned yesterday.
  For example, these, as mentioned, would include criminal referrals 
related to:
  No. 1, evidence that the President broke campaign finance laws, was 
aware of illegal foreign contributions, and changed policies in return 
for campaign contributions;
  No. 2, evidence that the Vice President broke the law when he made 
the illegal fundraising phone calls from the White House;
  No. 3, evidence that the Vice President committed a felony by lying 
to the FBI investigators about his knowledge of illegal fundraising 
activities;
  No. 4, that Janet Reno committed obstruction of justice when she 
refused to appoint an independent counsel;
  And now we add this to the list: Evidence that Ken Bacon and Clifford 
Bernath broke the law when they violated the Privacy Act in the Linda 
Tripp matter.
  It is obvious if the next President of the United States happens to 
be Al Gore that very likely we will have the same type of Justice 
Department. I don't think our forefathers ever anticipated, when they 
were constructing these documents, our Constitution and our statutes, 
that we would have someone in the President's office who would use the 
Justice Department to protect his friends and punish his enemies. I 
have come to the conclusion that if this had been Frankie Vee who had 
done this, he would currently be serving time in the Federal 
penitentiary.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                            Department of Defense,


                                    Office of General Counsel,

                                 Washington, DC, December 3, 1999.
     Re Request for Representation of Clifford H. Bernath in Tripp 
         v. Executive Office of the President (D.D.C. No 99-2254).

     Sylvia Kasar, Esq.,
     U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division--Federal Programs 
         Branch, Washington, DC.

       Dear Ms. Kasar: I am writing to request that the Department 
     of Justice authorize private counsel at federal expense for 
     Mr. Clifford H. Bernath in connection with the above-
     captioned litigation, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 5015.
       We believe that this lawsuit concerns matters within this 
     scope of Mr. Bernath's employment at the Department of 
     Defense. Based on the information now available to us--which 
     has also been made available to your office--we believe that 
     providing Mr. Bernath with private counsel at federal expense 
     is appropriate and in the interest of the United States.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerly,
                                                     Brad Wiegnam.

                               Exhibit 2

               [From the Washington Times, May 27, 2000]

  Clinton Accused in `Smear'--Tripp Lawyers Blame White House for Leak

                            (By Jerry Seper)

       Attorneys for Linda R. Tripp yesterday said the release of 
     information from her confidential personnel file was ``wrong 
     and illegal,'' and part of a ``smear campaign'' by the White 
     House to damage her reputation.
       The attorneys said the campaign was engineered by President 
     Clinton and his senior advisers, who ``turned their public 
     relations machine against Mrs. Tripp'' to divert attention 
     from the president's conduct with former White House intern 
     Monica Lewinsky.
       ``The campaign worked, and Mrs. Tripp was publicly 
     humiliated on numerous occasions,'' attorneys Stephen M. 
     Kohn, David K. Colapinto and Michael D. Kohn said in a 
     statement. ``Her reputation was poisoned, her motives 
     questioned and even her personal appearance became fair game 
     for ridicule.''
       They said the leak of the Tripp file by Pentagon spokesman 
     Kenneth Bacon to a reporter looking to write a critical story 
     of Mrs. Tripp was part of that scheme, and that the file's 
     disclosure was prohibited under the federal Privacy Act.
       The Defense Department's Office of Inspector General 
     concluded that Mr. Bacon and his former top deputy, Clifford 
     H. Bernath, violated Mrs. Tripp's privacy rights by providing 
     information from her confidential personnel file to a 
     reporter for the New Yorker magazine.
       But the two men received only mild reprimands Thursday from 
     Defense Secretary William S. Cohen.
       Mr. Cohen criticized Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bernath in letters 
     for what he called a ``serious lapse of judgment,'' although 
     neither letter was made part of the men's personnel files and 
     no further disciplinary action was recommended. The case is 
     closed.
       Mr. Clinton, through a spokesman, yesterday said he had 
     ``full confidence'' in the Cohen decision.
       ``The president has full confidence in the secretary of 
     defense's management of his staff and the Pentagon and 
     supports the judgment of the secretary of defense to take the 
     actions appropriate,'' said P.J. Crowley, chief spokesman for 
     the White House National Security Council, Mr. Crowley 
     formerly worked for Mr. Bacon.
       Mrs. Tripp is the Pentagon official who blew the whistle on 
     Mr. Clinton's affair with Miss Lewinsky. Both Mrs. Tripp and 
     Miss Lewinsky worked for Mr. Bacon.
       Mrs. Tripp has since field a lawsuit accusing the White 
     House and the Defense Department of using her confidential 
     file to smear her reputation.

[[Page 10314]]

       In a five-page statement, her attorneys noted that the leak 
     to Jane Mayer, a reporter for the New Yorker, came after Mr. 
     Bacon met privately over dinner with former White House 
     Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes--who ``volunteered'' to 
     help Mr. Clinton in damage control after the Lewinsky 
     accusations surfaced. They said Mr. Ickes also had met with 
     Miss Mayer before the information was released.
       ``This was simply not an innocent release of information in 
     response to an inquiry by a reporter,'' they said. ``It is 
     well-established that Mr. Bacon and his associate who was 
     involved in the illegal leak knew that the information 
     requested from Mrs. Tripp's security file would be used in a 
     derogatory manner to smear Mrs. Tripp and question her 
     credibility.''
       They also said Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bernath had been told the 
     information from the file was covered by the Privacy Act and 
     could not be released without Mrs. Tripp's consent.
       Mr. Ickes, now coordinating first lady Hillary Rodham 
     Clinton's run for a U.S. Senate seat in New York, did not 
     return calls to his office for comment. He previously denied 
     any wrongdoing, saying that while he met with Mr. Bacon and 
     Miss Mayer before the file was leaked, he denied the 
     discussions were part of a conspiracy.
       The White House also has denied any involvement in the 
     leak, and Mr. Bacon, in a statement on Thursday, said he did 
     not believe he violated Mrs. Tripp's privacy rights and that 
     ``ultimately my conduct will be found lawful.''
       Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican who denounced a 
     Justice Department decision last month not to seek an 
     indictment of Mr. Bacon or Mr. Bernath, despite concerns 
     outlined in a July 1998 report by the inspector general, 
     called the Cohen reprimand ``a travesty.''
       ``At a minimum, Bacon and Bernath should have been fired,'' 
     said Mr. Inhofe. ``This is what happened to the Bush 
     administration official who misused candidate Bill Clinton's 
     passport file in 1992. It is what Bill Clinton said would 
     happen to anyone in his administration found guilty of a 
     similar invasion of privacy.''
       Mr. Cohen yesterday denied that he whitewashed the release 
     of information from Mrs. Tripp's confidential file, saying 
     there was ``no attempt to injure Miss Tripp's credibility or 
     her reputation.''
       He told reporters at Morristown Airport after touring 
     nearby Picatinny Arsenal that Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bernath were 
     seeking to respond to pressure from the media and that there 
     was no attempt to orchestrate any campaign to discredit Mrs. 
     Tripp.
       ``I don't intend to fire him,'' Mr. Cohen said of Mr. 
     Bacon.
       In a final report made public yesterday, acting Inspector 
     General Donald Mancuso said the harm to Mrs. Tripp's privacy 
     interests caused by the release of her confidential personnel 
     file outweighed any public benefit.
       ``Accordingly, the release constituted a clearly 
     unwarranted invasion of her privacy,'' the report said. The 
     report said the actions of Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bernath 
     constituted a violation of the federal Privacy Act.
       The documents leaked showed that Mrs. Tripp had said she 
     never had been arrested, when in fact she had--in what later 
     was described as a teen-age prank that occurred more than 30 
     years ago.

                             Exhibit No. 3

             [From the The Weekly Standard, June 12, 2000]

 Why Didn't Bacon Get Fried?--The Pentagon's Anti-Tripp Leakers Get a 
       Slap on the Wrist, and the Privacy Act a Slap in the Face

                          (By Jay Nordlinger)

       It's just a small matter, in all the Clinton grossness, but 
     it counts. Linda Tripp was the victim of a dirty, and 
     illegal, trick. It was played on her by her own bosses at the 
     Pentagon. And now those men--Kenneth Bacon and Clifford 
     Bernath--have escaped with the wispiest slaps on the wrist. 
     This is ho-hum for the Clinton administration; but it is a 
     reminder of how unlawful and indecent this administration has 
     been.
       Before this little affair slides all the way down the 
     memory hole, recall the essential facts: In January 1998, the 
     Lewinsky scandal exploded on Bill Clinton's head. From the 
     point of view of the White House, Linda Tripp was the major 
     villain. It was therefore a matter of urgency to discredit 
     her. In March, Jane Mayer, a Clinton-friendly reporter for 
     the New Yorker, acquired what seemed a valuable piece of 
     information: Tripp, as a teenager, had been arrested for 
     larceny. Mayer put in a call to Ken Bacon, assistant 
     secretary of defense for public affairs. He was an old 
     friend; the two had worked together at the Wall Street 
     Journal. Mayer had an amazingly specific question for him: 
     How had Tripp responded to Question 21, parts a and b, on 
     Form 398? This was a highly sensitive national-security 
     questionnaire, under the eye of the Privacy Act Branch of the 
     Defense Security Service; Question 21 dealt with arrests and 
     detentions.
       Bacon quickly swung into action. He ordered his deputy, 
     Cliff Bernath, to get Mayer her answer. Hours before the 
     reporter's deadline, Bernath told her not to worry: ``Ken has 
     made clear it's priority.'' Moving heaven and earth, and 
     alarming career officers as he went, Bernath delivered--right 
     on time.
       It looked like bad news for Tripp: She had not, in fact, 
     disclosed on Form 398 her 1969 arrest. Bernath told the New 
     York Times that Tripp faced the ``very serious charge'' of 
     lying to the government. Defense secretary William Cohen 
     declared on CNN that Tripp was ``guilty of a contradiction of 
     the truth,'' which would be ``looked into.'' It soon emerged, 
     however, that Tripp's arrest had been the result of a 
     juvenile prank, perpetrated against her. The judge had 
     reduced the charge to one count of loitering, telling her, as 
     she recalled it, that her record would be clear. The 
     Pentagon, rather sheepishly, dropped its investigation of 
     Tripp. Instead, Congress demanded that the department 
     investigate Bacon and Bernath--for violating the Privacy Act. 
     In their attempt to help Mayer nail Tripp, the two men seemed 
     to have nailed themselves.
       The Pentagon's inspector general, Eleanor Hill, duly 
     launched an investigation. The case being clear-cut, it 
     didn't take her long to find that Bacon and Bernath had 
     indeed violated the Privacy Act. In July 1998, she referred 
     the matter to the Justice Department--which then sat on it 
     for almost two full years. This would have been 
     incomprehensible in any other administration. Only in April 
     2000 did Justice announce that it would not prosecute. 
     Incredibly, the department claimed that there was ``no direct 
     evidence upon which to pursue any violation of the Privacy 
     Act.''
       It was then left to Secretary Cohen to determine a penalty 
     for Bacon and Bernath--if any. What he decided to do was 
     write a letter expressing his ``disappointment'' in the men. 
     Each would receive a copy. In this letter, Cohen said that 
     his subordinates' actions had been ``hasty and ill-
     considered.'' He noted that, at the time of the incident, 
     they and others at the Pentagon were under instruction not to 
     release anything concerning Tripp without first consulting 
     department lawyers. The strongest language he used was 
     ``serious lapse of judgment.'' But this was balanced against 
     ``the very high quality of the performance that you have 
     otherwise exhibited.'' Amazingly, Cohen told the press that 
     ``there was no attempt to injure Miss Tripp's credibility or 
     her reputation.''
       Contemplating this, Dick Morris, the former Clinton 
     adviser, had no choice but to remark, ``Generally, it is a 
     good political rule never to say anything that the average 6-
     year-old knows isn't true.''
       The most striking thing about the Cohen letter is that it 
     will not even be placed in either Bacon's or Bernath's 
     permanent file. According to the Pentagon, this is not a 
     letter of reprimand. A department spokesman, Craig Quigley, 
     described it as ``a personal letter to both Mr. Bernath and 
     Mr. Bacon.'' Incredulous, a reporter said, ``So, it's not a 
     letter of reprimand?'' ``No,'' said Quigley, ``Well, what 
     would you call it?'' Said Quigley, ``It's an official letter 
     expressing the secretary's disappointment in the judgment'' 
     of the two officials.
       Quigley, like his boss, Bacon, also persisted in the 
     fiction that the leak to Mayer was no big deal--a matter of 
     routing, just business as usual. ``This information was taken 
     in the normal course of the day.'' It was ``done very clearly 
     and above board.'' You know how it is at the Pentagon: ``A 
     reporter will call with a question or request for data of 
     some sort, and it's provided as best we can.'' Anyone who has 
     ever covered, or tried to cover, the Defense Department will 
     gladly tell you this is rot. Quigley trotted out another line 
     as well, one that is increasingly becoming the Bacon defense: 
     ``You always do a balancing act between the Freedom of 
     Information Act and the Privacy Act.'' This assertion is 
     absurd: Form 398 is strickly a Privacy Act document.
       After Cohen's non-reprimand, a few Republicans properly 
     cried bloody murder. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma accused 
     the Pentagon of ``a whitewash and a coverup.'' He said that 
     ``the law was broken, and nothing is being done about it.'' 
     The failure to punish the leakers would ``send a signal to 
     millions of federal civilian and military employees that 
     their private government records can be made public for 
     political purposes, and no one will be held accountable.''
       For their part, Bacon and Bernath are denying any violation 
     of the Privacy Act. At a press conference, Bacon was asked 
     whether he would apologize to Tripp. ``Well,'' he replied, 
     ``I have already issued the apologies that I have to issue.'' 
     (He didn't specify what those were.) ``I don't think that I 
     performed unlawfully,'' he continued. His only regret was 
     that he had not ``checked this with lawyers.'' In an official 
     statement, Bacon said, ``It certainly never occurred to me 
     that the Privacy Act would preclude disclosing how a public 
     figure recorded a public arrest record on a security 
     clearance.'' And here is more, perhaps Bacon's richest 
     utterance to date: ``I obviously knew that this was an issue 
     of considerable public concern and that the public had an 
     interest in knowing whether Ms. Tripp had accurately 
     acknowledged her arrest record.''
       Bernath, the junior partner in the enterprise, following 
     orders, although blindly, was

[[Page 10315]]

     similarly unbowed, saying, ``My actions were not only legal, 
     but also ethical and correct.''
       Meanwhile, Tripp is suing both the Pentagon and the White 
     House for Privacy Act violations and witness intimidation. 
     This suit may in fact have been on Cohen's mind when he 
     declined to take serious action against his guys. Cohen gave 
     the game away somewhat on Meet the Press, saying of Bacon, 
     ``He is now the subject of a major lawsuit. And so he will 
     continue to be held accountable to the legal process.'' This 
     is exactly the sort of thinking that worries many observers, 
     including Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney with long 
     experience in this area. Says diGenova, ``The treatment of 
     Bacon and Bernath suggests that the Privacy Act will be 
     enforceable only in civil lawsuits filed by the victims. It 
     there's no adverse action--not even a letter that goes into 
     somebody's file--there's no deterrence here. None 
     whatsoever.'' In other words, ``Don't leave it solely to the 
     victim, who has to pay lawyers and so on, to enforce her 
     rights under the Privacy Act. The government should enforce 
     those rights, especially given that it was government people 
     who broke the law.''
       The president and his men have a bit of a history with the 
     Privacy Act. You perhaps remember Passportgate. Toward the 
     end of the 1992 presidential campaign, it was learned that 
     political appointees in the Bush State Department had rifled 
     through candidate Clinton's passport files and those of his 
     mother. Democrats demanded an independent-counsel 
     investigation. They got one--led by diGenova. One of the 
     officials involved, Elizabeth Tamposi, was dismissed. The 
     acting secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, offered to 
     resign over the matter (President Bush refused). Said 
     Clinton, in his first press conference as president-elect, 
     ``If I catch anybody doing [what the passport-file offenders 
     did], I will fire them the next day. You won't have to have 
     an inquiry or rigmarole or anything else.''
       About a year later, Passportgage had something of a 
     reprise, this time featuring appointees in Clinton's own 
     State Department. A few of them got hold of Bush-
     administration personnel files and leaked them to Al Kamen of 
     the Washington Post. Kamen thus had the following story: 
     ``Guess whose working file was empty? That of very 
     controversial longtime Bush employee Jennifer Fitzgerald.'' 
     Kamen, of course, was being coy here: Fitzgerald was the 
     woman rumored to have had an affair with President Bush. 
     Damen was also able to report that Elizabeth Tamposi's file 
     included ``concerns from very senior State Department types 
     that she was not ready for an assistant secretaryship.''
       Immediately, the State Department's inspector general, 
     Sherman Funk, began an investigation. He found that two 
     employees--Joseph Tarver and Mark Schulhof--were stone-cold 
     guilty. Funk told Congress that the pair had engaged in 
     ``criminal violations of the Privacy Act provable beyond a 
     reasonable doubt.'' The Justice Department (developing a 
     pattern) refused to prosecute. In November 1993, the 
     department secretary, Warren Christopher, fired Tarver and 
     Schulhof. This must have been one of the last acts of 
     Clinton-administration honor. The contrast with the Bacon-
     Tripp case--in this last respect--is overwhelming.
       Then, of course, there was Filegate, in which the White 
     House gathered unto its bosom hundreds of Republican FBI 
     files, including Linda Tripp's. And the president himself was 
     prompt to release letters from Kathleen Willey--a woman who 
     had accused him of improper sexual conduct--when it was 
     convenient.
       If all this didn't begin with Watergate, it was certainly 
     enshrined there. When the Bacon-Tripp story first broke, 
     Charles Colson reminded this magazine that it was to a Bacon-
     style disclosure that he had pleaded guilty, in 1974. He had 
     released information from Daniel Ellsberg's FBI file to the 
     Copley Press, at a time when Ellsberg was a defendant in the 
     Pentagon Papers case and a thorn in the Nixon 
     administration's side--the parallels to Tripp are neat. 
     Colson went to jail for this. The special prosecutor, Leon 
     Jaworski, rejoiced that Colson's plea had set a precedent: No 
     longer would political appointees so readily smear their foes 
     in this way. Indeed, the Privacy Act was a post-Watergate 
     reform, intended to check Nixonian abuses.
       Says diGenova, ``The Bacon thing is a facial and obvious 
     violation of the Privacy Act. It is made for it.'' Bear this 
     in mind: ``Linda Tripp was engaged in a very public dispute 
     with the president.'' His presidency hung in the balance; he, 
     like Nixon before him, was on the road to impeachment. ``This 
     is precisely the kind of circumstance that Congress had in 
     mind when it gave us the Privacy Act. And not to punish this 
     conduct is a very serious mistake.''
       Apart from Tripp's lonely lawsuit, this affair has now 
     reached an end. Yet two questions hang over it. First, Who 
     gave Jane Mayer that promising tidbit from Tripp's past? 
     Mayer says that it was a former wife of Tripp's father. 
     Others--not necessarily full-time conspiracy theorists, 
     either--wonder whether that's the full story. Team Clinton 
     had every reason to dig for dirt on Tripp. The chief 
     recordkeeper in the White House, Terry Good, testified in a 
     deposition that the White House counsel's office had 
     requested ``anything and everything that we might have in our 
     files relating to Linda Tripp.''
       The second question is, Did Bacon act of his own 
     initiative? Or was he prompted by someone--presumably at the 
     White House--to let fly what appeared to be damaging 
     information? Bacon has steadfastly claimed that he acted 
     entirely on his own, with no order, wink, or nod. But this 
     strikes most people familiar with the workings of the 
     Pentagon--and of the Clinton camp generally--as implausible. 
     A veteran Defense Department hand told us, ``Couldn't happen, 
     didn't happen, no way, no how. Remember: Everyone who comes 
     into public affairs is told Privacy Act rules. You don't 
     release someone's confidential information--to anyone, much 
     less the media. This is Public Affairs 101. And Bacon is 
     perpetrating a shameful lie. Any professional in the building 
     will tell you the same thing.''
       So, the Clinton administration lurches to a close, its 
     players going this way and that, its loose ends being tied 
     up, however unsatisfactorily. Jane Mayer, the little lady who 
     started this not-so-great war, was recently a guest at a 
     White House state dinner. She was seated in a place of honor: 
     the first lady's table. As for her friend Bacon, he has waxed 
     philosophical about his humble-gate: ``This is an extremely 
     small part of a large and painful national drama.''
       Yes, but it is significant nonetheless. The rule of law has 
     taken a beating in this administration, not to mention such 
     demands as honesty and trustworthiness. After Cohen flaked 
     out, one of Tripp's lawyers made a somewhat poignant 
     statement: ``Despite Linda Tripp's unpopularity, the law 
     should protect her.'' Such a simple notion. And powerful, 
     even now.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, for purposes of the statement I am 
about to give, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to display a 
small safe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                            MEDICARE LOCKBOX

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, according to the latest estimates put 
forth by the Congressional Budget Office, the United States is 
projected to achieve an on-budget surplus of $26 billion in fiscal year 
2000, the current fiscal year. What many Americans do not realize is 
that Medicare Part A, that portion of every person's paycheck that is 
deducted for hospital insurance, is the largest component of our 
Nation's on-budget surplus. It accounts for approximately $22 billion 
of the $26 billion fiscal year 2000 surplus. Of the on-budget surplus 
of $26 billion, $22 billion is actually money that has been paid into 
Medicare that is not being used for Medicare recipients today. It is 
overpayment.
  Of that $26 billion on-budget surplus, the fiscal year 2001 budget 
resolution assumed that $14 billion of that on-budget surplus would be 
used to pay for military operations in Kosovo, natural disaster relief 
in the United States, Colombian drug eradication assistance, and other 
supplemental spending. Fourteen billion of the $26 billion has been 
spoken for, and for all intents and purposes, it is off the table. It 
is gone.
  That leaves approximately $12 billion in on-budget surplus dollars 
available and unallocated--quite a tempting target.
  If we don't use this $12 billion to pay down the national debt, I am 
concerned Congress will just spend the money. However, there is another 
option. In the very near future, Senator Allard and I and several of 
our other colleagues will propose an amendment that will direct the 
remaining $12 billion to be used for debt reduction instead of allowing 
it to be squandered on additional spending. We have given a lot of 
lipservice to being in favor of reducing the national debt. We have 
heard it in the House and the Senate. This will be a wonderful 
opportunity for everybody to vote to put $12 billion of the on-budget 
surplus into debt reduction.
  In addition, once the CBO releases its revised baseline this summer, 
we will come back again and propose another amendment that will 
allocate whatever additional fiscal year 2000 on-budget surplus dollars 
are achieved towards debt reduction. We know in July we will have new 
numbers so there will be more money. At that time, we will come back 
and say: Let us use that additional money to pay down the debt.
  Ever since the Congressional Budget Office first projected we would 
have a budget surplus back in 1998, Congress

[[Page 10316]]

and the administration have been falling all over themselves to spend 
our on-budget surplus dollars. Indeed, if we include the supplemental 
appropriations, fiscal year 2000 discretionary spending will increase 
$37 billion, or 6.4 percent, over fiscal year 1999. Again, when we use 
the $14 billion of the on-budget surplus and add it to what we have 
already allocated for 2000, we are now talking about a 6.4-percent 
increase in spending in the year 2000 over 1999. That is tremendous 
growth in Government spending.
  On another note, we hear that Vice President Gore now supports a 
Medicare lockbox, a lockbox similar to the one we created.
  As I stated earlier, Medicare Part A is the largest component of our 
Nation's on-budget surplus, accounting for approximately $22 billion. 
Because of our strong economy and high employment, more money has come 
into the Medicare program via the payroll tax than has been spent in 
benefits. Again, we are either going to spend those on-budget surplus 
dollars on unrelated Government spending, or we can use it to reduce 
the national debt.
  Last November, Senator Ashcroft introduced the Social Security and 
Medicare Safe Deposit Act to wall off both the Social Security and 
Medicare Part A trust fund surpluses; in essence, to put them in a 
lockbox so the only other purpose for which they could be used would be 
to pay down the national debt. That is what we were going to do with 
it. The Senate had a chance this year to vote on a Medicare lockbox on 
April 7, when Senators Ashcroft, Brownback, Grams, and I offered an 
amendment to the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. Unfortunately, 
Senator Ashcroft had only 2 minutes to speak on the subject. I didn't 
get a chance to speak on it at all because no one was very interested 
at that time.
  I remind my colleagues, the vote on the Medicare lockbox amendment 
was opposed by 43 Members of this Senate on the opposite side of the 
aisle; that is, 43 Democratic Members of the Senate voted ``no'' on the 
Medicare lockbox amendment. I thought the Medicare lockbox was a good 
idea then; I think it is still a good idea. Now, apparently, the Vice 
President thinks it is a good idea.
  We need to lockbox Medicare to make sure that the excess money paid 
into Medicare Part A goes for debt reduction and is not going to be 
used for more spending or tax cuts. We need to use it for debt 
reduction, period, just as all the experts have said. Alan Greenspan, 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board; Daniel Crippen, head of CBO; 
David Walker, head of the GAO--all have said we should take the on-
budget surplus and use it to pay down debt. I am pleased the Vice 
President is on board with a Medicare lockbox. I hope he will be able 
to convince Senators on the other side of the aisle that we need to 
make sure the on-budget surplus funds coming into the Treasury, which 
are mostly Medicare Part A dollars, are used to pay down the debt.
  If my colleagues on the other side agree with the Vice President that 
we need to lockbox the Medicare surplus, which comprises $22 billion of 
the on-budget surplus, then they should have no problem supporting 
using $12 billion to pay down the debt.
  We are going to have an opportunity twice this year--once perhaps 
this week on the Defense appropriations bill--to use the remaining on-
budget surplus to reduce the national debt or to pay for more spending. 
I think it will be one of the best budget votes my colleagues will have 
all year long. Not only will it keep down spending, it will help bring 
down our publicly held debt. We have to make sure we make the right 
decisions in terms of our on-budget surplus.
  I would like to also take advantage of this opportunity to quote the 
Vice President. This quotation was in the Washington Post:

       The temptation has always been to treat Medicare the way 
     Social Security used to be treated--as a source of money for 
     spending or tax cuts. And now that we have succeeded in 
     taking Social Security off budget and using it to pay down 
     the debt, we need to do the same thing with Medicare and put 
     it in a lockbox.

  I remind my colleagues that when the issue of the Social Security 
lockbox came up on the floor of the Senate, our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, on six occasions, all 45 of them voted against--
voted against--the Social Security lockbox. My feeling is that we will 
find out this year whether or not the administration is in favor of 
lockboxing Social Security and lockboxing Medicare.
  I think it is time we level with the American people and let them 
know that the on-budget surplus we have been talking about is primarily 
made up of overpayment of Medicare Part A payroll taxes, and that what 
we have been doing is proposing to use that for more spending or for 
reducing taxes. Let's lock it up. Let's put it in a lockbox. Let's make 
sure that the money that is being paid into Medicare is money for 
insurance for the elderly and is not used for tax reductions or, in the 
alternative, used to pay for other Federal spending. Now is the time to 
make that point. Now is the time to be counted.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  (Mr. VOINOVICH assumed the chair.)
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe we have about 15 minutes left in 
morning business, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________



                    DECIDING THE SENATE'S PRIORITIES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio. I certainly 
could not agree more that when we have--as we do and will--a surplus, 
we need to decide where our priorities are in terms of spending those 
dollars. I can tell you, if they are just left here, they will be 
spent. If our priorities do lie in funding what our programs are, in 
ensuring that Social Security maintains itself, and that Medicare is 
there, and when we want to ensure that we keep a balanced budget and 
start to pay down our debt, then we have to commit ourselves to do 
those things. I think it is an excellent idea for those dollars, so 
that they won't be spent for something else. I also think we ought to 
pay down the debt, and we hopefully will have some opportunity to get 
some tax relief. It is tougher, interestingly enough, when you have a 
surplus to make sure that the money is used as beneficially as when you 
are dealing with a deficit. That is what I wanted to talk about this 
morning.
  That is how we might make Government more efficient. You know, we 
talk about that a lot. Most of us talk about less Federal Government 
and how do we make sure the dollars are spent as efficiently as they 
can be and, hopefully, how we can arrive at a situation where those 
people who earn the dollars can keep more of them. That ought to be 
part of our goal.
  I think there are some things that this Congress ought to consider, 
and they seem very important to me--ways in which we intend to ensure 
that the Government is more efficient, that the Federal Government 
indeed is limited in size, and that we make certain the Federal 
Government does those things that are defined in the Constitution and 
not those other things that are not and should be left to the States 
and the people. That is what the Constitution says. That is what most 
of us want.
  Particularly, I suppose, when you come from a State such as mine, 
Wyoming, where we have a relatively low population, where we have a lot 
of open space and not too many folks, then the way you have programs 
function is different than it is in Connecticut and different than it 
is in Pittsburgh. So you really need that flexibility and you need to 
be doing as much governance as can be done, in my opinion, as close to 
people as possible so that it fits. That is what we ought to be talking 
about--less bureaucracy and more responsiveness, and doing what we need 
to do. This budget process that we are going through now is quite 
important,

[[Page 10317]]

not only with respect to spending the money, but we really define for 
ourselves what we think the priorities are in terms of the needs of the 
American people, and what the role of the Federal Government is to help 
satisfy those needs. It is difficult.
  I think it is fair to say that governments have less discipline than 
the private sector. There is really nothing to force the Government to 
have to behave in different ways, which is true in the private sector. 
I come from a business background. I tell you, you have to make changes 
from time to time because the economy makes it imperative that you do 
that, or you go broke. You are forced to change. That is not so with 
the Government. There is no competition there, so you are not forced to 
do things. I am not totally critical of the Government, by any means. I 
am only saying that there is a difference between how you run the 
Government and how you run the private sector. I believe there are a 
number of factors in the private sector that would help make the 
Federal Government much more effective. You have to force change. 
Change doesn't come about easily in a bureaucracy. Governments tend to 
go on as they have in the past. They tend to say that is what we have 
done before and what we will continue to do. It is resistant to change. 
So seldom are they forced to reorganize. Agencies are insulated, to 
some extent, by the Congress. If we don't do some things to bring about 
change, then change doesn't come about. I think it is our 
responsibility to do some of those things.
  There are a number of ideas that I believe will help strengthen the 
system--ideas that are adapted from the private sector, to a large 
extent. They have to be initiated by the Congress, and there has to be 
a system in which the Congress exercises its responsibility for 
oversight to make sure that does not happen. There has to be a way that 
things are audited, that things are reviewed to see if, in fact, we are 
accomplishing the things that are set out to do.
  The first would be, of course, to establish goals.
  I have recently been involved in electric deregulation. We have had 
great battles over it. I am not sure what is going to happen or whether 
it will be done this year. We are seeking, however, to make some 
changes in the electric generating and distribution system. It has been 
a regulated utility for years. We want to see if we can't do it a 
little better in other ways.
  Do you know what else we should do, in my opinion? We haven't really 
defined what we want. We get all wrapped up in what is going on. We are 
going to do this, or that, or this, when we haven't really clearly 
defined what we want the end result to be.
  It seems to me it would be very productive if this Congress--maybe 
when we start to deal with campaign finance--knew what it wanted in the 
end. I think we could do that. If you are not certain where you are 
going--remember the old story of Alice in Wonderland. She fell through 
the hole and talked to all of the different people, and didn't get any 
advice. Finally, she saw the Cheshire cat up in the tree, and she was 
right at the junction of the road. She said: Cat, which road should I 
take? The cat said: Where do you want to go? She said: I don't know. 
The cat said: Then it doesn't make any difference what road you take.
  That is kind of where we are sometimes. If we don't know what we want 
to accomplish, then how do we get there?
  I think instead of emphasizing the process, which we often do, we 
then need to measure results. That is really what it ought to be about. 
That is where you have the flexibility by saying you worry so much 
about how you get there but you measure the results at the end. There 
are things we can do.
  Congress needs to first define where we are going, define how we get 
there, and then measure the results; give some flexibility so that 
things can be done differently in different places. The health care 
system delivery is much different in Wyoming from what it is in 
California. You have to have some flexibility to do that.
  Congressional oversight is something that, unfortunately, we probably 
don't do as much as we should. That is what committee meetings are for. 
That is what audits are for. When you pass a law and say here is where 
we want to go, then you have to say: How are we getting there? We don't 
do that well.
  The Republicans and the majority party have been putting emphasis on 
oversight. I think that is a great thing to do. That is why I like 
biennial appropriations--so you don't have to spend 2 years doing 
appropriations. We ought to do them every other year, and spend the 
interim year seeing if the money we are spending is doing the things we 
intended.
  The Constitution divides the responsibilities in the Federal 
Government for a reason; that is, so that no one segment of Government 
controls everything. We have an executive branch; we have a legislative 
branch; we have a judicial branch. It is for good reason: To divide and 
strengthen the responsibilities and power so there is balance.
  We, frankly, find that particularly this administration, as their 
time expires, is moving far beyond what the legislature has authorized 
and doing many things by regulation without talking at all with the 
Congress or, indeed, to the people. I think we have to really make sure 
that what the law intends is carried out.
  Congress passed a bill in 1998, which I authored, which defines the 
various activities of Congress: Listing those activities that are 
inherently governmental, listing those that are not, and listing those 
that could better be done by contract in the private sector. We passed 
that bill. We have had some progress. There has been a listing, 
generally.
  By the way, the Defense Department, in my opinion, does a better job 
of contracting than any other agency. That ought to be the role of an 
agency, to strengthen their ability to manage contracts, but to let 
those contracts go out to the private sector and people who do that 
professionally and more efficiently all of the time. I think that is 
something we really ought to be able to do.
  We also need, of course, to find a way to terminate programs.
  I mentioned in the beginning that Government tends to perpetuate 
itself. It seems to go on. I understand that. There ought to be a way 
to have some kind of sunset mechanism. After a period of time, 
hopefully, a job is finished. Not in every case, but in some cases the 
work is completed, and the mission is accomplished. Then we ought to do 
away with that agency or activity that was developed for a particular 
job. Unfortunately, in the political system, as you start a program of 
that kind, it builds its own constituency and seems never to go away. 
But we need to have a way to do that. I think the sunset idea is an 
interesting one.
  We have been talking about these for some time.
  I am really delighted to see in the news today what Gov. George Bush 
suggested. One is opening positions to commercial activities, and 
another one is result oriented and talking about doing the very things 
we are talking about here. If we could have an administration that 
agrees with Congress to move that way, we could do it.
  I close by saying I introduced last week the Congressional Regulatory 
Review Reform Act of 2000. In 1993, a bill was passed that said 
regulations needed to be sent back to Congress for some kind of 
oversight. We found increasingly, particularly in this administration, 
that there was an effort and an agenda to move regulation by Executive 
orders that could not get through the legislative process--to sort of 
go around it. Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen and 
has delegated much of its legislative responsibility to the bureaucracy 
in terms of the regulations that are written to implement the law.
  Clearly, Congress can't go into huge detail, nor should it. But the 
important thing is that the regulations designed to implement the law 
need to carry out the intent.
  In my subcommittee last week we had a meeting on national parks. We 
have a very good national park bill that was passed in 1998. Now we are 
implementing that bill. We are having

[[Page 10318]]

discussions as to how we ensure the regulations that are developed in 
fact bring about the change intended in the legislation and that 
regulations don't simply keep it as it was.
  The system we passed in 1996 has not worked as well as it should. 
Over 12,000 nonmajor rules and 186 major rules have been submitted to 
Congress--major rules being ones that have more than $100 million in 
impact on the private sector. Out of 12,000, only 7 resolutions of 
disapproval have been introduced pertaining to 5 bills. None has passed 
either House. So it isn't working as it should.
  We are trying to make some changes and say, rather than just going to 
the Office of Management and Budget, it ought to go to GAO, which is 
the general auditing organization. Then it should come to Congress so 
Congress has an opportunity to take a look at it. If indeed it doesn't 
reflect the intent, Congress should have a chance to change it.
  Those are some of the things that I think would help implement the 
things we are doing. It would help to have a smaller and more efficient 
Government. It would help us, Mr. President, as you pointed out, to set 
aside some of the dollars that ought to be used to pay down the debt 
and go back to the taxpayers. I think we have a great opportunity to do 
that. I hope we focus on that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________



             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
     for other purposes.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise to remind Senators that there is 
an order that requires amendments to this bill be filed by 3 p.m. We 
have been notified there are about 41 amendments that may be offered. 
Senator Inouye and I are prepared to deal with these.
  If Members have amendments and desire to have a vote sometime 
tomorrow, please take time this afternoon to initiate that debate. 
There is no time limit on amendments yet, but we do intend to reach a 
time limit agreement on amendments later this afternoon. If Members 
have amendments and desire to have a considerable amount of time to 
present to the Senate, this is a great time to do that.
  We will be working up a managers' package of amendments that we 
believe we can take to conference and work out. Senators may want to 
identify those amendments and present them. We would be pleased to 
consider them now and determine if we will put them in the managers' 
package so we can move the bill forward.
  It is our hope we will finish this bill tomorrow afternoon. That is 
complicated a little bit by the fact we have a full Appropriations 
Committee meeting tomorrow afternoon to report out the Transportation 
appropriations bill. That may not take very long. It is our intention 
to keep working on the Defense bill, notwithstanding the fact we will 
be in committee on the Transportation bill. I urge Senators to 
introduce and possibly present amendments to the Senate so we can 
determine whether they should be included in our managers' package, 
which will be accepted by unanimous consent.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 3308

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for the preventative application 
of dangerous pesticides in areas owned or managed by the Department of 
                 Defense that may be used by children)

  Mrs. BOXER. I send an amendment to the desk. I ask for its immediate 
consideration. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer], for herself and 
     Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3308.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 8__. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTATIVE 
                   APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES IN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE AREAS THAT MAY BE USED BY CHILDREN.

       (a) Definition of Pesticide.--In this section, the term 
     `pesticide' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
     U.S.C. 136).
       (b) Prohibition Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under this Act may be used for the preventative 
     application of a pesticide containing a known or probable 
     carcinogen or a category I or II acute nerve toxin, or a 
     pesticide of the organophosphate, carbamate, or 
     organochlorine class, in any area owned or managed by the 
     Department of Defense that may be used by children, including 
     a park, base housing, a recreation center, a playground, or a 
     daycare facility.

  Mrs. BOXER. I will do my best to describe my amendment in about 10 
minutes, if I might.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to the Senator from Alaska, I am asking for the 
yeas and nays on my amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I will agree to that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may be recognized, I ask that it be 
scheduled for sometime tomorrow at a time to be agreed upon between the 
Senator from Hawaii and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's unanimous 
consent request?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to clarify with my friend from Alaska and my 
friend from Hawaii that we will have an up-or-down vote on this 
amendment and not a second degree? We can have a vote up or down.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no problem with agreeing that the amendment not 
be subject to a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Alaska and my friend from Hawaii 
for agreeing to my request. I hope we will not have much opposition 
because I believe that this amendment is, in fact, consistent with the 
stated policy of the Department of Defense. I will explain what my 
amendment does.
  My amendment would prohibit the routine use of particularly harmful 
pesticides on Department of Defense property or grounds where children 
may be present.
  I was stunned to learn, about a year after I got to the Senate--so it 
must have been about 1984--that the way the laws were written and the 
way they applied across the Government was that our environmental laws 
were set to protect essentially 155-pound men.
  Now, that is fine, if you are in that category, but what we find out 
is that people of a lesser weight, a different

[[Page 10319]]

gender, pregnant women, the elderly, people who are ill, and little 
children, react very differently to that amount of pollution or 
pesticide, as the case may be. So I wrote a bill called the Children's 
Environmental Protection Act. I am very much hopeful that we can get it 
passed as sort of an omnibus bill that takes care of all of our laws in 
every Department to make sure that children, in particular, are 
protected.
  So far we have not had much luck moving that bigger package, so what 
I have done is, on every bill that has come before this body, I have 
offered an amendment that would lower the risk for our children. In 
this particular case, we are saying to the Department of Defense: You 
have been good about putting the policy forward; we want to codify it 
and make sure that you do not use a pesticide containing a probable 
carcinogen or a known carcinogen, an acute nerve toxin or other toxins 
that would in fact harm our children.
  Why is it important to limit the use of these pesticides around 
children? Clearly, by definition, pesticides are meant to kill living 
things. Exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, neurological 
disorders, and learning disabilities. For example, common insecticides 
that schools spray on baseboards and floors to kill cockroaches and 
ants include an active ingredient--chlorpyrifos--that is classified by 
the EPA as a nerve toxin. And I compliment Carol Browner over at the 
EPA because she just held a press conference announcing that this 
particular ingredient will be banned. However, it is important to note 
it is going to take at least 6 months for that ban, and we do not want 
that kind of toxin being sprayed around children. That is why it is 
important to include it in this amendment.
  We know that potential chronic effects from exposure to these kinds 
of harmful toxins, we know we see a decrease in neurological 
performance.
  Are these risks any different for children in relation to adults? The 
answer is yes. I would like to refer you to the 1993 National Academy 
of Sciences report, ``Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and 
Children.'' We know that children are at greater risk to experience the 
harmful effects of pesticides exposure than adults. In other words, 
children are not just little adults. They are changing; they are 
growing. I often say that I am a little adult but I am not a child; I 
have grown to my maximum potential. But the fact is, kids at a certain 
age, before they reach maturity, are very susceptible to having adverse 
reactions to the chemicals that I would not have, nor Senator Inouye, 
nor Senator Stevens, nor our Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts; we are 
stronger, although I would say they are much stronger than I am because 
they are being protected because of a rule that says if you are a 155-
pound male, you will be OK.
  So it is important to bring this issue to the Senate as often as I 
can, and I am very pleased with the response I have gotten from 
colleagues thus far because we have been able to change the rules as 
they apply to safe drinking water; we recently had some luck on an 
education bill; and we have had some luck with the Superfund in 
committee. We make sure that when the Superfund sites are cleaned up--
these are the terrible dumps that include so many harmful toxins--they 
are cleaned up to protect children, not just the 155-pound adults.
  We know that pound for pound of body weight, children eat more food; 
they drink more water; and they breathe more air than adults so they 
are vulnerable. They are rapidly growing; their developing systems are 
vulnerable.
  I want to show you this picture in case you are wondering what all 
this means because I think it is extremely interesting and it is also 
extremely disturbing.
  This picture is from a study, ``Showing the Effects of Pesticide 
Exposure on Young children.'' One group of children in this study was 
from a region where pesticide use was high, both in the home and 
outdoors. The other group in the study was the same as the first group: 
same age, same ethnicity, except the second group of children was from 
regions where pesticides were not used--the same group of children, 
except for pesticide exposure. The two groups of children were asked to 
draw a person to test their cognitive ability, their ability to learn 
and understand. These are the results, results which show an unsettling 
picture.
  These are the pictures that were drawn by the kids who were exposed 
to pesticides. You can see you don't even see a resemblance of a 
person. And clearly where there was very little exposure, you are 
getting a much more appropriate type of drawing. This isn't something 
that we are making up. We are seeing this response.
  The kids who grew up without exposure to pesticide use in significant 
proportions did far better. They had better hand-eye coordination, and 
you could see it so clearly; they had better memory and their brain 
skills were so much sharper.
  The study's authors also observed that children from the area with 
little pesticide use--and again that is clearly this group shown here--
engaged in more group play; they were more creative with their 
activities; they were less aggressive than the children from the area 
with the high pesticide use. This is a study that is considered one of 
the first in this particular area.
  This was done by Professor Elizabeth Guillette who is affiliated with 
the University of Arizona. This study clearly shows what many of us 
have suspected for a long time. It is a fact in evidence that our kids 
are damaged when they are exposed to dangerous pesticides and toxins.
  The point I want to make about the amendment is that while we 
prohibit the routine use of these dangerous pesticides, we certainly do 
not prohibit the Department of Defense from using common and less toxic 
pesticides.
  Under the amendment, DOD could still use synthetic pyrethroid 
insecticides to control insects. These insecticides are among the most 
common used today.
  And, DOD could still use copper sulfate, a very common pesticide used 
today.
  DOD also could still use ``biopesticides''--there are some 50 of 
these type pesticides in use today.
  DOD could also use pheromone traps and baits--which are used heavily 
today to control termites and carpenter ants.
  Finally, DOD could still use insect growth regulators, which help 
control insects.
  I was asked when putting this amendment together: Suppose there is an 
absolute emergency and we have an encephalitis epidemic break out on a 
military base. We make an exception for that in this amendment. We 
agree, if we have to go to these harsher toxins to fight a health 
hazard. Of course. We have an exception in this amendment. By the way, 
that exception is part of the DOD guidelines.
  We are only banning as a routine method the known carcinogens, the 
probable carcinogens, the nerve toxins from regular use.
  This is a very disturbing study that was done by someone who is 
considered a leader in this field of understanding children and their 
brain development at the University of Arizona. We know for a fact that 
kids are adversely impacted by these toxins. I would be very pleased to 
see the Senate act to put on the record and put into law the official 
banning of these very harmful pesticides.
  I again thank my colleague, the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, for 
his help on this. I ask unanimous consent that Harry Reid be added as a 
cosponsor to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I particularly thank Senator Stevens for 
his graciousness in not only allowing me to go forward with this 
amendment today but agreeing to have a vote directly on the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the author of the 
measure?
  Mrs. BOXER. Certainly.
  Mr. INOUYE. Is the Senator satisfied that her amendment does not 
violate provisions of rule XVI?

[[Page 10320]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, we have been told it is drawn in such a fashion that 
it simply says no funds may be used for these pesticides and toxins on 
a regular basis.
  Mr. INOUYE. It is limited only to the Department of Defense.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is correct. I would love to do much more, I say to 
my friend, but we are following rule XVI.
  Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendments Nos. 3317 through 3320, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have four amendments at the desk; three 
are technical in nature and one is substantive. I ask unanimous consent 
they be presented at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments 
     numbered 3317 through 3320, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment No. 3317

(Purpose: To provide research and development funds for the Information 
                          Technology project)

       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       ``Sec.  . In addition to funds made available in Title IV 
     of this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test 
     and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $20,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for Information Technology Center.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3318

   (Purpose: To make a technical correction to Sec. 8083 of the bill)

       On page 83, line 26 of the bill after the comma strike the 
     following text: ``1999 (Public Law 105-262)'', and insert the 
     following text: ``2000 (Public Law 106-79)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3319

       (Purpose: To make a technical correction on Section 8014)

       On page 47, at line 21, strike the words ``Native American 
     ownership'' and insert in lieu thereof ``ownership by an 
     Indian tribe, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e), or a Native 
     Hawaiian organization, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(15)''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3320

       (Purpose: To make a technical correction on Section 8073)

       On page 79, insert the words ``Increase Use/Reserve support 
     to the Operational Commander-in-Chiefs and with'' after the 
     words ``to be used in support of such personnel in connection 
     with''.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would have been pleased to have had the 
amendments read, but they are technical. They have been cleared by my 
good friend from Hawaii. I ask unanimous consent the amendments be 
adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3317 through 3320), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I now send to the desk a series of 
amendments. Normally, it would be shown that I have offered them for 
these Senators. I ask unanimous consent they be shown to have been 
submitted by the Senators whose names have been shown as sponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia and I have just discussed an amendment he has filed. He is 
prepared to modify that amendment but wishes a little bit more time. I 
ask unanimous consent that the amendment that has been filed by Senator 
Byrd be subject to his modification notwithstanding the present order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3328

  (Purpose: To adjust the cash balances available under the ``Foreign 
               Currency Fluctuations, Defense'' account)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3328.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 90, line 14, strike Section 8091 and insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 8091. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $789,700,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign 
     currency fluctuations, and stabilization of the balance 
     available within the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuation, 
     Defense'', account.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment changes one figure in the 
bill. It is cleared by Senator Inouye.
  Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3328) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am filing an amendment for myself and 
Senators Roth and Biden. In their absence, I am submitting this 
amendment probably as an alternative to an amendment they have filed. I 
want it on the record just to avoid any problems in the future. I ask 
that it be filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be filed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am also filing an amendment for myself 
and Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be filed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that another 
amendment for Senator McCain be printed in the Record.
  There is one other.
  These may have been already filed. If so, I ask that they just be 
withdrawn as a redundancy. But we are not certain they have been filed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be filed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, has time passed for the filing of 
amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 10321]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the Boxer amendment occur at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow with 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided prior to the vote.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, can we withhold that just for a moment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to address some 
remarks to the Department of Defense appropriations bill.
  I commend the managers of the bill, Chairman Stevens and Senator 
Inouye, for their work on this measure. These two Senators have a vast 
knowledge, and it goes all across the areas of the Defense Department. 
They have been at this work a long time. Their hearts are in it, and 
they are highly dedicated to it. Their combined efforts are always 
evident in the annual DOD appropriations bill. This year's bill is no 
exception--it is a well-balanced and comprehensive measure.
  In recent years, the committee has had to provide for ever-increasing 
demands on our military--primarily in peacekeeping activities around 
the world. Our military personnel are scattered around the world--they 
are skilled and dedicated men and women, ever vigilant in their duty--
charged with the responsibility of protecting the security of our 
country and its citizens. But they have in more recent times also been 
charged with the responsibility of acting as peacekeepers in many 
troubled areas around the globe.
  Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to craft Defense 
appropriations bills. It has been nearly impossible to determine just 
how long and to what extent our military personnel might be needed in 
some of these peacekeeping operations, and what the estimated costs 
thereof might be. That situation exists today, for example, in Bosnia. 
It exists in southwest Asia, in Kosovo, and even in Haiti.
  So I take my hat off to our managers for their dedication, not only 
this year but for many previous years, in working through these 
challenges to provide the funding necessary to carry out these efforts.
  The bill before us today clearly addresses the most critical needs of 
our military personnel and their families. The 3.7-percent pay raise 
recommended by the Senate Armed Services Committee is fully funded in 
this bill. Sufficient resources are also included to improve the health 
care benefits of our military retirees. And more than $96.7 billion is 
provided for the readiness of our military forces.
  It is imperative that Congress provide funding for these important 
programs to demonstrate to the men and women in uniform who are serving 
our country throughout the world our strong and unwavering support for 
them.
  Furthermore, this bill does not neglect our necessary defense 
modernization requirements. It provides funding for all of the highest 
priority programs identified by our military leaders and requested by 
the administration.
  So I congratulate Senator Stevens, chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee--he is also chairman, of course, of the full 
Appropriations Committee--and Senator Inouye for their dedication and 
hard work, and I know that my colleagues will support passage of the 
bill.
  I also take this opportunity to recognize in a very special way our 
ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator 
Daniel Inouye, who will be honored next week, at which time he will 
receive the Nation's highest military award for valor--the 
Congressional Medal of Honor.
  How proud it makes all of us feel that we have someone like Daniel 
Inouye here as a Senator in our midst as we think of the sacrifices 
that he made.
  Senator Inouye was first elected to the Senate in 1963 from our 50th 
State.
  Mr. President, I am proud to say that I am one who voted for 
Statehood on behalf of both Alaska and Hawaii. I believe that I am the 
only Senator left remaining here who voted for statehood for both of 
these States. I am proud of having done that.
  He was first elected, as I say, to the Senate in 1963 from Hawaii, 
the 50th State. I think I am correct in saying that I am only one of 
three Members of today's Senate who were also here when he joined this 
body.
  When I first came to the Senate, there were 96 Members of the Senate. 
Upon my being sworn in, the two new Senators from the new State of 
Alaska were sworn in with me, making a total of 98 Senators. Later in 
the year, Hawaii, the new State, the 50th State, sent two Senators, two 
new Senators to the Senate, making a total of 100 Senators to comprise 
this body.
  I have had the pleasure of working with Danny Inouye on many 
occasions over the years. I have found him to be a man of the utmost 
integrity, who has worked tirelessly in the Senate on behalf of his 
constituents and on behalf of the Nation.
  He was a Senator who was extremely supportive of me when I was the 
majority leader of this body. He was supportive of me when I was 
minority leader. He was very supportive of me when I was chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee of the Senate. He is certainly a Senator 
on whom one can rely for truth, for integrity, for steadfastness, for 
forthrightness, and as one who is extremely and highly dedicated to his 
work.
  Like many others in this body, I view Senator Inouye as a national 
hero. I know of his wartime heroics in France and in Italy. I read 
about how he fought to protect the troops with whom he served without 
regard for his own life. He doesn't talk much about it, but we know 
about it. He was gravely wounded in serving his country, yet he 
continued to fight. I am immensely proud of this outstanding American 
in our midst.
  For many in Congress, in our hearts we have felt that Danny Inouye 
richly deserves the special recognition he earned in those bloody 
battles some 55 years ago. We are deeply moved and so proud that he is 
now to receive the highest military honor that can be bestowed upon any 
American citizen, the Congressional Medal of Honor.

     It isn't enough to say in our hearts
     That we like a man for his ways;
     It isn't enough that we fill our minds
     With psalms of silent praise;
     Nor is it enough that we honor a man
     As our confidence upward mounts;
     It's going right up to the man himself
     And telling him so that counts.

     If a man does a work that you really admire,

     Don't leave a kind word unsaid.
     In fear to do so might make him vain
     And cause him to lose his head.
     But reach out your hand and tell him, ``Well done.''
     And see how his gratitude swells.
     It isn't the flowers we strew on the grave,
     It's the word to the living that tells.

  Well done, our friend, our colleague, our hero.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, at this moment I find that mere words are 
inadequate to express my deep gratitude. Aloha to the senior Senator 
from West Virginia. May I just simply say I thank him very much.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I share the feelings of the Senator from 
Virginia concerning the statement of the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia. Those are wonderful words to say about our colleague, 
and every one of them was well deserved.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Parliamentarian review the 
amendments filed on this bill prior to 3 o'clock and inform the 
minority and majority managers of the bill whether any of those 
amendments are subject to rule XVI.

[[Page 10322]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that second-
degree amendments be in order to the filed amendments, and that they be 
relevant to the first-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers 
of the bill may, with the consent of the sponsor, modify amendments so 
they could be included in the managers' package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              health care management demonstration program

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
managers of the bill in a brief colloquy on the issue of the health 
care management demonstration program recommended by the Armed Services 
Committee in S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001.
  Section 740 of S. 2549 would direct the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct a test of two models to improve health care delivery in the 
Defense Health Program: one model would study alternative delivery 
policies, processes, organization and technologies; the second would 
study long term disease management. This section would also authorize 
$6 million within the total of $11.4 billion authorized for the Defense 
Health Program in FY2001 to carry out these demonstration programs. The 
Armed Services Committee believes that these two models have the 
potential to improve significantly the delivery of health care in the 
military medical system.
  I would like to ask the distinguished managers of the bill if the 
FY2001 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill currently before the 
Senate includes the resources in the Defense Health Program to conduct 
the health care management demonstration program directed by section 
740 of S. 2549?
  Mr. STEVENS. I support the health care demonstration program directed 
by section 740 of S. 2549, and I assure my good friend from Michigan 
that the FY2001 Department of Defense appropriations bill before the 
Senate includes sufficient funding in the Defense Health Program to 
carry out this important effort.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, and I thank the Senator from Michigan for bringing this 
matter to our attention.

                          ____________________



                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to 
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



        HONORING THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF JOHN AND SHARON ROESSER

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor John and Sharon 
Roesser of Encino, California who celebrated their 50th wedding 
anniversary on Saturday, June 20, 2000.
  After serving in the First Marine Division in the Pacific and near 
the China/Manchuria border during and immediately after World War II, 
John attended Loyola University in Los Angeles. John met Sharon, who 
was attending Immaculate Heart College, at a dance in the fall of 1948.
  A year and a half later on a blistering hot day, June 10, 1950, John 
and Sharon were married in the original Saint Mary's Church in El 
Centro, California by the Most Reverend Charles S. Buddy who was the 
first Bishop of the San Diego Diocese. Sharon's maid of honor was her 
sister Patricia, and John's best man was Paul Connor. After their 
honeymoon at the Hotel Del Coronado, John and Sharon lived in Santa 
Monica and then settled in Encino, California where they raised their 
six children: Regina, John Jr., Allison, Paul, Mary Carol, and Tom. At 
last count, John and Sharon have 16 grandchildren.
  Today, I honor John and Sharon's 50 years of marriage and their 
commitment to raising their children in a loving and caring household. 
Since their marriage, they have always been there for each other and 
for each of their children through the best of times and the most 
difficult of times. They are an example of all that is good in America, 
and I wish them all the best in the years to come.

                          ____________________



                BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER TREATMENT ACT

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, breast cancer is second only to lung 
cancer as a cause of cancer-related deaths among American women. This 
year, an estimated 182,800 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed 
and 40,800 women will die of this terrible disease. In addition, an 
estimated 12,800 new cases of cervical cancer will be diagnosed this 
year, and 4,600 American women will die of this disease. Many of these 
deaths could be avoided by making sure that cancer detection and 
treatment services are readily available to all women at risk.
  Early detection is currently the best way to combat breast and 
cervical cancer. If women age 50 and over obtain regular screening for 
breast cancer, up to 30 percent of breast cancer deaths could be 
prevented. Moreover, virtually all cervical cancer deaths could be 
prevented through regular screening.
  In recognition of the value of screening and early detection, 
Congress passed the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act 
of 1990, which established the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention's (CDC's) National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early 
Detection Program. This important program has provided over two million 
screening tests to low-income and underserved women in all 50 States 
since its inception, and over 6,000 cases of breast cancer and over 500 
cases of invasive cervical cancer have been diagnosed. In Maine, more 
than 8,300 women have been screened and 28 cases of breast cancer and 
12 cases of cervical cancer have been detected through this program.
  As one Maine woman observed:

       This screening program was an answered prayer. I had been 
     concerned about having to skip checkups lately, but there was 
     no way to come up with the money anytime soon. I will gladly 
     tell all of my friends about this and will gladly return for 
     follow-up.

  The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program has 
provided cancer screening services to more than one million low-income 
American women who, like the woman from Maine, otherwise might not have 
been able to have these critically important tests. Unfortunately, 
however, the program does not currently pay for treatment services for 
women with abnormal screening results. Since the National Breast and 
Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program is targeted to low-income 
women, many do not have health insurance and many more are 
underinsured. While States participating in the program have been 
diligent and creative in finding treatment services for these women, a 
study done for CDC found that, while treatment was eventually found for 
almost all of the women screened, some women did not get treated at 
all, some refused treatment, and some experienced delay.
  Screening must be coupled with treatment if it is to save lives. As 
we approach the 10th anniversary of the enactment of the Breast and 
Cervical Cancer Mortality Act, it is time for Congress to complete what 
it started by enacting legislation to ensure that women diagnosed with 
breast or cervical cancer through the screening program will have 
coverage for their

[[Page 10323]]

treatment. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of S. 662, the 
Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act, which would give States the 
option of providing Medicaid coverage for the duration of breast and 
cervical cancer treatment to eligible women who were screened and 
diagnosed through the CDC program. This legislation is not a mandate 
for States. It simply lets States know that, if they do decide to 
provide treatment services for these women, the Federal Government will 
be there to help with an enhanced Federal Medicaid match for these 
services.
  Mr. President, S. 662 has strong bipartisan support with 66 Senate 
cosponsors. Moreover, last month the House of Representatives 
overwhelmingly passed similar legislation. I want to commend the Senate 
Finance Committee chairman and the Senate majority leader for making a 
commitment to move this legislation this year, and I urge them to 
schedule committee action and Senate floor time soon so that S. 662 can 
be signed into law this summer. There would be no better way to 
celebrate the 10th anniversary of the National Breast and Cervical 
Cancer Early Detection Program in August than by enacting this 
important bill to provide the treatment necessary to save the lives of 
the women who are screened and diagnosed with cancer through this 
program.

                          ____________________



                       THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business Friday, June 9, 
2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,645,113,216,631.00 (Five trillion, 
six hundred forty-five billion, one hundred thirteen million, two 
hundred sixteen thousand, six hundred and thirty-one dollars).
  One year ago, June 9, 1999, the Federal debt stood at 
$5,604,849,000,000 (Five trillion, six hundred four billion, eight 
hundred forty-nine million).
  Five years ago, June 9, 1995, the Federal debt stood at 
$4,899,367,000,000 (Four trillion, eight hundred ninety-nine billion, 
three hundred sixty-seven million).
  Twenty-five years ago, June 9, 1975, the Federal debt stood at 
$526,170,000,000 (Five hundred twenty- six billion, one hundred seventy 
million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,118,943,216,631.00 (Five trillion, one hundred eighteen billion, 
nine hundred forty-three million, two hundred sixteen thousand, six 
hundred and thirty-one dollars) during the past 25 years.

                          ____________________



               THE ``HOUSE THE SENATE BUILT'' RESOLUTION

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, during National 
Homeownership Week, to urge the Senate's commitment to affordable 
housing. I ask my colleagues to support a Resolution expressing the 
Senate's commitment to the ``House the Senate Built'' project. This 
proposed partnership between the United States Senate and Habitats for 
Humanity will lead to the construction of a simple home with and for a 
low-income family in all fifty states and the District of Columbia by 
the end of 2001.
  Our colleagues in the House of Representatives have already made this 
a priority. Three years ago, members of the House unanimously passed a 
Resolution which expressed its commitment to build an affordable home 
for a family in need in each of the 435 Congressional districts. Since 
that time, in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, homes have been 
built in nearly every district.
  Habitat for Humanity's work is respected and admired. In its twenty-
three years, Habitat for Humanity has housed nearly 400,000 people in 
79,300 Habitat houses worldwide. Under the continued leadership of 
founder Millard Fuller, Habitat built 13,682 homes in 1999.
  Spend some time with Mr. Fuller or at one Habitat's worksites, and 
you will find that the passion for providing all sleepy children a 
decent place to lay their heads is contagious. Millard wisely states, 
``We have the know-how in the world to house everyone. We have the 
resources in the world to house everyone. All that's missing is the 
will to do it.''
  I suggest that the Senate has the will to make affordable housing for 
all Americans a reality. We can show our commitment by lending our own 
skills and strength to the construction of one Habitat for Humanity 
home in each State by the end of next year.
  I encourage you to work with your local Habitat for Humanity 
affiliate--there are over 2,000--to identify a community and family in 
need of a little extra assistance to make their dream of homeownership 
a reality.
  We all remember our first home--the pride we took in mowing the lawn 
for the first time, family barbecues, the excitement and nervous 
anticipation of our first dinner party. I believe that every American 
deserves the opportunity to feel the pride of homeownership.
  We have the know-how, the resources, and, certainly, the need. Let us 
now show America that we have the will to give more Americans the 
opportunity to own their own home.

                          ____________________



                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

      CONGRATULATIONS, OUTSTANDING STUDENTS FROM ENID HIGH SCHOOL

 Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 
outstanding performance of several students from Enid High School in 
Enid, Oklahoma. The following students participated in the We the 
People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution national finals 
competition in Washington DC. The students who participated in the 
competition are: Aaron Bonnett, Beau Brumfield, Cheyenne Combs, 
Keneisha Green, Heather Hansen, Tim Healy, Erin Hickey, Kenneth Ingle, 
M. Brandon Jones, Heather Kline, Thomas Lentz, Becky Lewis, Meredith 
Meara, Yvonne Midkiff, Katie Oden, Derek Podolny, Brandi Pride, Diana 
Rogers, Ryan Seals, Jamie Thibodeau, Carl Tompson, along with their 
teacher Cheryl Franklin.
  The national finals competition brings together 50 classes from 
throughout the United States and provides the students the opportunity 
to testify as constitutional experts before a panel of judges. The 
students from Enid displayed remarkable understanding of the ideals and 
values of the American Constitution and are to be commended for their 
efforts. Again, congratulations to these outstanding Oklahoma students 
and their teacher.

                          ____________________



  CARL ``BOBO'' OLSON INDUCTED INTO INTERNATIONAL BOXING HALL OF FAME

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to honor Carl ``Bobo'' Olson, 
the legendary world boxing champion born and nurtured in Hawaii, who 
was inducted yesterday into the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 
Canastota, New York. This is certainly a well-deserved honor for ``The 
Hawaiian Swede,'' a distinguished champion whose life and 16-year 
professional career represent the grit, tenacity, skill and love of 
sport that have made boxing popular worldwide.
  Born in 1928, Bobo Olson grew up quickly on the tough streets of 
downtown Honolulu in the early 1940s, sharpening his boxing skills at 
an early age. Bobo and I grew up in the same community, the Pauoa and 
Punchbowl area in Honolulu--a neighborhood where families of different 
races, many of Hawaiian or Portuguese heritage--lived side-by-side and 
shared our cultures and traditions. We all closely followed Bobo's rise 
to champion and took pride in a local boy who had reached the top in 
his sport and handled his success with humility and grace.
  He began fighting professionally at age 16, and won 19 fights before 
he reached the age where he could legally box on the mainland circuit. 
As a professional, Bobo won the World Middleweight Championship by 
defeating Randy Turpin of England in October 1953 before 18,869 
spectators in a 15-round fight at New York's Madison Square Garden. 
Ring Magazine named him fighter of the year in 1953. He held the title 
for two years; losing it in 1955 to Sugar Ray Robinson.

[[Page 10324]]

  Olson's career record was 117 fights, 99 wins, 49 by knockout, 16 
losses and two draws. Four of those losses were to Ray Robinson, who is 
considered by many boxing experts and fans to be the greatest 
middleweight ever and among boxing's all-time greats. Bobo Olson held 
the middleweight title longer than any other boxer in the 1950s and 
fought as a middleweight and light-heavyweight. He never shied away 
from a challenge. Bobo was inducted into the World Boxing Hall of Fame 
in 1958, and was also among the first class of athletes, sportsmen and 
sportswomen inducted into the Hawaii Sports Hall of Fame in 1998. After 
retiring from boxing in 1966, Bobo worked as recreational director for 
the Operating Engineers Local Union in San Francisco and in public 
relations for the Teamsters. Now happily retired, he and his wife Judy 
reside in Honolulu.
  Mr. President, I join boxing enthusiasts and the people of Hawaii in 
congratulating Carl ``Bobo'' Olson on his induction into the 
International Boxing Hall of Fame. He remains a soft-spoken champion, 
and his quiet intensity and commitment to excellence offer a lasting 
illustration of good sportsmanship for all of us.

                          ____________________



                       MANSFIELD PACIFIC RETREAT

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to salute the 
successful completion of the Fourth Annual Mansfield Pacific Retreat. 
The focus of this retreat centered upon ``Urban Air Quality Issues in 
the Asia-Pacific Region.''
  Pacific Rim air quality is very timely and important matter for 
discussion. Environmental and public health research in the United 
States and Asia has increasingly shown that people living in urban 
areas are exposed to high levels of pollutants. This exposure can cause 
many impacts such as developmental problems in children, asthma, 
pneumonia, cancer, and even premature death in the elderly or sensitive 
populations. The U.S. has removed lead from its fuel supply for several 
of these reasons. Soon, because of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 
which I shepherded through the Congress, EPA will be issuing a 
comprehensive urban air toxins reduction strategy. I am hopeful that 
this will be a model for other nations to consider.
  I applaud the Mansfield Retreats' participants to discuss these 
critical issues in depth, and I look forward to their recommendations 
about how to resolve these issues.
  Along, that line, Mr. President, I would like to insert for the 
Record the Final Retreat Declaration.

              Mansfield Pacific Retreat--Final Declaration

       The Fourth Annual Mansfield Pacific Retreat was held in 
     Kumamoto, Japan from May 29-June 1, hosted by the Maureen and 
     Mike Mansfield Center of the University of Montana and with 
     special support from the Kumamoto Prefectural Government.
       The theme of the Fourth Annual Retreat was ``Common 
     Issues--Shared Solutions: Environmental Issues and Technology 
     in the Asia-Pacific Region.'' The Retreat participants placed 
     emphasis on urban air equality and discussed solutions to 
     these common problems via new technologies and partnerships.
       The Retreat featured representation from Japan, South 
     Korea, China and the United States. Delegates were drawn from 
     the sectors of government, academia, non-governmental 
     organizations and private corporations.
       In discussing the topic of urban air quality, the Retreat 
     participants focused on the following observations. First, 
     there was a clear consensus that environmental problems in 
     the urban context extended across borders and were truly 
     transnational in their nature. Delegates acknowledged that 
     solutions to these problems needed to focus on greater 
     collaboration among affected governments and societies across 
     the Asia-Pacific region for the benefit of our children and 
     planet. At the same time, there was recognition of the 
     important and timely contributions that participants outside 
     the government could provide.
       Representatives from among the private sector acknowledged 
     their involvement in urban environmental issues and offered 
     insight on the availability of new and appropriate 
     technologies. In addition, the participants confirmed that 
     they would maintain the trust and relationships established 
     through the Retreat in order to address shared problems in 
     local, regional, and international contexts.
       Retreat members paid tribute to the efforts of Senator and 
     Ambassador Mike Mansfield who has devoted nearly six decades 
     of his life to fostering greater understanding among nations 
     in Asia. The participants expressed their appreciation to 
     representatives from Montana and Minamata who shared their 
     experiences in how communities have responded to local 
     environmental crises. The accounts related to the Clark Fork 
     River cleanup in Montana and Minamata City's transformation 
     into a model environmental city.
       The Retreat participants offered tribute to the late 
     Governor George Fukushima whose dynamic vision made the 
     Mansfield Pacific Retreat a reality in Kumamoto. At the same 
     time, delegates thanked Governor Shiotani for her support of 
     the Retreat. The tireless efforts of the Kumamoto Prefectural 
     and Mansfield Center staffs in organizing and supporting the 
     Retreat were appreciated.
       In conclusion, the Retreat delegates noted that the Fifth 
     Retreat will be held in Glacier National Park, Montana in 
     September 2001.

  Mr. President, I believe that this declaration is evidence of a 
commendable venture of which I have had the honor of participating in 
the past three successful events. Over the years, it has been a 
pleasure to work with Madame Li Xiaolin and the China People's 
Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries, and Dr. Phillip West 
and Ambassador Mark Johnson from the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center 
in Missoula, Montana. Their vision, dedication and cooperation make the 
Retreats a success year after year.
  I congratulate them and look forward to the fifth annual Mansfield 
Pacific Retreat when it will be held in my home state of Montana next 
year.

                          ____________________



                         MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE

  At 12:47 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has 
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 8. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to phase out the estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period.

  The message also announced that pursuant to section 12(b)(1) of the 
Centennial of Flight Commemoration Act (36 U.S.C. 143) and upon the 
recommendation of the minority leader, the chair has announced the 
Speaker's appointment of the following citizen on the part of the House 
to the First Flight Centennial Federal Advisory Board: Ms. Mary Mathews 
of Ohio.
  The message further announced that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 629(b) and 
upon the recommendation of the minority leader, the Chair has announced 
the Speaker's reappointment of the following member on the part of the 
House to the Federal Judicial Center Foundation for a 5-year term: Mr. 
Benjamin Zelenko of Maryland.

                          ____________________



                         ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following 
enrolled bills:

       H.R. 1953. An act to authorize leases for terms not to 
     exceed 99 years on land held in trust for the Torres Martinez 
     Desert Cahuilla Indians and the Guidiville Band of Pomo 
     Indians of the Guidiville Indian Rancheria.
       H.R. 2484. An act to provide that land which is owned by 
     the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota 
     but which is not held in trust by the United States for the 
     Community may be leased or transferred by the Community 
     without further approval by the United States.
       H.R. 3639. An act to designate the Federal building located 
     at 2201 C Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia, 
     currently headquarters for the Department of State, as the 
     ``Harry S Truman Federal Building''.

  The enrolled bills were signed subsequently by the President pro 
tempore (Mr. Thurmond).

                          ____________________



                ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED ON JUNE 9, 2000

  The Secretary of the Senate reported that on June 9, 2000, he had 
presented to the President of the United States the following enrolled 
bills:

       S. 291. An act to convey certain real property within the 
     Carlsbad Project in New Mexico to the Carlsbad Irrigation 
     District.
       S. 356. An act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
     to convey certain works, facilities, and titles of the Gila 
     Project, and designated lands within or adjacent to the Gila 
     Project, to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage 
     District, and for other purposes.

[[Page 10325]]



                          ____________________



                   EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

  The following communications were laid before the Senate, together 
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred 
as indicated:

       EC-9197. A communication from the Assistant Attorney 
     General, transmitting, a draft of proposed legislation 
     entitled ``The Social Security Number Protection Act of 
     2000''; to the Committee on Finance.

                          ____________________



                         REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following reports of committees were submitted:

       By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, with 
     an amendment and with an amended preamble:
        H. Con. Res. 251: A concurrent resolution commending the 
     Republic of Croatia for the conduct of its parliamentary and 
     presidential elections.
       By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
     without amendment and with a preamble:
        H. Con. Res. 304: A concurrent resolution expressing the 
     condemnation of the continued egregious violations of human 
     rights in the Republic of Belarus, the lack of progress 
     toward the establishment of democracy and the rule of law in 
     Belarus, calling on President Alyaksandr Lukashenka's regime 
     to engage in negotiations with the representatives of the 
     opposition and to restore the constitutional rights of the 
     Belarusian people, and calling on the Russian Federation to 
     respect the sovereignty of Belarus.
       By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
     without amendment:
        S. 2460: A bill to authorize the payment of rewards to 
     individuals furnishing information relating to persons 
     subject to indictment for serious violations of international 
     humanitarian law in Rwanda, and for other purposes.
        S. 2677: A bill to restrict assistance until certain 
     conditions are satisfied and to support democratic and 
     economic transition in Zimbabwe.
        S. 2682: A bill to authorize the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors to make available to the Institute for Media 
     Development certain materials of the Voice of America.
       By Mr. HELMS, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 
     without amendment and with a preamble:
        S. Con. Res. 117: A concurrent resolution commending the 
     Republic of Slovenia for its partnership with the United 
     States and NATO, and expressing the sense of Congress that 
     Slovenia's accession to NATO would enhance NATO's security, 
     and for other purposes.
        S. Con. Res. 118: A concurrent resolution commemorating 
     the 60th anniversary of the execution of Polish captives by 
     Soviet authorities in April and May 1940.

                          ____________________



              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack):
       S. 2711. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to make grants to the Florida 
     Keys Aqueduct Authority and other appropriate agencies for 
     the purpose of improving water quality throughout the marine 
     ecosystem of the Florida Keys; to the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works.
           By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
       S. 2712. A bill to amend chapter 35 of title 31, United 
     States Code, to authorize the consolidation of certain 
     financial and performance management reports required of 
     Federal agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs.

                          ____________________



            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

  The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were 
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

           By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli) :
       S. Res. 321. A resolution to congratulate the New Jersey 
     Devils for their outstanding discipline, determination, and 
     ingenuity, in winning the 2000 National Hockey League's 
     Stanley Cup Championship; considered and agreed to.

                          ____________________



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Mack:)
  S. 2711. A bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environment 
Protection Agency to make grants to the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 
and other appropriate agencies for the purpose of improving water 
quality throughout the marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


             the florida keys water quality improvement act

 Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Florida Keys are a unique 
natural resource area that we must value and protect. This 158 mile-
long string of islands at the southern tip of Florida attracts two and 
a half million visitors each year to fish, swim, snorkel, dive, and 
otherwise enjoy the beautiful surroundings.
  One of the most striking characteristics of the Florida Keys is their 
pristine marine environment. The Keys support one of the largest sea 
grass communities in this hemisphere and more than 6000 species of 
plants fish, and invertebrates. The diversity of this reef ecosystem is 
considered the underwater equivalent of the tropical rainforests.
  But that ecosystem--and the economy it supports--is at grave risk. 
The degradation of water quality in the Florida Keys threatens the 
health of the living coral reef, sea grasses, fisheries, and other 
marine life. This decline threatens to transform the Keys from one of 
Florida's most treasured resources to one of its most poisoned.
  Mr. President, the great irony is that we are loving the Florida Keys 
to death. While we are pleased that these islands attract new residents 
and visitors from all over the world, improvements in wastewater 
treatment and management practices have not kept pace with population 
and tourism growth.
  Why is this significant? Ongoing research has determined that 
nutrients from wastewater have significantly contributed to the decline 
of water quality in the Florida Keys. It will take a strong partnership 
of federal, state, and local governments working in conjunction with 
environmental advocates and other interests to build the better sewage 
treatment systems needed to improve canal and nearshore water quality.
  Fortunately for the Florida Keys, such a partnership is already in 
place and at work. In 1990, Congress established the Florida Keys 
National Marine Sanctuary to protect the marine habitat while 
continuing to allow for its appropriate use. The sanctuary program has 
brought together representatives of necessary interests to develop a 
plan for challenges like water quality.
  Central to this effort is the Monroe County government, which has 
developed a Wastewater Master Plan to identify long-term solutions to 
the water quality problem. The plan estimates that infrastructure 
projects implemented to improve water quality will incur total capital 
costs of $346 million--a major undertaking that will require funding at 
every level.
  Mr. President, I have long said that any federal assistance for Keys 
wastewater improvements would first require a strong show of local 
support. Monroe County has done its fair share. Through a combination 
of revenue bonds, user fees and an infrastructure sales tax, the County 
has made a commitment of over $150 million over 10 years.
  Mr. President, it is time for this Congress to hold up its end of the 
bargain. Today, Senator Mack and I are introducing the Florida Keys 
Water Quality Improvements Act of 2000. Similar legislation passed the 
House on May 4, 2000 with almost unanimous support.
  The Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act authorizes the 
Environmental Protection Agency to make grants for construction of 
wastewater treatment works. These grants are only awarded to projects 
that already have a significant investment. Successful applicant 
projects will be those that have completed the planning and design 
phase, demonstrated substantial water quality benefits and proven 
compliance with the Marine Sanctuary and other master plans for the 
area. And as is appropriate in a partnership, these grants will fund a 
portion of project costs, with an least 25 percent of the cost paid by 
local and state entities.
  Mr. President, the prospect of treating wastewater for an 
increasingly

[[Page 10326]]

crowed 158-mile-long string of islands is not a simple one. But it is 
vital that we preserve this beautiful area not just for current 
residents and visitors--but also for our children and grandchildren. 
With this legislation, we can put the federal government on the side of 
this worthy goal, and support the investment that has been made by the 
residents and protectors of the Florida Keys.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2711

       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 ``Florida Keys Water Quality 
     Improvements Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FLORIDA KEYS WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

       Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 121. FLORIDA KEYS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator may make grants to the 
     Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, appropriate agencies of 
     municipalities of Monroe County, Florida, and other 
     appropriate public agencies of the State of Florida or Monroe 
     County for the planning and construction of treatment works 
     to improve water quality in the Florida Keys National Marine 
     Sanctuary.
       ``(b) Criteria for Projects.--To be eligible for a grant 
     for a project under subsection (a), an agency described in 
     subsection (a) shall demonstrate that--
       ``(1) the agency has completed adequate planning and design 
     activities for the project;
       ``(2) the agency has completed a financial plan identifying 
     sources of non-Federal funding for the project;
       ``(3) the project complies with--
       ``(A) applicable growth management ordinances of Monroe 
     County, Florida;
       ``(B) applicable agreements between Monroe County, Florida, 
     and the State of Florida to manage growth in Monroe County, 
     Florida; and
       ``(C) applicable water quality standards; and
       ``(4) the project is consistent with the master wastewater 
     and stormwater plans for Monroe County, Florida.
       ``(c) Consideration.--In selecting projects to receive 
     grants under subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider 
     whether a project will have substantial water quality 
     benefits relative to other projects under consideration.
       ``(d) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Administrator shall consult with--
       ``(1) the Steering Committee established under section 
     8(d)(2)(A) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and 
     Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1433 note; 106 Stat. 5054);
       ``(2) the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force 
     established by section 528(f) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3771);
       ``(3) the Commission on the Everglades established by 
     Executive Order of the Governor of the State of Florida; and
       ``(4) other appropriate State and local government 
     agencies.
       ``(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out using amounts from grants made under 
     subsection (a) shall be not more than 75 percent.
       ``(f) Sense of Congress.--
       ``(1) Purchase of equipment and products produced in the 
     united states.--In the case of any equipment or product that 
     may be authorized to be purchased with financial assistance 
     provided under this section, it is the sense of Congress that 
     agencies receiving the financial assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only equipment and 
     products that are produced in the United States.
       ``(2) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this section, the Administrator 
     shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice 
     describing the statement of Congress under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Reporting of Expenditures.--Not later than 180 days 
     after an agency that receives funds under this section makes 
     any expenditure on an item that is produced in a country 
     other than the United States, the agency shall report the 
     expenditure to Congress.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, to 
     remain available until expended--
       ``(1) $32,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(2) $31,000,000 for fiscal year 2002; and
       ``(3) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 through 
     2005.''.

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I rise with my friend and colleague Senator 
Graham to introduce the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Act. 
This bill is identical to legislation that passed the House on May 4, 
2000 by a vote of 411-7, and would provide Federal resources to help 
improve and maintain one of our Nation's real treasures, the Florida 
Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
  The Florida Keys are a spectacular natural resource of international 
significance. Within the Florida Keys lies the only living coral reef 
bed in the United States and the third largest living coral reef in the 
world. The reef is home to plants and animals unique to this area and 
that comprise a rare and sensitive ecosystem at the southern end of the 
Everglades ecosystem. While the spectacular coral reef is the Keys' 
most popular feature, they are also known for native seagrass beds, 
lush tropical hardwood hammocks, mangrove forests, rocky pinelands, the 
endangered key deer, and a wide array of aquatic life.
  The Florida Keys marine ecosystem is dependent upon clean, clear 
water with low nutrient levels for its survival. Water quality experts 
have found that the inadequate wastewater treatment and storm water 
management systems are major contributors of pollution in the nearby 
waters off the Florida Keys. This increased pollution has had 
devastating effects on the marine environment, and is threatening the 
reefs on the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Unless decisive 
action is taken to stop the flow of pollution, scientists warn the 
ecosystem will continue its decline towards total collapse.
  The source of the problem is clear. The Keys have almost no water 
quality infrastructure. Lacking adequate technology, untreated 
wastewater now travels easily through porous limestone rock into the 
near-shore waters. Polluted stormwater also flows from developed land 
into the same near-shore waters.
  Our bill is a natural extension of the Federal commitment to the 
Florida Keys made under the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary 
Protection Act approved by Congress in 1990. This legislation 
established a Federal role in the research and protection of the Keys 
marine ecosystem. The Act directed the Environmental Protection Agency 
and the State of Florida to establish a Water Quality Steering 
Committee which was charged with developing a comprehensive water 
quality protection program. In fulfilling this directive, the steering 
committee worked closely with dedicated citizens, scientists, and 
technical experts. In the final analysis, it found that inadequate 
wastewater and stormwater systems are the single largest source of 
pollution in the Keys.
  This bill authorizes Federal assistance to help local officials 
afford the necessary improvements to protect the Florida Keys National 
Marine Sanctuary. It establishes a grant program under the 
Environmental Protection Agency for the construction of treatment works 
projects aimed at improving the water quality of the Florida Keys 
National Marine Sanctuary. The administrator of EPA, after consultation 
with State and local officials, would be authorized to fund treatment 
works projects that comply or are consistent with local growth 
ordinances, plans and agreements, as well as current water quality 
standards. Projects funded under this program would be cost-shared, 
with local sponsors providing a minimum of 25 percent of the project 
costs.
  This bill authorizes $213 million in Federal funding for the 
deployment of water quality technology throughout the Keys. To make the 
necessary wastewater improvements, the estimated cost to improve near-
shore water quality in the Florida Keys is between $184 million and 
$418 million. To make the necessary storm water management 
improvements, the estimated cost is between $370 million and $680 
million. The Federal government is not going to bear the entire cost, 
even though this is a national resource. The State of Florida is 
obligated to come up with 25 percent cost share.
  Moneys authorized by this bill will be utilized to replace the dated, 
inefficient system of sludge ponds and septic tanks currently being 
used in the Keys

[[Page 10327]]

with modern waste and storm water treatment works. By ensuring that the 
nutrients associated with such wastes are not discharged or released 
into the surrounding waters, we can prevent further damage to the 
marine environment and achieve dramatic improvement to the water 
quality in the National Marine Sanctuary.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable 
approach to maintaining an essential national resource. I hope there 
will be a broad, bipartisan support for this bill.

                          ____________________



                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 656

  At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 656, a bill to provide for 
the adjustment of status of certain nationals of Liberia to that of 
lawful permanent residence.


                                S. 1020

  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Delaware 
(Mr. Biden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1020, a bill to amend 
chapter 1 of title 9, United States Code, to provide for greater 
fairness in the arbitration process relating to motor vehicle franchise 
contracts.


                                S. 1333

  At the request of Mr. Wyden, the names of the Senator from North 
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 1333, a bill to expand homeownership in the 
United States.


                                S. 1495

  At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from California 
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1495, a bill to establish, 
wherever feasible, guidelines, recommendations, and regulations that 
promote the regulatory acceptance of new and revised toxicological 
tests that protect human and animal health and the environment while 
reducing, refining, or replacing animal tests and ensuring human safety 
and product effectiveness.


                                S. 1800

  At the request of Mr. Graham, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Kerrey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1800, a bill to amend the 
Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve onsite inspections of State food 
stamp programs, to provide grants to develop community partnerships and 
innovative outreach strategies for food stamp and related programs, and 
for other purposes.


                                S. 1850

  At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
(Mr. Kerrey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1850, a bill to amend 
section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the 
requirements relating to the use and disclosure of customer proprietary 
network information, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1900

  At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1900, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit to holders of 
qualified bonds issued by Amtrak, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2100

  At the request of Mr. Edwards, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2100, a bill to provide for 
fire sprinkler systems in public and private college and university 
housing and dormitories, including fraternity and sorority housing and 
dormitories.


                                S. 2274

  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. Hollings) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2274, a bill to 
amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide families and 
disabled children with the opportunity to purchase coverage under the 
medicaid program for such children.


                                S. 2296

  At the request of Mr. Crapo, the names of the Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) were added 
as cosponsors of S. 2296, a bill to provide grants for special 
environmental assistance for the regulation of communities and habitat 
(SEARCH) to small communities.


                                S. 2311

  At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2311, a bill 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, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2327

  At the request of Mr. Hollings, the names of the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 2327, a bill to establish a Commission 
on Ocean Policy, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2330

  At the request of Mr. Roth, the names of the Senator from Michigan 
(Mr. Abraham), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Fitzgerald), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were 
added as cosponsors of S. 2330, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax on telephone and other 
communication services.


                                S. 2402

  At the request of Mr. Cleland, the name of the Senator from Texas 
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2402, a bill to amend 
title 38, United States Code, to enhance and improve educational 
assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill in order to enhance recruitment 
and retention of members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2585

  At the request of Mr. Graham, the names of the Senator from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), and the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were added as cosponsors of S. 2585, a 
bill to amend titles IV and XX of the Social Security Act to restore 
funding for the Social Services Block Grant, to restore the ability of 
the States to transfer up to 10 percent of TANF funds to carry out 
activities under such block grant, and to require an annual report on 
such activities by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.


                                S. 2617

  At the request of Mr. Baucus, the names of the Senator from Hawaii 
(Mr. Akaka) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) were added as 
cosponsors of S. 2617, a bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and 
for other purposes.


                                S. 2621

  At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2621, a bill 
to continue the current prohibition of military cooperation with the 
armed forces of the Republic of Indonesia until the President 
determines and certifies to the Congress that certain conditions are 
being met.


                                S. 2709

  At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2709, to establish 
a Beef Industry Compensation Trust Fund with the duties imposed on 
products of countries that fail to comply with certain WTO dispute 
resolution decisions.


                            S. CON. RES. 109

  At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 109, a 
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the 
ongoing persecution of 13 members of Iran's Jewish community.

[[Page 10328]]



                          ____________________



SENATE RESOLUTION 321--TO CONGRATULATE THE NEW JERSEY DEVILS FOR THEIR 
 OUTSTANDING DISCIPLINE, DETERMINATION, AND INGENUITY, IN WINNING THE 
         2000 NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE'S STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONSHIP

  Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Torricelli) submitted the 
following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 321

       Whereas the New Jersey Devils at 45-29-8, posted the second 
     best regular season record in the NHL's Eastern Conference 
     and were awarded the fourth seed in the playoffs;
       Whereas the Devils displayed a potent offense and stifling 
     defense throughout the regular season and playoffs before 
     beating the defending champion Dallas Stars to win their 
     second Stanley Cup in 5 years;
       Whereas the Devils epitomize New Jersey pride with their 
     heart, stamina, and drive and thus have become a part of New 
     Jersey culture;
       Whereas the New Jersey Devils did what no other team had 
     done before, coming back from a three games to one deficit to 
     win a Conference Championship and advance to the Stanley cup 
     Finals;
       Whereas Scott Stevens, winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy as 
     the Most Valuable Player of the Stanley Cup playoffs, is one 
     of the fiercest competitors in the game today and is a true 
     team leader who served as captain of the Devils' 1995 and 
     2000 Stanley Cup Championship teams;
       Whereas Scott Gomez, a gifted, young playmaker was named 
     the league's Rookie of the Year and is the first Hispanic 
     player to compete in the NHL;
       Whereas goalie Martin Brodeur's lifetime goals against 
     average of 2.19 is the best in NHL history and his 162 wins 
     over a four-season span since 1996-97 are the most in league 
     history;
       Whereas head coach Larry Robinson served as an assistant on 
     the 1995 championship team and took over as head coach late 
     this season;
       Whereas the New Jersey Devils take great pride in playing 
     in new Jersey, and spend a great deal of time giving back to 
     the community;
       Whereas Lou Lamoriello, President/General Manager of the 
     New Jersey Devils since 1987, his staff, and his players 
     displayed outstanding dedication, teamwork unselfishness, and 
     sportsmanship throughout the course of the season in 
     achieving hockey's highest honor;
       Whereas longtime team owner John McMullen was born and 
     raised in New Jersey and is responsible for bringing the 
     Devils to the Garden State;
       Whereas the support of all the Devils fans and the people 
     of New Jersey helped make winning the Stanley Cup possible;
       Whereas each one of the Devils players will be remembered 
     on the premier sports trophy, the Stanley Cup, including: 
     Jason Arnott, Brad Bombardir, Martin Brodeur, Steve Brule, 
     Sergei Brylin, Ken Daneyko, Patrik Elias, Scott Gomex, Bobby 
     Holik, Steve Kelly, Claude Lemieux, John Madden, Vladimir 
     Malakhov, Randy McKay, Alexander Mogilny, Sergei Nemchinov, 
     Scott Niedermayer, Krzysztof Oliwa, Jay Pandolfo, Deron 
     Quint, Brian Rafalski, Scott Stevens, Ken Sutton, Petr 
     Sykora, Chris Terreri, and Colin White; now, therefore be it
       Resolved, That the United States Senate congratulates the 
     New Jersey Devils on winning Lord Stanley's Cup for the 2000 
     National Hockey League Championship.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the New Jersey 
Devils for winning the National Hockey League's 2000 Stanley Cup 
Championship. On Saturday night, the Devils defeated the Dallas Stars 2 
to 1 in double overtime to win the finals in six games. This is the 
second time in five years that the Devils have hoisted Lord Stanley's 
trophy above their heads.
  The Devils are what New Jersey pride is all about. Their heart, 
stamina, and drive have endeared them to millions of fans and have made 
them a permanent part of New Jersey's culture. Team members, who hail 
from all over the globe, also reflect the tremendous diversity of New 
Jersey's population. One player--Scott Gomez--is the first Hispanic 
player to compete in the NHL and the league's rookie of the year. The 
Devils have turned their cultural differences into a source of strength 
and have proved what is possible when team members work together to 
achieve a sport's highest honor.
  Mr. President, apart from their contributions to hockey, the New 
Jersey Devils are also outstanding citizens. Defenseman Ken Daneyko, 
for example, is a leader both on and off the ice. Ken is one of the 
original Devil players and was an alternate captain. He has played 
1,071 games in a Devils uniform and has participated in all 109 Devils 
playoff games. Ken is also a community leader who owns an Italian 
restaurant in Caldwell and is an active member of New Jersey's chapter 
of the national Children's Miracle Network. Indeed, all the team 
members are proud to play for New Jersey and spend much of their free 
time giving back to the community.
  The success of any organization starts at the top. And there is no 
question that the success the New Jersey Devils have enjoyed would not 
have been possible without the leadership of two great New Jersey 
citizens: team chairman John J. McMullen and co-owner John C. 
Whitehead. John McMullen is one of the NHL's most innovative, committed 
owners. A graduate of Montclair High School and the Naval Academy, John 
has been honored many times for his civic contributions. He and John 
Whitehead, a former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, brought the team to 
New Jersey as a service to their home state.
  Mr. President, the players, coaches and staff with the New Jersey 
Devils showed outstanding dedication, teamwork and sportsmanship in 
achieving hockey's highest honor. They are not only the best team in 
the NHL, they are one of the finest organizations in professional 
sports.

                          ____________________



                          AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

                                 ______
                                 

             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                     TORRICELLI AMENDMENT NO. 3282

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. TORRICELLI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill (H.R. 4576) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other 
purposes; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of the Air Force shall, using 
     funds specified in subsection (b), pay the New Jersey Forest 
     Fire Service the sum of $92,974.86 to reimburse the New 
     Jersey Forest Fire Service for costs incurred in containing 
     and extinguishing a fire in the Bass River State Forest and 
     Wharton State Forest, New Jersey, in May 1999, which fire was 
     caused by an errant bomb from an Air National Guard unit 
     during a training exercise at Warren Grove Testing Range, New 
     Jersey.
       (b) Source of Funds.--Funds for the payment required by 
     subsection (a) shall be derived from amounts appropriated by 
     title II of this Act under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Air National Guard''.
                                 ______
                                 

                   BINGAMAN AMENDMENTS NOS. 3283-3284

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3283

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

                   TITLE IX--BOSQUE REDONDO MEMORIAL

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Bosque Redondo Memorial 
     Act''.

     SEC. 902. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In 1863, the United States detained nearly 9,000 Navajo 
     and forced their migration across nearly 350 miles of land to 
     Bosque Redondo, a journey known as the ``Long Walk''.
       (2) Mescalero Apache people were also incarcerated at 
     Bosque Redondo.
       (3) The Navajo and Mescalero Apache people labored to plant 
     crops, dig irrigation ditches and build housing, but drought, 
     cutworms, hail, and alkaline Pecos River water created severe 
     living conditions for nearly 9,000 captives.
       (4) Suffering and hardships endured by the Navajo and 
     Mescalero Apache people forged a new understanding of their 
     strengths as Americans.
       (5) The Treaty of 1868 was signed by the United States and 
     the Navajo tribes, recognizing the Navajo Nation as it exists 
     today.
       (6) The State of New Mexico has appropriated a total of 
     $123,000 for a planning study and for the design of the 
     Bosque Redondo Memorial.
       (7) Individuals and businesses in DeBaca County donated 
     $6,000 toward the production

[[Page 10329]]

     of a brochure relating to the Bosque Redondo Memorial.
       (8) The Village of Fort Sumner donated 70 acres of land to 
     the State of New Mexico contiguous to the existing 50 acres 
     comprising Fort Sumner State Monument, contingent on the 
     funding of the Bosque Redondo Memorial.
       (9) Full architectural plans and the exhibit design for the 
     Bosque Redondo Memorial have been completed.
       (10) The Bosque Redondo Memorial project has the 
     encouragement of the President of the Navajo Nation and the 
     President of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, who have each 
     appointed tribal members to serve as project advisors.
       (11) The Navajo Nation, the Mescalero Tribe, and the 
     National Park Service are collaborating to develop a 
     symposium on the Bosque Redondo Long Walk and a curriculum 
     for inclusion in the New Mexico school curricula.
       (12) An interpretive center would provide important 
     educational and enrichment opportunities for all Americans.
       (13) Federal financial assistance is needed for the 
     construction of a Bosque Redondo Memorial.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this title are as follows:
       (1) To commemorate the people who were interned at Bosque 
     Redondo.
       (2) To pay tribute to the native populations' ability to 
     rebound from suffering, and establish the strong, living 
     communities that have long been a major influence in the 
     State of New Mexico and in the United States.
       (3) To provide Americans of all ages a place to learn about 
     the Bosque Redondo experience and how it resulted in the 
     establishment of strong American Indian Nations from once 
     divergent bands.
       (4) To support the construction of the Bosque Redondo 
     Memorial commemorating the detention of the Navajo and 
     Mescalero Apache people at Bosque Redondo from 1863 to 1868.

      SEC. 903. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Memorial.--The term ``Memorial'' means the building and 
     grounds known as the Bosque Redondo Memorial.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Defense.

      SEC. 904. BOSQUE REDONDO MEMORIAL.

       (a) Establishment.-- Upon the request of the State of New 
     Mexico, the Secretary is authorized to establish a Bosque 
     Redondo Memorial within the boundaries of Fort Sumner State 
     Monument in New Mexico. No memorial shall be established 
     without the consent of the Navajo Nation and the Mescalero 
     Tribe.
       (b) Components of the Memorial.--The memorial shall 
     include--
       (1) exhibit space, a lobby area that represents design 
     elements from traditional Mescalero and Navajo dwellings, 
     administrative areas that include a resource room, library, 
     workrooms and offices, restrooms, parking areas, sidewalks, 
     utilities, and other visitor facilities;
       (2) a venue for public education programs; and
       (3) a location to commemorate the Long Walk of the Navajo 
     people and the healing that has taken place since that event

     SEC. 905. CONSTRUCTION OF MEMORIAL.

       (a) Grant.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may award a grant to the 
     State of New Mexico to provide up to 50 percent of the total 
     cost of construction of the Memorial.
       (2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of 
     construction costs for the Memorial shall include funds 
     previously expended by the State for the planning and design 
     of the Memorial, and funds previously expended by non-Federal 
     entities for the production of a brochure relating to the 
     Memorial.
       (b) Requirements.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, the State shall--
       (1) submit to the Secretary a proposal that--
       (A) provides assurances that the Memorial will comply with 
     all applicable laws, including building codes and 
     regulations; and
       (B) includes such other information and assurances as the 
     Secretary may require; and
       (2) enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 
     Secretary that shall include--
       (A) a timetable for the completion of construction and the 
     opening of the Memorial;
       (B) assurances that construction contracts will be 
     competitively awarded;
       (C) assurances that the State or Village of Fort Sumner 
     will make sufficient land available for the Memorial;
       (D) the specifications of the Memorial which shall comply 
     with all applicable Federal, State, and local building codes 
     and laws;
       (E) arrangements for the operation and maintenance of the 
     Memorial upon completion of construction;
       (F) a description of Memorial collections and educational 
     programming;
       (G) a plan for the design of exhibits including the 
     collections to be exhibited, security, preservation, 
     protection, environmental controls, and presentations in 
     accordance with professional standards;
       (H) an agreement with the Navajo Nation and the Mescalero 
     Tribe relative to the design and location of the Memorial; 
     and
       (I) a financing plan developed by the State that outlines 
     the long-term management of the Memorial, including--
       (i) the acceptance and use of funds derived from public and 
     private sources to minimize the use of appropriated or 
     borrowed funds;
       (ii) the payment of the operating costs of the Memorial 
     through the assessment of fees or other income generated by 
     the Memorial;
       (iii) a strategy for achieving financial self-sufficiency 
     with respect to the Memorial by not later than 5 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (iv) a description of the business activities that would be 
     permitted at the Memorial and appropriate vendor standards 
     that would apply.

     SEC. 906. FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--Of the amount appropriated under title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for purposes of carrying out 
     this title.
       (b) Carryover.--Any funds made available under this section 
     that are unexpended at the end of fiscal year 2001 shall 
     remain available for use by the Secretary through September 
     30, 2002, for the purposes for which those funds were made 
     available.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3284

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount.--The amount appropriated 
     under title III under the heading ``Missile Procurement, Air 
     Force'' is hereby increased by $5,000,000, with the amount of 
     such increase available for In-Service Missile Modifications 
     for the purpose of the conversion of Maverick missiles in the 
     AGM-65B and AGM-65G configurations to Maverick missiles in 
     the the AGM-65H and AGM-65K configurations.
       (b) Construction of Availability of Amount.--The amount 
     available under subsection (a) for the purpose specified in 
     that subsection is in addition to any other amounts available 
     under this Act for that purpose.
                                 ______
                                 

                FRIST (AND THOMPSON) AMENDMENT NO. 3285

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Thompson) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) The total amount appropriated by title III 
     under the heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' is hereby 
     increased by $18,900,000, of which $12,900,000 shall be 
     available for the procurement of probes for aerial refueling 
     of 22 MH-60L aircraft for the United States Special 
     Operations Command, and of which $6,000,000 shall be 
     available for the procurement and integration of internal 
     auxiliary fuel tanks with a 200-gallon capacity, more or 
     less, for 50 MH-60 aircraft for the United States Special 
     Operations Command.
       (b) The total amount appropriated by title __, under the 
     heading ``__________'' is hereby reduced by $______, which 
     amount is to be derived from the amount available for 
     ____________.
                                 ______
                                 

                FEINGOLD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3286

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Wellstone) submitted 
an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, 
supra; as follows:

       On page 109 of the substitute, between lines 11 and 12, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     used for the D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile program.
                                 ______
                                 

             WYDEN (AND SMITH OF OREGON) AMENDMENT NO. 3287

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith of Oregon) submitted an 
amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill. H.R. 4576, 
supra; as follows:

       On page 66, line 4, insert after the period the following: 
     ``The amount available under the preceding sentence shall 
     also be available for the conveyance, without consideration, 
     of the Emergency One Cyclone II Custom Pumper truck subject 
     to Army Loan DAAMO1-98-L-0001 to the Umatilla Indian Tribe, 
     the current lessee.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                    SHELBY AMENDMENTS NOS. 3288-3289

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. SHELBY submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3288

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

[[Page 10330]]

       Sec.  . Of the funds available under the heading ``Weapons 
     and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' in Title III of this Act, 
     up to $10,000,000 may be made available for Carrier 
     Modifications.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3289

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds available under the heading ``Research 
     Development Test and Evaluation, Army'' in the Title IV of 
     this Act, under ``End Item Industrial Preparedness'' up to 
     $5,000,000 may be made available for the Printed Wiring Board 
     Manufacturing Technology Center.
                                 ______
                                 

                       THOMAS AMENDMENT NO. 3290

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. THOMAS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section and renumber the remaining sections accordingly:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON THE RETURN OF VETERANS MEMORIAL 
                   OBJECTS TO FOREIGN NATIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC 
                   AUTHORIZATION IN LAW.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding section 2572 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or any other provision of law, no funds 
     appropriated under this Act may be used to transfer a 
     veterans memorial object to a foriegn country or entity 
     controlled by a foreign government, or otherwise transfer or 
     convey such object to any person or entity for purposes of 
     the ultimate transfer or conveyance of such object to a 
     foreign country or entity controlled by a foreign government, 
     unless specifically authorized by law.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Entity controlled by a foreign government.--The term 
     ``entity controlled by a foreign government'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 2536(c)(1) of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (2) Veterans memorial object.--The term ``veterans memorial 
     object'' means any object, including a physical structure or 
     portion thereof, that--
       (A) is located in a cemetery of the national Cemetary 
     System, war memorial, or military installation in the United 
     States;
       (B) is dedicated to, or otherwise memorializes, the death 
     in combat or combat-related duties of members of the United 
     States Armed Forces; and
       (C) was brought to the United States from abroad as a 
     memorial of combat abroad.
                                 ______
                                 

                         KYL AMENDMENT NO. 3291

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:
       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount.--The amount appropriated 
     under title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, 
     Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by 
     $6,000,000, with the amount of the increase available for the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for International 
     Cooperative Programs for the Arrow Missile Defense System 
     (PE603875C) in order to enhance the interoperability of the 
     system between the United States and Israel.
       (b) Offset.--The amount appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used 
     Defense Sites'' is hereby reduced by $6,000,000.
                                 ______
                                 

                        REID AMENDMENT NO. 3292

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. REID submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE.

       Section 1211(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by striking ``180'' and 
     inserting ``30''; and
       (2) by adding at the end, the following new sentence: ``The 
     30-day reporting requirement shall apply to any changes to 
     the composite theoretical performance level for purposes of 
     subsection (a) proposed by the President on or after January 
     1, 2000.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                LANDRIEU (AND BREAUX) AMENDMENT NO. 3293

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Breaux) submitted an amendment 
intended to be prosposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Additional Amounts.--(1) The amount 
     appropriated under title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Navy'' is hereby increased by $7,000,000.
       (2) The amount appropriated under title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'' 
     is hereby increased by $14,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amounts.--(1) Of the amounts 
     appropriated under title II under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Navy'', and under title IV under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy'', as 
     increased by subsection (a), $21,000,000 shall be available 
     for the Navy Program Executive Office for Information 
     Technology for purposes of the Information Technology Center 
     and for the Human Resource Enterprise Strategy implemented 
     under section 8147 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262; 112 Stat. 2341; 
     10 U.S.C. 113 note).
       (2) Amounts made available under paragraph (1) for the 
     purposes specified in that paragraph are in addition to any 
     other amounts made available under this Act for such 
     purposes.
                                 ______
                                 

                   DOMENICI AMENDMENTS NOS. 3294-3297

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DOMENICI submitted four amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3294

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Air Force'', $5,000,000 shall be available for Advanced 
     Technology (PE603605F) for the LaserSpark countermeasures 
     program.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3295

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount Available for Certain 
     Program Element.--The amount appropriated under title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' for Logistics Research and 
     Development Technology Demonstration (PE603712S) is hereby 
     increased by $2,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the total amount available 
     under this Act for the program element referred to in 
     subsection (a), as increased by that subsection, $5,000,000 
     shall be available for a Silicon-Based Nanostructures 
     Program.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3296

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount Available for Certain 
     Program Element.--The amount appropriated under title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and 
     Evaluation, Air Force'' for Initial Operational Test and 
     Evaluation (PE605712F) is hereby increased by $13,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--The total amount available 
     under this Act for the Air Force Operational Test and 
     Evaluation Command is hereby increased by $13,000,000, with 
     the amount of such increase to be derived from the increase 
     made by subsection (a) in the amount available for the 
     program element referred to in that subsection.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3297

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Directed energy systems are available to address many 
     current challenges with respect to military weapons, 
     including offensive weapons and defensive weapons.
       (2) Directed energy weapons offer the potential to maintain 
     an asymmetrical technological edge over adversaries of the 
     United States for the foreseeable future.
       (3) It is in the national interest that funding for 
     directed energy science and technology programs be increased 
     in order to support priority acquisition programs and to 
     develop new technologies for future applications.
       (4) It is in the national interest that the level of 
     funding for directed energy science and technology programs 
     correspond to the level of funding for large-scale 
     demonstration programs in order to ensure the growth of 
     directed energy science and technology programs and to ensure 
     the successful development of other weapons systems utilizing 
     directed energy systems.
       (5) The industrial base for several critical directed 
     energy technologies is in fragile condition and lacks 
     appropriate incentives to make the large-scale investments 
     that are necessary to address current and anticipated 
     Department of Defense requirements for such technologies.
       (6) It is in the national interest that the Department of 
     Defense utilize and expand upon directed energy research 
     currently being conducted by the Department of Energy, other 
     Federal agencies, the private sector, and academia.
       (7) It is increasingly difficult for the Federal Government 
     to recruit and retain personnel with skills critical to 
     directed energy technology development.
       (8) The implementation of the recommendations contained in 
     the High Energy

[[Page 10331]]

     Laser Master Plan of the Department of Defense is in the 
     national interest.
       (9) Implementation of the management structure outlined in 
     the Master Plan will facilitate the development of 
     revolutionary capabilities in directed energy weapons by 
     achieving a coordinated and focused investment strategy under 
     a new management structure featuring a joint technology 
     office with senior-level oversight provided by a technology 
     council and a board of directors.
       (b) Coordination and Oversight Under High Energy Laser 
     Master Plan.--(1) Subchapter II of Chapter 8 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 204. Joint Technology Office

       ``(a) Establishment.--(1) There is in the Department of 
     Defense a Joint Technology Office (in this section referred 
     to as the `Office'). The Office shall be considered an 
     independent office within the Office of the Secretary of 
     Defense.
       ``(2) The Office shall be co-located with the National 
     Directed Energy Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, New 
     Mexico.
       ``(3) The Office shall be under the authority, direction, 
     and control of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
     Science and Technology.
       ``(b) Director.--(1) The head of the Office shall be a 
     civilian employee of the Department of Defense in the Senior 
     Executive Service who is designated by the Secretary of 
     Defense for that purpose. The head of the Office shall be 
     known as the `Director of the Joint Technology Office'.
       ``(2) The Director shall report directly to the Deputy 
     Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology.
       ``(c) Other Staff.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     the Office such civilian and military personnel and other 
     resources as are necessary to permit the Office to carry out 
     its duties under this section.
       ``(d) Duties.--The duties of the Office shall be to--
       ``(1) develop and oversee the management of a Department of 
     Defense-wide program of science and technology relating to 
     directed energy technologies, systems, and weapons;
       ``(2) serve as a point of coordination for initiatives for 
     science and technology relating to directed energy 
     technologies, systems, and weapons from throughout the 
     Department of Defense;
       ``(3) develop and promote a program (to be known as the 
     `National Directed Energy Technology Alliance') to foster the 
     exchange of information and cooperative activities on 
     directed energy technologies, systems, and weapons between 
     and among the Department of Defense, other Federal agencies, 
     institutions of higher education, and the private sector;
       ``(4) initiate and oversee the coordination of the high-
     energy laser and high power microwave programs and offices of 
     the military departments; and
       ``(5) carry out such other activities relating to directed 
     energy technologies, systems, and weapons as the Deputy Under 
     Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(e) Coordination Within Department of Defense.--(1) The 
     Director of the Office shall assign to appropriate personnel 
     of the Office the performance of liaison functions with the 
     other Defense Agencies and with the military departments.
       ``(2) The head of each military department and Defense 
     Agency having an interest in the activities of the Office 
     shall assign personnel of such department or Defense Agency 
     to assist the Office in carrying out its duties. In providing 
     such assistance, such personnel shall be known collectively 
     as `Technology Area Working Groups'.
       ``(f) Joint Technology Board of Directors.--(1) There is 
     established in the Department of Defense a board to be known 
     as the `Joint Technology Board of Directors' (in this section 
     referred to as the `Board').
       ``(2) The Board shall be composed of 9 members as follows:
       ``(A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
     Technology, who shall serve as chairperson of the Board.
       ``(B) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering, who 
     shall serve as vice-chairperson of the Board.
       ``(C) The senior acquisition executive of the Department of 
     the Army.
       ``(D) The senior acquisition executive of the Department of 
     the Navy.
       ``(E) The senior acquisition executive of the Department of 
     the Air Force.
       ``(F) The senior acquisition executive of the Marine Corps.
       ``(G) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research 
     Projects Agency.
       ``(H) The Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense 
     Organization.
       ``(I) The Director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
       ``(3) The duties of the Board shall be--
       ``(A) to review and comment on recommendations made and 
     issues raised by the Council under this section; and
       ``(B) to review and oversee the activities of the Office 
     under this section.
       ``(g) Joint Technology Council.--(1) There is established 
     in the Department of Defense a council to be known as the 
     `Joint Technology Council' (in this section referred to as 
     the `Council').
       ``(2) The Council shall be composed of 8 members as 
     follows:
       ``(A) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and 
     Technology, who shall be chairperson of the Council.
       ``(B) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Department of the Army.
       ``(C) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Department of the Navy.
       ``(D) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Department of the Air Force.
       ``(E) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Marine Corps.
       ``(F) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
       ``(G) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
       ``(H) The senior science and technology executive of the 
     Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
       ``(3) The duties of the Council shall be--
       ``(A) to review and recommend priorities among programs, 
     projects, and activities proposed and evaluated by the Office 
     under this section;
       ``(B) to make recommendations to the Board regarding 
     funding for such programs, projects, and activities; and
       ``(C) to otherwise review and oversee the activities of the 
     Office under this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter II 
     of chapter 8 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

``204. Joint Technology Office.''.

       (3) The Secretary of Defense shall locate the Joint 
     Technology Office under section 204 of title 10, United 
     States Code (as added by this subsection), at a location at 
     Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, not later than January 
     1, 2001.
       (c) Technology Area Working Groups under High Energy Laser 
     Master Plan.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide for the 
     implementation of the portion of the High Energy Laser Master 
     Plan relating to technology area working groups.
       (d) Enhancement of Industrial Base.--(1) The Secretary of 
     Defense shall develop and undertake initiatives, including 
     investment initiatives, for purposes of enhancing the 
     industrial base for directed energy technologies and systems.
       (2) Initiatives under paragraph (1) shall be designed to--
       (A) stimulate the development by institutions of higher 
     education and the private sector of promising directed energy 
     technologies and systems; and
       (B) stimulate the development of a workforce skilled in 
     such technologies and systems.
       (3) Of the amount available under subsection (h), 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for the initiation of 
     development of the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL). The Joint 
     Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate shall assist the operational 
     manager of the Advanced Tactical Laser program in 
     establishing specifications for non-lethal operations of the 
     Advanced Tactical Laser.
       (e) Enhancement of Test and Evaluation Capabilities.--(1) 
     The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate and implement 
     proposals for modernizing the High Energy Laser Test Facility 
     at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, in order to enhance 
     the test and evaluation capabilities of the Department of 
     Defense with respect to directed energy weapons.
       (2) Of the amount available for fiscal year 2001 under 
     subsection (h), and of the amounts available to the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002, not more than 
     $2,000,000 shall be available in each such fiscal year for 
     purposes of the deployment and test at the High Energy Laser 
     Test Facility at White Sands Missile Range of free electron 
     laser technologies under development at Los Alamos National 
     Laboratory, New Mexico.
       (3) Of the made available for fiscal year 2001 under 
     subsection (h), and of the amounts available to the 
     Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002, $2,250,000 shall 
     be available in each such fiscal year for purposes of the 
     development, integration, and test at the Thomas Jefferson 
     Laboratory of a high average current injector to support 
     increased laser power objectives that benefit both the JLab 
     free electron laser and the Los Alamos National Laboratory 
     free electron laser at White Sands Missile Range.
       (f) Cooperative Programs and Activities.--(1) The Secretary 
     of Defense shall evaluate the feasibility and advisability of 
     entering into cooperative programs or activities with other 
     Federal agencies, institutions of higher education, and the 
     private sector, including the national laboratories of the 
     Department of Energy, for the purpose of enhancing the 
     programs, projects, and activities of the Department of 
     Defense relating to directed energy technologies, systems, 
     and weapons. The Secretary shall carry out the evaluation in 
     consultation with the Joint Technology Board of Directors 
     established by section 204 of title 10, United States Code 
     (as added by subsection (b) of this section).
       (2) The Secretary shall enter into any cooperative program 
     or activity determined under the evaluation under paragraph 
     (1) to be feasible and advisable for the purpose set forth in 
     that paragraph.
       (3) Of the amount available under subsection (h), 
     $50,000,000 shall be available for

[[Page 10332]]

     cooperative programs and activities entered into under 
     paragraph (2).
       (g) Participation of Joint Technology Council in 
     Activities.--The Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, carry out activities under subsections 
     (c), (d), (e), and (f), through the Joint Technology Council 
     established pursuant to section 204 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (h) Funding for Fiscal Year 2001.--(1) The amount 
     appropriated under title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' is hereby 
     increased by $150,000,000, with the amount of such increase 
     available for science and technology activities relating to 
     directed energy technologies, systems, and weapons under this 
     section in accordance with the provisions of this section.
       (2) The Director of the Joint Technology Office established 
     pursuant to section 204 of title 10, United States Code, 
     shall allocate amounts available under paragraph (1) among 
     appropriate program elements of the Department of Defense, 
     and among cooperative programs and activities under this 
     section, in accordance with such procedures as the Director 
     shall establish.
       (3) In establishing procedures for purposes of the 
     allocation of funds under paragraph (2), the Director shall 
     provide for the competitive selection of programs, projects, 
     and activities to be the recipients of such funds.
       (i) Directed Energy Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``directed energy'', with respect to technologies, systems, 
     or weapons, means technologies, systems, or weapons that 
     provide for the directed transmission of energies across the 
     energy and frequency spectrum, including high energy lasers 
     and high power microwaves.
                                 ______
                                 

                    HELMS AMENDMENTS NOS. 3298-3299

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. HELMS submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3298

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Of the funds made available in Title IV of this Act under 
     the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Army'', up to $3,000,000 may be made available for the 
     Display Performance and Environmental Laboratory Project of 
     the Army Research Laboratory.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3299

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Of the funds made available in Title IV of this Act under 
     the heading, ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $4,500,000 may be made available for the 
     Innovative Stand-Off Door Breaching Munition.
                                 ______
                                 

                     ROBB AMENDMENTS NOS. 3300-3301

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ROBB submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3300

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', $3,000,000 
     shall be available for high-performance, non-toxic, 
     inturnescent fire protective coatings aboard Navy vessels. 
     The coating shall meet the specifications for Type II fire 
     protectives as stated in Mil--Spec DoD-C-24596.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3301

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force'', 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for advanced three-dimensional 
     visualization software with the currently-deployed, personal 
     computer-based Portable Flight Planning Software (PFPS).
                                 ______
                                 

                       DORGAN AMENDMENT NO. 3302

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DORGAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . REPORT ON AN ELECTRONIC WARFARE VERSION OF THE B-52.

       (a) The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees by May 1, 2001, a report on 
     the potential role of an electronic warfare (EW) version of 
     the B-52 bomber in meeting anticipated future shortfalls in 
     airborne EW assets.
       (b) Content.--The report shall include the following:
       (1) the advantages and disadvantages of using the B-52 
     airframe's size, payload and endurance for standoff jamming;
       (2) the impact on the weapons carrying capability of the B-
     52;
       (3) the arms control implications of using certain B-52s as 
     EW platforms; and
       (4) the estimated schedule for, and non-recurring and 
     modification cost of, deploying interim and long term EW 
     versions of the B-52.
                                 ______
                                 

                 DORGAN (AND INOUYE) AMENDMENT NO. 3303

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Inouye) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 52, line 4, beginning at ``Provided, That'' strike 
     all that follows through line 9 and insert the following: ``; 
     Provided further, That a subcontractor at any tier shall be 
     considered a contractor for purposes of being allowed 
     additional compensation under section 504 of the Indian 
     Financing Act of 1974.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                ASHCROFT (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3304

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself and Mr. Bond, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Breaux, and 
Ms. Landrieu). submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109 of the substitute, between lines 11 and 12, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the total amount appropriated by this Act for 
     the Air Force for research, development, test and evaluation, 
     $43,000,000 is available for the extended range conventional 
     air-launched cruise missile program of the Air Force.
                                 ______
                                 

               ABRAHAM (AND MOYNIHAN) AMENDMENT NO. 3305

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Moynihan) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY; up 
     to $15,000,000 may be made available to continue research and 
     development on Silicon carbide research (PE 63005A).
                                 ______
                                 

                       DASCHLE AMENDMENT NO. 3306

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DASCHLE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       (a) Modification of Conveyee.--Subsection (a) of section 
     2863 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 
     2010) is amended by striking ``Greater Box Elder Area 
     Economic Development Corporation, Box Elder, South Dakota (in 
     this section referred to as the `Corporation')'' and 
     inserting ``West River Foundation for Economic and Community 
     Development, Sturgis, South Dakota (in this section referred 
     to as the `Foundation')''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--That section is further amended 
     by striking ``Corporation'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (c) and (e) and inserting ``Foundation''.
                                 ______
                                 

                        CRAPO AMENDMENT NO. 3307

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. CRAPO submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF MEDAL OF HONOR TO CERTAIN 
                   SPECIFIED PERSONS.

       (a) Inapplicability of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding 
     the time limitations in section 3744(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, or any other time limitation, the President may 
     award the Medal of Honor under section 3741 of such title to 
     the persons specified in subsection (b) for the acts 
     specified in that subsection, the award of the Medal of Honor 
     to such persons having been determined by the Secretary of 
     the Army to be warranted in accordance with section 1130 of 
     such title.
       (b) Persons Eligible To Receive the Medal of Honor.--The 
     persons referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) Ed W. Freeman, for conspicuous acts of gallantry and 
     intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call of 
     duty on November 14, 1965, as flight leader and second-in-
     command of a helicopter lift unit at landing zone X-Ray in 
     the Battle of the la Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam, 
     during the Vietnam War, while serving in the grade of Captain 
     in Alpha company, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 101st 
     Cavalry Division (Airmobile).
       (2) James K. Okubo, for conspicuous acts of gallantry and 
     intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call of 
     duty on October 28 and 29, and November 14, 1944, at Foret

[[Page 10333]]

     Domaniale de Champ, near Biffontaine, France, during World 
     War II, while serving as an Army medic in the grade of 
     Technician Fifth Grade in the medical detachment, 442d 
     Regimental Combat Team.
       (3) Andrew J. Smith, for conspicuous acts of gallantry and 
     intrepidity at the risk of his life and beyond the call of 
     duty on November 30, 1864, in the Battle of Honey Hill, South 
     Carolina, during the Civil War, while serving as a corporal 
     in the 55th Massachusetts Voluntary Infantry Regiment.
       (c) Posthumous Award.--The Medal of Honor may be awarded 
     under this section posthumously, as provided in section 3752 
     of title 10, United States Code.
       (d) Prior Award.--The Medal of Honor may be awarded under 
     this section for service for which a Silver Star, or other 
     award, has been awarded.''
                                 ______
                                 

                  BOXER (AND REID) AMENDMENT NO. 3308

  Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Reid) proposed an amendment to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 8__. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTATIVE 
                   APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES IN DEPARTMENT OF 
                   DEFENSE AREAS THAT MAY BE USED BY CHILDREN.

       (a) Definition of Pesticide.--In this section, the term 
     `pesticide' has the meaning given the term in section 2 of 
     the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
     U.S.C. 136).
       (b) Prohibition Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     appropriated under this Act may be used for the preventative 
     application of a pesticide containing a known or probable 
     carcinogen or a category I or II acute nerve toxin, or a 
     pesticide of the organophosphate, carbamate, or 
     organochlorine class, in any area owned or managed by the 
     Department of Defense that may be used by children, including 
     a park, base housing, a recreation center, a playground, or a 
     daycare facility.
                                 ______
                                 

                    BOXER AMENDMENTS NOS. 3309-3311

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mrs. BOXER submitted three amendments intended to be proposed by her 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3309

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUAL MEDICAL RECORDS.

       None of the funds provided in this Act shall be used to 
     transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available to 
     any individual or entity outside the Department of Defense an 
     individual's medical records without the consent of the 
     individual.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3310

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . REDUCTION IN TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE APPROPRIATED.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total 
     amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 under the provisions 
     of this Act is hereby reduced by $3,000,000,000, with the 
     total amount of such reduction to be used exclusively for 
     reducing the amount of the Federal budget debt.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3311

       Strike Section 8114.
                                 ______
                                 

                        LEAHY AMENDMENT NO. 3312

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title III under 
     the heading ``Other Procurement, Army'', $5,000,000 shall be 
     available for the development of the Abrams Full-Crew 
     Interactive Skills Trainer.
                                 ______
                                 

               SCHUMER (AND MOYNIHAN) AMENDMENT NO. 3313

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Moynihan) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'' for 
     Industrial Mobilization Capacity, $57,378,000 plus an 
     additional $20,000,000 may be made available to address 
     unutilized plant capacity in order to offset the effects of 
     low utilization of plant capacity on overhead charges at the 
     Arsenals.
                                 ______
                                 

                   KENNEDY AMENDMENTS NOS. 3314-3316

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. KENNEDY submitted three amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3314

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount 
     appropriated under title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to 
     $10,000,000 may be available for the Environmental Security 
     Technical Certification Program (PE603851D) to develop and 
     test technologies to detect unexploded ordinance at sites 
     where the detection and possible remediation of unexploded 
     ordinance from live-fire activities is underway.
       (b) Additional Requirement.--Performance measures shall be 
     established for the technologies described in subsection (a) 
     for purposes of facilitating the implementation and 
     utilization of such technologies by the Department of 
     Defense.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3315

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount 
     appropriated under title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to 
     $10,000,000 may be available for the Strategic Environmental 
     Research and Development Program (PE6034716D) for the 
     development and test of technologies to detect, analyze, and 
     map the presence of, and to transport, pollutants and 
     contaminants at sites undergoing the detection and possible 
     remediation of constituents attributable to live-fire 
     activities in a variety of hydrogeological scenarios.
       (b) Additional Requirement.--Performance measures shall be 
     established for the technologies described in subsection (a) 
     for purposes of facilitating the implementation and 
     utilization of such technologies by the Department of 
     Defense.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3316

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title IV under 
     the heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $5,000,000 may be available for Surface Ship & 
     Submarine HM&E Advanced Technology (PE603508N) for continuing 
     development by the Navy of the AC synchronous high-
     temperature superconductor electric motor.
                                 ______
                                 

                STEVENS (AND INOUYE) AMENDMENT NO. 3317

  Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Inouye) proposed an amendment to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . In addition to funds made available in Title IV of 
     this Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $20,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for Information Technology Center.
                                 ______
                                 

                   STEVENS AMENDMENTS NOS. 3318-3320

  Mr. STEVENS proposed three amendments to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; 
as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3318

       On page 83, line 26 of bill after the comma strike the 
     following text: ``1999 (Public Law 105-262)'', and insert the 
     following text: ``2000 (Public Law 106-79)''.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3319

       On page 47, at line 21, strike the words ``Native American 
     ownership'' and insert in lieu thereof ``ownership by an 
     Indian tribe, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e), or a Native 
     Hawaiian organization, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 647(a)(15)''.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3320

       On page 79, insert the words ``Increase Use/Reserve support 
     to the Operational Commander-in-Chiefs and with'' after the 
     words ``to be used in support of such personnel in connection 
     with''.
                                 ______
                                 

                       STEVENS AMENDMENT NO. 3321

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Of the funds provided in Title II under the heading 
     ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up to $1,000,000 may be 
     available to continue the Public Service Initiative.
                                 ______
                                 

                   ROBERTS AMENDMENTS NOS. 3322-3323

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)

[[Page 10334]]


  Mr. ROBERTS submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3322

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may convey, without consideration, to the State of 
     Kansas, all right, title, and interest of the United States 
     in and to a parcel of real property, including any 
     improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 70 acres at 
     Fort Riley Military Reservation, Fort Riley, Kansas. The 
     preferred site is adjacent to the Fort Riley Military 
     Reservation boundary, along the north side of Huebner Road 
     across from the First Territorial Capitol of Kansas 
     Historical Site Museum.
       (b) Conditions of Conveyance.--The conveyance required by 
     subsection (a) shall be subject to the following conditions:
       (1) That the State of Kansas use the property conveyed 
     solely for purposes of establishing and maintaining a State-
     operated veterans cemetery.
       (2) That all costs associated with the conveyance, 
     including the cost of relocating water and electric utilities 
     should the Secretary determine that such relocations are 
     necessary, be borne by the State of Kansas.
       (c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary and the Director of the Kansas Commission on 
     Veterans Affairs.
       (d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance required by subsection (a) as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of 
     the United States.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3323

       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       ``Sec.   . Of the funds made available in Title IV of this 
     Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to $3,500,000 may be made 
     available for Chem-Bio Advanced Materials Research.
                                 ______
                                 

                    SNOWE AMENDMENTS NOS. 3324-3325

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Ms. SNOWE submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by her to 
the bill, H.R. 4576. supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3324

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert:
       Sec. 8126. Of the total amount appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy'', up to 
     $3,000,000 may be available only for a Navy benefits center.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3325

       On page 25 of the substituted original text, line 9, insert 
     ``two'' after ``and''.
                                 ______
                                 

                      LANDRIEU AMENDMENT NO. 3326

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, in the bill, insert the 
     following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds available in Title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', up to $8,000,000 may be made available for the Navy 
     Information Technology Center.
                                 ______
                                 

                       DORGAN AMENDMENT NO. 3327

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DORGAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . REPORT ON AN ELECTRONIC WARFARE VERSION OF THE B-52.

       (a) The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees by May 1, 2001, a report on 
     the potential role of an electronic warfare (EW) version of 
     the B-52 bomber in meeting anticipated future shortfalls in 
     airborne EW assets.
       (b) Content.--The report shall include the following:
       (1) the advantages and disadvantages of using the B-52 
     airframe's size, payload and endurance for standoff jamming;
       (2) the impact on the weapons carrying capability of the B-
     52;
       (3) the arms control implications of using certain B-52s as 
     EW platforms; and
       (4) the estimated schedule for, and non-recurring and 
     modification cost of, deploying interim and long term EW 
     versions of the B-52.
                                 ______
                                 

                       STEVENS AMENDMENT NO. 3328

  Mr. STEVENS proposed an amendment to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 90, line 14, strike Section 8091 and insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 8091. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, 
     the total amount appropriated in this Act is hereby reduced 
     by $789,700,000 to reflect savings from favorable foreign 
     currency fluctuations, and stabilization of the balance 
     available within the ``Foreign Currency Fluctuation, 
     Defense'', account.
                                 ______
                                 

                  GREGG (AND KERRY) AMENDMENT NO. 3329

  (Ordered to lie on the Table.)
  Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Kerry) submitted an amendment intended 
to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       ``Sec.   . Of the funds made available in Title IV of this 
     Act under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', up to $7,000,000 may be made 
     available for the Solid State Dye Laser project.
                                 ______
                                 

                  FEINSTEIN AMENDMENTS NOS. 3330-3332

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. FEINSTEIN submitted three amendments intended to be proposed by 
her to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3330

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     payments under section 8003 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703), a total of $1,000,000 
     shall be available for distribution between the Center 
     Unified School District, California, and the Whisman School 
     District, California, on the basis of the needs of those 
     districts resulting from disruptions caused by base closures 
     and realignments.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3331

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       Of the amount available under Title II under the heading 
     ``Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', $1,000,000 
     shall be available for Middle East Regional Security Issues.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3332

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount available under title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Navy'', $5,000,000 shall be available for the continuation of 
     the Compatible Processor Upgrade Program (CPUP).
                                 ______
                                 

                        BYRD AMENDMENT NO. 3333

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Availability of Funds for Analysis.--Of the 
     amount appropriated under title III under the heading ``Other 
     Procurement, Air Force'', $3,000,000 shall be available for 
     the following activities:
       (1) An analysis of the costs associated with and the 
     activities necessary in order to reestablish the production 
     line for the U-2 aircraft.
       (2) An analysis of the feasibility of restarting production 
     of U-2 aircraft in fiscal year 2002 at a rate of 2 aircraft 
     per year.
       (b) Report.--Not later than April 1, 2001, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees 
     a report on the analyses undertaken using funds available 
     under subsection (a). The report shall be submitted in 
     unclassified form.
                                 ______
                                 

                    WARNER AMENDMENTS NOS. 3334-3335

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. WARNER submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3334

  At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Additional Funds for Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Civil Support Teams.--The amount appropriated 
     under title II under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Army'' is hereby increased by $3,700,000, with the amount of 
     the increase available for the activities of five additional 
     Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST).
       (b) Additional Funds for Equipment for Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Civil Support Team Program.--(1) The amount 
     appropriated under title III under the heading ``Other 
     Procurement, Army'' is hereby increased by $11,300,000, with 
     the amount of the

[[Page 10335]]

     increase available for Special Purpose Vehicles.
       (2) The amount appropriated under title III under the 
     heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by 
     $1,800,000, with the amount of the increase available for the 
     Chemical Biological Defense Program, for Contamination 
     Avoidance.
       (3) Amounts made available by reason of paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) shall be available for the procurement of additional 
     equipment for the Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 
     Team (WMD-CST) program.
       (c) Offset.--The amount appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' for 
     the Defense Finance and Accounting Service is hereby reduced 
     by $16,800,000, with the amount of the reduction applied to 
     the Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS) for fielding and 
     operations.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3335

  On page 109 of the substitute, between lines 11 and 12, insert the 
following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) In addition to the amount appropriated by 
     title II under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, 
     Defense-Wide'', there is hereby appropriated for the purposes 
     and period for which funds are appropriated under that 
     heading $30,000,000: Provided, That, of such amount, 
     $10,000,000 is available for the Institute for Defense 
     Computer Security and Information Protection of the 
     Department of Defense, and $20,000,000 is available for the 
     Information Security Scholarship Program of the Department of 
     Defense.
       (b)(1) The amount appropriated by title III under the 
     heading ``Weapons Procurement, Navy'' for surface land attack 
     missile-enhanced response (SLAM-ER) is hereby reduced by 
     $24,400,000.
       (2) The amount appropriated by title IV under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy'' for 
     common command and decision function systems (0603582N) is 
     hereby reduced by $1,500,000.
       (3) The amount appropriated by title IV under the heading 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force'' for 
     hyperspectral system development (high altitude) (0603203F) 
     is hereby reduced by $4,000,000.
       (c) Of the amounts appropriated by chapter 3 of title II of 
     Public Law 106-31 under the heading ``Weapons Procurement, 
     Navy'' for tomahawk missiles, $24,400,000 shall be available 
     for surface land attack missile-enhanced response (SLAM-ER).
                                 ______
                                 

                   NICKLES AMENDMENTS NOS. 3336-3337

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. NICKLES submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3336

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Of the funds provided in Title IV of this Act under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army'' 
     up to $12,000,000 may be made available to commence a live-
     fire, side-by-side operational test of the air-to-air 
     Starstreak and air-to-air Stinger missiles from the AH64D 
     Longbow helicopter, as previously specified in section 8138 
     of Public Law 106-79. Provided, That the budget of the 
     President for fiscal year 2002 submitted to the Congress 
     pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, 
     shall include in the Army budget request the funding 
     necessary to conclude this live-fire, side-by-side 
     operational test of the air-to-air Starstreak and air-to-air 
     Stinger missiles as specified in Section 8138 of Public Law 
     106-79.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3337

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Of the funds appropriated in the Act under the heading 
     ``Operations and Maintenance, Defense Wide'' up to $5,000,000 
     may be made available to the American Red Cross for Armed 
     Forces Emergency Services.
                                 ______
                                 

                       ALLARD AMENDMENT NO. 3338

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ALLARD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109 of the substitute, between lines 11 and 12, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air 
     Force'', up to $12,000,000 is available for the XSS-10 micro-
     missile technology program.
                                 ______
                                 

                      COVERDELL AMENDMENT NO. 3339

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
       Mr. COVERDELL submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109 of the substitute, between lines 11 and 12, 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated by title IV under the 
     heading ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, 
     Defense-wide'', a total of $3,000,000 is transferred to the 
     Marine Corps Advanced Development Demonstration (PE 
     0603640m), of which $1,500,000 shall be derived from the 
     amount appropriated under that heading for Chemical/
     Biological Defense (Advanced Development--PE 062384BP) and 
     $1,500,000 shall be derived from the amount appropriated 
     under that heading for Chemical/Biological Defense (Applied 
     Research--PE 063384BP).
                                 ______
                                 

                 DeWINE (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3340

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Breaux, 
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Mack, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Coverdell) submitted an 
amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, 
supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Failure to operate and standardize the current Tethered 
     Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites along the Southwest border 
     of the United States and the Gulf of Mexico will result in a 
     degradation of the counterdrug capability of the United 
     States.
       (2) Most of the illicit drugs consumed in the United States 
     enter the United States through the Southwest border, the 
     Gulf of Mexico, and Florida.
       (3) The Tethered Aerostat Radar System is a critical 
     component of the counterdrug mission of the United States 
     relating to the detection and apprehension of drug 
     traffickers.
       (4) Preservation of the current Tethered Aerostat Radar 
     System network compels drug traffickers to transport illicit 
     narcotics into the United States by more risky and hazardous 
     routes.
       (b) Availability of Funds for TARS.--Of the amount 
     appropriated under title VI under the heading ``Drug 
     Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense'', 
     $23,000,000 shall be available to Drug Enforcement Policy 
     Support (DEP&S) for purposes of maintaining operations of the 
     11 current Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) sites and 
     completing the standardization of such sites located along 
     the Southwest border of the United States and in the States 
     bordering the Gulf of Mexico.
                                 ______
                                 

                 GRAMS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3341

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Allard, and Mr. 
Ashcroft) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by them to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

         Additional Benefits For Reserves and Their Dependents

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that it is in the national 
     interest for the President to provide the funds for the 
     reserve components of the Armed Forces (including the 
     National Guard and Reserves) that are sufficient to ensure 
     that the reserve components meet the requirements specified 
     for the reserve components in the National Military Strategy, 
     including training requirements.

     SEC.   . TRAVEL BY RESERVES ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Space-Required Travel for Travel to Duty Stations 
     INCONUS and OCONUS.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 18505 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) A member of a reserve component traveling to a place 
     of annual training duty or inactive-duty training (including 
     a place other than the member's unit training assembly if the 
     member is performing annual training duty or inactive-duty 
     training in another location) may travel in a space-required 
     status on aircraft of the armed forces between the member's 
     home and the place of such duty or training.''.
       (2) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 18505. Reserves traveling to annual training duty or 
       inactive-duty training: authority for space-required 
       travel''.

       (b) Space-Available Travel for Members of Selected Reserve, 
     Gray Area Retirees, and Dependents.--Chapter 1805 of such 
     title is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 18506. Space-available travel: Selected Reserve 
       members and dependents

       ``(a) Eligibility for Space-Available Travel.--The 
     Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow 
     persons described in subsection (b) to receive transportation 
     on aircraft of the Department of Defense on a space-available 
     basis under the same terms and conditions (including terms 
     and conditions applicable to travel outside the United 
     States) as apply to members of the armed forces entitled to 
     retired pay.
       ``(b) Persons Eligible.--Subsection (a) applies to the 
     following persons:
       ``(1) A person who is a member of the Selected Reserve in 
     good standing (as determined by the Secretary concerned) or 
     who is

[[Page 10336]]

     a participating member of the Individual Ready Reserve of the 
     Navy or Coast Guard in good standing (as determined by the 
     Secretary concerned).
       ``(c) Dependents.--A dependent of a person described in 
     subsection (b) shall be provided transportation under this 
     section on the same basis as dependents of members of the 
     armed forces entitled to retired pay.
       ``(d) Limitation on Required Identification.--Neither the 
     `Authentication of Reserve Status for Travel Eligibility' 
     form (DD Form 1853), nor or any other form, other than the 
     presentation of military identification and duty orders upon 
     request, or other methods of identification required of 
     active duty personnel, shall be required of reserve component 
     personnel using space-available transportation within or 
     outside the continental United States under this section.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 18505 and inserting the following new 
     items:

``18505. Reserves traveling to annual training duty or inactive-duty 
              training: authority for space-required travel.
``18506. Space-available travel: Selected Reserve members and reserve 
              retirees under age 60; dependents.''.

       (d) Implementing Regulations.--Regulations under section 
     18506 of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection 
     (b), shall be prescribed not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC.   . BILLETING SERVICES FOR RESERVE MEMBERS TRAVELING FOR 
                   INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 1217 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after section 12603 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 12604. Billeting in Department of Defense facilities: 
       Reserves attending inactive-duty training

       ``(a) Authority for Billeting on Same Basis as Active Duty 
     Members Traveling Under Orders.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall prescribe regulations authorizing a Reserve traveling 
     to inactive-duty training at a location more than 50 miles 
     from that Reserve's residence to be eligible for billeting in 
     Department of Defense facilities on the same basis and to the 
     same extent as a member of the armed forces on active duty 
     who is traveling under orders away from the member's 
     permanent duty station.
       ``(b) Proof of Reason for Travel.--The Secretary shall 
     include in the regulations the means for confirming a 
     Reserve's eligibility for billeting under subsection (a).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     12603 the following new item:

``12604. Billeting in Department of Defense facilities: Reserves 
              attending inactive-duty training.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 12604 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to periods of inactive-duty training beginning more 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC.   . INCREASE IN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESERVE RETIREMENT 
                   POINTS THAT MAY BE CREDITED IN ANY YEAR.

       Section 12733(3) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``but not more than'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``but not more than--
       ``(A) 60 days in any one year of service before the year of 
     service that includes September 23, 1996;
       ``(B) 75 days in the year of service that includes 
     September 23, 1996, and in any subsequent year of service 
     before the year of service that includes the date of the 
     enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001; and
       ``(C) 90 days in the year of service that includes the date 
     of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2001 and in any subsequent year of 
     service.''.

     SEC.   . AUTHORITY FOR PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO RESERVE 
                   COMPONENT MEMBERS FOLLOWING RELEASE FROM ACTIVE 
                   DUTY.

       (a) Legal Services.--Section 1044(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4) Members of reserve components of the armed forces not 
     covered by paragraph (1) or (2) following release from active 
     duty under a call or order to active duty for more than 30 
     days issued under a mobilization authority (as determined by 
     the Secretary of Defense), but only during the period that 
     begins on the date of the release and is equal to at least 
     twice the length of the period served on active duty under 
     such call or order to active duty.''.
       (b) Dependents.--Paragraph (5) of such section, as 
     redesignated by subsection (a)(1), is amended by striking 
     ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3), and (4)''.
       (c) Implementing Regulations.--Regulations to implement the 
     amendments made by this section shall be prescribed not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 

                      BINGAMAN AMENDMENT NO. 3342

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amounts appropriated under title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     $2,000,000 may be made available for the Bosque Redondo 
     Memorial as authorized under the provisions of the bill S.964 
     of the 106th Congress, as adopted by the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 

                    INHOFE AMENDMENTS NOS. 3343-3345

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. INHOFE submitted three amendments intended to be proposed by him 
to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3343

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount.--Of the amount 
     appropriated under title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $300,000 
     shall be available for Generic Logistics Research and 
     Development Technology Demonstrations (PE603712S) for air 
     logistics technology.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount appropriated under title IV 
     under the heading referred to in subsection (a), the amount 
     available for Computing Systems and Communications Technology 
     (PE602301E) is hereby decreased by $300,000.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3344

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount.--Of the amount 
     appropriated under title IV under the heading ``Research, 
     Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', $5,000,000 
     shall be available for Explosives Demilitarization Technology 
     (PE603104D) for research into ammunition risk analysis 
     capabilities.
       (b) Offset.--Of the amount appropriated under title IV 
     under the heading referred to in subsection (a), the amount 
     available for Computing Systems and Communications Technology 
     (PE602301E) is hereby decreased by $5,000,000.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3345

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'', up to $3,800,000 
     may be available for defraying the costs of maintaining the 
     industrial mobilization capacity at the McAlester Army 
     Ammunition Activity, Oklahoma.
                                 ______
                                 

                 ALLARD (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3346

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ALLARD (for himself, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Grams) submitted an 
amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, 
supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                       bureau of the public debt

      gifts to the united states for reduction of the public debt

       For deposit of an additional amount into the account 
     established under section 3113(d) of title 31, United States 
     Code, to reduce the public debt, $12,200,000,000.
                                 ______
                                 

                  MACK (AND GRAHAM) AMENDMENT NO. 3347

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. MACK (for himself and Mr. Graham) submitted an amendment intended 
to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the funds appropriated in title IV under the 
     heading `Counter-Drug Activities, Defense', $5,000,000 shall 
     be made available for a ground processing station to support 
     a tropical remote sensing radar.
                                 ______
                                 

                      LANDRIEU AMENDMENT NO. 3348

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Ms. LANDRIEU submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Increase in Amount Available for 
     Procurement, Defense-Wide.--

[[Page 10337]]

     The amount appropriated under title III under the heading 
     ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' is hereby increased by 
     $3,000,000.
       (b) Availability of Amount.--Of the amount appropriated 
     under the heading referred to in subsection (a), as increased 
     by that subsection, $3,000,000 shall be available for the 
     procurement and installation of integrated bridge systems for 
     naval systems special warfare rigid inflatable boats and 
     high-speed assault craft for special operations forces.
       (c) Offset.--The amount appropriated under title III under 
     the heading ``Other Procurement, Air Force'' is hereby 
     decreased by $3,000,000.
                                 ______
                                 

                       EDWARDS AMENDMENT NO. 3349

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. EDWARDS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $77,560,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                     emergency conservation program

       Unobligated balances previously provided under this heading 
     may be used to repair and reconstruct essential farm 
     structures and equipment that have been damaged or destroyed, 
     after a finding by the Secretary of Agriculture that: (1) the 
     damage or destruction is the result of a natural disaster 
     declared by the Secretary or the President for losses due to 
     Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene; and (2) insurance against 
     the damage or destruction was not available to the grantee or 
     the grantee lacked the financial resources to obtain the 
     insurance: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.


                   commodity credit corporation fund

       The Secretary of Agriculture shall reduce the amount of any 
     principal due on a loan made by the Department to a marketing 
     association for the 1999 crop of an agricultural commodity by 
     up to 75 percent if the marketing association suffered losses 
     to the agriculture commodity in a county with respect to 
     which a natural disaster was declared by the Secretary or the 
     President for losses due to Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or 
     Irene.
       If the Secretary assigns a grade quality for the 1999 crop 
     of an agricultural commodity marketed by an association 
     described in the preceding paragraph that is below the base 
     quality of the agricultural commodity, and the reduction in 
     grade quality is the result of damage sustained from 
     Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene, the Secretary shall 
     compensate that association for losses incurred by the 
     association as a result of the reduction in grade quality.
       Up to $81,000,000 of the resources of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation may be used for the cost of this provision: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request that includes designation of the 
     entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as 
     defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to 
     the Congress.

           Rural Economic and Community Development Programs


                  rural community advancement program

       For an additional cost of water and waste grants, as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(2), to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disaster, $28,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended; and for an additional amount for 
     community facilities grants pursuant to section 381E(d)(1) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2009d(d)(1)) for emergency needs $15,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                         Rural Housing Service


              rural housing insurance fund program account

       For the additional cost of direct loans, as authorized by 
     title V of the Housing Act of 1949, $15,872,000 from the 
     Rural Housing Insurance Fund for section 515 rental housing, 
     to remain available until expended, to address emergency 
     needs resulting from Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or Irene: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, that 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans estimated to be 
     $40,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251 (b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
       For additional gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct loans as authorized by title V of the Housing Act 
     of 1949 to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     Insurance fund to meet the needs resulting from natural 
     disasters, as follows: $296,000,000 for loans to section 502 
     borrowers, as determined by the Secretary and $13,000,000 for 
     section 504 housing repair loans.
       For the additional cost of direct loans, including the cost 
     of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, to meet the needs resulting 
     from natural disasters, to remain available until expended as 
     follows: section 502 loans, $25,000,000 and section 504 
     loans, $4,000,000: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251 (b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                       rental assistance program

       For an additional amount for ``Rental Assistance Program'' 
     for rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to section 521(a)(2) of the Housing Act of 1949, for 
     emergency needs resulting from Hurricane Dennis, Floyd, or 
     Irene, $13,600,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the entire amount is designated by the 
     Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), to meet the 
     needs resulting from natural disasters, $6,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official requirement as defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                    rural housing assistance grants

       For grants and contracts for very low-income housing 
     repair, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1474, to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters, $8,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                               CHAPTER 2

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration


                economic development assistance programs

       For an additional amount for ``Economic Development 
     Assistance Programs''. $25,800,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for planning, public works grants and revolving 
     loan funds for communities affected by Hurricane Floyd and 
     other recent hurricanes and disasters: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to

[[Page 10338]]

     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  operations, research, and facilities

       For an additional amount for ``Operations, Research and 
     Facilities'', $19,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to provide disaster assistance pursuant to section 
     312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     Management Act, and for repairs to the Beaufort Laboratory, 
     resulting from Hurricane Floyd and other recent hurricanes 
     and disasters: Provided, That the entire amount is designated 
     by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.


                             related agency

                     Small Business Administration


                     disaster loans program account

       For an additional amount for the cost of direct loans, 
     $33,300,000, to remain available until expended to subsidized 
     additional gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and for the direct 
     administrative expenses to carry out the disaster loan 
     program, and additional $27,600,000, to remain available 
     until expended, which may be transferred to and merged with 
     appropriations for ``Salaries and Expenses'': Provided 
     further, That no funds shall be transferred to and merged 
     with appropriations for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     indirect administrative expenses: Provided further, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: 
     Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available 
     only to the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                               CHAPTER 3

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         Department of the Army

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil


                         general investigations

       For an additional amount to conduct a study and report to 
     the Congress on the feasibility of a project to provide flood 
     damage reduction for the town of Princeville, North Carolina, 
     $1,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended.


                   operation and maintenance, general

       For an additional amount for ``Operation and maintenance, 
     general'' for emergency expenses due to hurricanes and other 
     natural disasters, $27,925,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the total amount appropriated, the 
     amount for eligible navigation projects which may be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund pursuant to Public Law 
     99-662 shall be derived from that Fund: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 4

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                United States Fish and Wildlife Service


                              construction

       For an additional amount of ``Construction'', $5,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to repair or replace 
     building, equipment, roads, and water control structures 
     damaged by natural disasters: Provided, That the entire 
     amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                         National Park Service


                              construction

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'', $4,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to repair or replace 
     visitor facilities, equipment, roads and trails, and cultural 
     sites and artifacts at national park units damaged by natural 
     disasters: Provided, That the entire amount is designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                    United States Geological Survey


                 surveys, investigations, and research

       For an additional amount for ``Surveys, Investigations, and 
     Research'', $1,800,000 to remain available until expended, to 
     repair or replace stream monitoring equipment and associated 
     facilities damaged by natural disaster: Provided, That the 
     entire amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

                               CHAPTER 5

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                   Community Planning and Development


                home investigation partnerships program

       For an additional amount for the HOME investigation 
     partnerships program as authorized under title II of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (Public Law 
     101-625), as amended, $36,000,000: Provided, That of that 
     said amount, $11,000,000 shall be provided to the New Jersey 
     Department of Community Affairs and $25,000,000 shall be 
     provided to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency for the 
     purpose of providing temporary assistance in obtaining rental 
     housing, and for construction of affordable replacement 
     housing: Provided further, That assistance provided under 
     this paragraph shall be for very low-income families 
     displaced by flooding caused by Hurricane Floyd and 
     surrounding events: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount shall be available only to 
     the extent an official budget request that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.


                        administrative provision

       Sec. 3801. (a) Subject to subsection (d) and 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, from any amounts 
     made available for assistance under section 8 of the United 
     States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f) that remain 
     unobligated, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 
     shall, for each request described in subsection (b), make a 
     1-year grant to the entity making the request in the amount 
     under subsection (c).
       (b) A request described in this subsection is a request for 
     a grant under subtitle C of the title IV of the Stewart B. 
     McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11381 et seq.). 
     For permanent housing for homeless persons with disabilities 
     or subtitle F of such title (42 U.S.C. 11403 et seq.) that--
       (1) was submitted in accordance with the eligibility 
     requirements established by the Secretary and pursuant to the 
     notice of funding availability for fiscal year 1999 covering 
     such programs, but was not approved;
       (2) was made by an entity that received such a grant 
     pursuant to the notice of funding availability for a previous 
     fiscal year; and
       (3) requested renewal of funding made under such previous 
     grant for use for eligible activities because funding under 
     such previous grant expires during calendar year 2000.
       (c) The amount under this subsection is the amount 
     necessary, as determined by the Secretary, to renew funding 
     for the eligible activities under the grant request for a 
     period of only 1 year, taking into consideration the amount 
     of funding requested for the first year of funding under the 
     grant request.
       (d) The entire amount for grants under this section is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The entire 
     amount for grants under this section shall be available only 
     to the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, that includes designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement and defined in the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.

                          Independent Agencies

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            disaster relief

       For an increase in the authority to use unobligated 
     balances specified under this heading in appendix E, title I, 
     chapter 2, of Public Law 106-113. In addition to other 
     amounts made available, up to an additional $77,400,000 may 
     be used by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency for the purposes included in said chapter: Provided, 
     That the entire amount is designated by the Congress as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be 
     available only to the extent an official budget request that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      SHELBY AMENDMENT NO. 3350
  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. SHELBY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.  . Under Procurement Air Force, amend Section 2466 of 
     Title 10, U.S. Code as per the attached document.

[[Page 10339]]



     SEC.  . LIMITATIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF DEPOT-LEVEL 
                   MAINTENANCE OF MATERIEL.

       Section 2466 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``by non-Federal Government personnel'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``in other than Government-owned, 
     Government-operated facilities''; and
       (B) by striking ``by employees of the Department of 
     Defense,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``in Government-
     owned, Government-operated facilities,''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following new subsection(d):
       ``(d) Exceptions.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall 
     not apply with respect to--
       ``(1) the Sacramento Army Depot, Sacramento, California,
       ``(2) workloads for special access and intelligence 
     programs, and
       ``(3) any workload contracted by a public entity to a 
     private entity that was awarded to a public entity pursuant 
     to a public-private competition.''.
                                 ______
                                 

               SMITH OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AMENDMENT NO. 3351

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire submitted an amendment intended to be 
proposed by him to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. No funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be obligated or expended to issue a 
     security clearance to any employee of the Department of 
     Defense or contractor of the Department of Defense, or any 
     member of the Armed Forces, if such individual--
       (1) has been convicted in any court of the United States, 
     or of any State, of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment for 
     a term exceeding one year;
       (2) is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled 
     substance (as that term is defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act);
       (3) is currently mentally incompetent; or
       (4) has been discharged from the Armed Forces under 
     dishonorable conditions.
                                 ______
                                 

                  ROTH (AND BIDEN) AMENDMENT NO. 3352

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Biden) submitted an amendment intended 
to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the amount appropriated under title IV under 
     the heading ``Reserach, Development, Test, and Evaluation, 
     Air Force'', $92,530,000 may be available for C-5 aircraft 
     modernization, including for the C-5 Reliability Enhancement 
     and Reengining Program.
                                 ______
                                 

                       WARNER AMENDMENT NO. 3353

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . Section 8093(d) of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79; 113 Stat. 1253) 
     shall not apply to contracts awarded prior to the enactment 
     of Public Law 106-79.
                                 ______
                                 

                    HARKIN AMENDMENTS NOS. 3354-3355

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. HARKIN submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3354

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Of the amount appropriated by title II under 
     the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', 
     funds, in a sufficient amount for the purpose, shall be used 
     for the Department of Defense consideration and 
     implementation of changes in Department of Defense secrecy 
     oaths and policies, within appropriate national security 
     constraints, to ensure that such policies do not prevent or 
     discourage current and former workers at nuclear weapons 
     facilities who may have been exposed to radioactive and other 
     hazardous substances from discussing those exposures with 
     their health care providers and with other appropriate 
     officials, including for the consideration and implementation 
     of changes to the policy of the Department of Defense neither 
     to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons as it is 
     applied to former United States nuclear weapons facilities 
     that no longer contain nuclear weapons or materials.
       (b) Of the amount appropriated by title II under the 
     heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'', funds, 
     in sufficient amount for the purpose, shall be used to 
     provide for the notification of people who are or were bound 
     by Department of Defense secrecy oaths or policies, and who 
     may have been exposed to radioactive or hazardous substances 
     at nuclear weapons facilities, of any likely health risks and 
     of how they can discuss the exposures with their health care 
     providers and other appropriate officials without violating 
     secrecy oaths or policies.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3355

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be obligated or expended for the purchase or modification 
     of high mobility trailers for the Army before the Secretary 
     of the Army has determined that the trailers have been 
     thoroughly tested as a system with the High Mobility 
     Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles that tow the trailers, satisfy 
     the applicable specifications, are safe and usable, do not 
     damage the vehicles that tow the trailers, and perform the 
     intended functions satisfactorily.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     obligated or expended for the modification of Army High 
     Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles to tow trailers before 
     the Secretary of the Army has determined that, with respect 
     to the towing of trailers, the vehicles have been thoroughly 
     tested as a system, satisfy the applicable specifications, 
     are safe and usable, are not damaged by the towing of the 
     trailers, and perform the intended functions satisfactorily.
                                 ______
                                 

                 HARKIN (AND BOXER) AMENDMENT NO. 3356

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended for purchasing or leasing luxury 
     executive jet aircraft.
                                 ______
                                 

                 ROBERTS (AND LOTT) AMENDMENT NO. 3357

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. Lott) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 110 of the substituted original text, or at the 
     appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Of the total amount appropriated by title IV under 
     the heading ``RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, 
     DEFENSE WIDE'', $4,000,000 is available for Military 
     Personnel Research and $500,000 is available for the AFCC 
     engineering and installation program.
                                 ______
                                 

                       BENNETT AMENDMENT NO. 3358

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BENNETT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Layover Period for New Performance Levels.--
     Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. App. 2404 note) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by striking 
     ``180'' and inserting ``60''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Calculation of 60-Day Period.--The 60-day period 
     referred to in subsection (d) shall be calculated by 
     excluding the days on which either House of Congress is not 
     in session because of an adjournment of the Congress sine 
     die.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any new composite theoretical performance 
     level established for purposes of section 1211(a) of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 that 
     is submitted by the President pursuant to section 1211(d) of 
     that Act on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 

                       McCAIN AMENDMENT NO. 3359

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) In General.--No provision of the Buy 
     American Act, or similar provision, shall be construed to 
     prohibit, restrict, or otherwise limit the procurement by the 
     Department of Defense, using funds available under this Act 
     or any other Act, of any item, component, material, or 
     service if such prohibition, restriction, or limitation would 
     operate to invalidate a provision of a reciprocal trade 
     agreement for the procurement

[[Page 10340]]

     of defense items between the United States and any other 
     signatory to such agreement.
       (b) Buy America Act Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``Buy American Act'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 8036(c) of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 

                       STEVENS AMENDMENT NO. 3360

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. STEVENS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       In the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . Of the funds made available in Title IV of this Act 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Air Force'', up to $92,530,000 may be made 
     available for C-5 Airlift Squadrons.
                                 ______
                                 

                       McCAIN AMENDMENT NO. 3361

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. McCAIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:
       Sec.  . Of the funds provided within Title I of this Act, 
     such funds as may be necessary shall be available for a 
     special subsistence allowance for members eligible to receive 
     food stamp assistance, as authorized by law.
                                 ______
                                 

               DURBIN (AND WELLSTONE) AMENDMENT NO. 3362

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Wellstone) submitted an amendment 
intended to be proposed by them on the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as 
follows:

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the funds appropriated by title IV for the 
     national missile defense program, $20 million shall be 
     available for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization--
       (1) to include in the ground and flight testing of the 
     National Missile Defense system that is conducted before the 
     system becomes operational any countermeasures (including 
     decoys) that--
       (A) are likely, or at least realistically possible, to be 
     used against the system; and
       (B) are chosen for testing on the basis of what 
     countermeasure capabilities a long-range missile could have 
     and is likely to have, taking into consideration the 
     technology that the country deploying the missile would have 
     or could likely acquire; and
       (2) to determine the extent to which the exoatmospheric 
     kill vehicle and the National Missile Defense system can 
     reliably discriminate between warheads and such 
     countermeasures.
                                 ______
                                 

                        BOXER AMENDMENT NO. 3363

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUAL MEDICAL RECORDS.

       None of the funds provided in this Act shall be used to 
     transfer, release, disclose, or otherwise make available to 
     any individual or entity outside the Department of Defense 
     for any non-national security or non-law enforcement purposes 
     an individual's medical records without the consent of the 
     individual.
                                 ______
                                 

                        REED AMENDMENT NO. 3364

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. REED submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the 
bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 8126. PAYMENTS FOR CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES.

       (a) Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Of the amounts appropriated under title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' 
     $20,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Defense to 
     enable the Secretary of Defense to make a payment, to each 
     local educational agency eligible to receive a payment for a 
     child described in subparagraph (A)(ii), (B), (D(i) or 
     (D)(ii) of section 8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)) that serves 2 or 
     more such children with severe disabilities, for costs 
     incurred in providing a free public education to each such 
     child. The amount of the payment for each such child shall 
     be--
       (A) the payment made on behalf of the child with a severe 
     disability that is in excess of the average per pupil 
     expenditure in the State in which the local educational 
     agency is located; less
       (B) the sum of the funds received by the local educational 
     agency--
       (i) from the State in which the child resides to defray the 
     educational and related services for such child;
       (ii) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) to defray the educational and 
     related services for such child; and
       (iii) from any other source to defray the costs of 
     providing educational and related services to the child which 
     are received due to the presence of a severe disabling 
     condition of such child.
       (2) Limitation.--No payment shall be made on behalf of a 
     child with a severe disability whose individual cost of 
     educational and related services does not exceed--
       (A) 5 times the national or State average per pupil 
     expenditure (whichever is lower) for a child who is provided 
     educational and related services under a program that is 
     located outside the boundaries of the school district of the 
     local educational agency that pays for the free public 
     education of the student; or
       (B) 3 times the State average per pupil expenditure for a 
     child who is provided educational and related services under 
     a program offered by the local educational agency, or within 
     the boundaries of the school district served by the local 
     educational agency.
       (3) Ratable reduction.--If the amount made available under 
     this subsection is insufficient to pay the full amount all 
     local educational agencies are eligible to receive under this 
     subsection the Secretary of Education shall ratably reduce 
     the amount of the payment made available under this 
     subsection to all local educational agencies by an equal 
     percentage.
       (b) Report.--Each local educational agency desiring a 
     payment under this section shall report to the Secretary of 
     Defense the number of severely disabled children for which a 
     payment may be made under this section.
                                 ______
                                 

                  WELLSTONE AMENDMENTS NOS. 3365-3369

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE submitted five amendments intended to be proposed by 
him to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3365

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) The total amount appropriated by title III 
     for procurement is hereby reduced by $1,000,000,000.
       (b) There is hereby appropriated for the Department of 
     Education for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2001, 
     $1,000,000,000 to enable the Secretary of Education to award 
     grants under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.).
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3366

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. The total amount appropriated by title III for 
     procurement is hereby reduced by $1,000,000,000.
       (b) There is hereby appropriated for the Department of 
     Education for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2001, 
     $1,000,000,000 to enable the Secretary of Education to award 
     grants under part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.).
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3367

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The President will soon decide whether to begin 
     deploying a national missile defense (NMD) system.
       (2) The national missile defense system is intended to 
     defend the United States from limited attacks by tens of 
     intercontinental-range ballistic missiles armed with nuclear, 
     chemical, or biological weapons.
       (3) The current national missile defense testing program 
     does not adequately test the effectiveness of the system 
     against realistic threats.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that, for the testing 
     program for the national missile defense system, the 
     Secretary of Defense should ensure that--
       (1) the baseline threat is realistically defined by having 
     the Systems Threat Assessment Requirement (STAR) document 
     reviewed by a panel of persons who are recognized as experts 
     in fields that are relevant to the matters to be reviewed, at 
     least some of whom are independent of the Department of 
     Defense;
       (2) the system is to be tested against the most effective 
     countermeasures that a state with an emerging 
     intercontinental ballistic missile capability could 
     reasonably be expected to build;
       (3) enough tests of the system are to be conducted against 
     countermeasures to provide an informed basis for a 
     determination of the effectiveness of the system with high 
     confidence; and
       (4) provision has been made for an objective assessment of 
     the design and results of

[[Page 10341]]

     the testing program by a review committee composed of persons 
     who are recognized as experts in fields that are relevant to 
     the matters to be assessed, at least some of whom are 
     independent of the Department of Defense.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3368

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) The total amount appropriated by title II 
     under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' 
     is hereby increased by $2,500,000. The additional amount 
     shall be available for civil-military programs specifically 
     for the Department of Defense STARBASE Program carried out 
     under section 2193b of title 10, United States Code.
       (b) The total amount appropriated by title III is hereby 
     reduced by $2,500,000.
                                  ____


                           Amendment No. 3369

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended for testing a national missile 
     defense system before the Secretary of Defense has ensured, 
     for the testing program for the national missile defense 
     system, that--
       (1) the baseline threat is realistically defined by having 
     the Systems Threat Assessment Requirement (STAR) document 
     reviewed by a panel of persons who are recognized as experts 
     in fields that are relevant to the matters to be reviewed, at 
     least some of whom are independent of the Department of 
     Defense;
       (2) the system is to be tested against the most effective 
     countermeasures that a state with an emerging 
     intercontinental ballistic missile capability could 
     reasonably be expected to build;
       (3) enough tests of the system are to be conducted against 
     countermeasures to provide an informed basis for a 
     determination of the effectiveness of the system with high 
     confidence; and
       (4) provision has been made for an objective assessment of 
     the design and results of the testing program by a review 
     committee composed of persons who are recognized as experts 
     in fields that are relevant to the matters to be assessed, at 
     least some of whom are independent of the Department of 
     Defense.
                                 ______
                                 

                 BIDEN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3370

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Roth, and Mr. Coverdell) submitted an 
amendment intended to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, 
supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) The mission of the C-5 aircraft is to transport heavy 
     loads over long distances. In particular, the C-5 aircraft 
     regularly runs missions to and from Europe and the Pacific 
     and the United States. For this reason, compliance with the 
     rules of International Civil Aviation Organization regarding 
     high-density flight areas is important for the entire C-5 
     aircraft fleet.
       (2) The C-5 aircraft Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 
     is necessary for all aircraft that will need to comply with 
     the new Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) standards 
     established by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
       (3) Compliance with GATM allows aircraft to use more 
     operationally efficient airspace and lowers operational 
     costs.
       (4) AMP also includes the installation of important safety 
     features such as Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System 
     and an enhanced all weather navigational system, the Terrain 
     Awareness and Warning System.
       (5) Both the A and B models of the C-5 aircraft are 
     expected to be flown by the Air Force, including the Regular 
     Air Force and the Reserves. None of the aircrews for such 
     aircraft should be subjected to increased risks stemming from 
     the lack of these safety features.
       (6) Efficient use of aircrew members and crew interfly will 
     be prevented because of the dissimilarities that would exist 
     between the avionics and navigation systems of the A and B 
     models of the C-5 aircraft. This is particularly problematic 
     when additional aircrew members are needed to meet Major 
     Theater War requirements.
       (7) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 
     specifically requested that the Secretary of the Air Force 
     proceed to test AMP upgrades on both A and B models of the C-
     5 aircraft in Senate Report No. 106-292, the Report to 
     Accompany S.2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2001.
       (8) The on-going installation of new High Pressure Turbines 
     (HPT) is essential for the entire C-5 aircraft fleet because 
     the current logistics system no longer supports the old 
     turbine assemblies for the fleet.
       (9) Without HPT replacement, C-5 aircraft will have 
     increased support costs of approximately $700 per flight 
     hour.
       (10) By attempting to maintain 2 separate engine 
     configurations and 2 separate avionics and navigation systems 
     within the relatively small C-5 aircraft fleet (126 
     airplanes), additional spares and support equipment will be 
     necessary with increased unit costs.
       (b) Availability of Funds.--Of the amount appropriated 
     under title III under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Air 
     Force'' and available for procurement for the C-5 aircraft, 
     in the amount of $95,401,000, the entire amount shall be 
     available for procurement for both the A and B models of the 
     C-5 aircraft.
                                 ______
                                 

                  BIDEN (AND ROTH) AMENDMENT NO. 3371

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Roth) submitted an amendment intended 
to be proposed by them to the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

       On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) There exists a significant shortfall in the Nation's 
     current strategic airlift requirement, even though strategic 
     airlift remains critical to the national security strategy of 
     the United States.
       (2) This shortfall results from the slow phase-out of C-141 
     aircraft and their replacement with C-17 aircraft and from 
     lower than optimal reliability rates for the C-5 aircraft.
       (3) One of the primary causes of these reliability rates 
     for C-5 aircraft, and especially for operational unit 
     aircraft, is the shortage of spare repair parts. Over the 
     past 5 years, this shortage has been particularly evident in 
     the C-5 fleet.
       (4) NMCS (Not Mission Capable for Supply) rates for C-5 
     aircraft have increased significantly in the period between 
     1997 and 1999. At Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, an average 
     of 7 through 9 C-5 aircraft were not available during that 
     period because of a lack of parts.
       (5) Average rates of cannibalization of C-5 aircraft per 
     100 sorties of such aircraft have also increased during that 
     period and are well above the Air Mobility Command standard. 
     In any given month, this means devoting additional manhours 
     to cannibalizations of C-5 aircraft. At Dover Air Force Base, 
     an average of 800 to 1,000 additional manhours were required 
     for cannibalizations of C-5 aircraft during that period. 
     Cannibalizations are often required for aircraft that transit 
     through a base such as Dover Air Force Base, as well as those 
     that are based there.
       (6) High cannibalization rates indicate a significant 
     problem in delivering spare parts in a timely manner and 
     systemic problems within the repair and maintenance process, 
     and also demoralize overworked maintenance crews.
       (7) The C-5 aircraft remains an absolutely critical asset 
     in air mobility and airlifting heavy equipment and personnel 
     to both military contingencies and humanitarian relief 
     efforts around the world.
       (8) Despite increased funding for spare and repair parts 
     and other efforts by the Air Force to mitigate the parts 
     shortage problem, Congress continues to receive reports of 
     significant cannibalizations to airworthy C-5 aircraft and 
     parts backlogs.
       (b) Reports.--Not later than January 1, 2001, and September 
     30, 2001, the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the overall 
     status of the spare and repair parts program of the Air Force 
     for the C-5 aircraft. The report shall include the 
     following--
       (1) a statement the funds currently allocated to parts for 
     the C-5 aircraft and the adequacy of such funds to meet 
     current and future parts and maintenance requirements for 
     that aircraft;
       (2) a description of current efforts to address shortfalls 
     in parts for such aircraft, including an assessment of 
     potential short-term and long-term effects of such efforts;
       (3) an assessment of the effects of such shortfalls on 
     readiness and reliability ratings for C-5 aircraft;
       (4) a description of cannibalization rates for C-5 aircraft 
     and the manhours devoted to cannibalizations of such 
     aircraft; and
       (5) an assessment of the effects of parts shortfalls and 
     cannibalizations with respect to C-5 aircraft on readiness 
     and retention.
                                 ______
                                 

                    BAUCUS AMENDMENTS NOS. 3372-3373

  (Ordered to lie on the table.)
  Mr. BAUCUS submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to 
the bill, H.R. 4576, supra; as follows:

                           Amendment No. 3372

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Navy'' for the Navy technical information 
     presentation system, $5,200,000 shall be available for 
     Synesis 7 in Montana for preparation and training for the 
     digitization of FA-18 aircraft technical manuals.

[[Page 10342]]

     
                                  ____
                           Amendment No. 3373

       On page 109 of the substituted original text, between lines 
     11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 8126. Of the total amount appropriated by title IV 
     under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation, Navy'' for the Navy technical information 
     presentation system, $5,200,000 shall be available for 
     Synesis 7 in Montana for preparation and training for the 
     digitization of FA-18 aircraft technical manuals.

                          ____________________



                          NOTICES OF HEARINGS


subcommittee on energy research, development, production and regulation

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the 
information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has 
been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, 
Production, and Regulation.
  The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 27, 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 the April 2000 
GAO Report entitled ``Nuclear Waste Cleanup--DOE's Paducah Plan Faces 
Uncertainties and Excludes Costly Cleanup Activities.''
  Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may 
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written 
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their 
testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, 
Production and Regulation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
D.C. 20510-6150.
  For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, 
or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.


           subcommittee on forests and public land management

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public 
that the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and 
Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
will begin at 9:30 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. as previously announced.
  The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the proposed 
expansion of the Craters of the Moon National Monument.
  Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mike Menge (202) 224-
6170.


                    subcommittee on water and power

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the 
information of the Senate and the public that a legislative hearing has 
been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
  The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 21, 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 the following 
bills: S. 1848, To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater 
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver 
Water Reuse project; S. 1761, the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water 
Resources Conservation and Improvement Act of 1999; S. 2301, To amend 
the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, 
planning, and construction of the Lakehaven water reclamation project 
for the reclamation and reuse of water; S. 2400, To direct the 
Secretary of the Interior to convey certain water distribution 
facilities to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; S. 
2499, To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
hydroelectric project in the State of Pennsylvania; and S. 2594, To 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with Mancos Water 
Conservancy District to use the Mancos Project facilities for 
impounding, storage, diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for 
the purpose of irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any 
other beneficial purposes.
  Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may 
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written 
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their 
testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office 
Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.
  For further information, please call Trici Heninger, Staff Assistant, 
or Colleen Deegan, Counsel, at (202) 224-8115.

                          ____________________



                           ORDER OF BUSINESS

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, as I understand it, the Senate is in a 
period of morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). That is correct, with Senators 
to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for as much time as I 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                            GASOLINE PRICES

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this afternoon, according to the news 
accounts released earlier today, the Environmental Protection Agency is 
calling on major oil refiners to meet in Washington, DC, to explain the 
price hike phenomenon, as it is called. This is not a phenomenon. It is 
a pain in the wallet what is happening with respect to the price of 
gasoline.
  I want to talk a little about that, and talk a little about the 
problems that may be causing it.
  It is not lost on the American people that when they drive to the gas 
pumps these days they are discovering, once again, another price spike 
in the cost of gasoline.
  In North Dakota, for example, the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers 
Association provided me with current gasoline prices in North Dakota: 
Minot, $1.79 a gallon today; Fargo, $1.64 a gallon; Devil's Lake, 
$1.69; Bismarck, $1.68 a gallon. Interestingly enough, the current 
price in Bismarck of $1.68 is nearly a 30-cent-per-gallon increase in 
just the last couple of weeks since the previous price spike. Earlier 
this year, the price of petroleum spiked up and came back down. Now it 
has spiked up again, a nearly 30-cent-per-gallon increase in a very 
short period.
  The EPA is asking for a meeting with the major oil refiners to 
evaluate what is happening with respect to the price of gasoline. Some 
indicate an EPA rule that describes the base fuel that must be used in 
certain cities in the country with respect to oxygenated fuel or 
ethanol as a circumstance where certain base fuels are kind of a narrow 
commodity and are not readily available and so it is pricing gasoline 
very high. That may be one case. I don't know the answer to that. I 
assume the EPA and the refiners will have that discussion. It is quite 
clear there are other things at work.
  No. 1, this country gets a substantial amount of its energy from the 
OPEC countries. In a global economy, the OPEC countries are producing 
an ever-increasing amount of the energy the United States needs. Does 
this put us at the mercy of the supply coming from the OPEC countries? 
Of course it does. When the OPEC countries cut supply, as they did, and 
then increase it marginally, but not increase it to the level where 
they had previously been producing, that is going to have some 
dislocation in this country. The result is an increase in gasoline 
prices.
  It is probably also the case, from hearings I have been involved 
with, that the refiners in this country were refining heating fuel for 
much longer than they normally would have and probably didn't switch 
over to gasoline quite quickly enough. Therefore, we are going to 
continue to see these price spikes. The news reports talk about 
volatility. Well, volatility is a euphemism for the price spikes that 
are jumping up and around with respect to the price of gasoline when we 
don't have sufficient supply of crude stock coming into this country 
which refiners need to produce and turn into gasoline.

[[Page 10343]]

  What we have are three possibilities. The most obvious is, we are 
seeing an ever-increasing dependence on the OPEC countries. They cut 
back supply, then increased it some, but not nearly enough. The result 
is increased prices for petroleum products in this country.
  It ought to be a wake-up call for all of us. We are too dependent on 
foreign source energy. We ought to make certain we have a national 
energy policy that includes incentives for producers here at home, 
includes additional incentives for renewable energy. There isn't any 
reason we ought not be doing much better with respect to renewable 
energy in this country. The other possibility, aside from the OPEC 
industry, as I mentioned, is the potential of EPA recommendations or 
requirements that have created dislocation in certain markets in terms 
of the base supply that can be used with respect to ethanol.
  I don't know what the outcome of this meeting will be, but I will be 
very interested to see what the EPA has done, whether that has caused 
some dislocation and some price spikes as well.
  Third, it is not unlikely and certainly wouldn't be without precedent 
to have had the petroleum industry play some of their own games with 
respect to supply, the movement of supply and the pricing of supply. 
Some would say: Gosh, how could you think that? Well, history would 
bear out how I might be able to think that would be the case. We ought 
to look at all of these issues and evaluate exactly what is causing 
this price spike and what impact it is having and what we can do about 
it.
  I come from a State that is 10 times the size of Massachusetts. North 
Dakota is a big old State. It takes a lot of driving to get around my 
State; 640,000 people live in a land mass that is equivalent to 10 
times the State of Massachusetts. Our predominant industry is farming. 
In order to seed a crop in the spring, it takes a lot of fuel. In order 
to get the crop off the fields in the fall, it takes a lot of fuel. 
Those family farmers, with the kind of depressed grain prices we have 
seen in this country, don't need further increases in input costs 
placed upon them by these increases in gas prices.
  We have to get some answers from the EPA, the petroleum refiners, the 
major oil companies, and from those who are supposed to be involved in 
the development of an energy plan for this country to answer what kind 
of dependence do we have on the OPEC countries and what could the 
consequences be in the longer term, if those countries decided to have 
a much tighter supply of petroleum going to Western nations, including 
the United States.
  I was reading a briefing memo this morning about this issue. I 
thought a couple of pieces of information were interesting. OPEC 
officials contend that prices are only marginally above the stated ban 
and ``the price rise is more due to a tight gasoline market in the 
United States where new environmental regulations are reducing 
volume.'' That is according to OPEC. OPEC is saying: It's not us.
  The fact is, OPEC cut supply, increased it some but not nearly back 
to where they had originally been producing.
  The Saudi Arabia oil minister also pegged the recent price movement 
on tight oil products markets; that is, oil products markets, not a 
shortage of crude oil itself. One source indicated that the increase in 
prices on certain world oil markets, notably in the U.S., has no 
relation to the volume of international crude output. That is an 
interesting theory. That would stand all logic on its head. Prices in 
the United States with respect to crude oil have no relationship to 
international crude oil production. I think that is not likely to be 
something that would be believed by anyone who is thinking.
  The point is this: This is a significant and important issue to many 
areas of our country. We need to understand the consequences of it, 
what is causing it, and what we can do about it. I hope all of us 
working together can rely on not only the Energy Department, the EPA, 
but the Congress itself to evaluate all three of the suggestions I have 
just made.

                          ____________________



                     SANCTIONS ON FOOD AND MEDICINE

  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise to talk about the issue of 
sanctions on food and medicine shipments to other countries in the 
world. I know I have talked about this on the floor many times. At the 
risk of being repetitive, which I think is important in this body, I 
say again, it is immoral for this country to have a policy of imposing 
sanctions on the shipment of food and medicine to any other country in 
the world.
  We have decided to impose economic sanctions on countries whose 
behavior we don't like. We have decided that economic sanctions is the 
way to punish certain countries. We don't like what Saddam Hussein in 
Iraq has been doing. He is an international outlaw, according to our 
country's view. Therefore, we want to punish him. So we impose economic 
sanctions.
  We don't like Fidel Castro in Cuba, according to our public policy. 
So we want to impose an embargo that, by the way, has been existing for 
40 years. We have sanctions against Iran, against North Korea. When we 
impose these sanctions, it is also included in those sanctions that we 
will not allow shipments of food and medicine to these same countries.
  As I said, I think it is fundamentally immoral for our country to 
decide what they will withhold and prohibit the shipment of food and 
medicine to any country in the world. It doesn't make any sense.
  I come at this from more than one standpoint. One, I represent a farm 
State. Yes, it bothers me that 11 percent of the international wheat 
market is off limits to our family farmers. We have folks that stand up 
here in the Senate and say: Well, we support the Freedom to Farm bill 
for family farmers. What about the freedom to sell bill? Why shouldn't 
farmers be free to sell into the marketplace where people are hungry 
and need food? What on Earth would persuade this country to have 
sanctions with respect to the shipment of food and medicine anywhere in 
the world? If my proposition is these sanctions are fundamentally wrong 
with respect to food and medicine sanctions, then let's change it.
  We have tried to change it. Last year, we had a bill on the floor of 
the Senate. Seventy Senators voted to get rid of sanctions on food and 
medicine shipments everywhere in the world. Seventy Senators said: 
Let's get rid of them. We got the bill to conference and it got 
hijacked because some people want to continue sanctions, especially on 
the country of Cuba.
  This year in the Senate Appropriations Committee on the Agriculture 
bill, I included an amendment that says: Get rid of all sanctions on 
food and medicine; get rid of them all with respect to Cuba and Iraq 
and North Korea. Get rid of all sanctions on food and medicine. That 
passed. It is in the Appropriations Committee. It will come to the 
floor on the Agriculture appropriations bill. Already we have some 
people in the Congress who are saying we are going to dump that. That 
is not going to become law. We are not going to get rid of sanctions on 
the shipment of food and medicine from this country to Cuba.
  As I have said before, I intend to push this issue very hard this 
year.
  It does not make sense to continue sanctions on the shipment of food 
and medicine to anywhere in the world. I want to read a couple of 
editorials that I think describe it as well. This is from the Seattle 
Post Intelligencer of May 28. This is an op-ed piece:

       Economic sanctions against nations are long overdue for a 
     critical appraisal. They make an appealing weapon. They are a 
     way to hurt people without shooting at them. Done in the 
     extreme, they inflict sickness and death. Sanctions have been 
     used for many years--more than 40 years against Cuba and 10 
     years against Iraq. Lesser sanctions have been set against 
     Libya, Iran and Burma. Threats of sanctions are annually 
     made, but not acted upon, against China. In any case, 
     economic sanctions have never removed a tyrant and they will 
     never remove, for example, Saddam Hussein. In all likelihood, 
     he will be in power until he dies. What sanctions have done 
     is to further impoverish the Iraqi people.


[[Page 10344]]


  Here is an excerpt from the Washington Times, an op-ed written by 
Steve Chapman:

       Things have changed a lot since 1990. The Soviet Union no 
     longer exists. The Federal budget deficit has vanished. But 
     two things remain the same. Iraq is under international 
     economics sanctions, and the sanctions are a failure.

  I don't have any great truck for Iraq or Saddam Hussein. I think he 
is an international outlaw. He operates well beyond the norms of 
international behavior. But it is also true that economic sanctions 
that include food and medicine represent an attempt to take aim at a 
dictator and hit hungry people, sick people, and poor people. It 
happens all the time when we impose food and medicine as part of 
economic sanctions.
  This is from the Charleston Gazette, June 1, 2000:

       Let's see if we've got this straight. Free trade with China 
     will help export American values, paving the path for the end 
     of communism in that nation. That is according to Republican 
     House Whip Tom DeLay from Texas. However, free trade with 
     Cuba can't be allowed because that would be rewarding a 
     Communist regime. That is also according to DeLay, who 
     simultaneously pushed for normalizing trade relations with 
     China, while trying to stop a bill that would allow the sale 
     of food and medicine to Cuba.

  A piece in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, penned by my colleague on 
the House side, Congressman Nethercutt, who, incidentally, offered the 
same amendment in the House Appropriations Committee that I offered in 
the Senate. He was successful, and they are going to try to dump that 
provision in the House of Representatives before we get to conference. 
He says:

       This week, Trent Lott, Majority Leader, defended the 
     position. He said, ``It is very easy to see the distinction 
     between China and Cuba. If you can't see it, maybe you are 
     just blind to it.''

  Well, I am not blind and I can't see it. I have been to Cuba. I was 
in Cuba last year. All I see in Cuba are people living in conditions of 
poverty. I see a country 90 miles to the north that has decided as a 
matter of public policy, because we don't like Fidel Castro, that we 
cannot move food and medicine to Cuba. Why? Because we have an embargo 
that includes the shipment of food and medicine. That is not fair to 
our farmers or to the poor people in Cuba.
  I visited a hospital in Cuba one day. I was in the intensive care 
ward. I was there for a few days. In the hospital there was a little 
boy lying in a coma. He was about 12 years old. There was no equipment. 
This was an intensive care ward with no equipment at all. There wasn't 
a beeping sound because there was nothing to beep. There were no cords 
hooked up because they didn't have equipment. He was lying in this room 
with his mother holding his hand, lying in a coma. I asked the doctor: 
You have no basic equipment here? He said: No, we don't have any 
equipment. The doctor said: We are out of 250 different kinds of 
medicines.
  I asked the question again when I came back to this country: Why is 
it that we have prohibitions against being able to send medicine to 
Cuba? Is sending medicine and food, or being able to sell medicine and 
food to Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran going to make this a less 
stable world? I don't think so.
  Let me end where I started. This is an immoral policy. Yes, I come at 
it from a selfish perspective. I represent farmers who ask a question 
that cannot be answered: Why, if we raise food in such abundant 
quantity, are we told that those who need it so badly can't have it 
because this country wants to punish their rulers and leaders? I can't 
answer farmers when they ask that question. It doesn't make sense. It 
is a policy that is bankrupt. We ought to change it. We have 70 votes 
in the Senate to change it, and they won't allow a vote in the House of 
Representatives. If they did, they would have 70 percent voting in 
favor to change it.
  So we are going to see in the coming weeks whether, once again, for a 
second year in a row, we have just a handful of people trying to hijack 
this effort to eliminate food and medicine from sanctions we impose on 
other countries around the world. When the roll is called, I think 70 
Senators will vote, as they did previously, to say food and medicine 
sanctions anywhere in the world are not good public policy. They are 
not the best of America. Let's eliminate them. Let's abolish that 
mentality. You can punish foreign leaders whose behavior we don't like 
without hurting poor and hungry people. The only conceivable reason 
this gets held up--and it got held up last year--is a few people 
decided that because Fidel Castro sticks his finger in America's eye 
from time to time, they want to continue this 40-year-old embargo. And 
they darn well want to insist on keeping food and medicine as part of 
the sanction because if they don't, they will be considered weak on 
Cuba. Well, being considered weak because they pursue a public policy 
that is wrongheaded is not, in my judgment, a model of consistency.
  Let us, in this session of the Congress, decide that at least on this 
marginal step forward, we will decide we will never again use food and 
medicine as part of economic sanctions, both in our interest and in the 
interest of poor, hungry, and sick people all around the world.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________



 CONGRATULATING THE NEW JERSEY DEVILS FOR WINNING THE NHL STANLEY CUP 
                              CHAMPIONSHIP

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 321, introduced earlier 
today by Senators Lautenberg and Torricelli.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 321) to congratulate the New Jersey 
     Devils for their outstanding discipline, determination, and 
     ingenuity, in winning the 2000 National Hockey League's 
     Stanley Cup Championship.

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the 
resolution be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 321) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 321

       Whereas the New Jersey Devils at 45-29-8, posted the second 
     best regular season record in the NHL's Eastern Conference 
     and were awarded the fourth seed in the playoffs;
       Whereas the Devils displayed a potent offense and stifling 
     defense throughout the regular season and playoffs before 
     beating the defending champion Dallas Stars to win their 
     second Stanley Cup in 5 years;
       Whereas the Devils eptomize New Jersey pride with their 
     heart, stamina, and drive and thus have become a part of New 
     Jersey culture;
       Whereas the New Jersey Devils did what no other team had 
     done before, coming back from a three games to one deficit to 
     win a Conference Championship and advance to the Stanley cup 
     Finals;
       Whereas Scott Stevens, winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy as 
     the Most Valuable Player of the Stanley Cup playoffs, is one 
     of the fiercest competitors in the game today and is a true 
     team leader who served as captain of the Devils' 1995 and 
     2000 Stanley Cup Championship teams;
       Whereas Scott Gomez, a gifted, young playmaker was named 
     the league's Rookie of the Year and is the first Hispanic 
     player to compete in the NHL;
       Whereas goalie Martin Brodeur's lifetime goals against 
     average of 2.19 is the best in NHL history and his 162 wins 
     over a four-season span since 1996-97 are the most in league 
     history;
       Whereas head coach Larry Robinson served as an assistant on 
     the 1995 championship team and took over as head coach late 
     this season;
       Whereas the New Jersey Devils take great pride in playing 
     in new Jersey, and spend a great deal of time giving back to 
     the community;
       Whereas Lou Lamoriello, President/General Manager of the 
     New Jersey Devils since 1987, his staff, and his players 
     displayed outstanding dedication, teamwork unselfishness, and 
     sportsmanship throughout the course of the season in 
     achieving hockey's highest honor;

[[Page 10345]]

       Whereas longtime team owner John McMullen was born and 
     raised in New Jersey and is responsible for bringing the 
     Devils to the Garden State;
       Whereas the support of all the Devils fans and the people 
     of New Jersey helped make winning the Stanley Cup possible;
       Whereas each one of the Devils players will be remembered 
     on the premier sports trophy, the Stanley Cup, including: 
     Jason Arnott, Brad Bombardir, Martin Brodeur, Steve Brule, 
     Sergei Brylin, Ken Daneyko, Patrik Elias, Scott Gomex, Bobby 
     Holik, Steve Kelly, Claude Lemieux, John Madden, Vladimir 
     Malakhov, Randy McKay, Alexander Mogilny, Sergei Nemchinov, 
     Scott Niedermayer, Krzysztof Oliwa, Jay Pandolfo, Deron 
     Quint, Brian Rafalski, Scott Stevens, Ken Sutton, Petr 
     Sykora, Chris Terreri, and Colin White; now, therefore be it
       Resolved, That the United States Senate congratulates the 
     New Jersey Devils on winning Lord Stanley's Cup for the 2000 
     National Hockey League Championship.

                          ____________________



                              APPOINTMENT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Democratic Leader, 
pursuant to Public Law 106-181, appoints Ted R. Lawson of West Virginia 
to serve as a member of the National Commission to Ensure Consumer 
Information and Choice in the Airline Industry.

                          ____________________



                   ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 2000

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 
a.m. on Tuesday, June 13. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately 
following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, 
the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two 
leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then 
begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators 
speaking up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator 
Durbin, or his designee, for 30 minutes, and Senator Thomas, or his 
designee, for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, further, I 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 to meet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote 
in relation to the Boxer amendment occur at 2:20, with 4 minutes 
equally divided for closing remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 10:40 
a.m. Senator Reid of Nevada be recognized to call up amendment No. 3292 
regarding computers and, following that debate, Senator Boxer be 
recognized to call up a filed amendment regarding medical privacy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________



                                PROGRAM

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, 
the Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and be in a period of 
morning business until 10:30. Following morning business, the Senate 
will resume consideration of H.R. 4576, the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill. Under the order, a Reid and Boxer amendment will 
be called up, with votes expected to occur following the 2:20 vote. In 
addition, consent has been granted for a rollcall to occur at 2:20. 
Therefore, the first vote will be at approximately 2:20 tomorrow.
  As a reminder, all first-degree amendments were filed today.
  Senators should be aware that action on this legislation is expected 
to be completed by tomorrow night. Therefore, those Senators who have 
filed amendments should work with the managers of the bill on a time to 
offer those amendments as soon as possible.

                          ____________________



                  ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
adjournment under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 4:11 p.m., adjourned until 
Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.


             CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

                United States
                 of America



June 12, 2000