Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 for June 6, 2000

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 7]
[Issue]
[Pages 9462-9647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 9462]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

This ``bullet'' symbol identifies statements or insertions
which are not spoken by a member of the Senate on the floor.

June 6, 2000
June 6, 2000

SENATE--Tuesday, June 6, 2000

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Gracious God, yesterday was the eighty-first anniversary of the
passage of the nineteenth amendment establishing women's suffrage.
Thank You for the heroines of our heritage as we celebrate progress in
the rights of women in our society. We thank You for the impact of
women on American history. We praise You for our founding Pilgrim
foremothers and the role they served in establishing our Nation, for
the strategic role of women in the battle for independence, for the
incredible courage of women who helped push back the frontier, for the
suffragettes who fought for the right to vote and the place of women in
our society, for the dynamic women who have given crucial leadership in
each period of our history.
Today, Gracious God, we give You thanks for the women who serve here
in the Senate: for the outstanding women Senators, for the women who
serve as officers and in strategic positions in the ongoing work of the
Senate, and for the many women throughout the Senate family who glorify
You by their loyalty and excellence.
In Your holy name we pray. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable George V. Voinovich, a Senator from the State of Ohio,
led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

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

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). 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 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5
minutes each.
The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of
morning business, as the Chair has mentioned, until 12:30 p.m., with
Senator Durbin and Senator Thomas in control of 1 hour each.
Following morning business, the Senate will recess for the weekly
party conferences. As a reminder, the official Senate picture will be
taken at 2:15 p.m. today. I encourage my colleagues to be prompt in an
attempt to complete the photo in a timely manner.
When the Senate reconvenes, it is hoped the Senate can begin
consideration of the Department of Defense authorization bill. Senators
who intend to offer amendments to this important legislation are
encouraged to keep their amendments germane in an effort to complete
action on the bill prior to the end of the week.
I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant minority leader is recognized.

____________________

ITEMS TO ACCOMPLISH BEFORE THE JULY 4 RECESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I look forward to this period of time prior
to the July 4 recess, as does the entire minority. We are hopeful we
can make progress on the appropriations bills, which certainly need to
be accomplished. Also, I hope there will be an opportunity to do
something about the Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drugs; that
we can complete work on the minimum wage, and the juvenile justice
bill.
A number of these matters have been languishing, waiting for the
conference committees to act. We have all had our time at home, and we
are ready to go. We hope we can move forward, I repeat, with the
appropriations bills and these matters I have outlined.

____________________

BUILDING A BIPARTISAN COMPROMISE

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I certainly concur with my colleague that I
hope we can move forward on these critical issues. We are now working
hard at accomplishing some of those efforts. As he mentioned, the
conference on the Patients' Bill of Rights is at work. We hope we can
build a bipartisan compromise as necessary to produce that kind of
program and law and protection for the American consumers of health
care.
There is a great deal of work to be done. I hope we can come together
in a united and bipartisan way to resolve some of these issues, to move
the appropriations bills forward, to make sure we complete our business
in a timely manner.
Of course, I understand, as I think my colleague from Nevada
understands, that is going to take cooperation from both sides.
Tragically, and sadly, we got into a bit of a nonproductive period
prior to the Memorial Day recess. I hope the recess has cleared the air
and we can come back in a productive way.

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 2645 AND H.R. 3244

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the
desk due for their second reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bills by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2645) to provide for the application of certain
measures to the People's Republic of China in response to the
illegal sale, transfer, or misuse of certain controlled
goods, services, or technology, and for other purposes.
A bill (H.R. 3244) to combat trafficking of persons,
especially into sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like
conditions in the United States and countries around the
world through prevention, through prosecution and enforcement
against the traffickers, and through protection and
assistance to victims of trafficking.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I object to further proceeding on these
bills at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the rule, the bills will be placed on
the calendar.
The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Thurmond and Mr. Durbin pertaining to the
introduction of S.J. Res. 46 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolution.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. is under the control of the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, or
his designee.
Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 o'clock
I be allowed to speak for 15 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
between 12:15 and 12:30 be reserved for myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from
Illinois.

____________________

[[Page 9463]]

THE NEED FOR A MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Federal Government has not executed
a person in the name of people of the United States of America since
1963. For 37 years, we as a people have not taken that fateful,
irreversible step. I rise today because all that is apparently about to
change.
Since January, I have come to the Senate floor several times to urge
my colleagues to support a moratorium on executions and a review of the
administration of capital punishment. Mr. President, the need for that
moratorium has now become more urgent.
During the Senate recess just ended, a Federal judge in Texas set a
date for the execution of Juan Raul Garza. In only two months, on
August 5, he could become the first prisoner that the Federal
Government has put to death since 1963.
In the early hours of a Saturday morning, when most Americans will be
sleeping, Federal authorities will strap Mr. Garza to a gurney at a new
Federal facility in Terre Haute, Indiana. They will put the needle in
his vein. And they will deliver an injection that will kill him.
Mr. President, I rise today to invite my colleagues to consider the
wisdom of this action.
More and more Americans, including prosecutors, police, and those
fighting on the front lines of the battle against crime, are rethinking
the fairness, the efficacy, and the freedom from error of the death
penalty. Senator Leahy, a former federal prosecutor, has introduced the
Innocence Protection Act, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
Congressman Delahunt and Congressman LaHood have introduced the same
bill in the House. Congressman Delahunt, also a former prosecutor, is
concerned that our current system of administering the death penalty is
far from just. He has said: ``If you spent 20 years in the criminal
justice system, you would be very concerned about what goes on.''
In my own home state of Wisconsin, at least eleven active and former
state and Federal prosecutors have said that executions do not deter
crime and could result in executing the innocent. Michael McCann, the
well-respected District Attorney of Milwaukee County, has said that
prosecution is a human enterprise bound to have mistakes.
Mr. President, police--the people on the front lines of the battle
against crime--are coming out against the death penalty. They are
finding that it is bad for law enforcement. Recently, when police
chiefs were asked about the death penalty, they said that it was
counterproductive. Capital cases are incredibly resource-intensive.
They do not yield a reduction in crime proportional to other, more
moderate law-enforcement activities.
A former police chief of Madison, Wisconsin, for example, has said
that he fears that the death penalty would make police officers' jobs
more dangerous, not less so. He expressed concern that a suspect's
incentive to surrender peacefully is diminished when the government has
plans to execute.
Ours is a system of justice founded on fairness and due process. The
Framers of our democracy had a healthy distrust for the power of the
state when arrayed against the individual. Many of the lawyers in the
early United States of America had on their shelf a copy of William
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, where it is written:
``For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape,
than that one innocent suffer.'' And Benjamin Franklin wrote, ``That it
is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent
Person should suffer. . . .''
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights reflect this concern for the
protection of the individual against the might of the state. The fourth
amendment protects: ``The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures. . . .'' The fifth amendment protects against being ``deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . .'' The
sixth amendment guarantees that ``the accused shall enjoy the right . .
. to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.'' And the eighth
amendment prohibits ``cruel and unusual punishments.''
Our system of government is deeply grounded in the defense of the
individual against the power of the government. Our Nation has a proud
tradition of safeguarding the rights of its citizens.
But more and more, we are finding that when a person's very life is
at stake, our system of justice is failing to live up to the standards
that the American people demand and expect. More and more, Americans
are finding reason to believe that we have a justice system that can,
and does, make mistakes.
Americans' sense of justice demands that if new evidence becomes
available that could shed light on the guilt or innocence of a
defendant, then the defendant should be given the opportunity to
present it. Unfortunately, apparently, the people of New York and
Illinois are the only ones who understand this. They have enacted laws
allowing convicted offenders access to the biological evidence used at
trial and modern DNA testing.
If you are on death row in a state other than Illinois or New York,
you might be able to show a court evidence of your guilt or innocence
based on new DNA tests. But your ability to do so rests on whether
you're lucky enough to get a prosecutor to agree to the test or
convince a court that it should be done. Or, as we have seen very
recently, your ability to show your innocence may rest with the
decision of the governor. And that raises the risk of a political
decision, not necessarily one that is based solely on fairness or
justice.
Mr. President, I am not surprised that both Texas Governor George
Bush and Virginia Governor James Gilmore are no longer confident that
every prisoner on death row in their states is guilty and has had full
access to the courts. Allowing death row inmates the benefit of a
modern DNA test is the fair and just thing to do. But scores of other
death row inmates, in Texas, in Virginia, and around the country, may
also have evidence exonerating them. They may have DNA evidence. Or
they may have other exonerating evidence. We must ensure that all
inmates with meritorious claims of innocence have their day in court.
But, among problems in our criminal justice system, the lack of full
access to DNA testing is, unfortunately, just the tip of the iceberg.
Americans' sense of justice demands fair representation and adequate
counsel. In the landmark 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme
Court held that ``in our adversary system of criminal justice, any
person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be
assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.'' The Court in
Gideon wrote:

From the very beginning, our state and national
constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural
and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials
before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands
equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if
the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers
without a lawyer to assist him.

And, in cases since then, for example the 1988 case of McCoy v. Court
of Appeals, the Supreme Court has ruled that: ``It is . . . settled law
that an indigent defendant has the same right to effective
representation by an active advocate as a defendant who can afford to
retain counsel of his or her choice.''
But, Mr. President, more and more, we are finding counsel that fail
the standard of adequacy. Drunk lawyers. Sleeping lawyers. Lawyers who
never cross-examined. Lawyers whose first trial is a trial where the
client's life is on the line. Lawyers who have been subsequently
disbarred.
We would never allow a podiatrist to perform heart surgery. And we
would never allow a surgeon to perform surgery while drunk, or to fall
asleep during surgery. But courts, over and over

[[Page 9464]]

again, have upheld convictions where the defendants' lawyers were not
qualified to represent them, slept through trial, or were drunk in
court.
Take the case of the lawyer Joe Cannon. In 1979, one Mr. Carl Johnson
was convicted of murder and sent to death row by a Texas state court.
During trial, his lead counsel, Joe Cannon, was often asleep. Cannon's
co-counsel, Philip Scardino, was two years out of law school and
recalls the whole experience as ``frightening.'' He said, ``All I could
do was nudge him sometimes and try to wake him up.'' Johnson's
appellate attorney, David Dow, said the trial transcript gives the
impression that there was no one in the courtroom defending Johnson. It
``goes on for pages and pages, and there is not a whisper from anyone
representing him.'' Mr. Johnson was executed in 1995, the 12th
execution under Governor Bush's watch.
Now as ``frightening'' as this sounds, the same attorney continued to
work capital cases.
Like the majority of inmates on Texas' death row, Calvin Burdine
could not afford an attorney, so the court paid a lawyer to represent
him, and that lawyer again was Joe Cannon. Five years after Johnson's
trial, and this time without co-counsel, Cannon represented Burdine,
and again slept through crucial moments of the trial. The clerk for the
trial judge said Cannon ``was asleep for long periods of time during
the questioning of witnesses.'' Three jurors noted he did most of his
nodding off in the afternoon, following lunch. Burdine's appellate
attorneys contend that highly incriminating hearsay testimony was
introduced and reached the jury because the attorney was sleeping. In
1995, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected his claim of
ineffective assistance. Burdine's case is now before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
As Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis said of the Burdine case on ABC's
This Week this past Sunday, ``That is a national embarrassment.''
Incredulously, Senator Ellis lamented: ``[T]he Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals ruled apparently that you can be Rip Van Winkle and still be a
pretty good attorney.''
Two years after his death, lawyer Joe Cannon remains a courthouse
legend. In a span of about 10 years, twelve of his indigent clients
went to death row.
Americans' sense of justice demands that the poor, as well as the
rich, should get their day in court. Even death penalty supporters like
Reverend Pat Robertson recognize that this ultimate punishment appears
reserved for the poor.
The machinery of death is badly broken. Since the 1970s, 87 people
sitting on death row were later proven innocent. That means that for
every seven executions, we've found one person innocent. But remember,
this is after they were on death row. Eight of the 87 people later
proven innocent relied on modern DNA testing to prove their innocence.
But access to DNA testing plainly tells only a small part of the story
of the mistakes in our criminal justice system. The remaining 79
innocent people gained their release based on other kinds of evidence--
evidence like recanted witness testimony.
Sometimes, it is evidence that an ineffective attorney fails to
introduce at trial. Take the case of Gregory Wilhoit. In 1987, an
Oklahoma court sentenced Wilhoit to die for the murder of his estranged
wife. The key evidence for the prosecution was expert testimony that a
bite mark on the victim matched Wilhoit's. The defense never called an
expert to challenge the prosecution's dental expert. The court of
appeals granted a new trial, recognizing that Wilhoit had ineffective
legal representation. The appellate court noted that his counsel was
``suffering from alcohol dependence and abuse, and brain damage during
his representation.'' Wilhoit describes his former attorney as ``a
drunk'' and recalls several occasions when the attorney threw up in the
judge's chambers. After spending six years on death row, Wilhoit was
exonerated after 11 experts--11 experts--testified that the teeth marks
did not match.
Mr. President, I hate to say it, but this is the worst of government
gone amok. People understand that the government can make mistakes in
other areas. They can only expect as much here. Columnist George Will
recently wrote that conservatives, especially, should be concerned.
George Will wrote: ``Capital punishment, like the rest of the criminal
justice system, is a government program, so skepticism is in order.''
When we do not exercise that skepticism, when we rush to execute with
ever growing speed, we contribute to, rather than detract from, a
culture of violence. It deprives us of the greatness that is America.
We are better than this.
And so, Mr. President, the time has come to pause. That is why today,
in the light of the scheduling of the first Federal execution in almost
40 years, and in light of the growing awareness that there are
fundamental flaws in our system of justice, I urge my Colleagues to
join me in the National Death Penalty Moratorium Act, which I
introduced along with Senators Levin and Wellstone.
This bill is a common sense, modest proposal. It merely calls a
temporary halt to executions while a national, blue ribbon commission
thoroughly examines the administration of capital punishment. The bill
simply calls for a pause and a study. That is not too much to ask, when
the lives of innocent people hang in the balance.
When an airplane careens off a runway, the Federal government steps
in to review what went wrong. This Nation's system of capital
punishment has veered seriously off-course. It is now clear that it is
replete with errors.
The time has come to pause and study what is wrong. The time has come
to pause and ensure that our system is fair and just.
Our American tradition of fairness and due process demands it.
Reverence for our democracy's protection of the individual against the
state compels as much. The American people's love of justice deserves
no less.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from the State of
Wisconsin. He is a person of principle. He comes to the floor of the
Senate and reminds Members, whether in support of or in opposition to
the death penalty, it is fundamental to the American system of justice
that we insist on fairness.
In my State of Illinois, some 13 people who were on death row
preparing to be executed by the State of Illinois were found by
scientific testing to be innocent and were released. Because of that,
the Governor of our State, a Republican, George Ryan, made what I
consider to be an important and courageous decision. He suspended the
death penalty in my home State of Illinois.
The Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, reminds Members that the
experience in Illinois is not unique. In State after State, we have
found people who have been called to justice and have received
virtually no representation before the court of law. In the most
serious possible cases under our system of justice, these men have been
sentenced to death. In many cases, that sentence was carried out with
inadequate defense and representation.
For example, I think the decision by Governor Bush of Texas to at
least suspend the execution of an individual for 30 days while DNA
testing is underway is a thoughtful decision. I commend him for that.
The State of Texas, I believe, leads the Nation in the number of
executions, and the State of Texas has no public defender system. So in
the State of Texas, if you are a criminal defendant facing a capital
crime which could result in execution, it is literally a gamble, a
crapshoot as to the person who will represent you to defend your life.
In cases that have been cited by Senator Feingold, some of the most
incompetent attorneys in America have been assigned this
responsibility. In our State of Illinois, we found these attorneys to
be not well versed in law; we found them to be lazy; we found them to
be derelict in their duty, and in some cases, a person's life was at
stake.
Again, I commend my colleague from the State of Wisconsin for his
statement. It is a reminder to all, whether

[[Page 9465]]

we support the death penalty--as I do--or we oppose it, that we in this
country believe in a system that is based on fairness and justice.
I have introduced legislation to give to all Federal prisoners who
were subjected to capital punishment the same right for DNA testing
that exists in my State of Illinois. There are similar bills introduced
by my colleagues. I hope that all, conservative and liberals alike,
Democrats and Republicans, will at least adhere to the basic standard
of justice when it comes to cases of this seriousness and this
magnitude.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator and take my hat off to him and to
our neighbor to the south, the State of Illinois. Without the
leadership of Illinois, which had the courage to admit that it had a
problem, this entire issue would not be receiving the kind of
examination occurring across the country. That is to the Senator's
credit, to that of the Governor, and to all the people of your State.
The bill I have introduced is modeled exactly after the pattern
followed in Illinois; that is, the calling of a moratorium by a
Governor who is, or at least has been, a death penalty supporter, and
then the appointing of a very distinguished blue-ribbon commission,
including our former wonderful colleague, Paul Simon, and including
both pro- and anti-death penalty people.
Under Illinois' leadership, there will be this kind of pause and
examination that is open to people of any view on the death penalty, to
simply make sure that system is fixed.
As the Senator pointed out, Illinois could not possibly be the only
State that has this problem. In fact, I predict it will not turn out to
be the one with the worst problem in this area.
The other States need to join it on this, the Federal Government
needs to join, and I compliment your State, as I did in my earlier
remarks, as being one of the only two States to recognize the right to
have guaranteed DNA testing.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE AGENDA

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in the time that remains in morning
business, which I will share with my colleague from California, we will
address several of the issues which still remain before this session of
Congress. Many of us are just returning from a Memorial Day break which
we spent with our families back in our States, trying to acquaint
ourselves with the concerns of people and the concerns about issues we
face here in Washington.
One of the concerns in the State of Illinois and in the city of
Chicago continues to be gun violence. This is still a phenomenon which
is almost uniquely American and which is tragic in its proportion. To
think we lose 12 or 13 children every day to gun violence, that is a
sad reminder of what happened at Columbine High School in Littleton,
CO, a little over a year ago, when some 13 students were killed at that
school. It is merely one instance of a situation which repeats itself
every single day.
It has been more than a year since that tragedy, but still this
Congress refuses to act on sensible gun safety legislation. I remind
those who are following this debate, the proposal for this gun safety
legislation is hardly radical. If people are going to buy a gun from a
gun dealer in America, they are subjected to a background check. We
want to know if they are criminals. We want to know if they have a
history of violent crime or violent mental illness or if they are too
young to buy a gun--basic questions. I understand that, as of last
year, over 250,000 would-be purchasers of guns were denied that
opportunity as a result of a simple background check.
Did they turn around and buy a gun on the street? It is possible. But
we should not make it easy for them. It should not be automatic. In
fact, I hope in many instances, having been denied at a gun dealer,
they could not find a gun nor should they have been able to. We believe
applying the same standard of gun safety legislation to gun shows just
makes common sense.
So that is part of the gun safety legislation we passed in the Senate
by a vote of 49-49, and a tie-breaking vote was cast by Vice President
Al Gore. That bill left the Senate over 8 months ago, went over to the
House of Representatives where it was emasculated by the gun lobby,
where the National Rifle Association would not accept the basic idea
that we should check on the backgrounds of people who buy guns at gun
shows.
The National Rifle Association believes those who go into gun shows
should be able to buy a gun with no questions asked. That is just
fundamentally unfair and ignorant. That position prevailed in the House
of Representatives. The matter went to a conference committee where it
has languished ever since.
Since Columbine High School, thousands of Americans have been killed
by gunfire. Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will, each day, read
the names of some, just some, who lost their lives to gun violence in
the past year and will continue to do so every day the Senate is in
session.
In the names of those who died, we will continue this fight, and in
the names of their families who still grieve their losses, we will
continue to remember these victims of gun violence.
Following are the names of some of the people who were killed by
gunfire 1 year ago today, on June 6, 1999, at a time after the Senate
passed gun safety legislation:
Earnest Barnes, 38, Atlanta, GA; Quentin A. Brown, 29, Chicago, IL;
Dexter J. Caruthers, 46, Gary, IN; George Cook, 19, Minneapolis, MN;
Don Ferguson, 80, Oakland, CA; Juan J. Gonzales, 28, Oklahoma City, OK;
Mark S. Hansher, 33, Madison, WI; Joseph Jainski, 34, Philadelphia, PA;
Maurice Lewis, 29, Philadelphia, PA; Donald Norrod, 67, Akron, OH;
Allen Ringgold, 23, Baltimore, MD; Lawanza Robertson, 18, Detroit, MI;
Agapito Rodriquez, 32, Dallas, TX; Jonathan Shields, 31, Washington,
DC; Clarence Veasley, 44, St. Louis, MO; Kirk Watkins, Detroit, MI.
In addition, since the Senate was not in session this year from May
26 to June 5, I ask unanimous consent the names be printed in the
Record of some of those who were killed by gunfire last year on the
days from May 26 through June 5:
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

may 26, 1999

Demarcus Clark, 22, Atlanta, GA.
Delmar Guyton, 23, Detroit, MI.
Shawn Timothy Hamilton, 35, Washington, DC.
James Johnson, 24, Denver, CO.
William Partlow, 26, Charlotte, NC.
Shayne Worcester, San Francisco, CA.

may 27, 1999

Steve T. Fleming, 27, New Orleans, LA.
Bruce Harvard, 19, Pittsburgh, PA.
Kewan McKinnie, 19, Detroit, MI.
Victorria Moore, 41, San Antonio, TX.
Bobby Piggle, 39, Kansas City, MO.
Ramona Richins, 47, Salt Lake City, UT.
Kevin Sellers, 25, Baltimore, MD.
Termell Wollen, 31, Detroit, MI.
Unidentified male, 24, Norfolk, VA.
Unidentified male, 25, Norfolk, VA.

may 28, 1999

Raymond Adams, 30, Philadelphia, PA.
Carrillo Ambbrocio, 32, Houston, TX.
Luz Balbona, 59, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Jimmy Cottingham, 30, Washington, DC.
Armando Garcia, 16, San Bernardino, CA.
Ignacio Gonzalez, Sr., 42, Chicago, IL.
Terrell Hatfield, 21, Seattle, WA.
Donnell Holmes, 25, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Jose Reyes, 18, Hempstead, NY.
Angela Yglesias, 18, Detroit, MI.

may 29, 1999

David D. Adams, 36, New Orleans, LA.
Michael Cal Andretti, 29, St. Paul, MN.
William Berry, 56, Philadelphia, PA.
Vincent Domingeuez, 42, Louisville, KY.
Alayito Finney, 30, Detroit, MI.
Bruce Goldberg, 39, Philadelphia, PA.
Joseph Jenkins, 22, Charleston, SC.
Dil Kahn, 57, Houston, TX.
Roberto Lauret, 30, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Craig Nelson, 34, Philadelphia, PA.
Gregory Ramseth, 33, Seattle, WA.
James Thurston, III, 19, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Roger Vincent, 44, Mesquite, TX.
Unidentified male, 35, Long Beach, CA.

may 30, 1999

Lawrence Albeniaic, 45, New Orleans, LA.

[[Page 9466]]

Ryan Bailey, 19, Baltimore, MD.
Maxine Bedell, 82, Rochester, NY.
Melco Botache, 33, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Henry Carter, 48, Detroit, MI.
Savatore Damico, 33, Baltimore, MD.
Lovell Daniely, 27, Philadelphia, PA.
David Davidson, 38, St. Louis, MO.
Frank Evans, 18, Chicago, IL.
Rico Montgomery, 24, Detroit, MI.
Antonio Munoz, 17, Providence, RI.
Phyllis Robinson, 38, Chicago, IL.
Brandy Smith, 18, Houston, TX.

may 31, 1999

Elizabeth K. Burlan, 55, New Orleans, LA.
Anthony Clay, 40, Atlanta, GA.
Gregory Clay, 40, Atlanta, GA.
Edward Meno, 26, Oakland, CA.
Daron D. Mitchell, 18, Akron, OH.
Miriam Moses, 78, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Shane Newton, 26, Detroit, MI.
Curtis Smith, 26, Cincinnati, OH.
Anthony Wilson, 40, Philadelphia, PA.
Unidentified male, 18, Newark, NJ.

June 1, 1999

Jouvito Bravo, 19, Houston, TX.
Allen R. Darrington, 17, Kansas City, MO.
Martha Enrichez, 21, Dallas, TX.
Antoine Fowler, 21, Charlotte, NC.
Bruce Green, 36, Baltimore, MD.
Jewel Harvey, 49, Dallas, TX.
Johnny Howard, 26, Atlanta, GA.
Stephen Karawan, 53, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Michael Kitchins, 36, Dallas, TX.
Eric Lewis, 21, Detroit, MI.
Jamont Simmons, 22, Rochester, NY.
Jerona Stewart, 15, Washington, DC.
D'Andre Tizeno, San Francisco, CA.
Irene Zaragoza, 47, Houston, TX.
Unidentified male, 39, Honolulu, HI.
Unidentified male, 26, Nashville, TN.

June 2, 1999

Corey Ball, 28, San Antonio, TX.
Clarence A. Bellinger, 30, Chicago, IL.
Barbara Clark, 35, Chicago, IL.
Carlton Copeland, 23, Atlanta, GA.
Felipe Cruz, 26, Dallas, TX.
William Floyd, 18, Washington, DC.
Raymond Gonzales, 33, San Bernardino, CA.
Fairway Huntington, 41, Memphis, TN.
Craig Kallevig, 41, Minneapolis, MN.
Seven Lomax, 30, Philadelphia, PA.
Brian Meridith, 36, Mesquite, TX.
James Nelson, 23, Baltimore, MD.
Cecilia Pagaduan, 44, Daly City, CA.
Edwin Pagaduan, 44, Daly City, CA.
Mario Anthony Phillips, 26, St. Paul, MN.
Ricky Salizar, 12, Roswell, NM.
Kahlil J. Smith, 19, Memphis, TN.

June 3, 1999

Alberto Acosta, 36, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Scott Hughes, 24, Dallas, TX.
Samuel C. Johnson, 51, Seattle, WA.
Chang Dae Kim, Detroit, MI.
Rodney Nelson, 17, Detroit, MI.
Sammy Tate, 35, Chicago, IL.
Mario Wright, 19, Philadelphia, PA.

June 4, 1999

Recardo Aguilar, 23, Pittsburgh, PA.
Donald Carver, 43, Toledo, OH.
Carlos Casaway, 23, Detroit, MI.
Christopher Earl, 26, Knoxville, TN.
Fitzroy Farguharson, 35, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Al Jenkins, 28, Oakland, CA.
Derek D. Miller, 24, Memphis, TN.
Cesar Quevedo, 24, Pittsubrgh, PA.
Juan D. Rodriguez, 48, Houston, TX.
Earl Roos, 25, Oakland, CA.
Jose J. Santoyo, 20, Chicago, IL.
Abimbola Whitlock, 20, Oakland, CA.

June 5, 1999

Nancy Linda Akers, 45, Washington, DC.
Jeffrey Blash, 24, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Mary Kathleen Brady, 35, Cincinnati, OH.
Franco D. Davis, 22, Chicago, IL.
Patrick Dewar, 35, Philadelphia, PA.
Anthony Fletcher, 45, Macon, GA.
Walter Hill, 38, Detroit, MI.
Alice Hough, 54, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Maurice Jiles, 18, Gary, IN.
Fernando Perez, 29, Houston, TX.
Joseph Swinnie, 18, Washington, DC.
Victor Temores-Martinez, 30, Chicago, IL.
Shaun Tilghman, 24, Boston, MA.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at the National Rifle Association
convention, when it was brought up as an issue that so many young
people are killed every single day by gunfire in America, in addition
to those who are not so young, the people at the National Rifle
Association dismissed it and said these are teenage gang bangers and
drug criminals and you just have to expect, in the culture in which
they live, they are going to kill one another.
As I read this list of people ranging in age from 80 years to 18, it
is clear that the victims of gun violence are not just those who were
involved in crime in the inner city. Frankly, it involved Americans
across the board; Americans--black, white, and brown--of virtually
every age group. To dismiss this, as the National Rifle Association
did, as something we should not care about I think is evidence of their
insensitivity to this issue of gun violence.
Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a couple questions?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Illinois for reading these names
into the Record, for putting a human face on what is a national
tragedy. He experienced this at home, and I did as well in California.
People are wondering just exactly what we are doing. Since Columbine,
we agreed to five sensible gun amendments, one of them to close the gun
show loophole, which would make it very difficult, if not impossible,
for criminals and children and people who are mentally unbalanced to
buy guns at gun shows; also, for example, to make sure that all
handguns are sold with safety locks, so if kids get hold of a gun,
there is no discharge of a bullet.
I want to engage my friend in a little colloquy. While we were gone
last week, there were two horrific stories, just two that made the
national news. God knows there were more.
One of them involved a student who was acting out on the last day of
school. He was throwing water balloons. And the teacher said: Listen,
you are just going to have to leave school. You don't belong here. We
don't have tolerance for this kind of behavior.
The child left school, went home; he told someone he was going to get
a gun. The child who was told this didn't believe it. Sure enough, he
went to his grandfather's stash of guns and got one. It had no safety
lock on it. He returned, and he killed a very wonderful, kind family
man, a teacher at the prime of his life, in his thirties.
Then we had the incident in Queens where a disgruntled employee
essentially executed people who worked at a Wendy's.
What do we do here? Nothing. We do nothing. I am listening for the
majority leader. We already passed these amendments in the Senate, and
the amendments are languishing in the committee. I say to my friend,
what are the American people to think about this inaction? I would like
him to comment on that. Then I have another question about the NRA
convention.
If my friend could comment, because he feels so strongly about this,
what are the American people thinking about the Senate and Congress,
controlled by Republicans, who do nothing about the issue of the
killing of our people at a far greater rate than our soldiers died in
Vietnam? We have a war in our streets. What do you think they should do
about it?
Mr. DURBIN. I can say to the Senator from California, as people
across the Nation refuse to vote in elections and lose respect for
those who are elected to public office, it is a clear indication, as
far as I am concerned, that they do not believe we are responsive. They
do not believe we are listening. They do not believe the problems that
families face across America are problems we share. They think we are
some sort of political elite that really is out of touch with the
world.
They understand in the cities and the suburbs across Illinois that
gun violence is an issue that affects so many lives. They wonder how
people can be elected to the Senate and not try to do something about
it.
I know the Senator from California agrees with me that even passing
this gun safety legislation will not eliminate gun violence, but we
hope it will reduce it.
It is a commonsense approach to reducing the ownership of guns by
people who should not own them. I believe--and I am sure the Senator
from California does, too--those who use guns legally and safely, such
as sportsmen and hunters, should be allowed to do so, but I do not
agree with the National Rifle Association of basically giving guns to
everyone, no questions asked, and hope for the best, and wants to see
concealed weapons in every place. Governor Bush decided he wanted
concealed weapons to be carried in churches and synagogues in the State
of Texas. That strikes me as a ridiculous situation.
Mrs. BOXER. Amusement parks as well.

[[Page 9467]]

Mr. DURBIN. Amusement parks. Think about the situation and wonder how
in the world can we have a safer America if we have this proliferation
of guns that is, obviously, supported by Governor Bush, as well as the
National Rifle Association. Democrats and Republicans should be
listening to families across this country.
To think gun violence has become so commonplace that we have accepted
it is a sad testament on this great Nation. If one looks at gun
violence statistics and says ``that is life,'' no, it is not. That is
life in America. That is not life in any other country in the world.
Virtually every civilized country in the world has basic gun safety
laws and gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who
would misuse them and out of the hands of children. We live in a
country where a disgruntled 13- or 14-year-old goes home and finds
grandpa's gun, goes back to school, and kills a teacher. That is not
commonplace anyplace in the world but for the United States, which I do
not think we should accept, and our failure to do anything about it
feeds into the cynicism of America's voters and citizenry who think we
are elected to solve problems in this country. When we do not respond,
it is no wonder they lose faith in the process.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, what is extremely frustrating is the
talk we hear: Gee, it does not make any difference who gets elected. I
want to make a point straight from the shoulder, and I am known for
that. The fact is, every single Democrat voted for these sensible gun
measures, except one, and we had just a few on the other side join us.
There is a difference. I ask my friend if he happened to hear the NRA
convention speeches that were made or if he read them, and, if so, what
he thought. I was, frankly, stunned at the all-out personal attack on
Al Gore that I heard. I have no objection to people having differences.
If they want everyone to carry a concealed weapon, that is their choice
to make that decision. I do not think we want to see an America that is
a shootout at the OK Corral. I do not think that is going to make our
country great. But if somebody thinks that we all ought to pack a
weapon, that is their right, but to personally attack the Vice
President because he supports sensible gun control laws--which, by the
way, are supported by 80 percent of the people--to make this a
personal, vicious attack on Al Gore--and I read Wayne LaPierre's speech
and I read Charlton Heston's speech. They named Al Gore in the most
vicious way and attacked him in the most personal way.
I ask my friend if he would like to see this debate elevated above
these personalities. It is dangerous to start attacking people in such
a way, and I hope we can keep our disagreements over the issues rather
than attack a Vice President who is simply reflecting the views of 80
percent of the people.
When we hear the NRA executive say: When George Bush is elected, we
are going to operate out of the White House--that sends chills up and
down my spine. No group should operate out of the White House, whether
it is Sarah and Jim Brady's gun control group or the NRA. For them to
say when George Bush is elected they are going to work out of the White
House is a frightening thought to me.
I hope the American people will tune in to this and not say all the
candidates are alike and not say all of us are alike. They are not
going to find us perfect, that is for sure. No one is perfect. Doesn't
my friend believe this is an issue where there are serious differences
between the two parties?
Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from California that she has
answered her own question: Why is the National Rifle Association
attacking the Democratic candidate for President? They made it clear.
The chairman of their organization, a gentleman from Iowa whose name I
do not have handy, made this announcement--in fact, it has been
videotaped and replayed--where he said: Listen, the choice for the
National Rifle Association in this Presidential race is clear. If
George Bush is elected President of the United States, the National
Rifle Association will have its man in the White House.
The Senator from California does not exaggerate. That is exactly what
he said.
What does it mean to have your person in the White House next to the
President? It means gun safety legislation does not have a chance. Not
a single thing is going to be passed by Congress that will not be
vetoed by George W. Bush.
Secondly, I hope the Senator from California will also reflect on
this, and that is, it is likely in the next Presidency two or three
Supreme Court Justices will be nominated. The National Rifle
Association is going to have its voice in that process if George Bush
is elected President. They will decide whether or not the Supreme Court
Justice nominee passes their litmus test, which basically says we
should sell guns in this country with no questions asked.
That is not a decision for 4 years; it is a decision for decades
because if the Supreme Court has a majority of that point of view, that
is going to affect the laws that are approved virtually across the
board at the State and Federal level.
When the National Rifle Association at their convention starts
ranting and raving about their choice for President, it is because they
are sick and tired of President Clinton, who has stood up for gun
safety as long as he has been in the White House. They are frightened
by the prospect of Vice President Gore becoming President and
continuing that tradition of supporting sensible gun safety
legislation. They want George W. Bush. They want their man in the White
House. They want to help pick the Supreme Court. You can bet as an
American, I am concerned that will increase the incidence of gun
violence in our country.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend for raising the issue of the Supreme
Court. I should have raised it myself. He is so right on that point.
The Supreme Court up to now has, in fact, said it is OK for Congress to
work on gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and
children, and that it is not, in fact, a violation of the second
amendment because we say: Sure, if you are responsible and you need to
have a gun and you have a reason to have it--for recreation or to
defend your family--and you are a responsible gun owner, that is one
situation. But if you are a criminal, you are mentally unbalanced, if
you walk in and buy a gun, by the way, when you are high on drugs or
alcohol, this is not going to be good for this Nation. The Supreme
Court up to now has upheld our ability to regulate.
There is no question that with the NRA operating out of the George
Bush White House, we are going to see in the Congress not only a lack
of future progress on controlling these guns and who has these guns,
but we are going to see the Supreme Court tilt and say: Congress, you
have no business dealing with this issue.
I ask my friend this: If we have no other role to play, shouldn't it
be that we protect the health and the safety of the people of this
country? I know we are trying to get a Patients' Bill of Rights. This
is another issue for which we are fighting hard because that is our
sacred obligation, if nothing else.
We can have the greatest economy in the world, the best economy in
the world, people can be working and thriving, but if some child goes
home and gets his grandpa's gun and shoots a beautiful teacher in the
head, if some disgruntled employee who has a criminal record can get a
gun at a gun show, what good does it do if you have the best job and
the best future in the world?
My friend has read the names of people shot down in the prime of
their lives. We are supposed to live to our seventies, and a lot of
these people are shot down in their teens, in their twenties, or in
their thirties.
My friend is so right to raise this issue of the Supreme Court. I
thank him so much for engaging in this colloquy.
I know this talk is hard talk. By the way, it certainly raises our
names to the NRA; and that is not easy for us, either. But the fact is,
I believe in my heart that the NRA gives a lot of

[[Page 9468]]

money to people in Government but there has to be some of us who stand
up. I am proud to say every single Democrat, many of whom absolutely
believe, as we do, in the right to gun ownership, have stood strong and
said we must keep guns out of the hands of children, the mentally
unbalanced, and people with criminal records.
I say this to my friend: This is a fight we are going to wage on this
floor. We are not going to let George Bush hide behind the fact that he
says nice things. I am amazed that the polls don't reflect that people
know what he stands for, making it possible to carry a concealed weapon
into a church--we had a horrible massacre in a Texas church--or into
hospitals. Why do you need a gun in a hospital--explain that to me--a
place of healing, a place of peaceful recuperation?
Why do you need a gun in a church? Why do you need a gun in a
hospital? What about an amusement park where there are so many kids
around? This makes no sense. He did it because the NRA wanted it done.
We have to speak the truth here if we are worth anything.
I thank my friend for speaking the truth, for reading the names of
those who died, and for bringing this issue day after day to the floor
of the Senate. I will be by his side.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California. She has made a
point, too, that I would like to follow up on. We have addressed this
issue of the safety of American families, to make sure that we try to
do everything that is reasonable to reduce gun violence.
There is also an issue of health not only related to gun violence but
in a larger context. We have several measures that are pending on
Capitol Hill that have been languishing for months: prescription drug
benefits, which we support. We believe that under Medicare the elderly
and the disabled should have a prescription drug benefit. To accomplish
that, it is certainly going to involve bipartisan cooperation. But we
have seen no leadership, none whatsoever, in this Congress.
What are they waiting for? We are now in the month of June. We are
talking about resolving a lot of the major issues before our August
recess for the conventions. In this short period of time, can we find
the political will to address a prescription drug benefit?
Let me add another that has been languishing for months: the
Patients' Bill of Rights, which basically says that each one of us, as
individuals and members of a family, should be able to walk into a
doctor's office and listen carefully to that medical professional,
receive their diagnosis and their recommendation, and follow it and not
be second-guessed by some insurance company.
I think that is so fundamental and so basic--that a woman who has an
obstetrician following her pregnancy, who wants to stay with the person
in whom she has confidence, will not lose that right because her
company decides to change its health insurance carrier; that someone
who wants to be involved in a clinical trial of a new experimental drug
for cancer, for example, that might save their life, cannot be denied
that opportunity by a health insurance company; that our access to
emergency rooms will not be denied because of the decisions of health
insurance company clerks.
We had a vote on the floor of the Senate. Overwhelmingly, the
American people support what I have said. We lost the vote but not
because we did not have support for our position. Three hundred
organizations supported the Democratic position on the Patients' Bill
of Rights, every major medical group in America. The nurses supported
our position. The doctors supported our position. Hospitals supported
our position. Yet we lost because one special interest group on the
other side prevailed--the insurance companies. They are the ones that
are making the profit out of these decisions that take quality care
away from families, which exalt the bottom line of profits, and ignore
basic health care needs.
This miserable bill that passed out of the Senate is headed over to
the House of Representatives. I am happy to report to you that a
substantial number of House Republicans said they were not going to
scrape and bow to the insurance industry; that they would stand with
American families and medical professionals so we have rights, a
Patients' Bill of Rights for America.
They passed a good bill, the Dingell-Norwood bill. John Dingell of
Michigan is legendary here on Capitol Hill. Congressman Charlie Norwood
is relatively new but is a Republican who has had the courage to stand
up and say: I think it is only right to say no to the insurance
companies and yes to American families on a Patients' Bill of Rights.
Let me read to you what Congressman Norwood said a few days ago about
the situation that has occurred where the Senate passed the insurance
industry bill and the House passed one that will help American
families; and nothing has happened since. This is what he said on May
25:

I'm here today to say time's up on the conference
committee. We've waited eight months for this committee to
approve a compromise bill. Senate Republicans--

This is a Congressman who is a Republican who is saying this about
his colleagues in the Senate:

Senate Republicans have yet to even offer a compromise
liability proposal--they have only demanded that the House
Conferees abandon their position.

He goes on to say:

If we don't get a bill, or at least a tentative agreement
in writing by the week we come back from Memorial Day, we
must move past the conference.

Congressman Norwood said:

Starting today, I am working as if that will be the case. I
am willing to pass this measure through any means necessary.

I say congratulations to this Republican Congressman who is standing
up to the Republican majority in the Senate, who is standing up to the
insurance industry, who is standing with the Democrats and with
American families. As on gun safety legislation, this health
legislation, important to families across America, has been stalled and
blockaded by the Senate Republican leadership. They do not want to even
address the issues that families across America care about.
You step back and say: Why in the world do men and women run to be
Members of this Senate if they are not willing to at least debate the
major issues, if not pass legislation to help families? But time and
time and time again, the Senate majority has blockaded, stopped, and
stalled every effort to deal with issues of health and safety.
And those are not the only ones. As to an increase in the minimum
wage, this is one of the most disgraceful things that has happened to
Congress in the last 10 or 12 years. It used to be when it came time
for an increase in the minimum wage--under President Reagan, for
example, it was done with little fanfare and little debate. It was done
on a bipartisan basis. We all believed that the men and women who got
up and went to work every day in America for a basic minimum wage
deserved an increase periodically to reflect the cost of living.
But the Republican-dominated Congress refuses to allow us to increase
this minimum wage. And 350,000 people in my State of Illinois got up
this morning and went to work for a minimum wage--$5.15 an hour--with
virtually no benefit protection.
I agree with Senator Kennedy, Senator Daschle, and so many others,
that we should increase this minimum wage as a matter of basic decency
a dollar an hour--50 cents a year for 2 years--so people who are trying
to keep their families together, trying to maintain their own standard
of living, have a chance to do it with an increased minimum wage.
Again, the Republican leadership in Congress refuses to let us bring up
this issue of the minimum wage.
Time and time again--gun safety legislation, a prescription drug
benefit under Medicare, a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect families
when they have the most basic and fundamental concerns about their
health, and a minimum wage--these issues have been stalled because the
Republican leadership refuses to bring them up for a vote. They know
the American people support it but there are special interest

[[Page 9469]]

groups that oppose each and every one of them.
The National Rifle Association has told them: Put the bar on the
door. We don't want any gun safety legislation. The insurance companies
have told them: We don't want a Patients' Bill of Rights. We are making
a lot of money under the current system. We don't want the doctors and
the nurses to make medical decisions. We want businesspeople to make
them based on profits. The pharmaceutical industry has told them they
don't want a prescription drug benefit to help the elderly and the
disabled pay for drugs they need to survive. When it comes to the
minimum wage, some people in the business community have said: We don't
want to pay anything more than $5.15 an hour. And we don't care what
impact it has on the employees.
That is the state of play that reflects the values and reflects the
choice the American people will have in this coming election as to
whether they want to see the Republican majority continue in Congress
and stop this basic legislation so important to every American family.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield on that point?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Again, I thank my friend for connecting the dots. To
those Americans who say there is no difference between the parties,
there are no issues in this election, that it is a matter of who has
the best smile, I say that is not what it is about.
It is about issues that impact millions and millions of Americans;
30,000 Americans die every year of gunshots. My friend pointed out that
about 13 a day of those are children--children. The Democrats are
saying we need sensible gun laws, and our Republican friends are saying
we don't need anything, just hang it up in the conference committee and
say a few words here and let's move on. We will not let that issue die,
if you will, nor the Patients' Bill of Rights and prescription drugs.
Again, it is about millions of people.
What always fascinates me is my friends on the Republican side--oh,
they are tough on law and order. And I agree with them. I am as tough
as they come. I will support the death penalty for heinous crimes. But
when an HMO kills a patient because they won't approve the appropriate
test--and I have seen it time and time again in my State, where tests
for cancer were denied because they were expensive diagnostic tests,
and HMOs wind up essentially killing a patient because they got
treatment too late--they let them off the hook: We don't want the right
to sue. Let these people just walk away with maybe a slap on their
wrists.
Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage when people die because of
medical malpractice or an HMO not willing to invest in our people?
Take the issue of minimum wage, where people are actually living in
poverty. For goodness' sake, some in our military are on food stamps.
Yet our friends on the other side will vote for luxury jets to ferry
around the generals. I don't know where the shame is. I don't know
where the outrage is. I can only say that this is where it is today. It
is reflected in the Presidential race, and it is reflected in the
Senate races and in the congressional races.
I only ask the American people to wake up, regardless of what party
they are in, because that doesn't matter to me. These are not partisan
issues. These are issues of right and wrong. These are issues of
fairness.
I really think my friend has connected the dots on several of these
issues--the gun issue, the Patients' of Bill of Rights, prescription
drugs, minimum wage. What do these have in common? They are all issues
that matter to America's families, the way we live, and the kind of
life we have. They are crucial issues. No matter what happens in the
Senate when the majority leader brings legislation forward--or
doesn't--whether we do nothing or we do something, we are going to come
home with these issues and talk about them, and we are going to
organize around these issues. Otherwise, I don't think we deserve to be
here if we are silent in the face of inaction.
I thank my friend again for taking this time and for engaging in this
colloquy.
(Mr. ENZI assumed the chair.)
Mr. DURBIN. We have not only addressed the major legislative issues
bottled up and stalled in this Republican Congress--gun safety
legislation, Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drug benefits,
increasing the minimum wage. We should listen as well to the rhetoric
coming from the Republican candidate for President, George W. Bush, who
is suggesting a massive tax cut of over $2 trillion over 9 years. He is
also now suggesting a change in Social Security that will cost over
$800 billion over 9 years--$2.8 trillion that he has suggested we spend
over the next 9 years, when we are told by experts in Washington that
the surplus we have to deal with is about $800 billion. What the
Presidential candidate on the Republican side is suggesting is that he
wants to return to the era of deficit spending, where we will, over 9
years, go $2 trillion more in debt.
We can all recall that when President Reagan was elected in 1980, we
started on this course of action which led to increasing our national
debt to over $6 trillion. We had more debt accumulated during the
Reagan-George Herbert Walker Bush years than we had in the entire
previous history of the United States. Now to carry on this fine
tradition, Gov. George W. Bush is suggesting we go back to deficit
spending, $2 trillion more in debt, to give tax breaks to wealthy
people, to change Social Security in a risky way.
I think that is another fundamental issue. If we are going to deal
with America's economy to keep it moving forward, if we are going to
bring about the changes we need to make America a better place to live,
we certainly don't need to return to deficit spending. I think that is
a critical issue that affects everything we do on Capitol Hill.
Mrs. BOXER. Again, my friend raises a very crucial issue. I have the
paperwork here, and my friend is right on target. George W. Bush's tax
cut proposal is $1.7 trillion from 2002 to 2010, and going to his
privatized plan for Social Security will cost $1 trillion. My friend
said $800 billion; it is $1 trillion. The projected on-budget surplus,
if the economy continues to do well--and you never can count on that,
but we certainly hope so--is $877 billion, which leaves a $2.7 trillion
deficit. We are going to go back into the bad days.
So not only are George W. Bush and the Republican Party not wanting
to act and make life better by moving forward on the issues about which
we talked--the gun issue, prescription drugs, the Patients' Bill of
Rights, and the minimum wage. So not only won't they change for the
good, they want to go back, and we are going to be facing these
horrific deficits, a national debt that will start to soar again, the
markets will react with high interest rates, and we will be back into
the deepest trouble. We will be bailing ourselves out.
I have to say again that by looking at this entire choice we have in
this election, it is very interesting. As I listen to my friend, I
realize what we face. We face a situation where either we are going to
go forward on certain issues but keep fiscal responsibility, or not
move on crucial issues that are really life-and-death issues and go
back to the days of horrible economic times.
We all remember when President Bush went to Japan and threw up his
hands and said: What are we going to do? We are in deep trouble. Help
us.
That was not a high point in American life. Now, with the Clinton-
Gore team, we are leading the world, but we will only continue if we
don't go back to those bad old days of deficits.
I thank my friend.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The next hour
is under the control of the Senator from Wyoming.
The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

____________________

[[Page 9470]]

THE SENATE'S AGENDA

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we will go to the Senator from Minnesota
shortly and then the Senator from Texas and then the Senator from

Idaho. In the meantime, while they are coming, let me say I have
briefly listened to my friends on the other side of the aisle,
interestingly enough, complaining about not getting anywhere. Let me
talk a little bit about that.
We have been here on the floor now for some time talking about the
kinds of things people want to do in this country; for instance,
education--elementary and secondary education. We had to pull that
after a whole week of discussion and debate because our friends on the
other side of the aisle didn't want to move forward. They wanted to
bring up the same things they have brought up every time we have come
into this Chamber, and they have done it over and over and over again.
If you want to talk about getting something done, we ought to talk a
little bit about education, a little bit about Social Security, a
little bit about the military and doing some things for security that
we ought to do for this country. Frankly, I think some of us get weary
of the same litany every day and going back and forth on the same
thing. We have already talked about gun control; we have gun control
pending. We have talked about Patients' Bill of Rights; it is pending.
It is out there in conference committee. What we need to do is address
ourselves to some of the issues that are here.
You can see that I get just a little bit excited about this. But we
have an opportunity to do some things. We have to do some things on
this floor, and we need to move forward and stop this business of
holding up everything so we can talk about trying to make issues for
the election instead of trying to find solutions.
I yield to my friend, the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank my colleague from Wyoming for all his good work in trying to
keep us focused on the issues about which we are concerned.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
official Senate photo, the Senate begin consideration of S. 2549, the
Department of Defense authorization bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair.

____________________

THE FUTURE OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I want to take time today to again talk
about what I think is one of the most important issues facing Americans
this year, and probably in the next few years; that is, what is the
future of Social Security? How are we going to make sure we have a safe
and sound retirement system not only for those on retirement today and
those about to retire, but also for our children and our grandchildren?
I have held around the State of Minnesota more than 50 townhall
meetings trying to outline the problems facing Social Security today,
and a plan I have introduced called the Personal Security and Wealth in
Retirement Act, which would move from a pay-as-you-go system to a
fully-funded, market-based personal retirement accounts.
When you look back at the last 65 years of Social Security, it has
basically done the job we have asked it to do; that is, to provide
retirement benefits for millions of Americans. But if you look ahead to
the next 30 years, the system has problems. It is facing some real
problems. It is being strained to the limit. In fact, there will not be
enough dollars collected in the system to pay the benefits the
Government has promised. If the Congress does nothing, Social Security
benefits will have to be reduced as much as one-third or more over the
next 25 years.
The biggest risk to Social Security is to do nothing. And there are
those who are willing to stick their heads in the sand maybe to get by
another election and to ignore the problems facing Social Security.
Let me go through some of these things very quickly.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced Social Security in 1935, he
had concerns that it would only be run by the Government. He wanted
part of it to be private accounts. In fact, there was many Americans
who were allowed to stay outside of Social Security. In fact, there
have been a number of state and local governments over the years--as
late as 1981--that saw this loophole, opted out of Social Security, and
created their own personal retirement accounts. None of them, by the
way, has failed; all have been successful. By that I mean they are
paying better benefits to their retirees than Social Security is paying
to our retirees today.
President Roosevelt also said that there should be a three-legged
stool for Americans' retirement: personal savings, pension, and Social
Security. Social Security is just one of the legs. It was never meant
to be the sole source of retirement benefits. But for millions of
Americans today--when they are paying an average tax bill of nearly 40
percent of their wages in taxes, then they try to raise their family;
buy food, clothing, shelter; put a little money away for vacations, and
for education for their kids, et cetera--they do not have money left to
save for their retirement. If you work for an employer that doesn't
have a pension or 401(k), your only source of retirement is Social
Security. Clearly, Social Security has stretched to its limit.
Right now, 78 million baby boomers are ready to hit the system by the
year 2008. The majority of Americans--nearly 90 percent--retire at the
age of 62, not at 65. We are going to see baby boomers bumping into the
system beginning as early as 2008. Social Security spending will exceed
tax revenues by 2015.
We hear about all of these surpluses in Social Security and the trust
fund.
But the truth is there is nothing in the trust fund but IOUs. Senator
Fritz Hollings of South Carolina says there is no trust, and there are
no funds in the Social Security trust funds. He is right.
By 2015 there will be no more surpluses. In other words, if we are
collecting $100 today and only spending $90, the other $10 is put into
this trust fund. Of course, the Government borrows the surplus and
spends it. By the year 2015, we will be bringing in $90 and paying out
$100 or more. Where do we get the extra money? We are going to have to
get it from the taxpayers. By 2015, taxes are going to have to be
raised to cash in these IOUs in order to pay the benefits at that time.
You hear a lot of Senators and others saying the system is solvent
until 2037. That is only if we can raise taxes on workers to pay those
benefits. That is the only way it can remain solvent. Congress is going
to have to take action. The Social Security trust fund is going to be
broke in 2037 unless we have the dollars to cash in those IOUs. The
reason is our pay-as-you-go retirement system cannot meet the challenge
of the demographic change.
In 1940, there were about 100 working for every retiree. Today, there
are a little over 2.5. By the year 2025, there will be fewer than 2. In
1940, with 100 people working, you only had to pay $10 a month to pay
for a $1,000 benefit. Today, it is over $400. And we are going to ask
our grandchildren to pay $500 or more in order to meet this obligation
of retirement benefits.
If you look over the next 75 years, it is going down like a rock.
There is $21.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities. In other words, the
benefits the Government has promised to pay--$21.6 trillion--are short
of revenues we need to pay those benefits.
How are we going to make them up? There are a couple of choices. We
can raise taxes and tinker a little bit with the system. But you cannot
tinker with $21.6 trillion deficit. They can cut benefits by a third of
what retirees can expect to get. Or they can raise the retirement age.
But that will not be enough to make up the $21.6 trillion in deficits
over the next 75 years if we don't do make hard choice to save the
system.
My plan, the Personal Security and Wealth in Retirement Act, has a
transitional cost as well. But it is the cost

[[Page 9471]]

we have to pay anyway. It would cost about $13 trillion for us to make
the transition to go from the Social Security system we know today to
total personal retirement accounts. In other words, we are moving to a
system where you have control over your retirement--not Washington--you
decide when to retire, how much you want save and where you want to
invest and how you want to control over your account.
In reality, we have signed our name to a long-term contract that says
we are going to guarantee retirement benefits for Americans forever.
There is a cost because we have dug ourselves into a hole. Somehow we
have to dig ourselves out. There is no free lunch. People around here
can ignore it, but there is no free lunch. We are going to have to find
a way to finance ourselves to reach our goals to have a safe, solid,
and solvent Social Security system. The biggest risk is doing nothing
at all.
Social Security has a total unfunded liability of $21 trillion-plus.
The trust fund has nothing but IOUs. Vice President Gore said let's pay
down the debt and let's put the interest we save into the trust fund.
But all he is talking about is adding more IOUs, not building assets in
the Social Security trust funds. Instead, today, we have over $800
billion of IOUs, but in 15 years, he wants to have $3.5 trillion worth
of IOUs--no real assets, but IOUs.
Again, the only way you can get those IOUs cashed in is to go to the
taxpayers and get more taxes from them.
To keep paying Social Security benefits, we are going to probably
have to look at least at doubling the FICA tax--the withholding tax--
within the near future; not 15.3 percent. By the year of 2025 or 2030,
we could see our payroll tax rates increase to 25 percent to 30 percent
of wages--nearly doubling the FICA tax in order to maintain the current
benefits we promised.
I ask many of our senior citizens at our town meetings to raise their
hands if they think they have good retirement benefits from Social
Security. If you talk about a $700 check a month, or a $680 check a
month, or $1,100 a month, this is not good retirement. This is not the
retirement I want. I don't think this is the retirement we want to
leave to our children. But in order to maintain even that system, we
are going to impose taxes on the next generation. If you have 25
percent in FICA taxes, then you add on the average Federal Government
tax of 28 percent or 53 percent, and then add in Minnesota sales tax of
8.5 percent, you are at 62 percent. Then add in sales taxes, property
and excise taxes--I mean every tax you can think of--our kids are going
to be paying taxes that approach 70 percent of their income. Mr.
President, is this the kind of future we want to leave our kids because
we stick our head in the sand and do not want to face our problems?
Why is Social Security a bad investment today? If a taxpayer retired
in 1960, they probably got back all the money they paid in in 18
months. It was a tremendous return for the early retirees. Today, an
average person retiring will get less than 2 percent return on his or
her money paid into the system. Our minority population is actually
getting a negative rate of return today. They are in fact subsidizing
the rest of us. The markets have paid back nearly 11 percent, but when
we filter out inflation, it is better than a 7 percent annual return in
the market.
What would any person rather have? If an investment counselor said: I
can up a plan, but it will not pay very good, less than 2 percent, so
anyone 50 or younger, by the time they retire, it will be a negative;
or we can put taxpayers in a new plan paying 7, 8, 11, 12 percent, what
will you do? There will not be many at the desk signing up for a plan
paying zero or giving a negative return on the money.
Mr. President, there is no Social Security account with your name on
it. A lot of people don't realize that. After a lifetime of working,
taxpayers think there is an account in Washington that has their name
on it. There is not. You don't have one dollar set aside for your
retirement today. The only thing you can hope, in our pay-as-you-go
system, is that when you retire there are people working so we can
deduct money from their check to pay your benefit. It is a pay-as-you-
go system. The money we bring in the first of June will be paid out in
benefits by the end of June. It is a pay-as-you-go system, with no
accumulation of wealth, no real assets, no compounding of interest.
By the way, we talk about these IOUs in the trust fund that will make
the system solvent. In the President's own budget, he included this
paragraph: These balances are available to finance future benefit
payments and other trust fund expenditures.
The IOUs are there to pay for the funds or payments to other
expenditures, ``but only in a bookkeeping sense.''
In other words, they are not real. Members on the floor will say: We
have the IOUs. That is great, ``but only in a bookkeeping sense.''
There is nothing there.
You can place a million-dollar IOU in your checking account and see
how many checks your banker allows to be written against the IOU. None,
until you put money in the account.
``They are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to
be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing
benefits or other expenditures.''
Do we want to reduce Social Security benefits or cut education,
transportation, or health care? If we don't make some hard choices now
we will be faced with tougher decisions later.
We have these IOUs because the government spent all the surplus in
the Social Security Trust Funds. The first step to save Social Security
is to stop the government spending Americans' retirement dollars for
nothing but their retirement, to keep the dollars outside the hands of
the big spenders in Washington and to make sure we set aside the
surplus funds today. We have not done it in the past. It needs to be
done. I have introduced a second lockbox that says if our estimates are
wrong--best faith estimates on what we spend and what we bring in--if
we are honest and do not want to spend a dime of Social Security, if
the estimates are wrong and we overspend, we need to go back and lower
everybody's budget across the board. Perhaps take a .003-percent
reduction so we don't have to go into the trust fund, and we will not
spend a dime of Social Security.
Mr. President, I have six principles for saving Social Security. I
began working on this 7 years ago. I introduced this plan 3 years ago.
I said then it would be a major issue in this Presidential debate. It
is. I am glad governor George W. Bush has announced his plan to allow
at least some privatization for improving and saving the system. And
Vice President Al Gore has made a statement--he doesn't want to do
anything. He wants status quo, he wants to tinker with the system. That
means, again, raise your taxes even more.
We need to make sure we protect current and future beneficiaries.
Anyone on Social Security, about to retire, or who wants to stay with
it, should be able to so do. It is your option; we will guarantee those
benefits. Don't be concerned about it. We will hear scare tactics that
somehow this plan is not going to work, we are only going to rob the
elderly, and we will not have a safe Social Security. That is hogwash.
We will always guarantee those benefits.
Allow freedom of choice. If you want to have a personal retirement
account, you should have that option as well. The Government should not
stand in your way and say, no, we are going to keep you locked up in a
system that will pay you little or nothing on your return.
Preserve the safety net. Again, I have heard the scare tactics that
there are no safety nets in the PRAs. That is a lie. Under our plan we
have the same safety nets as Social Security. We have survivors
benefits, disability benefits, built into the program. It is the same
thing, but our plan pays dividends and higher returns than Social
Security. The bottom line is we have the same safety nets.

[[Page 9472]]

Make Americans better off, not worse off. Today, nearly 20 percent of
Americans, when they retire, retire into poverty, because Social
Security is all they have--or very little else--and it is not enough to
keep them off the poverty. Our system says when you retire you will
have a minimum of 150 percent of poverty. Right now, the poverty for
single individuals is about $8,400 a year. Our plan says you have to
have at least $12,800 a year to retire. We make sure you don't retire
into poverty. The people most affected are elderly women and widows.
The Social Security system today discriminates against women. Again, we
will hear stories that PRAs discriminate against women. That is not
true. The current system is the culprit. Changing the system will
improve retirement for millions of Americans today, including our
elderly ladies.
Create a fully funded system. Make sure if you have an option for
private retirement accounts, you can do that. Most importantly, no tax
increases, no tinkering with the system.
I introduced my plan, the Personal Security and Wealth in Retirement
Act, in the last Congress and the 106th. I will keep introducing this
plan until we do something on it.
How does the plan work for retirement options? Workers may divert 10
percent of their income into a personal retirement account to be
managed by Government-approved but private investment companies,
similar to 401(k)'s and IRAs and FDIC accounts. We make sure they are
safe and sound.
Somebody making $30,000 a year now pays $3,720 into Social Security.
Our plan says $3,000 goes into a personal retirement account. At the
end of the year, you don't just have a promise, you actually have a
savings book that has $3,000 cash, plus interest. The other 2.4
percent, $720, goes into the SSA, Social Security Administration, to
help fund part of the financing plan for those who want to stay on
Social Security, to guarantee their benefits.
Right now in personal retirement accounts, someone earning $36,000 a
year pays in the maximum to Social Security, and receives $1,280 a
month as a maximum benefit. Take just 10 percent of that income, put it
into an average market account, you will have a benefit of $6,514 a
month. That is a big difference, five times better under the private
retirement account than what Social Security would pay. In addition,
the safety nets are there for survivor and disability benefits. Don't
let anybody say that somehow this isn't as good or better.
Looking at the returns, people are talking about maybe 2 percent of
your Social Security. After 40 years at 2 percent, you will have
$171,000 in the account, plus reduced benefits from Social Security. So
at least with partial reform plan, a citizen is better off and would
have a little bit of reduced benefit from Social Security but will have
$171,000 in the bank. Under my plan, you would have $855,000 based on a
$36,000 income; $855,000 would have been put away for your retirement.
The family with median income of $58,000, putting away 2 percent has
$278,000 in the bank, and a reduced Social Security benefit. Again,
better than what we have now. But you could have $1.4 million in a
savings account in your name, cash, estate money, if you could put
aside 10 percent of your salary.
It is being done across the country. I discussed people in Galvaston,
TX, with private retirement accounts who got the OK from Social
Security to have their own retirement accounts in 1981. Social Security
death benefits? My dad died at 61, we got $253. That is what Social
Security offers.
Galveston County that has their own private retirement accounts,
receive an average $75,000 death benefit.
Disability benefits for Social Security is $1,280; and Galveston, TX,
is $2,749.
What about retirement benefits? Social Security, a maximum on this
average income is $1,280; Galveston County, nearly $4,800.
By the way, Galveston has a conservative retirement plan, they invest
very conservatively and they still pay those much better returns.
One lady, by the way, named Wendy Cohill, her husband died at 44 of a
heart attack. She was 42. She received $126,000 in death benefits plus
what was in the account plus the survivors benefit that she used to pay
to finish a college education. She was able to care for her family in
her own home. If she would have had Social Security, she would have
been under the poverty level. She said: Thank God, some wise men
privatized Social Security here. If I had regular Social Security, I
would be broke.
The city of San Diego also has PRAs, a government employee, 35 years
old, contributes 6 percent into the PRAs. After 35 years, they would
receive a $3,000-per-month retirement benefit.
Under Social Security, he would receive only $1,077 a month in
benefits.
I know the Senator from California said on the floor recently that
personal retirement accounts are too risky and we cannot damage the
foundation of Social Security. But last year, and I want to read this,
the Senator from California--this is Senator Barbara Boxer along with
Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Ted Kennedy, sent a letter to the
President saying:
``Millions of our constituents will receive higher retirement
benefits''--They are talking about the city of San Diego--``higher
benefits from their current public pensions than they would under
Social Security.''
In other words, they were telling the President to leave San Diego
alone because the President's plan for saving Social Security included
taking 1 percent, pooling the investments, but he also would take all
these with private accounts off the table and put them all into Social
Security. She did not like that. She says:

Mr. President, millions of our constituents who will
receive higher retirement benefits from their current public
pensions than they would under Social Security, are appealing
to their elected Representatives in Washington and we
respectfully urge you to honor the original legislative
intent underpinning the Social Security system--

That was to exclude these people from Social Security, exclude this
provision from your reform and leave San Diego alone, they were saying.
My question is, if the retirement accounts in San Diego are better
than Social Security, why can't you and I enjoy a similar system? But
if Social Security is better, as Senator Boxer, Senator Feinstein, and
Senator Kennedy will support, then why don't they want the citizens who
work for the city of San Diego to have that same benefit? A good
question.
I know I do not have much time left. Mr. President, how much time do
I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time until the hour of 12 noon is under
the control of the Senator from Wyoming. He yielded you the time you
needed.
Mr. GRAMS. I will go through this quickly. I know we have others
wanting to speak.
As I said, this is not an experiment. This is being done around the
world. Eleven countries now have privatized their retirement; 30 others
are considering it. We like to think we are in the forefront of this.
But when it comes to retirement benefits, we are behind the curve.
Chile, 18 years ago, privatized their system because their system was
much like ours. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the brains in Washington
did not create Social Security. It was modeled and copied from
something that Otto Von Bismark put out in 1880. We adopted it almost
exactly. So did Chile and just about every other country around the
world. Chile, had the same problems or worse than what we are facing
today. It went to bankrupt. They had to privatize their plan.
By the way, 95 percent of the Chilean workers have opted into the
personal retirement accounts. Their return last year was 11.3 percent.
Ours, again, were less than 2 percent.
British workers have chosen to go into PRAs. They have what they call
their second tier Social Security, where they can opt from the Social
Security System, like we have, into personal retirement accounts. In
Britain, so far two-thirds of all British workers have opted into
personal retirement accounts. They have enjoyed, over the past 5 years,
a better than 10 percent return on their money. By the way, the

[[Page 9473]]

pool of retirement in their retirement accounts in Britain exceeds $1.4
trillion. That is how much now they have put away in their accounts.
That is more than the total GDP of Britain, and it is more than all
other private investments in all the other European countries combined.
So it shows you the power of private retirement accounts, and the
accumulation of wealth.
Many people say: I have worked for 30 years. I can't give up what I
have paid into Social Security.
We have a recognition bond. The Government knows exactly how much you
have paid in. If you have paid in $20,000, if you paid in $40,000, if
you paid in $90,000, we know. We would give you a recognition bond,
plus interest upon retirement.
Mr. President, we must take care of today's Social Security
recipients. If an individual chooses to remain in the current system,
we must guarantee their benefits. There is no increase in age of
retirement, no cuts in benefits, no ifs, ands, or buts, and no raising
of taxes.
The plan preserves the safety net, as I said, for survivors benefits
and disability benefits. Poverty, as I said, recognized that $8,240 a
year--you have to have $12,400, so you would not retire into poverty,
again, as nearly 20 percent of our Americans do. Funds that manage PRAs
are required to buy the life and disability insurance to provide the
safety nets I have talked about.
For those who would come up short--and those would be very few--if
you could not get $12,400 a year, we would come in and say we will fill
your glass full so when you retire, you would retire with less than
that. This is the only entitlement portion of our bill. Again, this is
an important safety net of this system.
Rules similar to those that apply to IRAs today would apply to PRAs.
Also, a Federal personal retirement investment board would oversee it
for safety and soundness to make sure your retirement funds are there,
and are safe. Investment companies that manage PRAs would be required
to have an insurance plan to pay at least a minimum of 2.5 percent.
That would be a floor. Again, that is much better than Social Security,
but at least it is a guarantee if something would go wrong you would at
least have that as your investment.
In addition, you decide when you want to retire. As I said, right now
the Government controls your retirement. They tell you exactly how much
they are going to take out of your check, they tell you exactly the day
you can retire, and then they tell you what they are going to give you
in benefits.
In our plan, you have those controls. You make your retirement
decisions. As soon as you can buy an annuity that will keep you 150
percent over poverty, you have met your requirement. You are not going
to be a ward of the state. You ensured your future. You can stop. You
can do what you want. You can arrange regular withdrawals, for the
amounts that are above that requirement. To buy this minimum benefit,
you would need about $125,000 in your account. If you are an average
worker with earnings of $30,000, you would have $855,000 in your
account, so you can use that other $750,000 any way you want.
If you have a family, you could have $1.4 million. What are you going
to do with the other $1.2 million. You can do whatever you want with
that money; that is yours. You decide how you withdraw it. If you want
to go to Europe? Write a check. Buy a new car? You can do it. Give it
to your kid. You can do it.
In divorce cases, PRAs are treated as common property. Upon death,
PRAs go to heirs without estate taxes; no capital gains, so that at
least you have created an estate, and this $1.2 million or $700,000 or
whatever you had in your account is your money.
Going back to Social Security, when you die, you get a $253 death
benefit. Under this, you get a death benefit in our plan, a minimum,
plus you would get what is left in your estate, whatever it might be.
You can pass it on to your heirs, your spouse, your kids, your church--
wealth that you cannot pass on today because the Government takes all
those benefits.
Again, the bottom line is, no new taxes for this system. We do have a
responsibility to bail ourselves out, but we are not taxing the system.
Retirement income is going to be there whether you stay with Social
Security, or if you choose to build a personal retirement account. You
can decide the options, you decide how you want to invest it, and you
decide when you want to retire. Let's make sure we give you choices.
Just in concluding, despite our colleagues, our Democratic colleagues
bashing Governor Bush's reform plan, its popularity is increasing among
workers.
I heard one say: I don't come out here and bash it. I want to study
everything and I want to look over all of these plans.
He hasn't even seen the Governor's plan. He doesn't really know what
Vice President Al Gore has got. But yet he favors Al Gore over Governor
Bush.
Recent polls show most Americans support the idea of personal
retirement accounts. In fact, if you are under 40 years old, more young
people believe in UFOs than that they are going to get Social Security;
90-some percent of young people under 30 would opt into personal
retirement accounts.
I believe a national consensus can be reached on ways to save and
strengthen Social Security. There will always be a retirement system in
this country. What kind of system are we going to leave for our
children and grandchildren? For many of us, if we are 50 years old, 55
years old, or older, we might have been condemned to the current system
without time left in our working lives to change or take the option in
the personal retirement accounts. We can tell our children and
grandchildren we want to leave a 70-percent tax system for them, we
want to leave them a plan that might guarantee they will get less
benefits, pay more into it, and will have to wait longer to retire, or
we can leave them an option for them to invest in their own retirement
and have personal retirement accounts.
The numbers show Americans overwhelmingly say: I am smart enough to
handle my future.
There are many in Washington who believe you are not smart enough;
you may be smart enough to earn your money, but you are not smart
enough to put it aside for your retirement and only Washington can step
in and help you out. That's wrong. Our plan empower working Americans
and offers better options and gives you control over your retirement.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Chair recognizes the
Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there any procedural motion I need
to make to move forward?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under the control of the Senator
from Wyoming until the hour of 12 noon.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, 56 years ago today, 176,000 allied soldiers landed on
the beaches of Normandy in what was the largest invasion in history.
The operation was officially known as Operation Overlord, but I have
never heard anyone refer to it by that name. It is now known as D-Day.
While there have been hundreds of other D-days in other historic
locations such as Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Inchon, the forces that landed
on Normandy Beach 56 years ago today truly changed the course of
history. When we hear the term ``D-Day,'' we reflect on that awful and
incredible day on Normandy Beach with reverence for what was
accomplished and for all that was lost, and with respect the people who
were there--those who did not survive and those who did.
Thousands of young Americans died that day establishing that small
beachhead on the continent of Europe. Within a year, the Allied forces
went on to crush the Nazi war regime and brought forth on the European
Continent an unprecedented period of peace.
Today, we look back on that time and we remember and respect what was
done.

[[Page 9474]]

When the cold war ended, the Wall came down and the Warsaw Pact
disbanded. The United States began to draw down forces from Europe for
the first time since we had gone in on D-Day and established a
presence, and set up the plan to help our vanquished enemy.
Military strategists began to talk of new missions for NATO. They
spoke of the need for NATO to go ``out of area or out of business,''
implying that unless NATO could find a new reason to exist after the
end of the Cold War, there may be no reason for it to exist at all.
That new mission began to come into focus in the Balkans five years
ago when the United States committed peacekeeping forces to Bosnia to
enforce the provisions of the Dayton Peace Accords.
What was conceived by the administration as a one-year mission to
accomplish specific military objectives is now in its fifth year--with
greatly expanded civilian nation-building objectives and no end in
sight to the deployment.
Today we are on the eve of another anniversary in the search for new
NATO missions. One year ago, on June 10, NATO halted the bombing in
Serbia and Kosovo. As in Bosnia, we again have deployed thousands of
American forces to yet another Balkan quagmire with unclear
objectives--and there is no end in sight to the Kosovo mission, either.
This time the ethnic groups we seek to reconcile have not tired of the
killing, apparently, and it continues as our soldiers stand by helpless
to deter murder.
The General Accounting Office estimates that the cost of our Balkan
peacekeeping missions in Bosnia and Kosovo now tops $23 billion. We
have become mired in the problem, unable to stand back and assess where
we are. Nor are we able to look at the situation and say we must have a
strategy.
We know what this has cost our country: For the past five years,
recruiting and retention problems in the U.S. military services have
been exacerbated by endless peacekeeping missions. Our armed services
today are not up to their congressionally mandated troop strength; they
are at least 6,000 short.
As the world's only superpower, we have a responsibility to lead.
America led when the parties first came together in Dayton, but the
Dayton Peace Accords simply stopped the fighting. We did not create
conditions that could actually solve the problem without the presence
of thousands of outside forces. We ended the hostilities--and we should
be respectful of that achievement--but we did not create effective
economic and political structures.
That must be our goal for a lasting peace. As one American military
peacekeeper said to me on a recent visit, ``Everyone's job in Bosnia is
to work on the problems we face, but no one seems to have the
responsibility for actually solving those problems.''
We need to search for ways to solve these problems. Today I am
introducing legislation to authorize funds to reconvene the parties to
the Dayton Peace Accords that ended the Bosnia conflict, those who were
involved in the Rambouillet talks that failed to avert the conflict in
Kosovo and other regional entities. We must review our progress to
date. If we cannot do that, how can we call ourselves leaders?
We must look for a long-term settlement based on greater self-
determination for the governed and less by outside powers. That may
involve tailoring current borders to fit the facts on the ground. It
will create conditions of genuine stability, reconstruction and
prosperity. It will allow us, in a responsible way, to set some
timetables, some measurements for success, and, hopefully, to begin
turning over these peacekeeping responsibilities to our European allies
within a reasonable time frame.
We must have self-determination that works. The current policy wagers
America's reputation, prestige and will on a mirage of multicultural
democracy in the Balkans. We are trying to create governments that
ignore history, nationality and ethnicity. Elections have been held in
which refugees were bused into disputed regions to vote for elected
officials who cannot serve because they are unable to return to their
prewar homes.
American officers spend their days deciding which vehicles can travel
down which roads, and escorting Serb families in hostile Albanian
territory to the dentist and back or to the library and back.
This effort is diverting the United States from its global
responsibilities. We occupy a unique place in the world today, standing
astride history's path as the most powerful nation that ever may have
existed. Our supercharged economic engine certainly reflects the best
that mankind has to offer. However, a superpower's core responsibility
is not to right every wrong, but to preserve its strength for those
challenges that only a superpower can address.
The United States must know when to encourage capable allies and
proxies to address contingencies that fall short of that standard.
Instead, time and again, our military readiness to address potential
threats--such as North Korea, mainland China, Iraq--has been diverted
to contingency provisions on the periphery of our nation's security
concerns.
America's peacekeeping burden in the 1990s has resulted in two of our
Army divisions reporting themselves unfit for combat.
We can achieve more in the Balkans than a peace enforced at bayonet
tip. We ought to tie our continued financial support to a comprehensive
regional settlement, to substantial military withdrawal from the region
and to a firm policy of encouraging the Europeans to do more--with our
support, which will always be there.
Any NATO member can patrol the Balkans, but only the United States
can defend NATO. That is the role of a superpower, and that is the role
of a strong and reliable ally.
As we take up the armed services budget this week, I hope we can take
on the role that is the responsibility of the Senate and try to put
some long-term potential peace into play. I am not saying I know what
the outcome of any kind of conference should be. But I do know it is
our responsibility to call such a conference and begin to assess where
we are; to look with vision to the future and set the standard that
must be set for the lasting peace that we want and hope for and will
work for and support in the Balkans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the unanimous consent agreement that we are
operating under takes us through 12 noon, does it not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It takes us through 12:30.
Mr. CRAIG. Through 12:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous consent agreement that
Senator Gregg be given the time from 12 to 12:15, and Senator Reid the
time from 12:15 to 12:30.
Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor to my colleague, the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for a statement before I
resume my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
(The remarks of Mr. Warner and Mr. Craig pertaining to the
introduction of S. 2669 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed for 15 minutes.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, what was the Senator's
request?
Mr. CRAIG. I asked to proceed for 15 minutes. I had yielded some time
to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 9475]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Idaho for his
courtesy. I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to proceed after I
have completed my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

SIERRA LEONE

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak about the issue of what is
happening in Africa, specifically in Sierra Leone. Recently, I have
become involved in this issue because, as chairman of the Commerce,
Justice, State, and the Judiciary Subcommittee, we have jurisdiction
over the funds that flow to the U.N. for peacekeeping activity. In
order to adequately do the job as chairman of that subcommittee, our
job involves oversight of those funds, to make sure they are being used
effectively. After all, they are American tax dollars; Congress has
control of the purse strings; and we have a major role in how those
dollars are spent.
I recognize fully, as all Members of Congress do, that the key
individual who sets foreign policy is our President. Even though we may
disagree with our President, he does have that priority position. But
there are, obviously, issues on which the Congress has a role in
foreign policy--very significant issues. One of them happens to be the
funding of peacekeeping activities and the role the United States
should play in that. So I have had very serious concerns about our
policies in Sierra Leone specifically--on a number of peacekeeping
activities, but specifically our policies in Sierra Leone. This is
because of a number of issues that have been raised there.
Last year, the United States, regrettably, played a key role in
imposing the Lome Accord on a brutalized Sierra Leone. The accord
granted a total amnesty to the Revolutionary United Front, RUF, which
is basically a gang of thugs that murders, rapes, and mutilates people.
Just about everybody in their path has come under their severe act of
violence. In fact, they actually empower their soldiers--and they are
not really soldiers; many are very young boys--to cut off the arms of
women and children in order to make a point. This is a very common
practice with this alleged military group called RUF, this gang of
thugs. They have been terrorizing the country of Sierra Leone. There is
no question about that. Their leader, Foday Sankoh, and his
lieutenants, as part of the Lome agreement, as part of the
understanding of the Lome agreement--and this is why it was such a
horrendous agreement--were given top spots in the ``transition''
government and guaranteed RUF control over the Sierra Leone diamond
mines, which is basically the core of the element of how they generate
their revenues.
It is inexcusable that we were party to the Lome agreement and that
we therefore empowered these war criminals to take office and to have
control over basically the only significant economic resource of the
country of Sierra Leone. So I was more than upset about this. I
believed it was essentially a surrender in the face of criminal
violence. As a result, I did put a hold --not technically a hold, but I
actually refused to approve a transfer of peacekeeping funds for the
Sierra Leone initiative. I began exploring alternatives to this, what I
believed was an extraordinarily unjust accord. In response to my
concerns, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Holbrooke and his staff took on
the difficult task of crafting a better approach to this issue.
Since my ``hold'' became news, I have been sharply criticized by
some, including some in the U.N. and the State Department, and even--
not even, but not surprisingly, really--the Washington Post, which
recently accused me of ``playing at foreign policy,'' implying that
serious students of world affairs would not question U.S. support for
the Lome Accord. I simply point out that I think a lot of serious
students of foreign policy question the decision to support that
accord.
Meanwhile, in Sierra Leone itself, the RUF, as a result of Lome in
large part, continued to terrorize civilians and even challenge the
U.N. peacekeepers. By last month, the RUF was marching on Freetown in
complete violation of the Lome Accord. In fact, of course, they have
humiliated the U.N. mission in Sierra Leone, which was supposed to
disarm them. It actually ended up being disarmed by them, and much of
the military equipment that is being used there by the RUF is U.N.
equipment taken from U.N. advisers. Thus, the mission of the U.N., as a
result of being an outgrowth of the Lome Accords, which were so
disgraceful, is in disarray. Today, all that stands between the RUF and
total control of Sierra Leone is the British and Nigerian troops who
have come in to try to stabilize the situation.
And what of the U.S. policy? Following our most recent meeting 2
weeks ago, Ambassador Holbrooke has sent me a letter laying out a new
strategy for a more just and lasting approach to peace in Sierra Leone
that gives me some reason for hope. I would like to read from what his
letter says because I think it is an important adjustment in American
policy in Sierra Leone. I congratulate him for it.
First, he notes in his opening paragraph that he has taken this issue
and walked it through the administration and that he has support for
his letter from Secretary Albright, National Security Adviser Berger,
and the head of the OMB, Jack Lew. Reading paragraphs from his letter:

You asked for a letter encapsulating our discussion on
Sierra Leone and Congo. After close consultation with
Secretary Albright, let me review where we stand on each
issue:
First, Sierra Leone. Let me posit five principles that we
will use to govern our policy. First, the United States does
not believe that Foday Sankoh should play any role whatsoever
in the future political process in Sierra Leone, and we will
continue to press this point. He must be held accountable for
his actions.

This is a significant change in policy, in my opinion, and it is a
positive one.

Second, we strongly support the British military presence
in Sierra Leone, which has played a key role in restoring a
measure of stability to Freetown. We are discussing with the
British their continuing role, and on May 23 London announced
an important training program for Sierra Leone army,
something that they will undertake at their own expense
outside the U.N. system.

This, again, is positive news that the British will be a stabilizing
force there, which will be armed and know how to defend itself.

Third, the objective should be to ensure that regional and
international forces in Sierra Leone, together with the armed
forces of the government of Sierra Leone, have the capacity
to disrupt RUF control of Sierra Leone's diamond producing
areas, the main source of RUF income. Completely eliminating
them as a military force is not likely to be possible as an
acceptable cost, but sharply reducing their sources of
financial support and restricting their capability to
threaten the people or government of Sierra Leone is within
reach of sufficient numbers of properly trained, equipped,
and well-led troops and is vitally important.

That is to paraphrase a much more robust mission directive and
portfolio and is exactly what needs to be done.

The most likely nations to carry the burden would be
Nigeria and Ghana, with the backing of other ECOWAS states.
Other nations who are already rushing troops to Sierra Leone
include India, Jordan and Bangladesh. Most potential troop
contributors from the region are likely to require better
equipment and training if they are to contribute
meaningfully. Pentagon and EUCOM assessment teams are
studying the issue urgently. If our objectives are to be
accomplished, the U.S. will need to be ready, with
congressional support and funding, to provide our share of
international effort to provide equipment and training to
those who are willing to do the military job--including the
government of Sierra Leone and other countries in the region.
Any direct training of contributing country troops by U.S.
military personnel would be done outside Sierra Leone and no
U.S. combat troops would be deployed to Sierra Leone. We will
have to work out the relationships between such an operation
and the UN, recognizing that for many countries a UN role is
preferable--but we must ensure that the mandate is robust.
Fourth, since there is virtually no real government structure
left in Sierra Leone, if the security situation can be
stabilized a longer term international effort will be needed
to help build viable institutions in Sierra Leone. It will
take time, but in the long run, the rest of the effort will
be unsuccessful if it is not accompanied by this component.

[[Page 9476]]

However, this cannot start until the situation is stabilized,
and there is no present funding request for this function.
Fifth (this is a point I failed to mention in our meeting) we
must develop a corresponding political strategy for dealing
appropriately with Liberia's President, Charles Taylor, and
with the illicit diamond trade that fuels conflict and
criminality in the region.

That is a reading of two of the major paragraphs in this letter.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Representative of the United States of America to the
United Nations,
May 30, 2000.
Hon. Judd Gregg,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Allow me to thank you again for your
courtesy and for our exchange of views on peacekeeping
issues. I know the Secretary also appreciates your discussion
with her on May 20, and I would like to follow up on both
conversations. I have shared our discussions with Secretary
Albright, Sandy Berger, and Jack Lew, all of whom expressed
their appreciation of your decision to release the funds for
Kosovo and for your readiness to meet with the Australian
Ambassador to resolve the East Timor peacekeeping ``hold.''
You asked for a letter encapsulating our discussion on
Sierra Leone and Congo. After close consultation with
Secretary Albright, let me review where we stand on each
issue:
First, Sierra Leone. Let me posit five principles that we
will use to govern our policy. First, the United States does
not believe that Foday Sankoh should play any role whatsoever
in the future political process in Sierra Leone, and we will
continue to press this point. He must be held accountable for
his actions. Second, we strongly support the British military
presence in Sierra Leone, which has played a key role in
restoring a measure of stability to Freetown. We are
discussing with the British their continuing role, and on May
23 London announced an important training program for the
Sierra Leone army, something that they will undertake at
their own expense outside the UN system. Third, the objective
should be to ensure that regional and international forces in
Sierra Leone, together with the armed forces of the
Government of Sierra Leone, have the capacity to disrupt RUF
control of Sierra Leone's diamond producing areas, the main
source of RUF income. Completely eliminating them as a
military force is not likely to be possible at an acceptable
cost, but sharply reducing their sources of financial support
and restricting their capability to threaten the people or
Government of Sierra Leone is within reach of sufficient
numbers of properly trained, equipped, and well-led troops
and is vitally important.
The most likely nations to carry the burden would be
Nigeria and Ghana, with the backing of other ECOWAS states.
Other nations who are already rushing troops to Sierra Leone
include India, Jordan and Bangladesh. Most potential troop
contributors from the region are likely to require better
equipment and training if they are to contribute
meaningfully. Pentagon and EUCOM assessment teams are
studying the issue urgently. If our objectives are to be
accomplished, the U.S. will need to be ready, with
congressional support and funding, to provide our share of an
international effort to provide equipment and training to
those who are willing to do the military job--including the
governments of Sierra Leone and other countries in the
region. Any direct training of contributing country troops by
U.S. military personnel would be done outside Sierra Leone
and no U.S. combat troops would be deployed to Sierra Leone.
We will have to work out the relationship between such an
operation and the UN, recognizing that for many countries a
UN role is preferable--but we must ensure that the mandate is
robust. Fourth, since there is virtually no real government
structure left in Sierra Leone, if the security situation can
be stabilized a longer term international effort will be
needed to help build viable institutions in Sierra Leone. It
will take time, but in the long run, the rest of the effort
will be unsuccessful if it is not accompanied by this
component. However, this cannot start until the situation is
stabilized, and there is no present funding request for this
function. Fifth (this is a point I failed to mention in our
meeting) we must develop a corresponding political strategy
for dealing appropriately with Liberia's President, Charles
Taylor, and with the illicit diamond trade that fuels
conflict and criminality in the region.
On the Congo, the problems are still daunting, but there
has been some real movement since I first discussed this
issue with you in late February:
(A) On May 4, in my presence, the Kabila Government signed
the Status of Forces Agreement with the UN--an essential
precondition for any UN deployment;
(B) Kabila has said he would accept South African troops;
(C) The Lusaka parties signed a new cease-fire agreement
effective April 14, calming the situation on the ground
considerably;
(D) The UN Security Council Mission negotiated on May 8 a
cease-fire between the Ugandans and Rwandans who were
fighting in Kisangani (Congo's third largest, and perhaps
most strategic, city); Regional leaders subsequently secured
agreement between Rwanda and Uganda on a detailed
disengagement plan;
(E) The Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda asked for immediate
UN assistance in support of demilitarizing Kisangani;
(F) All the parties to the war in the Congo have asked for
the UN observer mission as soon as possible to implement the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement;
(G) The South Africans sent a high-level military mission
in New York to discuss their role in Congo, and the
Pakistanis (among others) are about to send troops. The South
Africans met with a joint State Pentagon-NSC team to discuss
close coordination.
Of course, not all the news from Congo is positive. While
progressing, the political dialogue called for by Lusaka is
off to a slow start; the UN and the OAU military observer
missions have not meshed sufficiently; some of the rebels
still violate the cease-fire on occasion; and there are many
other lesser problems. Still there is a real desire for some
resolution to these issues by most parties. What is required
next is a step-by-step test of their commitments to implement
their own ``African agreement for an African problem.'' This
is one of our highest priorities.
As we both said to you, neither the Secretary nor I are
certain that Lusaka will succeed. But we are certain that
Lusaka will fail if the UN does not take the next series of
steps to support it, as called for by all parties. The recent
progress supports this view, I believe.
For the United States, this will require the unblocking of
$41 million of reprogrammed peacekeeping funds for the
current fiscal year for Congo. We believe that this request
does not put our national prestige on the line; it is a UN
operation (with no U.S. troops in the UN operation). However,
if we do not pay our share, we are concerned that the UN will
be unable to bring in adequate and properly equipped troops,
and the resulting failure of the mission will be attributed,
however unfairly, to the United States.
Our arrears on the current operation in Sierra Leone limit
our ability to promote effectively the critical policy
objectives outlined in this letter. More broadly, failure to
pay our share of these missions risks seriously undermining
our all-out effort to carry the Helms-Biden reform package,
on which we are making real progress. You will note several
recent news articles regarding our forward movement on a wide
range of issues, including the admission of Israel to a UN
regional grouping (after 40 years!), the new GAO report that
shows UN progress, and the first debate in 27 years on
revising the UN peacekeeping scale. All this forward movement
will greatly benefit from your support and I thank you for
your thoughtful involvement in this process.
I hope this letter is responsive to your request. If I can
be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me or my colleagues in the State Department.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Holbrooke.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this letter obviously, in my opinion, is a
very positive step in the redirection of American policy in Sierra
Leone. I congratulate Ambassador Holbrooke for organizing the letter.
Whereas the Article V and IX of the Lome Accord granted Foday Sankoh
the Vice Presidency of Sierra Leone and an ``absolute and free
pardon,'' Ambassador Holbrooke's plan makes it clear that Foday Sankoh
can play no role in the politics or government of Sierra Leone and that
``he must be held accountable for his actions.'' This when as late as a
month ago State Department officials were still being quoted as saying
that Sankoh's ``voice was positive'' and that he ``has a chance to play
a positive role.'' Now, we will recognize him for what he is, a war
criminal, and treat him as such.
Whereas Annex 1 and Articles V and VII of the Lome Accord left Foday
Sankoh and the RUF in control of Sierra Leone's diamonds, Ambassador
Holbrooke's plan rightly strips Sankoh of his chairmanship of the
diamond control board and insists that ``allied'' forces ``have the
capacity to disrupt RUF control of Sierra Leone's diamond producing
areas, the main source of RUF income.'' Under Lome, peacekeepers did no
more than oversee the looting of Sierra Leone. Now, international
troops will fight alongside local forces to expel the RUF from the
diamond fields.
Whereas the Lome Accord was silent on root causes of violence in
Sierra

[[Page 9477]]

Leone and the region, Ambassador Holbrooke's plan seeks a ``political
strategy for dealing appropriately with Liberia's President, Charles
Taylor, and with the illicit diamond trade that fuels conflict and
criminality in the region.'' The RUF is in large part Taylor's proxy.
Under Lome, Taylor's success in seizing the riches of Sierra Leone
could invite a similar attack on Guinea.
Lome is dead. The U.S. will not turn a blind eye to the rape of a
people and a land. We will demand that brutal thugs are held
accountable for their atrocities, and regional trouble-makers.
Why the change? I do not flatter myself that my ``hold'' did all of
this, but it did give those of us who opposed the Lome Accord a chance
to right a terrible wrong. And to his credit, Ambassador Holbrooke has
crafted a forceful plan, and vetted it through the inter-agency process
in record time. It is a plan that I believe Americans can and should
support, and can be proud of.
Therefore, I am releasing my hold on the $50,000,000 owed the U.N.
for peacekeeping in Sierra Leone. I will also press ahead to ensure
that my provision blocking the illicit sale of diamonds from Sierra
Leone and other war-torn countries is included in the final version of
the fiscal year 2001 military construction appropriations bill.
Finally, I look forward to working with Ambassador Holbrooke and his
staff to ensure that the strategy laid out in his letter is supported
by Congress.
I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Idaho for his courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, thank you very much.

____________________

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I appear on the floor to speak about a
provision of the Constitution of our country that has been under nearly
constant attack for 8 years. In fact, we heard on the floor this
morning two Senators speak about provisions in law that would alter a
constitutional right.
The provision I am talking about is part of our Bill of Rights--the
first 10 amendments to our Constitution--which protect our most basic
rights from being stripped away by an overly zealous government,
including rights that all Americans hold dear:
The freedom to worship according to one's conscience;
The freedom to speak or to write whatever we might think;
The freedom to criticize our Government;
And, the freedom to assemble peacefully.
Among the safeguards of these fundamental rights, we find the Second
Amendment. Let me read it clearly:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.

I want to repeat that.
The second amendment of our Constitution says very clearly that ``A
well regulated Militia'' is ``necessary'' for the ``security of a free
State,'' and that ``the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.''
What we heard this morning was an effort to infringe upon that right.
Some--even of my colleagues--will read what I have just quoted from
our Constitution quite differently. They might read ``A well regulated
Militia,'' and stop there and declare that ``the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms'' actually means that it is a right of our
Government to keep and bear arms because they associate the militia
with the government. Yet, under this standard, the Bill of Rights would
protect only the right of a government to speak, or the right of a
government to criticize itself, if you were taking that same argument
and transposing it over the first amendment. In fact, the Bill of
Rights protects the rights of people from being infringed upon by
Government--not the other way around.
Of course, we know that our Founding Fathers in their effort to
ratify the Constitution could not convince the citizens to accept it
until the Bill of Rights was established to assure the citizenry that
we were protecting the citizens from Government instead of government
from the citizens.
Others say that the Second Amendment merely protects hunting and
sport shooting. They see shooting competitions and hunting for food as
the only legitimate uses of guns, and, therefore, conclude that the
Second Amendment is no impediment to restricting gun use to those
purposes.
You can hear it in the way President Clinton assures hunters that his
gun control proposals that will not trample on recreation--though his
proposals certainly walk all over their rights.
In fact, the Second Amendment does not merely protect sport shooting
and hunting, though it certainly does that.
Nor does the second amendment exist to protect the government's right
to bear arms.
The framers of our Constitution wrote the Second Amendment with a
greater purpose.
They made the Second Amendment the law of the land because it has
something very particular to say about the rights of every man and
every woman, and about the relationship of every man and every woman to
his or her Government. That is: The first right of every human being,
the right of self-defense.
Let me repeat that: The first right of every human being is the right
of self-defense. Without that right, all other rights are meaningless.
The right of self-defense is not something the government bestows upon
its citizens. It is an inalienable right, older than the Constitution
itself. It existed prior to government and prior to the social contract
of our Constitution. It is the right that government did not create and
therefore it is a right that under our Constitution the government
simply cannot take away. The framers of our Constitution understood
this clearly. Therefore, they did not merely acknowledge that the right
exists. They denied Congress the power to infringe upon that right.
Under the social contract that is the Constitution of the United
States, the American people have told Congress explicitly that we do
not have the authority to abolish the American people's right to defend
themselves. Further, the framers said not only does the Congress not
have the power to abolish that right, but Congress may not even
infringe upon that right. That is what our Constitution says. That is
what the Second Amendment clearly lays out. Our Founding Fathers wrote
the Second Amendment to tell us that a free state cannot exist if the
people are denied the right or the means to defend themselves.
Let me repeat that because it is so fundamental to our freedom. A
free state cannot exist, our free state of the United States
collectively, cannot exist without the right of the people to defend
themselves. This is the meaning of the Second Amendment. Over the years
a lot of our citizens and many politicians have tried to nudge that
definition around. But contrary to what the media and the President
say, the right to keep and bear arms is as important today as it was
200 years ago.
Every day in this country thousands of peaceful, law-abiding
Americans use guns to defend themselves, their families, and their
property. Oftentimes, complete strangers are protected by that citizen
who steps up and stops the thief or the stalker or the rapist or the
murderer from going at that citizen.
According to the FBI, criminals used guns in 1998 380,000 times
across America. Yet research indicates that peaceful, law-abiding
Americans, using their constitutional right, used a gun to prevent 2.5
million crimes in America that year and nearly every year. In fact, I
believe the benefits of protecting the people's right to keep and bear
arms far outweighs the destruction wrought by criminals and firearms
accidents. The Centers for Disease Control report 32,000 Americans died
from firearm injuries in 1997; under any estimate, that is a tragedy.
Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control do not keep data on the
number of lives that were saved when guns were used in a defensive
manner.

[[Page 9478]]

Yet if we were to survey the public every year, we would find 400,000
Americans report they used a gun in a way that almost certainly saved
either their life or someone else's. Is that estimate too high?
Perhaps. I hope it is, because every time a life is saved from
violence, that means that someone was threatening a life with violence.
But that number would have to be over 13 times too high for our
opponents to be correct when they say that guns are used to kill more
often than they are used to protect. What they have been saying here
and across America simply isn't true and the facts bear that out.
We are not debating the tragedy. We are debating facts at this
moment. They cannot come up with 2.5 million gun crimes. But clearly,
through surveys, we can come up with 2.5 million crimes thwarted every
year when someone used a gun in defense of themselves or their
property. In many cases, armed citizens not only thwarted crime, but
they held the suspect until the authorities arrived and placed that
person in custody.
Stories of people defending themselves with guns do not make the
nightly news. It just simply isn't news in America. It isn't hot. It
isn't exciting. It is American. Sometimes when people act in an
American way, it simply isn't reportable in our country anymore. So the
national news media doesn't follow it.
Yet two of the school shootings that have brought gun issues to the
forefront in the last year, in Pearl, MS, and Edinboro, PA, were
stopped by peaceful gun owners using their weapons to subdue the killer
until the police arrived. How did that get missed in the story? It was
mentioned once, in passing, and then ignored as people ran to the floor
of the Senate to talk about the tragedy of the killing. Of course the
killing was a tragedy, but it was also heroic that someone used their
constitutional right to save lives in the process.
A third school shooting in Springfield, OR, was stopped because some
parents took time to teach their child the wise use of guns. So when
that young man heard a particular sound coming from the gun, he was
able to rush the shooter, because he knew that gun had run out of
ammunition. He was used to guns. He was around them. He subdued the
shooter and saved potentially many other lives. We have recognized him
nationally for that heroic act, that young high school student of
Springfield, OR.
For some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never
want to tell these stories. They only want to say, after a crisis such
as this, ``Pass a new gun control law and call 9-1-1.'' Yet these
stories are essential to our understanding of the right of people to
keep and bear arms.
I will share a few of these stories right now. Shawnra Pence, a 29-
year-old mother from Sequim, WA, home alone with one of her children,
heard an intruder break into the house. She took her .9 mm, took her
child to the bedroom, and when the 18-year-old criminal broke into the
bedroom, she said, ``Get out of my house, I have a gun, get out now.''
He left and the police caught him. She saved her life and her child's
life. It made one brief story in the Peninsula Daily news in Sequim,
WA.
We have to talk about these stories because it is time America heard
the other side of this debate. There are 2.5 million Americans out
there defending themselves and their property by the use of their
constitutional right.
In Cumberland, TN, a 28-year-old Jason McCulley broke into the home
of Stanley Horn and his wife, tied up the couple at knife-point, and
demanded to know where the couple kept some cash. While Mrs. Horn was
directing the robber, Mr. Horn wriggled free from his restraints,
retrieved his handgun, shot the intruder, and then called the police.
The intruder, Jason McCulley, subsequently died. If some Senators on
the other side of the aisle had their way, perhaps the Horns would have
been killed and Jason McCulley would have walked away.
Earlier today, we heard the Senator from Illinios and the Senator
from California read the names people killed by guns in America. Some
day they may read the name Jason McCulley. I doubt they will tell you
how he died, however, because it doesn't advance their goal of
destroying the Second Amendment. But As Paul Harvey might say: Now you
know the rest of the story.
Every 13 seconds this story is repeated across America. Every 13
seconds in America someone uses a gun to stop a crime. Why do our
opponents never tell these stories? Why do the enemies of the right to
keep and bear arms ignore this reality that is relived by 2.5 million
Americans every year? Why is it that all we hear from them is, ``Pass a
new gun control law, and, by the way, call 9-1-1.''
I encourage all listening today, if you have heard of someone using
their Second Amendment rights to prevent a crime, to save a life, to
protect another life, then send us your story. There are people here
who desperately need to hear this in Washington, right here on Capitol
Hill. This is a story that should be played out every day in the press
but isn't. So let's play it out, right here on the floor of the Senate.
Send me those stories from your local newspapers about that law-abiding
citizen who used his constitutional right of self-defense. Send that
story to me, Senator Larry Craig, Washington, DC, 20510, or send it to
your own Senator. Let him or her know the rest of the story of
America's constitutional rights.
I ask unanimous consent to proceed for one more moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG. Having said all of this, let there be no mistake. Guns are
not for everyone. We restrict children's access to guns and we restrict
criminals' access to guns, but we must not tolerate politicians who
tell us that the Second Amendment only protects the right to hunt. We
must not tolerate politicians who infringe upon our right to defend
ourselves from thieves and stalkers and rapists and murderers. And we
must not tolerate the politician who simply says: ``Pass another gun
control law and call 9-1-1.''
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be recognized
for 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, with great respect to my colleague from
Idaho, and I did not come to the floor of the Senate to talk about
this, let me say when any of my colleagues stand up and talk about gun
control issues that the minority wishes to pursue--let me explain in a
sentence or so what we are trying to do. It is not to restrict the
opportunity of anyone in this country who has the right to own a gun.
We are trying to close the gun show loophole to prevent convicted
felons from getting a gun.
Go to a gun store to buy a gun in this country and you must run your
name through an instant check because we do not want convicted felons
to have weapons. They cannot, by law, possess weapons. Go to a gun
store and you have to run your name through an instant check. If it
comes up that you are a convicted felon, you do not get the gun. But go
to a gun show on a Saturday morning as a convicted felon and buy a gun
and you do not have to have your name checked against anything. Go get
your gun at a gun show, if you are a convicted felon and want a weapon.
We are trying to close that loophole.
Every American should support closing that loophole and should
support it now. That does not affect any law-abiding citizen's right to
own a gun. All it does is says let's keep guns out of the hands of
felons. No one in this Chamber should believe convicted felons ought to
be able to go into a gun show and gain access to a weapon they are not
by law entitled to have.
I did not come to the floor to speak about that, but I did want to
respond to the pejorative suggestion that people on this side of the
aisle want to injure the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess
weapons. That is just wrong. We are trying to close a loophole that
every American ought to support closing--to keep felons from getting
guns.

____________________

[[Page 9479]]

INTERSTATE PRISONER TRANSFERS

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a picture of a man named Kyle
Bell. This brutal criminal killed Jeanna North, an 11-year-old girl
from Fargo, ND.
After being convicted and imprisoned, Kyle Bell escaped. How did he
escape? When North Dakota authorities were going to transport him to a
prison out of State for safekeeping, a prison in the State of Oregon,
they contracted with a private company called TransCor to haul him
there. As he was being transported across the country by bus with a
dozen or more other prisoners, this child killer escaped. While stopped
at a gas station, two guards with this private company were sleeping;
another was apparently buying a cheeseburger. Kyle Bell went out
through the top of the bus and this child killer walked away.
When I discovered what had happened, I thought to myself, that cannot
be. We are turning child killers over to private companies to be
transported across the country? But it is true. Then I discovered the
record of these companies. You can be a retired sheriff and call your
brother-in-law and say: Let's buy a mini van and let's go into the
business of transporting criminals. In fact, in one state, a man and
his wife showed up with a little mini van to pick up five convicted
murderers. The warden of the penitentiary said: You have to be kidding
me. They weren't kidding. That is who the State hired to transport
these murderers. And of course the murderers escaped in short order.
What I have discovered is we have private companies being hired by
State and local governments to transport violent criminals around the
country, and those companies have no requirement to meet any standards
at all. That doesn't make any sense.
I have introduced a piece of legislation I call Jeanna's Bill that
says if any local or State government is going to contract with a
private company to haul a violent criminal, they must meet some basic
standards. They must meet some regulations. If you haul toxic waste,
you must meet regulations. Haul cattle, you must meet regulations. Haul
circus animals, you must meet regulations. But some of our States and
local governments are willing to turn killers over to private companies
who have no such standards to meet at all.
I received a letter in the last few days from the Governor of Nevada.
I want to say I pass him my compliments. The Governor of Nevada was
sending a convicted murderer named James Prestridge to North Dakota for
safekeeping under the Prisoners Exchange Agreement. Mr. Prestridge,
along with another fellow convicted of armed robbery, was being hauled
to North Dakota by a company that is called Extraditions International.
Mr. Prestridge, this convicted murderer, escaped, as did John Doran,
an armed robber. Mr. Doran was found just south of the Mexican border
with a bullet through his brain, and Mr. Prestridge was recently
apprehended. I wrote to the Governor of Nevada and said: I hope if you
still intend to send this convicted murderer to North Dakota you will
do it through the U.S. Marshals Service. They will haul violent
offenders anywhere across this country for a flat fee and they don't
lose them.
I got a letter back from the Governor of Nevada. He said:

In response to your request that Nevada stop using private
transport companies, please be advised our prison system has
ceased its business relationship with Extraditions
International and that all of this State's out of state
inmate transfers are now being staffed by our prison system.

Good for him. He said, incidentally, Mr. Prestridge is now not going
to be sent to North Dakota. Good for us.
But good for him that he changed the policy. In our State, in the
most recent days, the company that let this fellow go, the company
whose negligence allowed a convicted child killer to walk away and
evade authorities for some months, settled with the State for $50,000.
The State sent them a bill for $102,000 and the company said: We won't
pay it. We'd pay you $50,000. And then the State says this company is a
pretty good company and we will use them again.
My State is making a mistake, in my judgment. I would like every
State to make a decision when they are going to transport violent
criminals around this country, do it with law enforcement officials, do
it with the U.S. Marshals Service. They will do it for a flat fee and
then some American family won't have to worry that, when they pull up
at a gas station, next to them at the pump is a mini van with two
inexperienced folks hauling three murderers. What is that about, in
terms of public safety?
It seems to me we ought to have enough common sense in this country
when we have convicted someone of killing children, when we have
convicted someone of murder or violent crimes, at least we ought not to
turn them into the arms of someone inexperienced in the private sector,
a company that has to meet no standards at all with which to transport
them. That doesn't make any sense to me.
So I say to the Governor of Nevada: Good for you. It is the right
decision. I would say to our State: Change your mind. Decide this
company should not haul violent offenders in North Dakota and that when
you are going to transport a violent offender, the U.S. Marshals
Service ought to be used to do it.
I say to every State official across this country: Until we get in
place basic standards these companies must meet, you ought not use them
for transporting violent offenders. Were I a chief executive of a
State, I would not use them anyway because I do not think people who
kill children, as in the case of Kyle Bell, ought to be turned over to
anyone other than law enforcement authorities to transport them to
another place of incarceration.

____________________

SANCTIONS ON EXPORT OF FOOD AND MEDICINE

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to speak about an issue that is of
great importance to my State and to all agricultural producers around
the country. That is the issue of the sanctions on food and medicine
that now exist in our relationships with some countries around the
world.
Our country has been in the habit of saying: We don't like certain
countries, we don't like the way they behave, so we are going to slap
economic sanctions on these countries and we have included sanctions on
the shipment of food and medicine. So countries such as Libya, Iran,
Cuba, North Korea, and others, are in a circumstance of having economic
sanctions enacted against them to punish them, and we have included in
those sanctions food and medicine.
A group of us are trying to change that. We do not think it is the
moral thing to do. What is this country doing, saying to others that we
will not allow them to have access to food and medicine? Taking aim at
dictators and hurting poor people, sick people, and hungry people is
hardly something about which we ought to be proud. This is not a moral
policy.
I come from a farm State, so I care about having access to these
markets as well. I admit that. Aside from the market side of this,
which is important--after all, these countries against whom we have
sanctions on food and medicine represent almost 11 percent of the
world's wheat markets, and we have said to our farmers: By the way, 11
percent of the world's wheat market is off limits to you. Why? Because
we decided we do not like these countries and we are going to make them
pay a price. Part of the price we are going to exact is the ability for
them to access food and medicine from the United States.
Of course, other countries access it from Canada, Europe, or others.
We are the country that decides to withhold food and medicine from
these countries.
Last year, we had a vote in the Senate on that. Senator Ashcroft, I,
and many others who pushed to repeal the sanction on food and medicine
won

[[Page 9480]]

with 70 out of 100 votes. We were hijacked by the House of
Representatives in conference. I was one of the conferees. They just
flat out hijacked us. When it was clear to them we were going to win
the issue in conference, they adjourned the conference, never to see
them again, and they stripped the provision.
I offered the same provision in the Senate Appropriations Committee,
and it is now in the Agriculture appropriations bill. That is coming to
the floor of the Senate. We have 70 Senators who said they think it is
wrong to continue sanctions on food and medicine. The message in the
Senate is: Stop using food as a weapon. It is the right message.
There are a lot of people in the House of Representatives who
apparently are willing to do that except for Cuba; Cuba is a special
case, and they will not withdraw sanctions on food and medicine with
respect to Cuba. In fact, that is what derailed it last year.
I am one person, but I tell my colleagues that I am not going to
allow, to the extent I can prevent it, the hijacking of this issue
again this year by just two or three people who decide they are going
to strip this provision and then have the House and Senate deal with
the broader appropriations issues that do not include this provision.
We have spent a lot of time on this issue. This country is wrong in
applying sanctions with respect to food and medicine shipments to
countries such as Cuba. Yes, Cuba.
I was in Cuba last year. I have no truck with the Castro government.
I think the Cuban government and its economic system have collapsed.
But the sanctions that exist with respect to this country's actions
against Cuba have represented Fidel Castro's greatest excuse to the
Cuban people. He says: Of course my economy does not work; of course my
country is in trouble. The United States has had its fist around our
neck for 40 years.
It is Fidel Castro's greatest excuse, in my judgment, for an economic
system that has failed Cuba. It does not make sense, in my judgment,
for us to exact a penalty on the Cuban people, on poor people, on
hungry people, and on sick people in Cuba, in North Korea, and
elsewhere to continue these absurd sanctions on food and medicine.
We can have a broader discussion at some other time about whether the
embargo that exists with Cuba ought to be lifted. That is a different
subject, a broader subject. Incidentally, I have strong feelings about
that as well. This is a narrower issue: Do we believe it appropriate to
continue sanctions with respect to the shipment of food and medicine to
countries such as Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and others? The answer ought
to be a resounding no.
My colleague, Senator Slade Gorton from the State of Washington, is
in the Chamber. He was a cosponsor of this in the Senate Appropriations
Committee. He, I, and John Ashcroft have issued a statement that says
to all within hearing distance that if you think you are going to
hijack this issue again this year, think again, because we have 70
votes in the Senate that say we ought not use food and medicine as a
weapon, and we intend to insist this year that we prevail on this
issue.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but the statement we issued is
pretty self-explanatory. I am here to give fair warning to those who
want to do what they did last year that it is going to be a pretty
difficult proposition if they intend to hijack this issue. We have the
votes. Vote on it in the Senate, and it will pass by an overwhelming
margin. Allow a vote in the House, and it will pass by an overwhelming
margin. The only way those who want to defeat this proposition because
it contains Cuba--which is an irrational position, for those who think
through this a little bit--the only way they can possibly defeat it is
to try to use some hijinks in the process to avoid an up-or-down vote.
I and others intend to see we have a full opportunity to have votes
in the House and the Senate on it. If the House leadership does what it
did last year, I say to them: Fair warning, I am going to be here on
the floor of the Senate objecting to a whole series of things. We need
to straighten this out now. This country, at this time, on this issue,
says we will no longer use sanctions with respect to the shipment of
food and medicine. It does not work, it is not a moral policy, and it
ought to stop now.
I yield the floor.

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, morning business is
concluded.

____________________

RECESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, at 12:47 p.m., the Senate recessed until 2:30 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the President
pro tempore.

____________________

SENATE PHOTOGRAPH

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could ask our colleagues to take their
seats, then we will begin a series of photographs. Please, stay in
place until we are given the all-clear sign. If you can go ahead and be
seated, we will be able to determine exactly which Senators may still
be missing.

____________________

STEVE BENZA

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as we prepare to have this photograph taken,
I note that the Senate photographer, who has been with the Senate some
32 years, Steve Benza, is preparing to retire. Steve started out as a
page. He worked in the Architect's Office. He worked in the Senate Post
Office. He worked in the photo lab. And for years he has taken
photographs of us in various and sundry places, some of which we would
not like to recount but we will remember warmly.
I ask my colleagues, before we begin these series of photographs, to
express our appreciation to Steve Benza for his 32 years of service to
the institution.
[Applause.]
(Thereupon, the official Senate photograph was taken.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Would the Chair kindly advise the Senate with regard to
the pending business.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is consideration of the
Defense authorization bill, S. 2549, which the clerk will report.
Mr. WARNER. I am ready to proceed.
I ask my distinguished friend and colleague from Michigan if he is
likewise ready to go.
Mr. LEVIN. We are indeed. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes.

Amendment No. 3173

(Purpose: To extend eligibility for medical care under CHAMPUS and
TRICARE to persons over age 64)

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

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry,
Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment
numbered 3173.

Mr. WARNER. 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:

Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert the following:

[[Page 9481]]

SEC. 701. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE
ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section
1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance
program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.);
and
``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is
entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A)
or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)(2))
or section 226A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(a)).''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1) who
satisfy only the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (2), but not subparagraph (C) of such
paragraph,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(2) who do not satisfy the condition specified in
subparagraph (A) of such paragraph''.
(b) Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration
Program.--Paragraph (4) of section 1896(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking
``3-year period beginning on January 1, 1998'' and inserting
``period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December
31, 2002''.
(c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendments made by subsection
(a) shall take effect on October 1, 2001.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. WARNER. This is an amendment relating to the change in the
existing military medical program to, in the future, encompass retirees
over age 65. I shall address this later, and I am sure the Senator from
Michigan is aware I would like to have that as the first amendment up.
That was my understanding.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will withhold on any unanimous consent
request relative to that, I am trying to see if we have been informed
of it. Of course, the Senator has a right to offer it.
Mr. WARNER. I am not able to hear my colleague.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder, is this the amendment to which
the Senator made reference this morning?
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent request pending
now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.
Mr. LEVIN. I believe the only request either pending, or perhaps
already granted, is to withhold reading of the amendment. Is that
correct?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. Is my understanding correct that this amendment will be
set aside temporarily for opening statements to be given?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Does the Democratic whip desire to be recognized?
Mr. REID. No.
Mr. WARNER. This amendment was shared beforehand with my colleague
from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I don't know of any understanding, but the
chairman has a right, of course, to offer an amendment. We just
understand that this amendment now is to be temporarily laid aside so
the opening statements can be given. The Senator has a right to offer
an amendment at any time he wishes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is the amendment about which I spoke
on the floor earlier this morning. I think colleagues have had an
opportunity to inform themselves about it. It is my hope that a number
will desire to be cosponsors. We have a number of cosponsors right now.
This amendment relates to the continuing work of the Armed Services
Committee with regard to the necessity to provide a health care program
for retirees over 65. As the Presiding Officer well knows, the
committee has addressed this in several increments, and now with
another amendment by the Senator from Virginia, which I offer on behalf
of many. I want to recognize that this is a subject that has quite
properly gained the attention of a number of colleagues. I know Senator
McCain, on our side of the aisle, and Senator Hutchison have worked on
this subject of health care. In no way do I indicate that anyone--
certainly not myself--has been the principal; we have all worked
together as a team. And at such appropriate time, I will return to this
amendment.
I want to make some opening comments now regarding this very
important piece of legislation. This bill contains the much-needed
increases in defense funding and critical initiatives, including in the
area of recruiting and retention. Retention is one of the most serious
problems we have facing us today in our current military, as well as
recruiting. This bill, in the collective judgment of the committee,
goes a long way toward helping to alleviate the problems we have and to
improve those critical areas in our defense.
It is most appropriate that we begin this discussion today, on June
6, the 56th anniversary of D-Day. Today, America recalls the heroic
acts of bravery and valor demonstrated on the beaches of France and the
many who paid the price in life and limb for liberty and freedom. And
how proud we are, as the Senate, to have as the President pro tempore
the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond,
among us. He, of course, crossed the beaches of D-Day 56 years ago. He
addressed the Senate earlier today on that subject.
As we look to the future and the defense of this Nation, we must
never forget what may be required, and indeed what was required, of so
many--over 1,400 American servicemen, not to speak of our allies; they
had casualties also. But 1,400 American servicemen died on June 6,
1944, on the beaches of France, and thousands more were wounded. They
did it to restore freedom to so many nations and people all through
Europe--freedom that had been taken away by Hitler and the Axis forces.
I begin by expressing my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Levin.
We came to the Senate together 21 years ago. We have worked as partners
on this bill and have produced a bipartisan product that will
strengthen the security of the United States, in the collective
judgment of all members of the Armed Services Committee, and improve
the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and, most
especially, for their families.
I also applaud our subcommittee chairmen, ranking members, and all
members of the Committee for their fine work throughout this year. I
will put in the Record elsewhere the volume of hearings, special
meetings, the prolonged markup sessions that led to the work product
for which we labored in the Senate today.
A special thanks to our committee staff. What a superb professional
staff--not only this year and last year, but throughout the 22 years I
have been privileged to be on this committee. Under many distinguished
chairmen and ranking members, we have had the most nonpartisan and the
hardest-working staff in the Senate. I salute Colonel Les Brownlee,
David Lyles, and the personal staff of the committee members for their
invaluable work which led to the creation of this bill.
I appeal to all Members to join us in our bipartisan effort to
improve our security. The safety and well-being of our men and women in
uniform, thousands of whom are deployed at this very moment in harm's
way across this world, should not fall victim to any partisan debate
and certainly no election year politics. We have done that in the past.
I hope we will not do it on this bill and in the future.
We should keep in mind that Members of the Senate have always
recognized the importance of the annual Defense authorization bill, and
in the past we have put our partisan concerns aside for the good of the
Nation. I remind colleagues that the Senate has passed a Defense
authorization bill every year since the authorization process began in
1961, some nearly 40 years. The House this year had a strong,
resounding vote of 353 yeas to 100-some-odd nays. So that is a clear
indication of the strength of the House and the Senate bills and the
need for these bills to be brought into law.

[[Page 9482]]

At this time of increased tension around the world, at this time of
unprecedented deployments of U.S. military personnel around the globe,
we must show our support for our troops. Accordingly, I urge all
Members to abstain from offering nondefense-related amendments and to
join in a bipartisan effort to pass this Defense authorization bill, to
send a strong signal of support to our brave troops, wherever they are
in the world, for risking their lives at the very moment we address
this legislation, risking to safeguard freedom of our allies, our
friends, and indeed those of us here at home. The problems and the
threats facing the home front have increased to where they are greater
today than I ever envisioned in my life.
The national security challenges that the United States will face in
the new millennium are many and diverse--new adversaries, unknown
adversaries, new weapons, and unknown weapons. A very complex threat
faces us at home and our forces forward deployed. It is important that
we remain vigilant, forward thinking, and prepared to address these
challenges.
Just days ago the National Commission on Terrorism, established by
Congress in 1998, issued its report, ``Countering the Changing Threat
of International Terrorism''. I would like to quote from the Report's
executive summary: ``Today's terrorists seek to inflict mass
causalities, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on
American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship and are,
instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious
or ideological--regrettably I have to use that word, ``a common
hatred''--affinity and a common hatred of the United States. This makes
terrorist attacks more difficult to detect and prevent.'' We must be
prepared to respond to this threat and I look forward to reviewing the
numerous recommendations contained within the report which we may
address in the course of the deliberations on this bill.
While the Department of Defense (DOD) must plan and allocate
resources to meet future threats, ongoing military operations and
deployments from the Balkans to Southwest Asia to East Timor continue
to demand significant resources in the short term and the foreseeable
future.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
authorizes a total of $309.8 billion for defense spending--$4.5 billion
above the President's request--and provides authority and guidance to
the Defense Department to address the critical readiness,
modernization, and recruiting and retention problems facing our
military.
For over a decade, our defense budgets have been based on constrained
funding, not on the threats facing the nation or the military strategy
necessary to meet those threats. The result of this is evident today in
continuing critical problems with recruiting and retention, declining
readiness ratings, and aging equipment.
Last year, the Congress reversed the downward trend in defense
spending by approving a defense authorization bill which, for the first
time in 14 years, included a real increase in the authorized level of
defense spending. This year, we continue that momentum with the bill
before the Senate the second year of increased authorization levels. As
I stated earlier, the authorized level of $309.8 billion in this bill
is $4.5 billion above the President's request and consistent with this
year's concurrent budget resolution. The fiscal year 2001 funding level
also represents a real increase in defense spending of 4.4 percent from
the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level.
The funding we have provided is primarily going for modernization and
readiness and for other benefits for the men and women of the military.
The committee authorized $63.28 billion in procurement funding, a $3.0
billion increase over the President's budget. Operations and
maintenance was funded at $109.2 billion, with $1.5 billion added to
the primary readiness accounts. Research, development, test and
evaluation was budgeted at $39.31 billion, a $1.45 billion increase
over the President's budget request.
The committee's support for additional funding for defense is based
on an in-depth analysis of the threats facing U.S. interests, and
testimony from senior military leaders on the many shortfalls in the
defense budget.
While the cold war has been over for nearly a decade, it is evident
that the world remains a complex and violent place. The greatest threat
to our national security today is instability; instability fueled by
ethnic, religious, and racial animosities that have existed for
centuries, but are now resulting in conflicts fought with the weapons
of modern warfare. Many have turned to the United States, as the sole
remaining superpower, to resolve the many conflicts around the world
and to ensure stability in the future. However, this military power
does not ensure our security. As Director of Central Intelligence
George Tenet told the committee in January, ``The fact that we are
arguably the world's most powerful nation does not bestow
invulnerability; in fact, it may make us a larger target for those who
don't share our interest, values, or beliefs.''
U.S. military forces are involved in overseas deployments at an
unprecedented rate. Currently, our troops are involved in over 10
contingency operations around the globe. Unfortunately, there appears
to be no relief in sight for most of these operations. At an October
1999 hearing of the committee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General Hugh Shelton, stated that, ``Two factors that erode
military readiness are the pace of operations and funding shortfalls.
There is no doubt that the force is much smaller than it was a decade
ago, and also much busier.''
Over the past decade, our active duty manpower has been reduced by
nearly a third, active Army divisions have been reduced by almost 50
percent, and the number of Navy ships has been reduced from 567 to 316.
During this same period, our troops have been involved in 50 military
operations worldwide. By comparison, from the end of the Vietnam war in
1975 until 1989, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 such
military deployments.
This unprecedented rate of overseas deployments is one of the primary
factors contributing to the severe problems we are having with
recruiting and retaining quality personnel, and with maintaining
adequate readiness of the existing force. We have tried to address
these issues in the bill before the Senate.
It has also affected our readiness, as the Presiding Officer well
knows as chairman of the subcommittee with the primary jurisdiction of
readiness.
I want to pause for a moment and acknowledge the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service Chiefs--the Chief of Naval
Operations, the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff, and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps--for their role in helping to
reverse the decline in defense spending. I cannot think of one single
factor that added greater emphasis not only this year but last year to
the increase in defense spending--not one fact greater than their
honest, forthright professional and personal assessments which were
given this committee time and time in formalized hearings, and indeed
in private consultations. I commend them. They have ably represented
their troops.
There is no group of leaders more responsible for stopping this
downward trend than the Chiefs.
On three separate occasions, October 6, 1998, January 5, 1999, and
October 26, 1999, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
Service Chiefs came before the Armed Services Committee to tell us
about the ever increasing challenges the armed forces were facing in
carrying out their military missions. Simply put, they did not have
enough money. Their individual observations were forthright and candid.
Collectively, their reports to the Congress became the unimpeachable
voice that made Americans sit up and take notice. The chiefs were heard
across the land. Our nation echoed back: we believe you, you have the
people's support.
The military service chiefs have testified that they have a remaining
shortfall in funding of $9.0 billion for fiscal year 2000, a
requirement for an

[[Page 9483]]

additional $15.5 billion above the budget request to meet shortfalls in
readiness and modernization for fiscal year 2001, and a requirement for
an additional $85.0 billion in the future years Defense Program.
This bill adds $3.8 billion to the President's budget request to
specifically pay for items identified by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the Service chiefs as necessary requirements:
necessary requirements that were not funded by the President's request.
As I said earlier, the high operations tempo of our armed forces is
having a negative impact on recruiting and retention. Last year, the
committee took action to provide a pay raise and a package of
retirement reforms and retention incentives in an effort to recruit and
retain highly qualified personnel. The committee has received testimony
that these changes are having a positive impact on recruiting and
retention efforts.
This year, the committee has focused its ``quality of life'' efforts
on improving military health care for our active duty and retired
personnel and their families.
Earlier this year, I announced my intention to join with the majority
leader and others to tackle the long-standing problems with the
military health care system.
I wish to acknowledge the full cooperation of my distinguished
colleague, Mr. Levin, and the Members on his side of the aisle. It has
truly been a bipartisan effort. We have heard increasing complaints,
especially from over 56 retirement communities.
While the Congress was taking some steps in the past to try to
improve the health care system, it was time for a major assault on this
problem. And we have done more than establish a beachhead. I used that
term months ago when I laid down the first piece of legislation with
our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott.
The bill before the Senate today is but the first step, I hope, in
what will be a continuing process to fulfill our commitment of quality
health care for all military personnel--active duty, retired, as well
as their families.
The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the
service chiefs have all highlighted the many problems associated with
implementing a user-friendly health care program for active duty
service members, military retirees, and their families.
In this bill, the committee included initiatives that ensure our
active duty personnel and their families receive quality health care
and initiatives that fulfill our commitment to military retirees,
including extending TriCare Prime to families of service members
assigned to remote locations, eliminating copayments for service
received under the TriCare Prime, and authorizing a comprehensive
retail and national mail order pharmacy benefit for all eligible
beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible beneficiaries with no
enrollment fee or deductible.
I will elaborate on the pharmacy benefit. Prescription medication is
the major unmet need of the military retiree. I believe this bill meets
that need. This bill for the first time provides an entitlement for a
comprehensive drug benefit for all military beneficiaries, including
those who are Medicare eligible.
Hopefully, I will add my amendment which will further enhance this
whole package of retiree benefits, particularly for those over 65. At
the appropriate time, I will ask to turn to that amendment.
Other quality-of-life initiatives of note in this bill are a 3.7-
percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001, and
a provision that directs the Department to implement the Thrift Savings
Plan for military personnel not later than 180 days after enactment of
this act. We put similar provisions in last year's bill but gave the
discretion to the Department. This year, we have been forthright and we
direct action on that program.
Last year, NATO conducted its first large-scale offensive military
operation with the 78-day air war campaign--and it was associated with
other military operations and was not exclusive to air--on behalf of
the beleaguered and persecuted peoples of Kosovo. The lessons learned
from that operation addressed during a series of committee hearings
highlighted not only shortfalls in weapon systems and intelligence
programs but also the complexities of engaging in coalition operations.
As noted in the combined testimony of Operation Allied Force
Commanders, Gen. Wesley Clark, Adm. James Ellis, and Lt. Gen. Mike
Short, the Kosovo campaign:

. . . required [that] we adopt military doctrine and
strategy to strike a balance between maintaining allied
cohesion, striking key elements of the Yugoslav Armed Forces,
minimizing losses of allied aircraft and crew, and containing
collateral damage.

Of paramount concern to the committee this year was applying the
lessons learned from the air campaign over Kosovo to our defense budget
to ensure the future preparedness of the U.S. Armed Forces for future
military operations. Accordingly, the committee included over $700
million for a program to include aircraft precision strike capability,
aircraft survivability, and intelligence surveillance and
reconnaissance assets based on lessons learned from the Kosovo
conflict.
Over 38,000 combat sorties were conducted during the Kosovo air
campaign--and I proudly say, for all nations that participated, some
seven nations flew--with no combat casualties and some heroic rescue
operations. While the committee understands that no military operation
is without risk, limiting the risk to military personnel is an
important goal. Every day, advances in technology such as computing and
telecommunications are being integrated into warfighting equipment.
The committee believes the Defense Department must further pursue
these technological advances in an effort to provide advanced
warfighting capabilities, while at the same time limiting the risk to
military personnel. To this end, this legislation directs the DOD to
aggressively develop and field unmanned combat systems in the air and
on the ground so that within 10 years one-third of our operation of
these type aircraft would be unmanned, and within 15 years one-third of
our ground combat vehicles would be unmanned. The committee also added
$246.3 million to accelerate technologies leading to the development
and fielding of remotely controlled air combat vehicles and remotely
controlled ground combat vehicles.
As demonstrated in Kosovo, our Armed Forces are the best prepared in
the world. They can beat the enemy on any battlefield. I don't say that
with arrogance. It is factual. Our enemies, certainly those that can be
identified, know that. It is the ones that we can't identify--the
growing number we cannot identify, that we cannot anticipate--that pose
the greatest threat. Current and future potential adversaries must
fully understand, however, our military capability. Many are now intent
on carrying the battle right here at home in the continental limits of
the United States of America either by ballistic missile attack or
attacks with chemical or biological agents or through cyberterrorism.
That is where we are soft, soft in the underbelly of this great Nation.
Recently, retired Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre characterized
domestic preparedness as ``the mission of the decade.'' I agree with
that distinguished former public servant.
The military services play a critical and important role in domestic
preparedness for such attacks. Should some madman or terrorist release
a chemical biological agent on the civilian population at home--or,
indeed, at a military base that could be a target--the Defense
Department must be prepared to assist the first responders, whether
they are volunteer firemen, the police officers, or even citizens who
instinctively try to come to the aid of those suffering, along with the
health care professionals in our local communities. To deter and defeat
the efforts of those intent on using weapons of mass destruction or
mass disruption in the United States, this bill does the following:

[[Page 9484]]

It adds $76.8 million for initiatives to address the threat of
cyberattack, including establishment of an Information Security
Scholarship Program to encourage recruitment and retention of
Department of Defense personnel with computer network security skills.
This is a program in which I have had a great deal of interest. I do
hope the Members will work with me on this. We have this massive people
program, maybe $20 or $30 million just to begin to give incentives for
young people to go into cyberspace terrorism. What better evidence do
we need than this love note that floated around, causing billions of
dollars of loss to the economy in this country for the shutdown of
computers.
Second, there is the creation of an institute for defense computer
security and information protection to conduct research and critical
technology development and to facilitate the exchange of information
between the government and the private sector, and sharing of
information to try and meet this common threat.
Further, we added $418 million for ballistic missile defense
programs, including $129 million for National Missile Defense Risk
Reduction, $92.4 million for the Air Forces Airborne Laser Program, $60
million for the Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense Program, $15 million
for the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology Program, $8 million for the
Arrow System Improvement Program, $15 million for the Tactical High
Energy Laser Program, and $30 million for the Space-Based Laser
Program.
This is a serious threat to our homeland, the intercontinental
ballistic missiles. We are forging ahead. I wish we could be stronger
in our efforts.
I will, with others, try everlastingly to increase our strength to
try to approach these things and solve these problems--because we are
defenseless. Americans think we spent $300.9 billion this year and $300
billion previous years and that we have some defense. We do not. We are
absolutely defenseless against these intercontinental ballistic
missiles, particularly the ones that might be fired by a rogue state or
terrorist state or, indeed, an accidental firing. It could decimate any
of our great cities or, indeed, rural areas.
(Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.)
Mr. WARNER. Last, we added $25 million for five additional Weapons of
Mass Destruction-Civil Support teams formerly known as RAID teams. This
will result in a total of 32 of these teams by the end of fiscal year
2001. It is the committee's intent to support the establishment of
these teams for each State and territory. I commend this committee,
particularly the subcommittee that handles this under Senator Roberts,
for their relentless initiative to drive and get these teams in place.
The Department of Defense has not been as aggressive as has the Senate
on this issue.
I would like to briefly highlight some of the other major funding
initiatives and provisions of the bill.
First, we strengthen the Joint Strike Fighter Program by
significantly increasing funding for the demonstration and validation
phase of this program while removing funding for the engineering,
manufacture, and development phase in the fiscal year 2001.
It increases the shipbuilding budget by $603.2 million to over $12
billion. I commend the chairman and ranking member of that committee,
the Senator from Maine. This is a very essential investment, an
increase in spending, if we are ever to hope to maintain just a 300-
ship Navy.
It authorizes $98.2 million for military space programs and
technologies, $22 million for strategic nuclear delivery vehicle
modernization, and $190 million for national and military intelligence
programs.
We support the Army transformation initiative and we add additional
resources that support research and development efforts designed to
lead to the future development of that force.
Congress has to help the Army. They have some very bold initiatives,
but the funding profile for these initiatives in the outyears has a
degree of uncertainty which troubles this Senator. But we will try to
do our best to work with the distinguished Chief of Staff, the
Secretary, and others, in trying to move the Army along in its
projected transformation program.
We included provisions supporting, under certain conditions, the
agreement reached between the Department of Defense and the government
of Puerto Rico that is intended to restore relations between the people
of Vieques and the Navy and provide for the continuation of live fire
training on this island. I commend the former Presiding Officer, the
Senator from Oklahoma, for his unrelenting efforts, many visits down to
that region to work on this problem.
We increased funding for military construction and family housing
programs by $430 million to $8.46 billion.
We authorized $1.27 billion for the environmental restoration
accounts to enhance environmental cleanup of military facilities.
We required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy, to:
No. 1, develop long-range plans for the sustainment and modernization
for U.S. strategic nuclear forces and;
No. 2, to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of
the United States for the next 5 to 10 years.
That is an essential program. We must get that evaluation. We have
not done one since 1994. This was of great concern to me. While I
commend the President--he did the best he could at the recent summit--
it would have been advisable if this Nation had conducted one of these
essential programs to make an analysis of the threat--what we have in
our inventory, the inventories of the other nations of the world--and,
therefore, have a better idea of exactly where this country stands
today and what it faces in the future.
These are but a few of the highlights of the many initiatives
included in this bill. The subcommittee chairmen are truly the
architects of this bill. They will discuss in greater detail the
provisions in their respective subcommittees. Each should be
congratulated for their study and hard work, together with their
ranking members.
I urge my colleagues to support rapid passage of this bill. We need
to send a strong signal of support to our Armed Forces in the field, at
sea, and those who have gone before them in the line of duty. We are
trustees of this great Nation and we are given that trust by generation
after generation after generation of Americans who have gone from the
shores of our Nation to defend the cause of freedom in farflung places
of the world. These are outstanding men and women now serving in
uniform. We have an obligation to them as previous Congresses have had
obligations to other generations, engaged in the preserving of our
freedom.
I, once again, thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator
from Michigan, for his work on this committee--indeed, nonpartisan hard
work--and the wonderful staff. We put this bill together.
I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee in bringing the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 to the floor. The bill is the
product of several months of bipartisan work on the part of our
committee. I am, indeed, pleased to join with him in bringing this bill
to the floor.
This year the President added $12 billion in defense spending to last
year's appropriated levels. The congressional budget resolution added
an additional $4.5 billion. For the most part, the committee chose to
spend the money wisely. More than three-quarters of the money added by
the budget resolution would be used to meet needs that are identified
as priorities by the Joint Chiefs, or to accelerate items that are
included in the future years' defense plan.
I may not agree with every provision in the bill--I do not--but S.
2549 overall is a sound bill that basically continues the bipartisan
partnership between the Congress and the administration. This bill
would build on the budget that was

[[Page 9485]]

presented by the Department of Defense to improve the quality of life
for the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, and to
transform our military to ensure they are capable of meeting the
threats to American security in the 21st century.
I am particularly pleased the bill would implement the
administration's proposal to address shortcomings in the health care we
provide for our military personnel and retirees. Indeed, the bill would
go a step further than the administration proposed and provide a
prescription drug benefit for military retirees.
I am appalled, and I hope most of us are appalled, by the rising cost
of pharmaceuticals in this country and by the growing gap between the
prices paid for drugs by our citizens and people who live in other
countries. We have taken an important first step in this bill in
agreeing to address the problem for military retirees. But it is my
hope, perhaps during the course of this bill, and surely before the end
of this Congress, we will be able to provide a similar benefit for
Medicare beneficiaries whether they are military retirees or otherwise.
All of our seniors--all of our seniors--should have an opportunity to
purchase prescription drugs and not be precluded by an inability to pay
the outrageous costs which prescription drugs now present to too many
of our seniors.
The committee also made the right decision in supporting the Army
transformation plan that was put forward by Secretary of the Army
Caldera, and Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki. The committee
concluded the Army needs to transform itself into a lighter, more
lethal, survivable and tactically mobile force, and we approved all the
funds that were requested by the Army for that purpose. In fact, we
even added some research money that the Army said would help the long-
term transformation process.
At the same time, we have instructed the Army to prepare a detailed
roadmap for the transformation initiative, and to conduct appropriate
testing and experimentation to ensure the transformation effort is
successful.
The Department has made a strong commitment to the Joint Strike
Fighter Program and the committee supports that effort. While our bill
recognizes that slippage in the test schedule is virtually certain to
result in a delay of the next milestone decision, we remain open to
reprogramming of funds to enable the Department to make that decision
in the year 2001, if it proves possible to meet a tighter schedule.
I am also pleased the bill reported by the Armed Services Committee
provides full funding for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat
Reduction Program and the three ongoing Department of Energy
cooperative programs with Russia and other countries of the former
Soviet Union. These programs serve as one of the cornerstones of our
relationship with Russia and play an important role in our national
security by reducing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction from Russia or from rogue nations with which Russia may
otherwise be tempted to form closer ties in the absence of these
programs.
While some restrictive language has been included in the bill, I am
hopeful this language will not undermine the effectiveness of the
programs. I am disappointed the committee chose not to provide $100
million for a new, long-term Russian nonproliferation program at the
Department of Energy.
This program would allow the Department of Energy to accelerate the
closure of portions of Russian nuclear weapons complexes and secure
additional nuclear materials. I am hopeful, with the help of other
Senators, we can address this issue in the course of our debate on the
Senate floor or perhaps in conference.
The committee bill would authorize $85 million of military
construction sought in fiscal year 2001 by the administration to begin
construction of a national missile defense site. The President's budget
explains this request as follows:

The budget includes sufficient funding so that if the
administration decides in 2000 to proceed with deployment of
a limited system, the resources will be available to quickly
proceed toward a 2005 initial capability.

I emphasize the word ``if.'' It is my understanding that this funding
is provided consistent with the President's request in the event the
President decides to proceed with the deployment of a limited national
missile defense. As indicated in the President's budget, this decision
will be based on an assessment of four factors: one, the assessment of
the threat; two, the status of technology based on an initial series of
flight tests and the proposed system's operational effectiveness;
three, the cost of the system; and four, the implications of going
forward with a national missile defense deployment in terms of the
overall strategic environment and our arms control objectives,
including efforts to achieve further reductions in strategic nuclear
arms under START II and III.
As our chairman said, the committee spent a great deal of time
addressing the status of training exercises by Navy and Marine Corps
personnel on the island of Vieques. As we all know, training on Vieques
was suspended last year after the tragic death of a security guard at
the training range. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and others have testified before the committee that there
is no adequate substitute for the live-fire training on the island of
Vieques.
Earlier this year, the President entered into an agreement with the
Governor of Puerto Rico which establishes an orderly process for what
we all hope will be the resumption of such training. As of today, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has lived up to its obligations under the
agreement. The Navy training on Vieques has been cleared of protesters
with the assistance of the government of Puerto Rico, and the Navy
training exercises have now resumed on the island with the use of inert
ordnance as provided in the agreement.
During the course of our markup, the committee considered proposed
legislation which would have been inconsistent with this agreement. In
my view, unilateral changes to or actions in violation of the terms of
the agreement at a time when the government of Puerto Rico is living up
to its obligations under the agreement would have sent exactly the
wrong signal. Such changes would have offended many citizens of Vieques
and others throughout Puerto Rico, undermining the efforts of the Navy
and this committee to eventually resume live-fire training on Vieques.
In the end, the committee included legislation that would implement
the provisions of the agreement that call for limited economic
assistance and holding a referendum on the island of Vieques. With
regard to the other element of the agreement--the transfer of specific
land to Puerto Rico under certain circumstances--the legislation is
silent, deferring congressional action until a later date.
While I would have preferred to fully implement the agreement between
the President and the Governor of Puerto Rico at this time, avoiding
unilateral changes to the terms of the agreement was the next best
outcome. In light of the position taken on the floor of the House, I
expect we will have an opportunity to further consider this issue in
conference.
One area where I am very disappointed with the outcome of the markup
is the organization of the Department of Energy. Last year, the
National Defense Authorization Act contained provisions reorganizing
the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex by creating a new
``semi-autonomous'' National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA,
within the Department of Energy. These provisions, which were added in
conference, were inconsistent with legislation passed in the Senate by
a vote of 96-1 and went far beyond anything that was even considered by
the House.
The Secretary of Energy dual-hatted a number of key NNSA employees,
authorizing them to serve concurrently in both NNSA positions and DOE
positions outside the NNSA. Although the provisions establishing the
NNSA did not contain any provision prohibiting dual-hatting, many
members of our committee believed this approach was inconsistent with
the legislation.

[[Page 9486]]

This bill responds to that perceived violation of the statute with
provisions that would, one, prohibit the Department of Energy from
paying any NNSA officials who are dual-hatted and, two, prohibit the
Secretary of Energy from changing the organization of the NNSA in any
way. These are unprecedented restrictions on the ability of a Cabinet
Secretary to manage his own Department and undermine our ability to
hold Secretary Richardson and his successors accountable for the
activities of the Department of Energy.
Dual-hatting is commonplace throughout the Government and has been
legally permissible since we repealed the Dual Office Holding Act of
1894 more than 35 years ago. Moreover, the Secretary provided our
committee with a legal opinion which concluded that such dual-hatting
is permissible.
In any case, the prohibition on reorganization is completely
unnecessary in light of the express prohibition on dual-hatting. The
reorganization prohibition would go far beyond its stated purpose of
addressing dual-hatting, and it would prohibit the Secretary of Energy
from even establishing, altering, or consolidating any organizational
unit, component, or function of the NNSA regardless of demands of
efficiency or accountability.
Last year, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
reported that the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex had
become organizationally ``dysfunctional.'' Much of this organization
remains unchanged despite its transfer to the new NNSA. Yet the
provision added in our committee would prohibit the Secretary from
addressing that problem.
In short, the Department of Energy organization provisions not only
fail to address the problems identified by its sponsors, which is the
dual-hatting problem, but go way beyond that and thereby undermine the
ability of the Secretary of Energy to address many of the concerns that
led to the enactment of last year's legislation in the first place.
I am also disappointed that the bill does not contain a base closure
provision. Last year, as this year, the top military and civilian
leadership of the Department of Defense came to us and told us that
more base closures are critical to saving billions of dollars needed to
meet our future national security needs. Year after year, some Members
express concerns about shortfalls in the defense budget and then reject
the one measure that would do the most to help the Department address
those shortfalls in the long term.
Secretary Cohen said recently his biggest disappointment as Secretary
has been that the Department of Defense still has too much overhead and
that he has not been able to persuade his former colleagues--meaning
us--that they are going to have to have more base closures. Authorizing
a new round of base closures is an issue of political will to meet our
long-term security needs. In the course of our debate on this bill,
Senator McCain and I plan to again offer an amendment to allow more
base closures.
Finally, I will mention two other issues. First, the bill contains a
provision that would replace the School of the Americas with a new
Western Hemisphere Institute for Professional Education and Training
which would provide a broad curriculum of studies, including human
rights training, to both military and civilian leaders of democratic
countries. I hope this step will allow us to put the controversial
history of this institution behind us while we look instead to the
future.
Second, the bill contains an amendment I offered to prohibit the
Department of Defense from selling to the general public any armor-
piercing ammunition or armor-piercing components that may have been
declared excess to the Department's needs.
This prohibition was enacted on a 1-year basis in last year's Defense
Appropriations Act, and Senator Durbin has introduced a bill in the
Senate to make the ban permanent. There is no possible justification
for selling armor-piercing ammunition to the general public. I am
pleased that we have taken this step toward enacting the ban into
permanent law.
Again, I thank Senator Warner for his work as chairman of the
committee. There are a lot of provisions in the bill, and there will
be, I am sure, a lot of amendments which will be offered in the course
of our deliberations on the Senate floor. I think we all look forward
to a full debate on all of the issues that will be presented to us.
I am wondering if Senator Warner is on the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. I make a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not
amendment No. 3173, which is the pending amendment, is subject to a
point of order and, if so, what point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment that the Senator
inquires on violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
Mr. LEVIN. This amendment was presented to us this morning. I think
we should make an effort to see if we can't bring this amendment
somehow or other into compliance with the Budget Act so we can
accomplish the important provisions that are in this amendment. This is
a goal which has been sought on a bipartisan basis to try to improve
the provision of health care services to our retirees.
I think it is in all of our interests to see if we can't find a way
that we can make this come into compliance with the Budget Act. I am
particularly sensitive to the Budget Act's provisions. I am not sure
Senator Domenici is with us today. I believe he was absent during the
picture, for reasons with which we are familiar. In that case, I am
wondering whether or not, because of the Budget Act implications of
this amendment, the Senator might be willing to set this aside so we
can determine if there are ways of achieving these important goals
consistent with the Budget Act.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I will try to
accommodate you on that because it is a very important amendment. I
would like to discuss with you just perhaps the following procedure:
That we have the opportunity to have a colloquy and make some
presentations about the amendment, and then at that time I will
consider laying it aside. I would like to have that opportunity this
afternoon. I would very much appreciate the comments of my colleague.
It had been my intention to give it to you a little earlier today,
but I think it began to get to your people around 11 or 12 o'clock. It
had been my intention to bring it up. That is not a fact in any way I
wish to conceal. But anyway, that did not come to the attention of the
Senator from Michigan.
So, yes, we will work on this because in fairness to our colleagues--
and I anticipate an overwhelming majority of the Senate would like to
support the objectives of this amendment--we should address what could
be done to the amendment.
I acknowledge that a point of order does lie, and at the appropriate
time I would ask for the waiver. Yes. The answer is, we will see what
we can do. So I suggest as follows, that we allow other colleagues--the
President pro tempore, a member of our committee, the former chairman
wishes to address the bill, and the Senator from Colorado wishes to
address the bill. There may be others.
So let us have some brief opening statements by our two colleagues,
and I will adjust the procedure at the request of the Senator from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. That procedure would be fine. I welcome hearing from our
good friends, including our former chairman, and then perhaps we will
lay this aside so we can try to make it in compliance, if possible,
with the Budget Act. I welcome the comments of the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate begins consideration of
the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001, I join my
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in congratulating Chairman
Warner and the ranking member, Senator Levin, on their leadership in
preparing a strong bipartisan defense bill, which passed the Committee
by an overwhelming 19-1 vote.
The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001 ensures
that our

[[Page 9487]]

Armed Forces can continue to carry out their global responsibilities by
focusing on readiness, future national security threats, and quality of
life. I am especially pleased with the focus on the quality of life
issues. Our military personnel and their families are expected to make
great sacrifices and they deserve adequate compensation. Therefore, I
strongly support the 3.7 percent pay raise, the significant
improvements in military health care, especially those impacting our
military retirees and their families. These are critical provisions,
which when coupled with the additional family housing and barracks
construction, will result in a well-earned improvement in the standard
of living for all our military personnel.
The defense bill before us continues the improvements in the
readiness issues identified by our Service Chiefs. The committee added
over $700 million for programs identified as shortfalls during the
Kosovo conflict. It increased key readiness programs such as
ammunition, spare parts, base operations and training by more than $1.5
billion. Although these are significant improvements, we cannot be
satisfied with these increases and must ensure continued robust funding
increases for these programs in future bills.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall our Nation has faced ever changing
threats. Among these are the spread of nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and the ever
increasing sophistication of weapons in the hands of countries
throughout the world. To counter these threats the committee added
$78.8 million in the Emerging Threats Subcommittee accounts. These
resources will fund critical research into new technology, while at the
same time provide for the reduction and security of the nuclear and
chemical arsenals of the former Soviet Union. It is money wisely spent
and deserves our full support.
I have previously congratulated the chairman and ranking member for
their work on this bill. Before closing, I want to congratulate each of
the subcommittee chairmen--Senator Inhofe, Senator Snowe, Senator
Santorum, Senator Roberts, Senator Allard and Senator Hutchinson--and
their ranking members for their contribution to this bill. Their
leadership and work provided the foundation for this legislation.
Finally, I believe it is important that we recognize Les Brownlee and
David Lyles for their leadership of a very professional and bipartisan
staff.
This national defense authorization bill is a strong and sound bill.
I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to join me in showing our
strong support for the bill and our men and women in uniform.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner for allowing me
the opportunity to speak in strong support of this essential bill for
our men and women in the armed services. I believe it to be very
fitting that we bring up S. 2549, the fiscal year 2001 Department of
Defense Authorization Act, only 9 days after Memorial Day.
This bill should always be more than just a funding mechanism for
today's military but a fitting tribute and to show our appreciation for
those who served, are serving, and will serve in the future.
The Defense bill is entirely too important to be mired in politics.
We must respect our military and provide them the best Defense
authorization bill we can.
The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act is a bipartisan
effort, and I believe we all did some essential heavy lifting in
committee for our warfighters.
For the second year in a row, we have reversed the downward trend in
defense spending by increasing this year's funding by $4.5 billion over
the President's request, for a funding level of $309.8 billion. This
results in a 4.4 percent increase in real growth from last year's
appropriated level.
Last year as the Personnel Subcommittee chairman, I had the
opportunity to oversee the first major pay raise for our military in
almost 20 years. Now, I have the great privilege to serve as the
chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee. While it is a tall order to
fill the shoes of Senator Bob Smith as subcommittee chair, I believe
the subcommittee has had a very successful and productive session. Just
like last year with Senator Cleland, it is always rewarding to have a
dedicated ranking member like Senator Landrieu. I want to thank her, as
well as all the members of the subcommittee, for all the hard work they
put into this bill.
The Strategic Subcommittee has oversight and program authority over
the following areas: (1) ballistic and cruise missile defense; (2)
national security space; (3) strategic nuclear delivery systems; (4)
military intelligence; and (5) Department of energy (DOE) activities
regarding the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear waste cleanup, and
other defense activities.
During the last year, the subcommittee held four hearings.
The first was on our national and theater missile defense programs
which showed that the DOD continues to have a funding-constrained
ballistic missile defense (BMD) program. In this year's budget, the
administration finally increased the funding for the National Missile
Defense (NMD) program, but we found that all of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization's or BMDO's major acquisition programs remain
underfunded. Plus, we were very concerned about the lack of funding for
the research and development technology programs. That is why in this
bill we recommend substantial increases in funding for ballistic
missile defense programs and technologies.
We also had a hearing regarding our national security space issues
where we identified a number of areas in which budget constraints have
caused DOD to insufficiently fund key space programs and technologies
and technology development. We also learned from our extensive post-
Kosovo conflict hearings that intelligence processing and dissemination
was insufficient to meet some of our warfighting requirements. That is
why we recommended funding increases for the National Imagery and
Mapping Agency to improve the imagery tasking, processing, exploitation
and dissemination process.
The Strategic Subcommittee also has oversight over two-thirds of the
Department of Energy's budget, including the newly created and much
needed National Nuclear Security Administration or the NNSA. The
subcommittee also authorized funds for the Defense Nuclear Facility
Safety Board, an independent agency responsible for external oversight
of safety at DOE defense nuclear facilities.
We held the first congressional hearing to assess the programs of the
newly established National Nuclear Security Administration or the NNSA.
We remain concerned about the science-based stockpile stewardship
program and the fact that it could be 15 years before the DOE stockpile
stewardship program can be evaluated as an acceptable substitute for
underground nuclear testing. We are also concerned about the slow pace
in re-establishing pit manufacturing and tritium production
capabilities and any long-term requirements or plans for modernization
of its aging weapon production plans.
The fourth hearing was in the area of environmental management. I am
encouraged that DOE continues to make progress in focusing its
resources on closure of a limited number of sites and facilities.
However, just like in the area of space and missile defense, I am very
concerned that funding requests for science and technology development
continues to drop. DOE needs a vigorous research and development
program in order to meet its accelerated cleanup and closure goals.
In response to these needs, the Strategic Subcommittee has a net
budget authority increase of $266.7 million above the President's
budget. This includes an increase of $530.3 million to the DOD account
and a decrease of $263.6 million to DOE accounts.
In the DOD accounts, there is a net increase of $418.6 billion for
the Ballistic Missile Defense programs, an increase of $98.2 million
for advanced space technology, an increase of $190.0 million for
tactical and national intelligence programs, and an increase of

[[Page 9488]]

approximately $22 million for strategic forces.
There are two provisions which I would like to highlight which
pertain to the future of our nuclear forces. First, we have a provision
which requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Energy, to conduct an updated nuclear posture review. It
has been since 1994 since the last nuclear posture review. This is
important piece of the puzzle when determining the future shape of our
nuclear forces.
The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to develop a long range plan
for the sustainment and modernization of the U.S. strategic nuclear
forces. We are concerned that neither Department has a long term vision
beyond their current modernization efforts.
A few budget items I would like to highlight include: an increase of
$92.4 million for the Airborne Laser program that requires the Air
Force to stay on the budgetary path for a 2003 lethal demonstration and
a 2007 initial operational capability; an increase of $30 million for
the Space Based Laser program; a $129 million increase for NMD risk
reduction; an increase of $60 million for Navy Theater Wide; and extra
$8 million for the Arrow System Improvement Program; and for the
Tactical High Energy Program an increase of $15 million.
For the Department of Energy programs, the budget structure we have
proposed for DOE is slightly different from the Administration's
request. We recommend that all activities of the NNSA appear in a
single budgetary provision, as required by section 3251 of the National
Defense Authorization Act of FY 2000. The bill has an increase of $87
million to the programs within the NNSA, which is an increase of $331.0
million over last year.
In DOE's Environmental Management account, we decrease the
authorization by $132.0 million. However, I want to stress that this
bill still increases the environmental management account by more than
$350 million over last year's appropriated amount. In addition, we
decrease the other defense account by $88.8 million and move the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program account to a non-
defense account, reflecting a decrease of $140 million. Finally, the
bill also provides $34 million to continue progress on restoring
tritium production.
I would like to mention an important highlight of the Authorization
bill outside of the Strategic Subcommittee.
I want to commend the new Personnel Subcommittee chairman, Senator
Hutchinson, for his work on the comprehensive health care provisions in
the bill. There are many significant improvements to the TRICARE
program for active duty family members. The bill includes a
comprehensive retail and national mail order pharmacy program for
eligible beneficiaries, with no enrollment fees or deductible. This
results in the first medical entitlement for the military Medicare
eligible population. I am also very happy with the extensions and
expansions of the Medicare subvention program to major medical centers
and in the number of sites for the Federal Employees Health Benefit
demonstration program.
Lastly, I would like to point out a few items specific to Colorado.
The Defense Authorization Act fully funds Rocky Flats at $673 million.
Plus, we require that all safeguard and security activities to be
managed by Rocky Flats, and not at DOE headquarter organization, in
order to ensure that future savings will be used for additional Rocky
Flats cleanup. There is also a provision asking for a report on, as
well as encouraging the Secretary of Energy to use, the authority
provided in last years DOD authorization bill which allowed him to use
prior year unobligated balances to accelerate cleanup at Rocky Flats.
Lastly, we also provide employee incentives for retention and
separation of federal employees at closure project facilities. These
incentives are needed in order to mitigate the anticipated high
attrition rate of certain federal employees with critical skills.
Also, the bill fully funds the Chemical Demilitarization Program at
over $1 billion, while fully funding the military construction for the
Pueblo Chemical Depot at $10.6 million. For Pueblo's destruction of
their chemical agents, there is a provision which provides for the
destruction of the chemical agents at Pueblo either by incineration or
any technology through the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment on or
before May 1, 2000. The provision is to expedite the destruction
activities by using one of the technologies listed in the National
Environmental Policy Act documents for the Pueblo Chemical Depot.
Plus, there are $34 million for the procurement of precision
targeting pods for the Air National Guard and I expect these funds to
be used for such procurement.
Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Warner for the opportunity to
point out some of the highlights in the bill which the Strategic
Subcommittee has oversight and to congratulate him and Senator Levin in
the bipartisan way this bill was developed and ask that all Senators
strongly support S. 2549. I also want to thank Eric Thoemmes, Paul
Longsworth, Tom McKenzie, and Tom Moore of the Strategic Subcommittee,
all the Armed Services Committee staff, and Doug Flanders of my staff
for all their long hours and hard work they put into this important
bill.
Finally, one of Congresses main responsibilities is to provide for
the common defense of the United States and I am proud of what this
bill provides for our men and women in uniform. We must not be blinded
by political motives when it comes to our men and women in the Armed
Services. I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate, out of
conference and to the President in order to quickly provide the much
needed and much deserved resources for our military. To our Armed
Services, I say this bill is a tribute to your dedication and hard
work.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. It is
a great pleasure to work with him. He has one of the toughest
assignments as subcommittee chairman, and he does it very ably. I thank
him.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the speedy
adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2001.
I join my colleagues on the committee in expressing my appreciation
to Chairman Warner for the outstanding job he has done in his work on
this bill.
I commend Senator Allard for the great work he has done as chairman
of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, for the work he did on the
Personnel Subcommittee prior to my ascension to that post, and for the
assistance he has given me; I express my appreciation for that.
As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I worked closely with
Senator Max Cleland, our ranking member, to develop a package that is
responsive to the manpower readiness needs of the military services,
that supports the numerous quality of life improvements for our service
men and women, their families, and their retirement communities, and
that reflects the budget realities we have today and will face in the
future.
The subcommittee focused on the challenges of recruiting and
retention during each of our hearings this year. Even the health care
hearing really focused on that area of recruitment and retention and
the impact of what we do in the area of health care on our future
retention and recruiting ability.
This bill will have a positive impact on both recruiting and
retention as those who might serve and those who are serving see our
commitment to provide the health care benefits promised to those who
serve with a full military career.
I am very pleased with this bill. I am proud of this bill. I believe
these initiatives will result in improved recruiting and retention
within the military services.

[[Page 9489]]

The bill supports the administration's request for an active duty end
strength of 1,381,600, and reserve strength of 847,436, more than this
administration requested.
On military personnel policy, there are a number of recommendations
intended to support the recruiting and retention and personnel
management of the services. Among the most noteworthy is a provision,
that would be effective July 1, 2002, requiring high schools to provide
military recruiters the same access to the campus, to student
directors, to student lists and information as they provide the
colleges, universities, and private sector employers unless its
governing body, the school board, decides by a majority vote to deny
military recruiters access to the high school.
Currently, there are literally hundreds of high schools that have
made decisions--usually on the basis of the superintendent or the
principal--to deny access to military recruiters. For those school
boards that do not vote to limit access to military recruiters, the
proposed modification in the bill retains the original requirement that
the services must send a general or flag officer to visit high schools
within 120 days of the denial of access to military recruiters. If the
high school continues to deny equal access to military recruiters, the
Secretary of Defense will then send a letter to the Governor notifying
him of the denial and requesting assistance in obtaining access for
military recruiters.
If, after the efforts of the Secretary of Defense and the Governor,
the high school continues to deny access to military recruiters, the
Secretary of Defense will notify the congressional delegation of the
high school that has not complied with the statute we will enact with
the passage of this bill. Of course, if the school board votes not to
restrict access of military recruiters, the services and the Secretary
of Defense will not be required to go through the procedures I just
described.
I believe requiring school boards to take that affirmative vote and
to do so publicly in the light of their constituencies will really
eliminate this problem that has posed such an obstacle to our military
recruiters. In our hearings, we heard from frontline military
recruiters that the biggest obstacle they have is actually having
access to be able to make their case to young people in our schools
today.
Another initiative to support recruiting is a pilot program in which
the Army could use motor sports to promote recruiting, implement a
program of recruiting in conjunction with vocational schools and
community colleges, and a pilot program using contract personnel to
supplement active recruiters.
Another important recommendation in this mark is the expansion of
JROTC programs. We have added $12 million to expand the JROTC programs.
We combine it with the funds in the budget request. This will maximize
the services' ability to expand JROTC during fiscal year 2001.
I am proud to be able to support these important programs that teach
responsibility, leadership, and ethics and assist the military in
recruiting. In fact, it has been one of the most effective tools the
military has in recruiting high school students.
Our major recommendations include a 3.7-percent pay raise for
military personnel and a revision of the basic allowance for housing to
permit the Secretary of Defense to pay 100 percent of the average local
housing costs and ensure that housing allowance rates are not reduced
while permitting increases that local housing costs dictate.
The bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift
Savings Plan for active and reserve forces not later than 180 days
after enactment. Making mandatory the provision of the Thrift Savings
Plan will be a very positive recruiting and retention tool in assisting
the military services in attracting highly qualified personnel and
encouraging them to remain until retirement.
This year, the committee focused on improving health care for active,
reserve, and retired military personnel and their families. In health
care, there are a number of key recommendations. The foremost of these
provisions is the pharmacy benefit for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries
to which Senator Allard alluded in his remarks. This is the first time
Medicare-eligible military retirees have an entitlement to military
health care.
In addition, prescription drugs represent the largest unmet need of
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. I will be speaking on the Warner-
Hutchinson amendment, when that is offered, regarding health care and
what we are doing for our men and women in uniform.
I am very proud of this bill and pleased with what the committee has
put together. It will provide the resources the military services need
to maximize their readiness and to improve the quality of life for
active and retired military personnel and their families.
I express my gratitude to Charlie Abell, committee staff, for the
outstanding work he has done in the past and for the service he has
again performed to our country and to the committee. I appreciate his
work, along with other members of the committee staff. I especially
thank my personal staff, Michael Ralsky, for the work he has done not
only on behalf of our country and our national security but for the
State of Arkansas. This is a good bill worthy of the support of the
Senate. I am pleased to be supporting it.
I again thank Chairman Warner for his leadership in putting this bill
together.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful
remarks, most particularly the remarks directed at the staff and other
members of the committee. He is a hard-working subcommittee chairman,
and he is tackling the problem of recruiting and retention. We will
hear further from the Senator as we proceed with this bill.
I ask unanimous consent we proceed briefly to discuss the pending
amendment, and then we will proceed to an amendment to be offered by
Senator McCain on food stamps, if that is agreeable as procedure. I say
to my colleague, we are moving expeditiously, with Senator Robert
Kerrey anxious to come to the floor.
I am not suggesting we will vote on the Warner amendment. We will
discuss it, and when Senator McCain comes to the floor, we will take up
that amendment. My understanding is he desires less than half an hour.
The Senator can indicate the time the other side desires, and then we
will proceed to rollcall vote and possibly go to the Kerrey amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. That is fine.

Amendment No. 3173

Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Michigan. He indicated to the
Senator from Virginia that the pending amendment, in our collective
judgment, is subject to a budget point of order. I have shared with his
senior staff that corrective measures were taken to try to bring that
amendment within the strictures of the budget amendment so it would not
be subject to a point of order. We will show immediately what we intend
to do.
In the meantime, I will discuss the amendment until Senator McCain
comes to the floor.
I have introduced this amendment today to change the existing
military medical program to encompass in the future retirees over 65.
This amendment provides uninterrupted access to both TRICARE and
CHAMPUS for military retirees and their families without regard to age.
Let me use the term ``retirees.'' Those following this debate might
not fully understand. We are talking about men and women in the Armed
Forces who put in the necessary number of years of active service or
reserve service or guard service, whatever the case may be, to meet the
criteria of the various frameworks of law to qualify them for a
retirement for such services as they render. That is the class of
individuals being referred to. It does not include persons, such as
myself, who have short tours of military duties; it does not apply to
me. When we use the term ``retirees,'' it is only for those

[[Page 9490]]

who, by virtue of their services, met the statutory requirements and
are eligible to receive retirement benefits.
Beginning in World War II, promises were made to military members
that they and their families would be provided health care if they
served a full career. Of course, we certainly included active duty and
to some limited extent the reserve and guard for military health care.
We are talking about that category of persons I have just described.
Subsequent legislation was enacted which cut off medical benefits for
those over age 65, leaving them to depend on the Medicare system,
which, in their judgment and in the judgment of others, has proven
insufficient, and in other ways it is a breach of promise.
So there are many underlying reasons for the legislation I am
proposing and the most important is equity. The reputation of those in
the military who gave the promise--not knowing there wasn't any
statutory foundation--made promises concerning medical care to induce
individuals to provide a minimum, say, 20 years of service in most
instances, to enable them to have a career in the U.S. military.
Not meeting the commitment to provide medical care is a breach of
promise made on behalf of our Nation. We have to correct it. These
individuals devoted a significant portion of their lives, their
careers, in service to our country. I recognize with profound sorrow
how we broke the promise to these retirees, certainly when we passed
legislation in the early 1960s. We rectify it today.
I have examined these issues. There is no statutory foundation
providing for entitlement to military health care benefits. It simply
does not exist, in my judgment. It is mythical in terms of a foundation
law. But good-faith representations were made to these members. Who
made the commitment is irrelevant.
I have some personal recollection. I was on active duty for a brief
time toward the conclusion of World War II, and then I had a second
tour of active duty during the Korean conflict-- again, less than 2
years. Nevertheless, I was surrounded by military people. I remember
well the inducements given at the conclusion of World War II when so
many desired to return to civilian life, requests to stay on active
duty; the same thing during the Korean conflict--stay on active duty;
continue; give the military the opportunity to show you a career
pattern. Part of those representations included the health care
package.
Our committee has made a determination--and indeed it is a bipartisan
decision--that we would fix the issue of health care for our retirees
this year. We started with a series of bills, step by step by step. I
have acknowledged my gratitude, and indeed other members of the
committee acknowledge their gratitude, for what the military retirees
did in bringing to our attention certain inadequacies of steps we had
taken. Step by step, we have improved the benefits, in this particular
phase of legislation, in this fiscal year. We are going to achieve a
very significant improvement to the health care benefit, particularly
if that amendment is adopted by the Senate.
The amendment I bring to the floor repeals the restriction barring 65
or older military retirees and their families from continued access to
the military health care system. If included, this provision will
provide an equal benefit for all military health care system
beneficiaries, retirees, reservists, guardsmen, and their families.
This puts all beneficiaries in the same class.
It is expensive, but I think it is essential we do this to keep the
faith with military retirees. I have had many meetings with both active
and retired military on the health care issue. I conducted town hall
meetings, discussions with groups who have come to my office, and I
have listened to those who have attended the Armed Services Committee
hearings regarding their views. They filled the room on a number of
occasions. They have come from all areas of the country to talk about
this. They are not seeking it solely for themselves. They are seeking
to preserve the image of the U.S. military so the young people today
who are considering joining at the recruiting stations--going through
our ROTC, NROTC, the AROTC, all of these programs--will consider a
military career.
When they go back home they hear the oldtimers say: Watch out, they
broke a promise to me on health care. You are thinking about devoting
20 years of your life to this, or more--watch out.
We are going to get rid of the, ``Watch out.'' That is what we are
trying to do, get rid of it, because the military retirees are the most
cost-effective recruiters that we have in America today. They do not
cost us anything. Yet it is those ladies and gentlemen who served this
Nation who go out and talk to the youngsters. The youngsters look up to
them. The youngsters trust them. They look up to the veterans. They
have been there. They have done it. They help tremendously helpful in
recruiting. So there are many reasons for making these health care
improvements.
The amendment is a quantum leap ahead of the provisions already in
committee markup at the desk. While the markup includes the
comprehensive drug benefit regardless of age, the amendment goes
further and provides uninterrupted access to complete health care
services. As a result of these initiatives, all military retirees,
irrespective of age, will now enjoy the same health care benefits.
In town hall meetings, as I said, I listened carefully to the health
care concerns of the military, particularly those over 65. We have all
done that. The constant theme that runs through their requests is that
once they have reached the point at which they are eligible for
Medicare, they are no longer guaranteed care from the military health
care system. This discriminatory characteristic of our current health
care system has been in effect since 1964. It reduces retiree medical
benefits and requires a significant change in the manner in which
health care is obtained at a point in the lives of our older military
retirees when stability and confidence and respect and indeed the love
of the community is most needed. This is an amendment which in effect
repeals the 1964 law.
In order to permit the Department of Defense to plan for restoring
the health care benefit to all retirees, my provision would be
effective on October 1, 2001. While some may advocate an earlier
effective date, it is simply not feasible to expand the medical
coverage to the 1.8 million Medicare-eligible retirees overnight.
The amendment eliminates the confusing and ineffective transfer of
funds from Medicare to the Department of Defense. Military retirees
will not be required to pay the high cost of additional basic or
supplemental insurance premiums to ensure their health care needs.
Military readiness will not be adversely impacted, and our commitment
to those who serve their full career will be fulfilled.
What is apparent to me is that the will of the Congress, reflecting
the will of the Nation, is that now is the time to act on this issue.
Access to military health care has reached a crisis point. With the
reduction in the number of military hospitals and with the growth in
the retiree population, addressing the health care needs of our older
retirees has become increasingly difficult. These beneficiaries should
be assured that their health care needs will be met.
I am well aware of the legislative alternatives that have been
proposed to address military retiree health care needs. I have
struggled to examine the most acute needs of these beneficiaries and
have struggled to develop a plan that equally benefits all our
retirees, not just those fortunate enough to live near a military
medical facility, or those fortunate enough to be selected through some
sort of lottery to be allowed to participate in the various pilot
programs now underway. My goal is to provide health care through a
means that is available to all beneficiaries, in an equitable and
complete manner.
As I have made it clear throughout the year, improving the military
health care has been the Committee's top quality of life initiative
this year.

[[Page 9491]]

We have listened. We have, with bipartisan support, enhanced our
earlier legislation to include full pharmacy benefits. The amendment
now before the Congress complements those earlier efforts and provides
an equitable medical benefit, one that is not based on age. It is time
to act.
At the suggestion of my distinguished colleague, to avoid a point of
order, I am looking at not changing the fundamental provisions in the
amendment but limiting it to two or possibly three fiscal years. That
will bring us within the constraints of the budget resolution. That is
an important step. I appreciate my colleague bringing this to our
attention.
It will have another effect. It will enable the Congress, and
initially our committee, to go in, in depth, and study this amendment
because it is going to have a very significant impact on the existing
infrastructure that is caring for the existing active duty and military
retirees under 65. We cannot fully calculate, no matter how hard we
look into this, what that impact would be. In my own judgment, it will
require the Congress to step forward and provide funds, maybe some
legislation, to help the existing infrastructure absorb the over-65
retirees as they return to what was justly promised them when they
signed up.
So this amendment has the advantages of laying it out, giving a
reasonable period of time for the Department and for the Congress to
examine it and determine what we have to give by way of additional
support.
Also--I say this with no political motive whatsoever--it should
become and will become, in my judgment, an issue in the Presidential
campaign. I am quite certain the retirees will say to both candidates:
Look here, the Senate of the United States included this provision. It
went over to the conference with the House. It survived. It was signed
into law by the President. But it ends. It ends in, say, 2003. I want
to hear what the Presidential candidate has to say about this program
and whether he will support it, support it in the sense of extending it
beyond 2003, support it in the budget requests to provide the
additional funds and whatever is necessary to make the infrastructure
of our military able to support this program.
That is what we are working on. Momentarily I will ask my amendment
be modified. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my intention to speak for about 10
minutes in reference to the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank
the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator
Warner, for his outstanding leadership in the past year. I also thank
the distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, for his leadership as
well.
This is a good, solid, and positive effort in behalf of our national
defense. As a subcommittee chairman, I am particularly proud of the
work we were able to accomplish in the subcommittee that we call the
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I would like to review
the key provisions contained in this act that fell under the
jurisdiction of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.
As the chairman has pointed out, as well as the distinguished Senator
from Michigan, in the last year, what we call information warfare, and
what some call cyberthreats--and the American public is certainly
becoming much more aware of that situation--to the United States,
including the Department of Defense, have increased very dramatically.
The Department of Defense reported that these attacks on Defense
Department systems increased from under 6,000 in 1998, only 2 years
ago, to over 22,000 in 1999. That figure is doing nothing but
dramatically increasing and there is every indication that this trend
is going to continue.
From a national economic standpoint in regard to private industry, we
are very susceptible and we are very vulnerable. In regard to our
national security, we are very vulnerable. I remain concerned that many
important, what we call information assurance programs, designed to
protect against such cyberattacks, basically remain underfunded by the
Department of Defense. For example, at the hearing before the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, as of this spring
witnesses from the Department once again confirmed that such funding
shortfalls remain significant and presented a list of almost $500
million in unfunded requirements in this area. Obviously that is a
considerable amount of money. When you compare it to the ever-
increasing threats and vuneralabilities, you can see just how important
this is.
For these reasons, we have included $76.8 million in this bill not
only for today's underfunded requirements but also to really try to
initiate programs such as training and education. Let me really
underscore the word, in regard to education, in something called
``cybersecurity,'' that will continue to provide meaningful solutions
far into the future. Senator Warner's initiative--what I refer to as
the Roberts-Warner initiative, and the distinguished chairman refers to
it as the Warner-Roberts initiative--he has embarked through his
leadership and through his research on a whole series of scholarships
in information security to attract our young people, the best and
brightest; not to rely on those who come to us from foreign countries
with ever-increasing higher immigration quotas. We must bring the next
generation on to have this expertise. So these Warner scholarships in
regard to information security for the Department of Defense will have
far-reaching and, most important, positive effects in this situation.
Second, I want to talk about the terrorist threats to our citizens
and our service members. It shows no sign of diminishing. Especially in
regard to the weeks that led up to the millennium celebration, numerous
individuals who were suspected of planning terrorist attacks directed
at U.S. citizens were arrested in the United States and abroad.
This is a threat from state actors and nonstate actors all over the
world; and with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the
threat of a terrorist attack with a chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapon is increasing at an alarming rate.
We asked the experts who came before the Emerging Threats
Subcommittee, the experts whose job it is to determine what represents
a vital national security risk: What keeps you up at night? What makes
you really worry in regard to a vital national security threat?
Their response was largely along two lines of concern: one, in regard
to the cyberattacks which we are already experiencing in private
industry and the Pentagon experiences every day, and the other one was
biological attacks. It is so easy to use, whether it be a state actor
or a nonstate actor or anybody connected with organized crime or any
individual who wants to cause a great deal of trouble.
We, as a nation, must continue to detect and try to deter such
attacks, but if such an attack happens, we must be prepared to deal
with the consequences. We call this consequence management. We in
Kansas, just to the north of Oklahoma City, full well know what kind of
a tragedy can occur in regard to consequence management. Stop and think
a minute about a terrorist threat and what could happen in our urban
areas or, for that matter, anywhere in the country, and my colleagues
can understand the seriousness of this problem.
Our subcommittee will continue to play a leading role in ensuring the
Department of Defense is adequately funded and structured to perform
its critical role in the overall U.S. Government effort to, again,
deter, detect, and combat terrorism. The bill contains an additional
$35 million for these efforts.
This year we continue a comprehensive review, initiated last year, of
the activities of the Department of Defense to combat terrorism.
Obviously, our goal is to make the Department efforts in this critical
area more visible and certainly better organized. In fact, at a
subcommittee hearing, leading Department of Defense witnesses testified
to, No. 1, what their jurisdiction is; No. 2, what they have been
doing; No. 3, what they plan to do and what their budget

[[Page 9492]]

requirements are; and if, in fact, they could ask us for their priority
concerns, what would they be.
Before this hearing, I asked them to sit in the order of their chain
of command to figure out who was in charge and is this effort being
properly coordinated and shared, and what about communication. They
looked at one another. There were four witnesses and nobody knew who
was at the top of the chain of command. Hello, we have a big problem in
that respect.
We included in the markup a provision to address this. When I say
``we,'' I include the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee,
Senator Bingaman, and the distinguished Senator whose efforts, in part,
led to the creation of the subcommittee, Senator Lieberman.
We have also worked to increase the capabilities of the Department of
Defense to assist in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil
involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
This bill also authorizes over $1 billion, again to support the
Russian threat reduction and nonproliferation efforts. During the post-
cold-war decade, the U.S. Government has spent--I do not think too many
of my colleagues recognize this; I know not too many of our American
citizens understand this, but during the post-cold-war decade, the U.S.
Government has spent over $4.7 billion in the former Soviet Union to
reduce the threat posed by the possible proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and weapons-usable nuclear materials and scientific
expertise. After nearly a decade of working in Russia and the other
states of the former Soviet Union, committing ourselves to future
efforts, we thought it was important for us to review what these
programs have achieved.
Senator Levin has spoken eloquently of the need for the continuation
of this effort and the intent of the effort. I share his commitment,
but I am concerned that for all the good intentions and all the
significant investment that has been made, the return of reducing the
threat has been too small relative to the $4.7 billion. We can do
better.
For example, the General Accounting Office found that $481.2 million
has been spent since fiscal year 1993 on a program designed to secure
the weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia and the states of the
former Soviet Union, but only 7 percent of the total nuclear material
identified as being at risk has been secured. I am troubled by this
progress achieved in light of this significant investment. We are not
going to scrap the program, but we must do better.
In March, the GAO testified that the costs associated with achieving
the threat reduction will continue to increase due primarily to the
following facts: Russia's inability to pay its share of the costs of
these programs, and we are certainly working in that regard with our
Russian counterparts; Russia's basic reluctance to provide the United
States with needed access to its sensitive facilities. I was in Russia
last August attempting to gain greater access. We will continue those
efforts.
To help solve those problems, this mark contains several initiatives
to obtain greater Russian commitment and necessary access to ensure
these programs will have a greater chance of attaining their stated
objectives, and if we do that, these programs will attain even further
widespread support and they can be a success.
I call the attention of my colleagues to a modest, but extremely
important, initiative in this bill with widespread bipartisan interest
that will lead to a major joint field experiment in 2002. I do not know
of any commitment that will be undertaken in the future by any of our
military services that will not be joint.
This experiment will evaluate visions of our military services for
future combat forces and ensure they can be brought together
effectively for joint military operations to deter and counter the
emerging threats to our national security. I am talking about the fact
that we lack interoperability. I know the services and the service
chiefs say we have this interoperability. With all due respect to the
service chiefs and others, we do not have that ability to the degree we
need it. That is why we feel we must press ahead with a major joint
field experiment if we possibly can. It is absolutely essential.
Finally, my colleagues will find in this recommendation an
affirmation of the subcommittee's strong support of the Defense Science
and Technology Program. This bill includes an increase--I emphasize, an
increase--of $446 million to science and technology. That is a 9-
percent increase over the President's budget request. It is this
investment that will provide for future capabilities to deal with
emerging threats to our national security.
This is a solid effort; it is a positive effort. It will meet the
objective within the constraints of the defense budget for the work
assigned to the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I urge
approval of this legislation.
I join our able chairman in thanking the majority and minority
committee staff, my subcommittee staff, and my personal staff for a job
well done. I specifically mention Pam Farrell. If one puts charming and
tenacious together, it might be considered an oxymoron. It is not the
case with Ms. Farrell. Without her leadership and expertise and being
just as tenacious as she can be, we would never have increased the
science and technology budget by more than 9 percent over the
President's budget. She does an amazing job.
I would also like to thank Ed Edens and Joe Sixeas, who is
affectionately called Andy, for their work in regard to the
counterterrorism efforts we are conducting, more especially with the
RAID teams that we now say are CST teams; Chuck Alsup in regard to the
joint experimentation initiative; Cord Sterling, who has been in
Central America, South America, virtually every country where we have a
threat in regard to drugs, working overtime. In regard to cyberattacks,
Eric Thoemmes, does an outstanding job. He really has to keep up with
that and has done a super job. Then on the cooperative threat reduction
programs, Mary Alice Hayward.
All of these folks have done an outstanding job. Their minority
counterparts have done likewise. We are only as good as our staff. In
this regard, I want to pay personal thanks to the staff.
I urge the adoption of this legislation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.
Mr. WARNER. Before the Senator proceeds, I express my gratitude to
our distinguished chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee for a
marvelous job. I commend the Senator for giving his staff due
recognition for their wonderful work. It is a vital subcommittee. It is
on the absolute cutting edge of everything we have to be doing in the
Senate.
I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.

Amendment No. 3179

(Purpose: To establish a special subsistence allowance for certain
members of the uniformed services who are eligible to receive food
stamp assistance)

Mr. McCAIN. I have amendment No. 3179 at the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending
amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 3179.

Mr. McCAIN. 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 206, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 610. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS ELIGIBLE
TO RECEIVE FOOD STAMP ASSISTANCE.

(a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following
new section:

[[Page 9493]]

``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance

``(a) Entitlement.--(1) Upon the application of an eligible
member of a uniformed service described in subsection (b),
the Secretary concerned shall pay the member a special
subsistence allowance for each month for which the member is
eligible to receive food stamp assistance.
``(2) In determining the eligibility of a member to receive
food stamp assistance for purposes of this section, the
amount of any special subsistence allowance paid the member
under this section shall not be taken into account.
``(b) Covered Members.--An enlisted member referred to in
subsection (a) is an enlisted member in pay grade E-5 or
below.
``(c) Termination of Entitlement.--The entitlement of a
member to receive payment of a special subsistence allowance
terminates upon the occurrence of any of the following
events:
``(1) Termination of eligibility for food stamp assistance.
``(2) Payment of the special subsistence allowance for 12
consecutive months.
``(3) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
``(4) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of
station.
``(d) Reestablished Entitlement.--(1) After a termination
of a member's entitlement to the special subsistence
allowance under subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall
resume payment of the special subsistence allowance to the
member if the Secretary determines, upon further application
of the member, that the member is eligible to receive food
stamps.
``(2) Payments resumed under this subsection shall
terminate under subsection (c) upon the occurrence of an
event described in that subsection after the resumption of
the payments.
``(3) The number of times that payments are resumed under
this subsection is unlimited.
``(e) Documentation of Eligibility.--A member of the
uniformed services applying for the special subsistence
allowance under this section shall furnish the Secretary
concerned with such evidence of the member's eligibility for
food stamp assistance as the Secretary may require in
connection with the application.
``(f) Amount of Allowance.--The monthly amount of the
special subsistence allowance under this section is $180.
``(g) Relationship to Basic Allowance for Subsistence.--The
special subsistence allowance under this section is in
addition to the basic allowance for subsistence under section
402 of this title.
``(h) Food Stamp Assistance Defined.--In this section, the
term `food stamp assistance' means assistance under the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
``(i) Termination of Authority.--No special subsistence
allowance may be made under this section for any month
beginning after September 30, 2005.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
402 the following:

``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 402a of title 37, United
States Code, shall take effect on the first day of the first
month that begins on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year
after 2000, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the number of
members of the uniformed services who are eligible for
assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.).
(2) In preparing the report, the Comptroller General shall
consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (with respect to the
commissioned corps of the Public Health Service), and the
Secretary of Commerce (with respect to the commissioned
officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration), who shall provide the Comptroller General
with any information that the Comptroller General determines
necessary to prepare the report.
(3) No report is required under this subsection after March
1, 2005.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide the funding
necessary to end the food stamp military. I come to the floor with this
proposal which I introduced in March. Two months ago, I offered an
amendment to the congressional budget resolution for fiscal years 2001
through 2005. The Senate adopted an amendment then to secure funding to
end the ``food stamp military'' by a vote of 99-0.
I would expect a similar vote, but I think it is important that we
get Members on record to try to rectify what is really a very
deplorable and unacceptable situation, and that is, our junior enlisted
service personnel, mostly in the pay grades E1 through E5 are on food
stamps.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles in the
Washington Post, and several other newspapers--the Memphis Commercial
Appeal, the London Sunday Telegraph--be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 1999]

Feeling the Pinch of a Military Salary; For Some Families, Pay Doesn't
Cover the Basics

(By Steve Vogel)

On a muggy Saturday at Quantico Marine Corps Base, about
two dozen Marines and family members quietly poked through
piles of discarded furniture, clothing and household goods in
what has become a weekly ritual at the big Northern Virginia
installation.
Those who defend the nation were trying to make ends meet.
At 8 a.m., the patch of lawn was covered with beds, tables,
dressers and desks. Within 45 minutes, almost all the
furniture was gone. The price was right--everything was free.
The items had been gathered by volunteers who go
``trashing'' every Tuesday, scouring garbage left at curbs on
the base. Every Saturday, they give away what they collect to
needy, eager Marine families.
Their efforts reflect a cold reality for thousands of low-
ranking men and women in uniform assigned to high-priced
Washington and elsewhere: Military salaries, never
substantial, often fall far short of what they need.
``We're talking about the basics of life here, and they
don't have it,'' said Lisa Joles, a Marine wife who created
the volunteer network two years ago. ``Sometimes, they don't
have a thing. I didn't know how large the problem was until I
got to Quantico.''
Of the 40,000 enlisted soldiers, Marines, sailors and
airmen based in the area, many feel compelled to work part-
time or even full-time civilian jobs to supplement what their
country pays them, according to military families and
officials. Hundreds more, especially low-ranking troops with
families, rely on food stamps or other forms of federal
assistance. Many depend on the charity of their fellow
troops.
``How can we send members of the military to Kosovo and
expect them to do their job if they're concerned about the
family being able to afford new school shoes?'' said Sydney
Hickey, a spokesman for the National Military Family
Association in Alexandria.
Since 1982, military salaries have fallen nearly 14 percent
behind civilian pay, according to federal figures. Congress
has tentatively approved a 4.8 percent pay raise to take
effect Jan. 1; many service members will receive a second
raise six months later.
But the raises still will leave a military-civilian gap of
more than 11 percent, according to studies. The situation is
particularly hard of families--and 53 percent of the enlisted
force nationally is married.
``A single Marine, with due diligence, can get by,'' said
Thomas Loughlin, who heads the Marine Corps Community
Services at Quantico. ``The real problem is people with
families. It's a sad indictment of society that somebody
who's willing to give his life for his country gets paid
close to minimum wage.''
Pentagon officials acknowledge that some service members
face severe hardships, not only in the Washington area but
also in other parts of the country. But they insist that such
cases do not reflect conditions for the vast majority of
troops, and they point to statistics showing that junior
enlisted service members earn more than the general
population of high school-educated 18- to 23-year-olds.
At the same time, the officials said that improving pay is
critical to Pentagon efforts to solve problems in retaining
people in the armed forces. ``A lot of our troops are waiting
to see what happens with the pay package,'' said Rudy de
Leon, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
Military pay varies considerably by rank, length of service
and other factors. A single Marine private first class, for
example, would earn base pay of $1,075 a month, plus a
subsistence allowance of $225 a month for food. Those living
off base also receive a housing allowance that varies by
jurisdiction and would be $612 for someone living near
Quantico.
In addition, members of the armed forces receive some
benefits, such as medical care, at a fraction of the cost for
most civilians. Commissaries offer items that are 30 percent
cheaper than at civilian stores, according to Pentagon
figures. Service members also do not pay federal taxes on
their food and housing allowances.
A recent Pentagon study found that, overall, only 450 of
the 1.4 million members of the armed forces were living at or
below the national poverty level, which is $13,332 for a
family of three.
But advocates for military families said that the
statistics and benefits do not reflect

[[Page 9494]]

how difficult it is for many men and women to both serve
their country and live comfortably in peacetime.
``We believe there are an awful lot of families who are
living at the wire, and frequently fall over it,'' Hickey
said.
Several evenings each week, as soon as he finishes duty at
Quantico, Lance Cpl. Harry Schein darts off base, picks up
his 14-month-old son from day care and drops him off with the
boy's mother.
Then he drives up I-95 to Arlington and joins a group of
Marines who moonlight by moving office furniture until about
11 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays, he works from 4 p.m. until
midnight as a security guard in Alexandria.
``Most of the Marines I know are living check to check and
barely making it by and have to get some kind of
supplement,'' said Schein, whose pretax paycheck is $2,168 a
month, including housing and food allowances. That, he said,
does not cover his $595-a-month apartment in Dale City; gas;
car insurance; and day care, clothes and food for his son,
Devantre.
On top of his part-time work, Schein has had to turn to the
government's Women, Infants and Children nutrition program,
which provides federal vouchers so he can buy formula, juice
and baby cereal. The Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society also
gave him several hundred dollars in commissary vouchers to
buy food.
``All the pride in the world, all the awe people have when
they see a Marine, all that isn't going to pay the bills,''
said Schein, 22.
The Queens, N.Y., native said that he joined the Marines to
make his parents proud but that he is likely to leave when
his enlistment runs out next year. ``As much as I love being
a Marine, monetarily, I can't,'' he said.
Military installations do not generally track how many
troops receive public assistance. But many officials who work
with low-income service members in the Washington area said
that the problem is significant and has grown worse in recent
years.
Many soldiers ``can only afford food, clothing and shelter
and getting to work,'' said Brenda Robbins, an Army Community
Services worker at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. ``Saving
is almost obsolete.''
A recent survey of 165 soldiers at Walter Reed found that
41 percent were using some form of public or private charity,
according to Bill Swisher, a spokesman.
Commissaries at Fort Belvoir, Fort Meade, Fort Myer,
Andrews Air Force Base, Quantico and Patuxent River Naval Air
Station collected more than $800,000 worth of food stamps and
WIC vouchers last year, according to the Defense Commissary
Agency.
More than $21 million worth of WIC vouchers were redeemed
at military commissaries last year, according to Pentagon
figures. Nearly 12,000 service members--less than 1 percent
of the force--received food stamps in 1995, the last year a
study was conducted.
``I think it stinks, really, that a member of the armed
forces has to go to food stamps,'' said Lance Cpl. Damon
Durre, 25. But that's what the Quantico Marine did after
finding he could not support his wife and two children on his
take-home pay.
Service members in this area do not receive cost-of-living
adjustments in their pay, unlike those in New York, San
Francisco and Boston. Washington does not qualify as a high-
cost area under a formula used by the military.
Housing allowances are adjusted according to jurisdiction,
but many service members say it is not enough to cope with
area rents, and many end up living 40 or 50 miles from their
duty stations.
``The cost of living will eat you alive,'' said Sgt. Edna
Jackson-Jones, a Marine at Quantico who tried to find
affordable housing near the base but instead lives with her
three children in an apartment in Fredericksburg. ``I had to
go further south because it's cheaper down there.''
Quantico offers classes in budgeting and buying cars and
directs needy Marines to emergency aid, but officials say it
is difficult to assist all those facing difficulties.
``We have a lot of problems reaching out to them, because
many times, they don't want you to know they have a
problem,'' said Maj. Kim Hunter, deputy director of Marine
Community Services. ``It's not their nature.''
One result is that members of the military routinely work
second jobs, often without permission from superiors,
military officials acknowledged. Enlisted men and women sell
goods at Potomac Mills, flip hamburgers at fast-food
restaurants, do construction work, deliver packages for UPS.
``Seems like everybody who's been here a while has a part-
time job,'' said Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Hayes, who has a
second job as a mover. ``You really don't have enough money
to make it to the next paycheck otherwise.''
____

[From the Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, Mar. 5, 2000]

On Home Front, Military Families Struggle With Low Pay

(By Kim Cobb, Houston Chronicle)

Quotesha Austin is tired of being poor. It is not what she
expected as an Army wife.
Her husband, Pfc, Gary Austin, spends his days training at
sprawling Fort Hood, where he drives a lumbering, tank-like
vehicle called a Bradley. He is paid $1,171 a month before
taxes, a couple hundred dollars in subsistence pay and a
housing subsidy that does not cover the rent for his family.
``That spells broke,'' Quotesha Austin says dryly. They
can't afford a car, and she can't find a job that pays enough
to cover day care for her two children.
In November, she began collecting food stamps, and the
Austins joined the list of an estimated 12,000 military
families who do the same.
More than $13 million in food stamps was redeemed last year
in military commissaries. There is no way to measure how many
were redeemed by military families in civilian supermarkets.
Although food stamp recipients are less than 1 percent of
the nation's 1.4 million service members, the issue has
embarrassed some officials who claim to be supporters of the
military and has erupted as an emotional campaign topic for
GOP presidential hopefuls George W. Bush and John McCain.
They argue it is an outrage that men and women who put
their lives on the line for their country must seek help to
feed their families.
For its part, the Defense Department has studied the food
stamp issue and dismissed it as too costly to fix in light of
the relatively small number of military families eligible for
food stamps.
But the military has another problem--how to recruit and
retain good people when jobs are plentiful and the economy is
strong. The Senate Armed Services Committee met recently to
discuss the subject.
Many advocates for better military pay point to a 13
percent gap between overall military pay and that for
comparable civilian jobs. The defense-oriented Center for
Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believes the gap is
exaggerated but concludes that increasing pay and benefits to
some degree is a reasonable response to recruitment problems.
The Defense Department has ordered another study on its
food stamp families, the third since 1991. Defense spokesman
Susan Hansen said incremental pay raises scheduled through
2005 and a proposed major boost in the housing allowance
should help alleviate cost-of-living problems for everyone.
``But I think we've seen in the past that the food stamp
issue is more a function of larger families for junior
personnel than other demographic groups,'' Hansen said.
Food stamp recipient Shauntrel Linton says her husband
joined the Army specifically because she was pregnant with
their first child. Her father was in the military, and they
assumed joining the Army would cover their young family's
costs. ``I think I thought he'd be making the same amount as
my dad,'' she said.
The military doesn't want to encourage people who are young
and at low levels in the military to have many children, said
Steven Kosiak of the defense-oriented Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments. Although raising all military
salaries costs more than just taking care of the food-stamp
population, targeting special financial consideration to
potential food-stamp recipients creates the problem of
different pay for the same work. ``But having said that,
nobody wants to think there are military people who are so
underpaid they are resorting to food stamps,'' Kosiak said.
``This is not an unsolvable problem, but it is complicated.''
The last Defense Department study, conducted in 1995, found
that 59 percent of military food stamp recipients were living
on the base. Most of that group would not be eligible for
food stamps, the study speculated, if the agencies that
administer them were able to fully measure ``hidden
compensation,'' like on-post housing.
Those conducting the study found that an additional 41
percent of recipients were collecting food stamps even though
they lived off base and their housing allowances were
calculated as part of their gross pay. The study determined
that of 4,900 food stamp families living off base, only 1,100
should qualify for food stamps, based on income and family
size.
At the lowest end of the scale, an enlisted man or woman at
the pay grade of E-1 earns $1,005.49 per month in base pay.
The largest percentage of servicemen and women drawing food
stamps are at the slightly higher E-4 pay grade, which starts
at $1,242.90 per month for those with less than two years of
service.
The military got a 4.8 percent raise in January for every
person in uniform. Seventy-five percent of all service
members will receive another pay increase in July, although
it's targeted to midgrade and noncommissioned officers.
____

[From the London Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 31, 1999]

U.S. Soldiers Rely on Charity to Support Families

(By David Wastell)

Thousands of American soldiers serving in the world's most
powerful armed forces are so poorly paid that they are having
to depend on charity to provide their families with basic
household necessities.
The spectacle of America's defenders standing in line at
social service offices, or

[[Page 9495]]

raking through discarded furniture to find beds for
themselves and toys for their children, has horrified the
nation and is emerging as a potent issue in the forthcoming
presidential election.
Although military authorities insist that the problem is
small, and only affecting young men with unusually large
families, soldiers' wives and welfare organisations say that
many more service personnel are struggling to make ends
meet--but are too proud to seek the help which they need.
Tony Bradshaw, a 19-year-old lance-corporal at Quantico, a
US Marine base 30 miles south of Washington, who has been
receiving food stamps--vouchers that can be exchanged for
goods at shops--for the past two months, said: ``It's very
hard to realise and admit it. I have to do whatever I can to
provide for my family. But I did not expect it to be like
this when I joined up.''
A family of three--with one child and the wife not
working--would qualify for food stamps if their pre-tax
income is less than $873 (K528) per month. A two-child family
would qualify on income less than $1,176 (K705) per month,
rising to $2086 (pounds 1252) for a family with five
children.
Food stamps worth $142 a month have helped eke out the
$1,000 monthly pay cheque on which L/Cpl Bradshaw, his wife
Tenille and their two young children must live in a small,
tin house in the middle of the base. Mrs. Bradshaw said:
``Without food stamps my children would not be having much of
a Christmas.''
But the system can be humiliating. Despite having no other
means of paying, L/Cpl Bradshaw was not allowed to buy a loaf
of bread at the base's military supermarket recently because
although he had his food stamps, he did not have with him an
official card stating he was entitled to them. A long line of
other shoppers, many of them fellow marines, saw him being
refused.
Denis McFeely, food stamps programme manager at the nearest
social services office to the base, said: ``The coupons
identify an individual in a check-out queue as being on a low
income. Other people look to see what is being bought with
their tax dollars. The programme has a sigma attached to
it.''
That is one reason why the true number of US servicemen and
their families entitled to receive food stamps is almost
certainly far higher than the 12,000 who actually do so.
The problem for young recruits to the American forces is
that many in the junior enlisted ranks earn only just over
$1,000 a month before tax. Even after allowing for free--if
rudimentary--housing and other benefits, a package that may
be adequate for single soldiers puts those with even small
families well below the official American poverty line.
Military pay has fallen behind the rest of the American
economy as a result of budget squeezes over the last decade,
and a recent vote by Congress to grant a 4.8 per cent
increase from January still leaves a wide gap. Senator John
McCain, who is trying to beat George W. Bush for the
republican presidential nomination, is repeatedly raising the
subject in his election campaign.
He said: ``These enlisted service members proudly wear
their uniforms on our behalf, ready to make the ultimate
sacrifice. They are the very same Americans sent into harm's
way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo and now
East Timor. They have a right to a decent salary.''
It is a sentiment shared by many at Quantico, where 7,200
marines, many of them officers in training, live and work
inside the sprawling, 10 square-mile base with a small
civilian town at its centre. Although the base boasts a
marina and a leafy golf course, frequented by the marines'
upper echelons, living conditions for lower ranks are more
down-to-earth.
In one case a young soldier, his wife and their baby lived
without furniture in their newly-allotted house for three
weeks before contacting a voluntary group in desperation.
Tobias Miller, 18, who arrived at the base in March from
Missouri with her husband Mike, a lance-corporal, shortly
after he completed his basic training, said: ``We slept on
the floor for three weeks before I got up the guts to call
someone.'' Almost all the furniture in their two-bedroom home
was subsequently given to them by an organization called
Help--Help Enlisted Lives Prosper.
Mrs. Miller and her husband also reluctantly decided to
apply for food stamps. But after three separate visits to a
social services office outside the base, during the last of
which they were forced to wait for three hours, they gave up
because they could not endure the humiliation.
Mrs. Miller said: ``My mother was on food stamps and I
never wanted to be on them myself. This isn't what my
husband's recruiter led us to expect.'' Lisa Joles, 35, the
energetic founder of Help and the wife of a local marine, has
become an unofficial welfare officer for many of the young
families who arrive on the base, often to set up home for the
first time.
She encourages them to apply for food stamps and other
welfare benefits. She has also worked hard to publicise the
problem, something which has not endeared her to the marines'
authorities. They have their own support system which Mrs.
Joles insists she is trying to complement. They point out
that any problems are not unique to Quantico.
Most weekends Mrs. Joles and her husband, Baron, an
infantryman, distribute large quantities of furniture,
clothing and other household goods which have been donated
either by better-off marines or by sympathisers.
Families like the Bradshaws and the Millers have equipped
most of their homes that way. Last week L/Cpl Eric Clay and
his family--wife Alisha and children Kelsey, aged three and
one-year-old Emily--were praising Mrs. Joles as they sifted
through the mound of material she had gathered in a shed
behind her house.
Mrs. Joles also organises small squads of wives to do
temporary work for local employers, helping boost their
families; income. But she is no soft touch: if the women do
not learn how to manage the extra money they earn she will
not ask them back. She said: ``I don't want them coming back
two weeks later saying they don't have enough money to buy
diapers.
``I am teaching them to take care of their young man--that
he belongs to the country--and if the country needs him, he
will go. If his family is in chaos the marines are not
getting 100 per cent from him.''

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, these are stories concerning the
lifestyles of the service men and women in the military. One in the
Washington Post article of July 20 concerns Quantico Marine Corps Base
in Virginia. One of the enlisted marines says:

I think it stinks, really, that a member of the armed
forces has to go to food stamps,'' said Lance Cpl. Damon
Durre, 25. But that is what the Quantico Marine did after
finding he could not support his wife and two children on his
take-home pay.

In the London Sunday Telegraph there is a story:

Food stamps worth $142 a month have helped eke out the
$1,000 monthly pay check on which L/Cpl Bradshaw, his wife
Tenille and their two young children must live in a small,
tin house in the middle of the base. Mrs. Bradshaw said:
``Without food stamps my children would not be having much of
a Christmas.''
But the system can be humiliating. Despite having no other
means of paying, L/Cpl Bradshaw was not allowed to buy a loaf
of bread at the base's military supermarket recently because
although he had his food stamps, he did not have with him an
official card stating he was entitled to them.

These are just demonstrations of a situation that exists in our Armed
Forces today; that is, that approximately 6,300 service members receive
food stamps. That is an unofficial DOD report, while the General
Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service place the number
at nearly 13,500. There is some disparity with the numbers, but the
fact is that there are still thousands on food stamps. Obviously, I
believe this is a national disgrace and it needs to be repaired.
The amendment will cost approximately $28 million over 5 years. That
is an average of less than $6 million per year, to pay for an
additional allowance of $180 a month to military families who are
eligible for food stamps. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that this amendment would save millions of dollars in the
Food Stamp Program by removing service members from the food stamp
rolls for good.
As we know, in recent years military pay increases have barely kept
pace with inflation. But last year there was a significant increase,
including a pay raise for admirals and generals, who received a 17-
percent pay raise last year. And enlisted families continue to line up
for free food and furniture.
I was pleased to hear the prospective Chief of Naval Operations,
Admiral Vern Clark, support a food stamp stipend when he testified
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 16. Admiral Clark was
asked by Chairman Warner if he was concerned that a food stamp stipend
would create an inequity between service members who qualify for food
stamps and those who do not. Admiral Clark stated:

My view is that it is far, far more important to not have
our people on food stamps than it is to have a small
inequity. . . . This is the kind of thing that speaks
volumes, much more than a few dollars that are involved in
it, about . . . how important we think they are. I support
any measure that would put us in a position where we do not
ever have to have a single Sailor on food stamps.

I commend Admiral Clark for his clear thinking and his support of a
measure that will reflect whether or not we care fundamentally for our

[[Page 9496]]

service members. Admiral Clark is right. We need to rectify this
problem. There is no provision in the bill at this time concerning the
food stamp issue.
I might point out, this amendment is supported by The American
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Association for
Uniformed Services, the Disabled American Veterans, The Retired
Officer's Association, and every enlisted association or organization
that specifically supports enlisted service member issues in the
Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans Alliance.
These associations include the Non Commissioned Officers Association,
The Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the
Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty
Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the United States, and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association.
During the budget resolution, I talked for a long time about this
problem in the military. We are talking about, I believe, a $290-some
billion authorization. We are talking about now an additional $6
million a year to handle a problem which has received enormous
publicity, enormous visibility. In the view of officers and enlisted
alike, it is a problem that has caused a great impact on the morale of
the men and women in the military, whether they happen to be on food
stamps or not.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I thank my colleague, Senator Warner, the chairman of the committee,
for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. This is an initiative on which he
has worked for some time.
I wish to ask him a question or two. I intend to support it. I think
we need a little clarification on one or two points.
I commend him for bringing this up. I commend him for his
determination to address this issue, and not only this year but in past
years.
It was passed by our committee, this basic language, in last year's
bill; am I not correct?
Mr. McCAIN. That is basically correct.
Mr. WARNER. Fine.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy
with the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. This question of pay inversion, let me just sort of
describe it. You have a sergeant who has served 5 or 6 years. He has a
wife and two children. And then a private comes into his platoon, and
he has a number of children, which enables him to qualify for food
stamps.
Now we add a certain sum of money, which the Senator proposes, and
the salary of the private is coming right up very close to the salary
of the sergeant. Now, the Senator knows from his long experience in the
military--and my experience is far more modest than our distinguished
colleague from Arizona, but having served in the Department of Defense,
I have watched for many years this question of pay because pay has a
tremendous significance not only to the military person who wears the
uniform, but to the wife and family. It is a matter of pride. It is
recognition for his length of service, for his professionalism, which
by virtue of that length of service is greater than the younger people
coming on. How do we address that? What guidance do we give, say, the
officer corps and senior noncoms who have to deal with this issue, on
the assumption that Congress passes it?
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I am sure the Senator from Virginia
is aware, as he points out, that this is a problem, although the reason
why we chose $180 a month was so that while it would not completely
close the gap, which is higher than that between the two ranks he just
stated, far more important than that--I can only quote the prospective
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, when asked by Chairman
Warner this past May 16, a few weeks ago, about this exact issue he
raises. The response of the prospective Chief of Naval Operations was:

Also, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, every enlisted
association: the Noncommissioned Officers Association, the Retired
Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force
Sergeants Association, et cetera, who are also aware of this situation,
still because of the gravity of the problems, support this $180-a-month
increase for those who are on food stamps.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Indeed, we will have
to call upon those organizations to help explain this because it is
going to pose some problems. But like others, we have to deal with it.
Mr. McCAIN. If I may respond briefly to my friend, Senator Warner was
involved in this many years ago when we had enormous retention problems
in the military, especially in what we call critical rates--those who
had specialized skills and talents. The chairman was involved in this
because we decided we would give higher pay to people who were of the
same time or even less time in the military because they had special
skills. And they are today, and were then, receiving higher pay because
of the special skills and the need to retain those people with special
skills.
I have always felt that the backbone of the Navy was the bosun's
mate. Yet we find in the Navy that the bosun's mate is the lowest paid,
while the electronic technician, the computer specialist, and others,
who are of equal rank--or rate, to be accurate--receive a much higher
salary. We did that for practical reasons, which was that it was an
absolute criticality of maintaining people in the Navy and other
branches of the military who had these critical skills. We are sort of
doing the same thing here. We are trying to correct the morale problem
that exists when the word spreads throughout the military and in our
recruiting efforts in high schools all over America that if you are
going to join an organization, i.e., the U.S. military, and you have
children, you may still be on food stamps. I think there is some
comparability between those two situations, although not an absolute
one. I hope the chairman takes my point here.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do. Of course, that is strictly a
question of professionalism in the aviation community to which the
Senator has given a lifetime of service. It is critical that they get
higher pay, not only for flight but for retention purposes, than other
officer segments. I have to chuckle. In what little military experience
I have, I was an electrician's mate third class. I am not sure I could
have qualified for a bosun's mate.
Mr. McCAIN. Today, you could have a lieutenant who is an aviator
making more money than a nonaviator officer, an E1 or E2 ranked senior
to that person because of the criticality of keeping those people in
the Navy.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator is right, the electronic technician people,
and so forth.
The second question is--and it is interesting--you were quoting from
the future Chief of Naval Operations--indeed, an outstanding
professional. He says he would rather not have people on food stamps.
Isn't that what he said?
Mr. McCAIN. He said:

My view is that it is far, far more important to not have
our people on food stamps than it is to have a small
inequity. . . .

The Commandant of the Marine Corps and the current Chief of Naval
Operations also share those views.
Mr. WARNER. It is important as part of this colloquy that we lay the
foundation that the Senator was very careful in arriving at his pay
levels--not to bump sergeant, or jump over it, which I think was wise.
In doing so, would I not be correct in saying you will not

[[Page 9497]]

eliminate all food stamp cases? In all probability, the efforts, if
adopted and signed into law, will still leave some on food stamps.
Would I be correct?
Mr. McCAIN. It is not clear because we have gotten two or three
different estimates, I say to the Senator from Virginia. Several
experts say this will largely eliminate the problem. There are others
who say there will still be a few remaining, but all agree this would
eliminate the overwhelming majority of service members on food stamps.
Mr. WARNER. It is going to have my support. Mr. President, those are
the questions I had in mind. I thank the Senator for the colloquy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Arizona for
his tremendous sensitivity to the issue that he raises. We still have
service members who are receiving food stamps and that should not be
the case.
If there is good news here--and there is--it is that, since 1991, the
number of service members on food stamps has been dramatically reduced,
as well as the percentage in the total force has gone down dramatically
since 1991. In 1991, there were 19,400 service members receiving food
stamps. That number went to 11,900 in 1995, and then in 1999 it went to
6,300. That number--which is the latest we have--does not include the
fiscal year 1999 or a later pay raise. So we have at least some good
news in this area, which is that the number of service personnel on
food stamps has been reduced by about two-thirds since 1991.
As a percentage of our total force, the percentage has been cut
roughly in half, from .9 percent in 1991 to .45 percent in 1999. So
there has been significant improvement. Senator McCain is absolutely
right. We still have 6,300 service members on food stamps. We should
not be in that situation. He is pointing out to this body again that we
should try to do something about it. The informal estimate we get is
that his amendment will help. It will not eliminate the number of
people who we have on food stamps, but it will reduce by somewhat that
number of 6,300. I am going to support it on that basis.
Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his constant raising of
this issue until we can try to finally resolve this problem.
There is one little wrinkle in here which is sort of an irony, I
guess. Maybe that is the best it is. For instance, if you take a
typical E4 with three dependents who lives on base in Government
housing, he will get the food stamps because he doesn't have a housing
allowance. The person under this proposal who might be a similar E4
with the same number of dependents gets a housing allowance if he lives
off base, and it is that housing allowance which pushes him above the
eligibility level for food stamps. Yet, because that housing allowance
may be inadequate to pay for housing, he may actually be in greater
need for the food stamps than the person who is on base. However, that
is something we will just have to try to work with. We have to try to
make this work the best we possibly can to reduce the number of further
service members who are receiving food stamps.
Again, I thank Senator McCain for his constancy, his commitment, his
dedication, and his passion to this issue. He is right, as he so often
is in terms of what this goal must be, which is to remove members in
the services from receiving food stamps. They should not need food
stamps. We ought to be able to pay them enough and give them enough of
a housing allowance so there is no need for them to receive food
stamps.
I commend him. I will be supporting this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for their support of this amendment. I think the remarks of both
pointing out that this is not a perfect fix but is a significant step
in the right direction is entirely appropriate. Obviously, we will have
to review the situation after we see what the result of this amendment
is once it is enacted into law.
I thank both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily I believe the Senator from
Arizona will ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
I want to work with Senator Levin to see if we can order the
sequencing of amendments this afternoon to accommodate the Senate. We
will have the McCain vote. We will decide on that time in a few
minutes. I have talked to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska,
Mr. Kerrey. He has a very important amendment. He just indicated to
this manager that he is willing to bring it up and have a vote on it
tonight. Is that correct?
Mr. KERREY. That is correct, unless the chairman is going to accept
the amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. KERREY. Perhaps we can avoid the vote after he hears my argument.
I am prepared to send an amendment to the desk and schedule a vote on
it this evening. That is fine. I am ready to go as soon as we vote on
the McCain amendment.
Mr. WARNER. I ask my colleague if he has any comment to make.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers will address the question of
how we proceed from here at the conclusion of the vote on the McCain
amendment. Let us proceed. I would suggest the yeas and nays have been
ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Let's proceed with the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the McCain amendment. The yeas and nays have been
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr.
Domenici) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr.
Dodd), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Daschle
DeWine
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--7

Biden
Breaux
Crapo
Dodd
Domenici
Landrieu
Lautenberg

[[Page 9498]]

The amendment (No. 3179) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3173, As Modified

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I modify the pending amendment, the
Warner amendment No. 3173. I send to the desk the amendment, as
modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert the following:

SEC. 701. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE
ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section
1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance
program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.);
and
``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is
entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A)
or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)(2))
or section 226A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(a)).''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1) who
satisfy only the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (2), but not subparagraph (C) of such
paragraph,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(2) who do not satisfy the condition specified in
subparagraph (A) of such paragraph''.
(b) Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration
Program.--Paragraph (4) of section 1896(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking
``3-year period beginning on January 1, 1998'' and inserting
``period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December
31, 2001''.
(c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendments made by subsection
(a) shall take effect on October 1, 2001 and terminates
September 30, 2004.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe my distinguished colleague from
Michigan has a request, and then I will present a UC request to the
Senate.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington
be recognized for 8 minutes as in morning business.
Mr. WARNER. Could I put in a UC request before that?
Would the Senator forbear and allow me to put in a UC request?
Mr. President, in consultation with the majority leader, the
Democratic leader, and my colleague, Senator Levin--while I had hoped
we could continue with votes tonight--we have now reached the following
recommendation in the form of a UC request.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be recognized
to modify his amendment, and following the modification of the
amendment, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Robert Kerrey be
recognized to offer an amendment relative to strategic forces, and
immediately following the reporting by the clerk, the Senator from
Virginia be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment.
I further ask consent that following the debate tonight, there be 90
minutes additional beginning at 9:30 a.m. on the strategic forces
issue, to be equally divided in the usual form, and following that
debate, the amendments be laid aside.
I also ask consent that following that debate, the Senate resume the
amendment of the Senator from Virginia, amendment No. 3173, and it be
laid aside in order for Senator Johnson to offer a similar amendment,
and there be 2 hours, equally divided, total, for debate on both
amendments, and following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the amendments.
I also ask consent that there be no amendments in order to either of
the four amendments described above, or the language proposed to be
stricken, and there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to each vote.
The voting order for tomorrow would be as follows: Warner amendment No.
3173; Johnson amendment; Warner second degree to Kerrey; Kerrey first
degree, as amended, if amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I just want
to be clear that the Senator from Washington would be recognized prior
to Senator Kerrey, and that that time would not come out of any time
indicated.
Mr. WARNER. I have no objection to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for working out
this UC.
If I could just make an announcement, in light of this agreement,
there will be no further votes tonight. However, Members should be
aware that at least two, and up to four, back-to-back votes will occur
sometime tomorrow commencing at around 12:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for yielding
me this time.

____________________

ANNIVERSARY OF THE BELLINGHAM PIPELINE ACCIDENT

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to mark a solemn occasion in
the lives of the people of my home State of Washington.
Many of my colleagues have heard me talk on the Senate floor about
pipeline safety.
Today I want to remind everyone of the reason I have become such a
strong advocate for improving pipeline safety.
June 10--one year ago, coming up this Saturday--will be the first
anniversary of a horrible pipeline accident in Bellingham, WA.
In that accident, a gasoline pipeline ruptured and released more than
275,000 gallons of gasoline into Whatcom Creek. That gasoline caught
fire and sent a fireball racing 1\1/2\ miles down the creek side. It
created a plume of black smoke that rose more than 20,000 feet into the
air.
Two 10-year-old boys and a young man were enjoying the outdoors on
that quiet summer afternoon. Tragically, they died as a result of that
pipeline rupture.
Three families in Bellingham, WA, will never be the same because of
the events that took place on June 10, 1999.
As we mark this anniversary, we can never forget the lives that were
lost.
For just a moment I want to ask my colleagues and the American people
to pay tribute to those young lives; Wade King, Stephen Tsiorvas, and
Liam Wood. I also want to honor their parents--who have endured a loss
that no family should have to experience.
They have shown such strength and courage. They have led the charge
for safer pipelines, and their advocacy has made a difference.
Their courage was clear to everyone who attended the Senate Commerce
Committee field hearing in Bellingham on March 13 and to everyone who
heard them testify just last month here in Washington, DC, before the
Commerce Committee.
They came to Washington, DC, to ask for one thing. They want this
Congress to improve pipeline standards this year. This Congress--this
year.
I believe we have a moral obligation to do everything we can to meet
the parents' wishes and to protect everyone else from pipeline hazards.
That is why I have been working to raise the safety standards for oil
and gas pipelines.
There are 2.2 million miles of pipelines running across the country.
They run near our schools, our homes, and our communities.
They perform a vital service. They bring us the energy we need to
fuel our cars and heat our homes.
But at the same time, they are not as safe as they could be. We have
a responsibility to pass a bill this year that will protect families
from the dangers of unsafe pipelines.
To be honest, I--like many Americans--was not aware of those dangers
until the accident in my State.
But as I spent months learning about pipelines, I found that the
accident in my State was not a rare event.

[[Page 9499]]

Since 1986, there have been more than 5,700 pipeline accidents in
this country, 325 deaths, 1,500 injuries, and almost $1 billion in
environmental damage.
On average there is one pipeline accident every day in this country,
and 6 million hazardous gallons are spilled into our environment every
year.
That is why back in January I introduced my own pipeline safety
bill--the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000. I want to thank the Members who
have signed on as cosponsors--Senators Inouye, Gorton, Wyden,
Lautenberg, and Bayh.
I want my colleagues to know, in the 4 months since I introduced my
pipeline safety bill, at least 20 States have experienced pipeline
accidents. In addition to my bill, pipeline safety measures have been
offered by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain and by the
administration.
I am pleased that all of the current proposals touch on five key
areas of pipeline safety. First, all of these bills recognize the need
to improve pipeline inspection and accident prevention practices,
second, they recognize the need to develop and invest in new safety and
inspection technology, third--and importantly--they expand the Public's
right to know about problems with pipelines in their neighborhoods,
fourth, they recognize that States can be better partners in improving
pipeline safety. Finally, these bills increase funding for new State
and Federal pipeline safety programs.
I thank Senator McCain for the strong personal interest he has taken
in this issue. I thank him for the very effective way he has worked to
move this legislation forward. The Senate Commerce Committee has
tentatively scheduled a markup session for June 15.
Senator Gorton and I are working with both the majority and minority
members of the Senate Commerce Committee to come up with a manager's
package that will meet the standards we have outlined and will be
acceptable to as many members as possible.
As we work here in the Senate on this important legislation, I want
to encourage my colleagues in the House of Representatives to move
forward quickly on their legislation so this Congress can pass a bill
this year.
One of the things that has been so important over the past year is
that so many people have come together to improve pipeline safety. And
while I don't have time to thank them all, I do want to mention a few.
First among them is Bellingham's Mayor Mark Asmundson, who has done
more to educate the public and legislators about pipeline safety than
anyone I know.
I also want to recognize Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater who
stationed a pipeline inspector in my State after the accident, and DOT
Inspector General Kenneth Mead, who issued a report at my request on
the Office of Pipeline Safety.
I also thank the President and the Vice President for their
leadership.
In particular, the Vice President took the time to learn about this
issue when he was in my State. He recognizes its importance, and he
sent the administration's pipeline safety bill to the Senate.
I also thank the rest of the Washington State delegation--which has
come together across party lines to address this issue--particularly my
colleague Senator Gorton, along with Representatives from our
delegtion.
And of course, I want to recognize Washington State Governor, Gary
Locke, for the work he has done to raise pipeline standards in our
State.
Mr. President, one year has passed since the accident in Bellingham,
WA, that you can see on the chart behind me.
We have made some progress, but we need to finish the job.
We need to pass a strong pipeline safety bill this year. We owe it to
the people of Bellingham, the victim's families, and to the American
people. As we mark the 1-year anniversary of the Bellingham explosion,
we must answer the call of the families with a strong bill. Nothing can
ease the pain of this anniversary for so many people in my State, but
we can and we must use this occasion to enact stronger pipeline safety
standards.
I yield the floor.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.

Amendment No. 3183

(Purpose: To repeal a limitation on retirement and dismantlement of
strategic nuclear delivery systems)

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

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Durbin,
proposes an amendment numbered 3183.

Mr. KERREY. 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:

Strike section 1017 and insert the following:

SEC. 1017. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR
DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY
SYSTEMS IN EXCESS OF MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.

Section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1948) is
repealed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 3184 to Amendment No. 3183

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an
amendment numbered 3184 to amendment No. 3183.

Mr. WARNER. 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:

In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

``SEC. 1017. CORRECTION OF SCOPE OF WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR
LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS; AUTHORITY
TO WAIVE LIMITATION

``(a) Section 1302(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1948),
as amended by section 1501(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65;
113 Stat. 806), is further amended by striking ``the
application of the limitation in effect under paragraph
(1)(B) or (3) of subsection (a), as the case may be,'' and
inserting ``the application of the limitation in effect under
subsection (a) to a strategic nuclear delivery system''.
``(b) Authority To Waive Limitation on Retirement or
Dismantlement of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems.--After
the submission of the report on the results of the nuclear
posture review to Congress under section 1015(c)--
``(1) the Secretary of Defense shall, taking into
consideration the results of the review, submit to the
President a recommendation regarding whether the President
should waive the limitation on the retirement or
dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems in
section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1948); and
``(2) the President, taking into consideration the results
of the review and the recommendation made by the Secretary of
Defense under paragraph (1), may waive the limitation
referred to in that paragraph if the President determines
that it is in the national security interests of the United
States to do so.''.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in 1998, the Congress, for the first time
in the history of strategic nuclear weapons policy, imposed upon a
President a limitation on what that President could do in terms of
reducing nuclear weapons. It imposed a floor at the START I levels,
which is roughly 6,000 strategic

[[Page 9500]]

nuclear weapons. It said the President could not go below 6,000, unless
and until the Duma ratified START II.
Last year, when I attempted to eliminate this restriction--which I
believe is putting a position upon an Executive that would be very
difficult to sustain if we were discussing this in the clear light of
day, if it was understood by the American people that this was what we
were doing--many people on that side of the aisle said: We believe this
language will put pressure upon the Duma to ratify START II. The
argument carried the day in a close vote of 54-46; the current policy
was sustained. The language in the current law is section 1302 of the
National Defense Authorization Act. It references that section 1017 of
this particular legislation we are considering right now was held in
law.
Well, since that time, the Duma has ratified START II. I expected to
bring this language to the floor this year with open arms. It worked.
We put in a floor and said the United States could not go any lower,
declared victory, and the Duma ratified START II. Instead, we have an
alternative proposal the Senator from Virginia has offered that has a
certain amount of appeal because it requires a strategic review of our
nuclear force structure. After that review, it gives the President
authority, subject to what the review says, to waive the provisions of
1302 if the President says it is in the national security interest to
do so.
It still puts us in a position--whether it is President Clinton or,
if Vice President Gore wins the election, President Gore or, if
Governor Bush wins, President Bush--the President will be prevented by
Congress from reducing nuclear weapons below the START I levels, below
6,000, unless the President of the United States can accelerate a
strategic review. I guess that is possible. I would like to find out
from the authors of this second degree if that is their understanding.
In other words, could President Clinton satisfy the requirements of
this amendment by saying: My Secretary of Defense and Secretary of
Energy are going to do an accelerated review?
This language has to be concurrent with the quadrennial review and
submitted no later than December 2001. Could the President accelerate
that review on this particular question? If not, whoever the next
President is, they are going to be held up at least until December of
2001 from doing so. That makes complete sense for America to do, in my
judgment.
One of the most compelling things that happened on this subject prior
to our leaving for our Memorial Day recess was a remarkable speech
given by the likely Republican nominee for President, Governor Bush,
followed by a speech at the Naval Academy given by Vice President Gore,
the likely Democratic nominee for President. The comments, which I
found to be very striking and very encouraging, indicate a significant
shift in our policy if the Republican nominee has any influence over
the Republican Party platform.
Governor George Bush, surrounded by the preeminent thinkers on the
Republican side on nuclear strategy--former National Security Chief
Brent Scowcroft, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Colin Powell,
former Secretary of State George Shultz, and former Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger--they were all there standing with Governor Bush as he
said the following:

America should rethink the requirements for nuclear
deterrence in a new security environment. The premise of the
Cold War nuclear targeting should no longer dictate the size
of our arsenal. As President, I will ask the Secretary of
Defense to conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture
and determine how best to meet our security needs. While the
exact number of weapons can only come from such assessment, I
will pursue the lowest possible numbers consistent with our
national security.

If Governor Bush were President today, he would not think very kindly
of Congress coming along and saying: We don't think you have been in
office long enough; 9 years is not long enough, so we are going to ask
you to do an additional review before you do what you say you are going
to do here. It is an interference on the part of Congress at a time, in
my view, that the President ought to be doing exactly what Governor
Bush is suggesting; that is, to break out of the Cold War thinking, and
has us saying we have to maintain our parity with the Russians;
otherwise, it is not going to be possible to get the kind of arms
control agreements we want to get.
I must say, I find much to be commended in many things I have heard
on the other side of the aisle having to do with missile defense,
believing that in an era when we begin to reduce nuclear weapons,
accidental and unauthorized launches from rogue nations, or the threat
of them, are likely to increase as we draw down our nuclear forces.
Missile defense becomes, in my judgment at least, an even more
compelling part of our arsenal.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.

A MEMORIAL DAY OBLIGATION

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to carry out an obligation I
made on Memorial Day at the Arlington National Cemetery services.
This statement was presented at the Arlington National Cemetery
memorial service by the Flying Tigers of the 14th Air Force
Association. It was in the form of a prayer that was entitled, ``Empty
Cockpit; To our Departed Comrade.''

His is a place no one can take,
The void he leaves cannot be filled,
For the mark he made, stays, fresh on us,
Although his heart has stilled.

Though the years pursue their relentless course,
And images are replaced,
And memories grow dim and fade,
And time obscures that familiar face,
And even a name be forgot,
And the things he said, and did,
And lives more noble may come and go,
But what he was cannot be hid.

The lessons he unknowingly taught,
By being what he was,
Have certainly changed the lives he met,
As his life touched ours.

So that the course which they now take,
Points somehow higher than before,
A true and gently comrade,
Has opened an unknown door.

So although his life on Earth is done,
His heritage will not rust,
For parts of him, that was, remain,
And live on as part of us.

I thank the Chair. I made a commitment to repeat that here on the
floor of the Senate. I appreciate the time.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is somewhat difficult to get back to
the somewhat arcane subject of how many nuclear weapons are needed
after listening to the recitation of the Senator from Alaska of a
short, very moving statement that in many ways gets to the heart of the
mood we ought to be in when we are discussing our defense authorization
bill, which is not just trying to answer the question how we authorize
and defend the United States of America but how we give honor to those
who have given the highest and most in service to this country.
I appreciate very much the presentation by the Senator from Alaska of
that memorial because I think it puts us indeed in the correct mood,
which is, we ought to be writing this law so as to enable all of us to
take action to defend the United States of America against all enemies,
foreign and domestic, without regard to some previous ideology that we
have held onto for a long time.
We ought to do the right thing and not worry about whether or not we
are going to find ourselves subject to criticism as a consequence of
some group saying we didn't do enough, or we have done too much, and so
on and so forth. It is that kind of thinking that is required if we are
going to get the right number of nuclear weapons. We spend $15 billion
to $20 billion a year on our nuclear weapons force structure. It is an
oppressive effort.
I happen to have the privilege of not just serving the people of the
State of Nebraska but in the State of Nebraska is an effort and an
organization known as STRATCOM. STRATCOM's entire mission is to operate
the strategic nuclear force. The current STRATCOM CINC and I have a
very good relationship, as I have with all other CINCs, because this
mission is very important to the people of the State of Nebraska and to
the people of the United States of America. I have had the opportunity
on

[[Page 9501]]

many occasions to be briefed, and I can state to my colleagues that we
get our money's worth. These men and women work very hard. They are
tireless in the execution of their duties. They want to make certain
they follow the command and the orders that are given by the people's
leaders--in this case, the Commander in Chief--who instruct STRATCOM on
what to do through a Presidential directive. They are following orders.
They put together target requirements. They put together a list of
requirements that are called SIOP. SIOP determines what targeting is
being done. Then it comes back to us, and it says this is what we need
in order to follow the civilian orders. They come to us and say these
are the resources we need in order to be able to accomplish that
objective.
It is very important for us to follow that because often times it
will turn to the military. We turn to the STRATCOM and say such things
as: Tell us the minimum level of deterrence. They come back and say:
The minimum level is 2,500. We have to have 2,500 warheads.
Remember, that 2,500 number comes as a consequence of an order they
have been given by a Presidential directive. They have been given an
order. That is where it comes from. Change those requirements and the
number of warheads is going to be changed. It may be that a
Presidential directive comes and says we need more. I do not know. But
right now, without the lengthy review--I appreciate the lengthy force
structure review that is in this authorization. That is basically the
substitute--that we have a lengthy review that is going to be done.
I urge my colleagues to think of several things.
One, the Russians, first of all, are no longer the military threat
they were in the cold war. It is a democratic nation. They have had
three elections. They just elected their second President. We have
partnerships with them in many different areas. We want their
experiment in democracy and free markets to succeed.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee said earlier he believes
the No. 1 threat to the United States of America is political
instability. It is uniquely the case. In Russia, that is the case. Our
mood toward the Russians ought to be that we want to partner with them
and help them be successful in making this transition from an economy
run by a central government--a Politburo--to a political system that is
not limited to a single party but one that has selected its leadership.
They are trying to make a successful transition. They need the
partnership and they need the assistance of the world's leading
democracy to make that likely to occur.
No. 1, we are dealing with a dramatically different political
situation. This is not the Soviet Union. It is Russia we are talking
about.
No. 2, everybody who assesses Russia right now understands that as a
consequence of the catastrophic failure of the Communist economic
system, and as a consequence of a number of other things associated
with the decisions made by their political leaders, they have barely
enough money to be able to make payroll for a dramatically reduced
military, let alone be able to allocate the resources--though they are
modernizing in certain areas--and their ability to provide the early
warning that is necessary is woefully deficient and is weakening every
single day, leading up to the possibility of increasing the likelihood
of a false warning to their leadership.
One of the things the President and President Putin agreed on is that
we are going to have this site in Russia for the first time. But the
Russians are going to be provided data that comes from U.S. computer
analysis. They are not going to get it through their own system, or
through their own overhead system, or through their own electronic
surveillance; they are going to get it from us.
It is likely to give them slightly more confidence. But it is not
going to give them the kind of confidence that is necessary when
decisions have to be made very rapidly not to put a launch against the
United States even though the warning they get may be a false warning.
The second thing colleagues need to understand as we think about
imposing--that was a fundamental change in 1998--for the first time on
the President that ``thou'' cannot go below the START I agreements,
even though President Bush did it very successfully in 1991, is that we
were not going to allow this President to do it in last year's debate.
It was because we were putting pressure on the Duma to ratify. This
year, it is a different argument that is being used; we are imposing
upon the President an unusual and unprecedented restriction at a time
when Russia is not able to come up with the resources they need to
maintain the level at 6,000. They are begging us to go to 1,500.
It may not be in our interest to go to 1,500, but it is
unquestionably in our interest to assist them to go to lower levels
since they can't maintain the levels they have now. It increases, in a
paradoxical fashion, the likelihood of an unauthorized accidental
launch and decreases the likely effectiveness, if we are going to have
one, of an effective missile defense system because the Russians aren't
going to launch 10 or 20. The Russians aren't going to launch a
relatively small number of not very accurate missiles, as rogue nations
might. They have very highly accurate missile systems and large numbers
of them. They would launch in the hundreds, or perhaps in the
thousands, based upon a warning that may be inaccurate.
We are increasing the risk when we force the President to maintain at
a START I level at a time when the Russians are saying we can't afford
to maintain at that level and begging us to come to some kind of an
agreement that enables them to go to lower levels.
The last argument: Again, if you take a commonsense approach to this
and just say what the targeting requirements are.
A long time ago, or 6 months ago, much of this was classified. But
increasing amounts of it are making their way into the public record.
It is a very interesting problem because, again, the number of
nuclear warheads begins as a consequence of a Presidential directive.
It goes to STRATCOM. That Presidential directive is then fairly precise
language. But it still doesn't tell the exact number. It gives them a
set of instructions that they then follow. They produce what is called
a SIOP. That SIOP has been read by a very small number of elected
representatives. Very few elected people look at the targeting
requirement.
Recently, we have seen in published accounts some information which
gives us some idea of the size of our capacity and the deadliness of
our capacity.
I believe as well it is an unwise conclusion that we ought to
maintain at our current level.
The Russian nuclear target of a 2,500 force structure would be
slightly under the START II. START II would take us to 3,000. The
Pentagon says we need 2,500 warheads. Again, that is based upon the
Pentagon taking the Presidential directive they have been given at
2,500.
We have 1,100 nuclear weapons we would put on nuclear sites, 3,500 on
conventional weapon sites, 160 on leadership, and 500 nuclear weapons
on war-supporting industry.
These numbers tend to dull our thinking, making it difficult to
assess just what it is we are talking about.
Let's reverse it. Say the Russians have targeted American territory
with 160 nuclear weapons. They don't have a nuclear weapon in the
strategic arsenal that is less than the 15-kiloton weapon dropped on
Hiroshima. We dropped two weapons in 1945 that ended the war in the
Pacific. We had a vested interest in that. My uncle was killed in the
Philippines. My father was part of an occupation, instead of invasion
force. I believe Truman did the right thing. Nonetheless, it is
impressive that two 15-kiloton weapons ended the war in the Pacific. We
are talking about hundreds in this case.
Imagine the Russians are only going to hit the United States with 160
nuclear weapons averaging 150 to 300 kilotons each. I don't need a
complicated,

[[Page 9502]]

detailed year-long strategic review to determine that 160 nuclear
weapons hitting the United States of America would not just do slight
damage; they would cause massive damage to our economy, to our
political structures, to our social structures. They would produce
monstrous losses to us.
Ask Alan Greenspan what it would do to the economy. He seems to be
the most trusted person right now in trying to get American people to
be concerned about things going on in the world. It would produce
tremendous and devastating losses.
The same is true with Russia. Mr. President, 160 nuclear weapons
inside of Russia would reduce Russia to a state of chaos. It wouldn't
just damage their leadership and eliminate their leadership. It would
do exactly the opposite, in my view, of what we would desire. It would
produce the very political instability and chaos we seek to avoid. As a
consequence, it likely would not be selected as an option, thereby
producing, again, one of the great paradoxes of maintaining a defense
system where we authorize $15 to $20 billion of scarce resources.
The chairman of the committee talked earlier about the possible need
to allocate additional money for retirees' medical care. There is no
question we look across the current conventional forces and we don't
have to look far to find a situation where we are flying the wings off
the planes. We are having a difficult time sustaining levels of
readiness. We are short on the conventional side. At a time when we are
short, I don't believe we ought to be expending precious resources into
areas that are likely to be unnecessary or that are unlikely to be
used.
I am arguing the President ought to go to lower levels. The President
may disagree with me. In fact, up until now, the President has
disagreed with me and hasn't gone to lower levels. That is why I was
pleasantly surprised at that part of Governor Bush's speech prior to
the Memorial Day recess where he said we ought to scrap the old cold
war thinking. I agree. We need to assess what kind of weapons system we
need to keep the people of the United States of America safe in light
of the new political realities--not in light of the old mutual assured
destruction reality, in light of the new political realities.
I believe without extensive and expensive nuclear review, we would
reach a conclusion of significantly lowering. I don't believe this
Congress under any circumstance, whether the President agrees with me
or not, should be imposing this kind of restriction. It ties the
President's hands. It limits the President. It forces the President to
do something that up until 1998 we had not required the President of
the United States of America to do. Again there was an argument last
year made that this would get the Duma to ratify START II on that
basis.
I said earlier to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I was
hoping perhaps my amendment would be accepted, declare victory, and we
shake hands and say we had a good argument and there is no need to go
further. Indeed, I ask the Senator from Virginia, it may be that what I
ought to do is vote for the Senator's substitute, depending on what it
is the Senator proposed to do. In this amendment, it appears to be that
the President would have the authority to waive the restrictions of
1302 after a comprehensive review was done. However, in the language of
the Senator's amendment, it merely says this is supposed to be done
concurrently with the quadrennial review and due to operate in 2001.
Does the Senator mean, therefore, that President Clinton couldn't ask
Secretary Cohen and Secretary Richardson to do an accelerated
comprehensive review of the nuclear force structure, and, as a
consequence of that review, say perhaps the President says: I want to
go to 5500, I want to go below because I think on that basis I could
get the Russians to agree to accept changes in ABM that might even be
acceptable to the Senator from Virginia --would that sort of
accelerated review be possible? It appears it would be in the language
of the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
I remember so well when the Senator brought this up last year. This
is a serious effort by one of the most serious, conscientious Senators
with whom I have ever been privileged to serve and one for whom I have
the highest personal and professional regard. As I said some months
ago, this Senator, too, will miss him.
We are not trying to abridge, so to speak, the right of President
Clinton. He is the President of the United States. Until the last day,
the last hour, the last minute of his term of office, he is entitled to
exercise the powers given to him under the Constitution. As the Senator
knows so well, being a student of foreign and international affairs,
the Constitution designates the President of the United States as that
individual who is our chief foreign policy advisor, negotiator, the
home realm authority that goes with the Presidency.
I don't wish to be critical, but I will be factual. The President
simply did not, in the course of his administration, avail himself of
the opportunity to do the indepth type of study that I and other
colleagues think is necessary before any decision of the type the
Senator describes be made.
As the Republican candidate, George W. Bush said he would move in
some of the directions President Clinton has indicated in terms of
trying to seek that level of reduction to the lowest level that still
protects the security interests of this country. But George W. Bush
would only do that after he had received the advice and counsel of the
Department of Defense, and presumably his own Secretary. But Members of
the Joint Chiefs would still be carrying forward, a number of them,
from one administration to the other, and he would carefully counsel
with them as he moved forward.
My point is, that study cannot be done in 30, 60, or 90 days, in my
judgment, nor should it be done. Let's face it; we have elections
coming this November. We have the heat that accompanies any election
from the debates that take place between the candidates and, most
specifically, the Presidential candidates. To try to overlay a decision
of that magnitude and try to have a report generated in 30, 40, 60, 90
days is not, in my judgment, the wise thing to do.
Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that, but there is nothing in the Senator's
amendment that would prevent----
Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
Mr. KERREY. Let's say Governor Bush is elected and he comes into
office and says I have Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, George
Schultz, and Colin Powell. They have done a review from November to
January and they have made a recommendation to go to lower levels. Does
the amendment of the Senator allow a President-elect Bush to do that in
short order?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no constraint on the next
President, be it President Bush or President Gore, within which time--I
mean it is not next December. He can do it before next December.
Mr. KERREY. If that is the case, if it does not restrict the next
President, it does not restrict this President. He could also do it. I
have had a briefing on the review that was done in 1997, prior to the
Helsinki meeting between President Clinton and President Yeltsin. That
was a detailed review on the minimal deterrent level necessary, done by
General Shalikashvili. I believe the chairman has had a briefing of
that as well. That was a pretty indepth review, was it not? Do you
regard that as a good review?
Mr. WARNER. I am not here to prejudge that review. I think it was
done very carefully. But let me bring to the attention of my
distinguished colleague, who spent great heroism in his career in the
military himself, you should not try to make a decision with reference
to the strategic capabilities of this country without reference, as
needed in the quadrennial review, to the convention. In other words,
you cannot just look at that in isolation. It has to be examined in the
context of the totality of our military assets, and the quadrennial
review has to be done and upgraded.

[[Page 9503]]

Mr. KERREY. I presume General Shalikashvili, in 1997, made that
review.
Mr. WARNER. I am not in a position to say what he did or did not do.
Mr. KERREY. I would be very surprised, if the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, in 1997, reviewing the minimal deterrent level, did
not reference that minimal deterrent level to the rest of the
conventional forces. This is a conventional Army officer who is the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. My guess is that was a pretty
detailed review. In fact, he came to the conclusion at that time that
2,500 is the minimal level that is necessary.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator repeatedly says he presumes. I am not here to
act on presumptions. What I do know is the realities, and particularly
the political realities that face this Nation of an election and a new
President. In my opinion, it is the wiser course of action to defer
such decisions as this until the next President is in office; he has
his quadrennial review; he has his detailed study of our strategic
arsenal. Then those decisions.
Mr. KERREY. Let me get this correctly. So the intent of this
amendment is to prevent President Clinton from making any decision and
to----
Mr. WARNER. We cannot block this President. Nor would we try.
Mr. KERREY. That is precisely what section 1302 does. Section 1302
says the President cannot go below the START I levels. For the first
time, it restricted and tied the hands of a President in his own
decisionmaking about strategic forces. That is what it did. I sought to
strike it last year and was told the concern was the Duma might not
ratify START II. They have done that.
It seems to me the language gives the President, this President--I am
asking the question because it affects whether or not I simply just
declare victory myself and support your second-degree amendment. If
your second-degree amendment gives the President the flexibility to
waive, if he says, ``I have already done that review and I will submit
to Congress the review that was done by General Shalikashvili in
1997,'' it may be we have agreement here. But if you are saying the
intent of the amendment is to say President Clinton, after having been
Commander in Chief for 7 years, is not sufficiently prepared to make
this decision, we need a further review before he can make it, then I
couldn't support the second degree.
Mr. WARNER. I certainly cannot rely on a 1997 review as being up to
date. Much has occurred in those 2 years, indeed over 2 years, to where
we are today.
Let me give one example. The Russians are strapped financially. One
of the principal motivations to go to a lower level, on behalf of the
Russians, is they simply do not have the financial resources to
maintain their existing arsenals--the readiness, the safety, all
aspects of those existing arsenals. That is the 1997 assessment. I
would not accept that. I would not think President Clinton would want
to accept it.
What I am telling the Senator is that I would like to reply in
totality to the Senator's question by giving my statement and then we
can perhaps continue this colloquy. Is that an option?
Mr. KERREY. That would be an option for me.
Mr. President, let me finish my statement, and I will yield to the
Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Fine.
Mr. KERREY. I am anxious to hear the statement. As I said, it may
be--expecting that the chairman, the Senator from Virginia, after
listening to last year's debate, would merely this year declare victory
and allow this provision to be struck, it may be I should declare
victory and accept this amendment, if it does not restrict the
Commander in Chief who has had plenty of time to review it--and he may
not. As I said, up to now he hasn't agreed that going to lower levels
in exchange for ABM is a good strategy--and he may not. It may all be
moot as far as I know. But if it does not restrict this President, or
the incoming President, to make a determination prior to December 2001,
it may be that I should declare victory and go home as well.
I want to repeat something I tried earlier to discuss. I do not think
it is very well understood by many Members of Congress. I certainly do
not think it is very well understood by the American people. I say that
with great respect. It has been a voyage that has produced some
surprising discoveries on my part as well. I am not suggesting I am
smarter, more informed than anybody else. I am merely saying I spent
time on this.
I am deeply concerned that the threat to the United States of America
of an accidental and unauthorized launch from Russia goes up every
single day that we maintain the force structure as high as we currently
have. We have plenty of safety. We have plenty of redundancy. We have
plenty of capacity to tell whether we are actually being attacked or
whether the signals are false.
The Russians do not have any of that or they have a declining amount
of it. We are forcing them to maintain at levels, in my view, that are
increasing the danger to the people of the United States of America.
The danger is enhanced as a consequence of our sort of presuming maybe
there is no real risk.
I put these numbers out. This is the minimal level. This is what the
Pentagon said in 1997. It is what the Pentagon is currently saying is
still valid: That the minimal level we need in the number of warheads
is 2,500. The reason we need 2,500 is, according to the people who do
the targeting--again, they are doing the targeting based upon a
Presidential directive, presumably evaluated by the Congress after we
do the directing and tell them what needs to be done--there are 2,260
vital Russian nuclear targets.
These are on active alert. We are ready to attack. We are not talking
about the kinds of missiles that might miss by a couple of miles. These
things are going to hit. They are very accurate; they are very
sophisticated; and they are very reliable. We have 1,100 nuclear
targets. That is to say the Russians hold nuclear weapons. So 1,100 of
our nuclear warheads --and we do not have one under 100 kilotons--are
going to be targeted on 1,100 Russian nuclear sites.
Then there are conventional sites, conventional weapons sites--500
targets; 500 targets. I urge my colleagues to get a map out of Russia
and try to come up with 500 targets on top of 1,100 targets of nuclear
weapon sites. Part of this debate needs to be done in the open so we
can do a commonsense check as to whether or not we have more than we
actually need, again forcing the Russians to maintain more than they
can control.
Mr. President, 160 leadership targets. These are the guys to whom we
talk. We have a meeting with them: President Putin, would you agree to
modify ABM? And oh, by the way, we have 160 nuclear weapons of 100
kilotons or more targeted on you and all the rest of the Russian
leadership. Try to come up with 160 targets. Get a Russian map out and
put 160 targets up, or 500 targets, on something called war-supporting
industry. This is all published accounts. This is not me coming out of
the Intelligence Committee or some top secret briefing; this is now
published accounts of this targeting. It is vital for the American
people to understand that; otherwise they are going to say to the
Congress: Just keep doing what you are doing; it seems to be working.
The longer we continue doing what we are doing, the more likely it is
that the horrible, unimaginable disaster occurs and that is an
accidental unauthorized launch against the United States of America on
the people of America and that the people suffer as a result.
I have no idea if President Clinton would do an expedited review and
say: I am going to try to strike a deal with President Putin that will
allow us to go to lower levels of ABM to solve the stalemate we have
over missile defense. He may not take the option.
Whether he takes the option or not, I believe it is unwise for us to
be tying the hands of President Clinton. I think it would be unwise to
tie the hands of President Gore, President Bush, or any

[[Page 9504]]

President in this fashion. We had never done it up to 1998. There may
have been a compelling argument prior to the Duma's ratification of
START II, but there is no longer a compelling argument, in my view, and
it would be a mistake for us to have this continuing limitation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, I am thoroughly enjoying this opportunity. It is an
important amendment. Let me start by allowing those who are following
the amendment to understand what it is our distinguished colleague
wishes to do. By his amendment, he wishes to repeal the limitation on
retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems in
excess of military requirements. ``Section 1302 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998 is repealed.''
The thrust of what he is trying to repeal limits the President of the
United States to certain levels of strategic systems. Are we agreed on
that? Does the Senator have a copy?
Mr. KERREY. My amendment simply says:

Strike section 1017 and insert the following:
Sec. 1017. Repeal of Limitation on Retirement or
Dismantlement--

Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator have a copy of section 1017 he can print
in the Record?
Mr. KERREY. It is 1017 of the authorization--
Mr. WARNER. I understand that. The repeal of the limitation in a
previous authorization act of 1998--does the Senator have a copy of
1998?
Mr. KERREY. Section 1302 of the Defense Authorization Act.
Mr. WARNER. Section 1302 of 1998. I left mine in the office
inadvertently.
Mr. KERREY. Staff is searching, trying to get an answer. I do have
it.
Mr. WARNER. My distinguished ranking member is always prepared. We
want to make sure the Senator from Nebraska has a copy.
Mr. KERREY. The answer is yes. The Senator from Virginia and I are
looking at, I believe, the same thing.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. We are looking at the conference report
for the 1998 authorization bill on page 330, section 1302, ``Limitation
on Retirement or Dismantlement of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems.''
Mr. KERREY. I am looking at the public law.
Mr. WARNER. It is the same thing.
Mr. KERREY. My guess is it is pretty close.
Public Law 105-85 says:

(a) Funding Limitation.--Funds available to the Department
of Defense may not be obligated or expended during fiscal
year 1998 for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to
retire or dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear
delivery systems below the specified levels:
(1) 71 B-52H bomber aircraft.
(2) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.

I note that under current law, I believe you have given flexibility
to go from 18 to 14; at least you have allowed it to happen.

(3) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.
(4) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.

All of which total, by my rough calculation, slightly more than
6,000, which is the START limitation.
Mr. WARNER. Wouldn't the distinguished colleague from Nebraska say
that there Congress expressed its will and put limitations on the
powers of the President?
Mr. KERREY. Yes, I do.
Mr. WARNER. Fine, and that is precisely what the Senator wants to
take out.
Mr. KERREY. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. Let us frame the argument from that. Congress has already
done it. The question is: Should we continue, if we put this into
permanent law now, so it is permanent? Am I not correct on that?
Mr. KERREY. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia comes along and says there
could be merit in waiving this and a future President should have the
option to waive it, provided he does certain preliminary steps as
outlined in the amendment of the Senator of Virginia. Are we agreeable
with that interpretation?
Mr. KERREY. No, I would be agreeable if the Senator from Virginia
says----
Mr. WARNER. We may not agree, but do we understand that is what I am
endeavoring to do?
Mr. KERREY. That may be what you are endeavoring to do, but I am not
sure your amendment does it. You are saying with your amendment that
you want to make certain President Clinton cannot do it but future
Presidents could.
Mr. WARNER. What I am saying, practically speaking, is I do not think
President Clinton can do it in a judicious and effective way, given the
time limitations between now and the end of his term of office.
Mr. KERREY. That is an interpretation on which perhaps we should have
a colloquy. If we can reach a conclusion that the President could do an
effective review in short order, it may be, as I said, that I am going
to declare victory and go home and maybe support your second-degree
amendment.
Mr. WARNER. In the first place, the law of the land is still intact
until the Senate and, indeed, the House are in conference and the
President signs this bill. At the moment, the law of the land precludes
him from doing that.
What I am trying to offer is a relevant course of action whereby the
next President has the opportunity to address this situation in the
context of a fresh QDR and a fresh up-to-date analysis of all the
strategic threats, what the other nations possess, and the like. That
is effectively what I am trying to do.
Mr. KERREY. By effectively doing that, you are also saying that the
current QDR, the current evaluation, is not valid; that the analysis
that was done in 1997 by General Shalikashvili is not valid?
Mr. WARNER. I say it is outdated. Mr. President, 1994 is when the
last assessment was made.
Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague permit a question?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I also owe the Senator an answer on a
procedural matter which I am prepared to, regrettably, give, but I will
give it to him.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator.
I want to follow up on what the Senator from Nebraska said, and I
strongly support what the Senator from Nebraska is trying to achieve. I
ask the Senator from Virginia if he will agree that START II was signed
by the United States of America and was ratified.
Mr. WARNER. Factual.
Mr. KERRY. And the Senator agrees that now START II has also been
ratified by the Russian Duma.
Mr. WARNER. But with certain appendages thereto.
Mr. KERRY. I agree. I understand.
The Senator is correct. The Russian Duma ratified START II with the
understanding that they had to have the successor states to the ABM
Treaty ultimately recognized by the United States, and there are a
series of bilateral agreements they want us to ratify, and because the
Senator from North Carolina, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, is fundamentally opposed to these changes, we are stuck. But
the larger interests of the United States of America are to make the
world and this country safer.
We decided, as a matter of policy, I say to the Senator from
Virginia, that the world will be safer if we move to reduce weapons to
the levels of START II. In fact, it is the policy of the United States
of America now to engage in negotiations toward START III, but no one
whom I know, who is rational at least--and I absolutely include the
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee as among the
most rational and most thoughtful people on this subject--nobody is
suggesting that we would not want to reduce from the level of 6,000-
plus warheads and try to move in the direction of START II. I assume
the Senator agrees.
Mr. WARNER. I simply say to my distinguished colleague, before this

[[Page 9505]]

Senator expresses a view on that, I want to see a new quadrennial
review, as well as a new analysis of our strategic system. I will not
commit to any numbers at this time until I see that. That is
essentially what our candidate George W. Bush has said.
Mr. KERRY. I interpret what the candidate, George W. Bush, said
somewhat differently, and I read his speech closely the other day.
It was my understanding he said he is prepared to unilaterally reduce
weapons no matter what the Russians do. He also wants to accompany that
with a fairly robust national missile defense system.
I again say to my colleague, I think the Senator from Nebraska is on
target. Look, the former Soviet Union, what remains of it, Russia, has
an extraordinarily weak command and control system.
As a current member of the Intelligence Committee, and the Senator
from Virginia shares that, we know full well that one of the greatest
single threats to the United States of America today is threat
reduction efforts. To suggest that the United States, that our
citizens, are safer with more warheads and more active missiles being
left in place, with an army that is not being paid, with command and
control that is disintegrating and degrading, is a very hard thing for
me to understand.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might reply, I raised that issue
earlier. One of the reasons, motivations for the Russians to drive to
lower figures as soon as they can possibly get there is the inability
fiscally to maintain their own structure in a readiness posture, which
equates to what they have had in years past.
Mr. KERRY. I agree.
Mr. WARNER. That is a risk.
Mr. KERRY. But I ask my colleague, if you understand their economic
need, because they cannot maintain the warheads properly, and we are
worried about accidental launch, how can you then want to prohibit the
President of the United States from conceivably making us safer by
wanting to mutually move to a level where we are both safer because we
have a number of missiles that are able to be maintained properly and
the balance of power is correct?
Mr. WARNER. I give to my colleague two responses: No. 1--and I am not
trying to be critical of this President's administration--why didn't
they do that several years ago? Because the deterioration of the
infrastructure and the financial situation in Russia has been an
ongoing situation for several years. It commenced under Yeltsin.
Mr. KERRY. Absolutely.
Mr. WARNER. Why didn't your President take those initiatives several
years ago?
What I am saying to you now is, before this President or any other
President begins to make an assessment of a magnitude such as this,
they better have in place an up-to-date analysis. That is essentially
what I am saying.
For the record, I would like to read from the George W. Bush
statement:

As President, I will ask the Secretary of Defense to
conduct an assessment on our nuclear posture and determine
how best to meet our security needs. While the exact number
of weapons can come only from such an assessment, I will
pursue the lowest possible number consistent with our
national security.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is ironic that a Democrat would be here
interpreting the words of the putative Republican nominee. But let me
say to my colleague, he very clearly talked about unilateral
reductions. His father, President Bush, also was supportive of and
negotiated the policy of START II and wanted to move in that direction.
Now START II takes us down to 3,000 warheads. I do not know anybody
in the world of nuclear assessments--you look at the SIOPs. I think
there are public targeting figures that do not violate classification.
But I will be careful with this because I do not want to violate it.
Let me just say that the Senator well knows that the SIOPs plans of
the United States have a number of targets that are well taken care of
by the current levels of START II, which is why the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Pentagon, and everybody signed off on it.
In today's world, in a non-cold-war world, the greatest threat is a
rusty freighter hobbling its way into New York Harbor, or nearby, and
has the potential to launch a cruise missile at us, or the greater
threat is some group of terrorists assembling in New York the multiple
parts of a nuclear weapon and holding us hostage, or, as we saw in
Japan with the sarin gas attack, terrorists who want to cripple the
community through chemical or biological warfare.
Those threats chill me far more than the concept of reducing to 3,000
weapons over the course of the next years. It is going to happen. No
matter what the Senator from Virginia says about the next quadrennial
review, I am willing to bet my seat in the Senate that this country is
going to move, together with others, to reduce the levels of weapons to
at least 3,000. The debate today is not whether we ought to be at
3,000. The debate today is whether or not 1,000, 1,500, 2,200 to 2,500
are the appropriate levels.
So why on Earth we would want to hobble the ability of the President
of the United States to make this country safer by reducing to the
level already agreed upon by Republican and Democrat negotiators alike
is absolutely beyond me.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I simply say to my colleague, the Congress
has done it. Why do we want to hobble? They did it. Last year our
colleague brought up the amendment, vigorously argued it, and it was
defeated. So Congress did it again.
Mr. KERRY. There was a reason, Mr. President. It is because the
Russian Duma had not ratified. Everybody understood the rationale for
that. But now they have ratified it. And the only restraint on our
moving to a safer world is the fact that the Senate Foreign Relations
chairman is unwilling to bring it to the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I am not going to single out the Foreign Relations
chairman, but I make the following observation. That is, this is the
law of the land. We are giving the opportunity to the next President to
do the necessary studies.
Supposing President Clinton took such actions, which under the
Constitution I presume he can--except that the law is pretty explicit
here, unless it is repealed--and laid down a set of numbers which the
next President, whomever it may be, finds unacceptable after he does
the requisite studies, not only of the nuclear posture but also the
conventional. You have to do them together. Then what happens?
The next President is faced with the dilemma of trying to refute what
President Clinton did. That would be the worst of both worlds.
Mr. KERRY. May I ask the distinguished Senator from Virginia, with
all his years of experience--he has been on the inside of these
negotiations; there is nobody with a stronger career with respect to
this--can he really say to me, in this current climate, with the
problems of the Russians in reducing and maintaining their current
weapons, he can really envision the scenario which would require us to
reverse a builddown to the 3,000 level?
Mr. WARNER. First, I thank my colleague for his comments with regard
to me. But, No. 1, I never commented on SIOPs. I think that is a
classification that should not in any way be breached.
Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
Mr. WARNER. Let me finish. Then, not addressing the SIOPs in any
way--I think you understand why we should not do that--I believe that
it is unwise, given the current posture of the studies and the fact
that on the face they are not up to date--certainly there has been no
revelation that these studies are up to date--that we should be making
decisions with regard to numbers at this time. I simply will not put my
finger on any particular number. Your assumption is reasonable, but I
am not going to accede to it.
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend, he talks about the law of the
land. When you sign a treaty and the Senate has ratified it, it is the
law of the land. Technically speaking, under international law, it is
the law of the

[[Page 9506]]

land when you sign it. When it is ratified, it is even more so the law
of the land.
I realize that technically speaking the SALT II does not, in effect,
go into full effect until we pass on the codicils. But that is such a
technicality in the context of what we are trying to achieve in the
world. We are the leader of the free world. We used to be the most
important force in the world for nonproliferation efforts. We used to
make the most important efforts to try to encourage other countries to
toe the line on nuclear weapons.
If we are now going to suggest that having put into law and ratified
a treaty, we are unwilling to reduce these levels of nuclear weapons at
a time we know Russia is growing more and more unsafe in its capacity
to maintain them, we are not acting in the interests of the American
people and making them safer.
I say respectfully to my friend from Virginia, in the next 6 months
there is ample opportunity for any President to step in, a new
President, and say: I do not want to continue these levels. But we have
an opportunity here to make the law of the land on this bill in effect
carry through properly. I strongly hope my colleagues will do so
because it is the right thing to do.
I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have enjoyed my colloquy with my
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts.
I would like to present my amendment at an appropriate time. Has the
presentation of the presenter, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska,
concluded?
Is this an appropriate juncture, because I don't want to encroach on
the opportunity for him to fully give his presentation?
Mr. KERREY. The Senator is not encroaching. I stand by and look
forward to his argument.
Mr. WARNER. I see the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on
strategic affairs seeking some recognition. I would like to accommodate
him. I have had more than adequate opportunity to debate these points.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to point out that the Strategic
Subcommittee, which I chair, has been realizing that times are changing
and we need to reevaluate and reassess our nuclear forces. In fact, if
you look in the bill, we have set up a couple of studies: a revised
nuclear posture review in section 1015. Another is a plan for a long-
term sustainment of modernization of U.S. strategic nuclear forces in
section 1016.
We recognize that times are changing. But this is very serious
business. When you are talking about a balance of power between the
United States and the rest of the world--and in this particular case,
Russia, the former U.S.S.R.--we are talking about very serious
business. I don't think this decision should be made by one person.
That is why we have set up this posture review process. We suggested it
in the bill we have introduced in the full committee and now it is part
of the bill. Apparently, this sort of mantle was picked up by
Presidential candidate George W. Bush. An important part of his
comments is that there be a posture review, a careful analysis of where
we are with our nuclear forces. I think your amendment is carrying
forward with what the Strategic Subcommittee suggests and the Armed
Services Committee and even candidate for the Presidency George W.
Bush.
I support the chairman in his amendment to ask for a posture review
before we move forward. If I am not a cosponsor on that amendment, I
will ask that I be added because I think it is very important. No
matter who is President, I don't think one single person should be
making these decisions without a careful review from those people who
know what they are doing in the Department of Defense.
As I understand the chairman's amendment, it does call for that very
careful review. There is one thing I would like to comment on before I
yield. The Warner substitute amendment, as I understand it, would
provide authority for the President to waive the limitations in current
law regarding the retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems once
the Secretary of Defense has completed the Nuclear Posture Review
required by section 1015, which I referred to earlier in my comments.
The amendment of the Senator from Nebraska, as I understand it, would
not be consistent with the policy enunciated by Governor Bush, nor
would it satisfy the concerns that Congress has raised for the last 5
years. It would lead to misguided and uninformed reductions, in my
view, rather than a force posture based on careful review of all our
strategic requirements and how these relate to our overall national
military policy. I think the chairman is headed in the right direction.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may, I will make one observation and
then I will step back. This provision in the bill that is currently
before the Senate was done in, first, the subcommittee of which the
Senator is chairman.
Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. It was brought to a markup, at which time any Senators on
that side of the aisle could have objected to it. There was no
objection. In fact, as I have looked at the record, it was accepted and
voted on unanimously by the entire committee, recognizing the
importance of having such a review done timely before any analysis
could be made as to future levels of weaponry; am I not correct?
Mr. ALLARD. That is correct. This issue was not brought up in
subcommittee or full committee that I recall.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield on that narrow point, this
language was significantly amended in committee, if I may say so. It
wasn't offered in that form. It was amended. This language here is not
the issue. The issue is that the amendment of the Senator from Virginia
says that this President and the next President cannot take an action
until after a certain action is taken at the end of 2001. That was
never discussed in committee. It is not part----
Mr. WARNER. Any time before. It doesn't limit it to the end of 2001.
It could be done earlier on.
Mr. LEVIN. Oh, it can be?
Mr. WARNER. With the next President.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield on that, the
language of the Senator's amendment doesn't say that. That was the
question I was going to ask the Senator from Colorado. It doesn't
preclude the President from doing a review before December 2001. The
Senator from Virginia was saying so long as it is Gore or Bush, it is
OK; but if it is Clinton, it is not.
This is June 6, the day Franklin Delano Roosevelt, while going
through a Presidential campaign, authorized the landing on the beaches
of Normandy. There was bipartisan support for it. He was running
against Dewey at the time, and he was courageous enough to say we were
going to have a bipartisan foreign policy.
The thing that concerns me is that we are losing that. We are saying
President Clinton can't do it. If it is Bush or Gore, fine, they can do
it, but Clinton can't. I think that is a signal that we are not
willing--for example, the Senator said earlier President Bush signed
START II after the November election and authorized troops to go to
Somalia late in his term. We understood it was late in his term and
that he might not have won the election, but, by gosh, the President
had the authority to make these decisions right up to the end of his
term. This amendment seems to be saying, although I think the language
of the amendment--I am trying to ascertain whether or not I should vote
for this amendment because it appears the language would allow the
President to do an expedited review. It doesn't say he can't have it
done earlier. It may be that the Senator's intent is to prevent
President Clinton from doing it. But I don't believe the language of
the amendment does that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the floor.
Mr. ALLARD. I thought the Senator from Virginia was controlling the
time.
Mr. KERREY. I ask the Senator from Colorado, is it his understanding
that this language would prevent a President Bush from doing a review
that

[[Page 9507]]

could be done in 60 days from, let's say, either the time of his
election or the time he is sworn in as President? Would it prevent an
expedited review? Say he has Colin Powell or former National Security
Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger and George Shultz advising
him, and the four of them say we believe he ought to go to 5,000, and
the Secretary of Energy is going to notify Bush on February 1; would
your amendment preclude that?
Mr. ALLARD. In my view, and the way I read the amendment--and I think
you are missing the main point of the amendment--is that you have a
careful review before making a decision. From a practical standpoint,
hopefully, it is not going to be an easy decision arrived at. If you
are using February as an example, I think it may be possible, because
if you look into it, it says after the quadrennial review of 2001.
Mr. KERREY. No. It says concurrent, which, as I read the language of
this amendment, would cause me not to vote for it. It doesn't preclude
President Clinton or Bush or Gore from saying we can finish that part
of the review faster than the rest of the review and have the Secretary
of Energy submit it to Congress for congressional consideration. By the
way, you can strike this provision and there is no guarantee at all
that President Clinton is going to take any action. He hasn't thus far.
He hasn't asked for authority.
Mr. ALLARD. The important point is that we have careful review of our
nuclear posture. I think it should be done with a lot of consultation
with a lot of different people, other than only the President and his
immediate surrounding staff. I think the amendment of Senator Warner
does that. I think it is certainly compatible and consistent with what
the committee has been thinking in terms of the studies they think are
necessary, both in long-term as well as short-term posturing with the
nuclear forces. Personally, I think probably there is going to be an
opportunity for us to reduce some of our nuclear forces. But it has to
be done with a lot of forethought and careful study. I don't think we
are going to solve that on the Senate floor. I think it is going to
take people who know and understand all the details of the program--
both ours as well as throughout the world--to make this decision. I
don't think it can be made quickly.
Mr. KERREY. The Senator's answer is yes, for a new President. He
could do it as long as he is satisfied with the definition of ``careful
review.'' He could do it prior to December of 2001. According to this
amendment, it has to be submitted by 2001. So a careful review could be
done before December 2001.
I am trying to get the Senator to talk me into voting for his
amendment. That is what I am attempting to do here. If the answer is
yes, as it appears to be, you may not want President Clinton to make
the decision. By the way, I think it is unlikely that he will. He
hasn't thus far.
I just think it would not be a good thing for us to say that we are
going to put a restriction on this President that we are not going to
put on the President-elect, whoever that happens to be.
Mr. ALLARD. I would like to respond to that. On page 4 of the Warner
amendment, it says after submission of a report, consult with the new
Congress in subsection (c).
I think if those positions are met, we can move forward.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might interject myself, as this is
drawn, I can easily amend it so that the next President can bring about
the necessary infrastructure of studies and have them completed on a
timetable to accelerate it so it is not tied to December. The way this
is drawn, it is due in December. But I do not interpret that to
preclude an earlier assessment by the next President.
What I say to the Senator most respectfully is, practically speaking,
under the current administration you have several years in which to do
this work and bring it up to date. It simply has not been done.
I just think, practically speaking, this President would be ill-
advised to try in the remaining period of a few months to do this type
of important thing and to have these studies suddenly brought up.
Mr. KERREY. First of all, I think it would be a very unwise thing to
do.
Again, as I indicated earlier, President Bush took action on START II
after the election of 1992. President Bush committed troops to Somalia
late in his term without getting my objection to do it. I wasn't going
to draw a line in the sand late in his term if he saw a threat to this
Nation. And if he had a policy, I would agree with that policy. I was
not going to prevent him from doing it simply because it would be late.
I think that would be inadvisable.
I look at the language of the amendment. I don't see any need to do
in the amendment what the Senator is saying. It seems to me that the
language of the amendment says it has to be submitted by December 2001,
but also there is language in there precluding President Clinton, if he
could, to accelerate a review if he chose to.
I am trying to get the Senator to talk me into voting for his
amendment because it seems to me the language of his amendment would
allow the President, if he chose to, to do the review just as
President-elect Bush or President-elect Gore could do.
Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator from Nebraska has carefully pointed
out that some clarification of this December timeframe is desirable. I
will begin to draft it immediately and hope he can accept some.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, it is not desirable, if the Senator from
Virginia seeks to get additional support. I am saying that as long as
he keeps the language the way it is right now, I can interpret this in
a way that allows President Clinton to do so if he chooses. Again, I
say to my good friends on that side that President Clinton hasn't
indicated any desire to do so.
Why would we want to draft this amendment so that it prevented an
existing President from doing something that a new President could do
if the existing President hasn't demonstrated any willingness to do so
in the first place?
It seems to me if Congress is saying we just do not trust this
particular President, and we are not going to allow him to do that, it
is a very bad signal. It signals to people that may have a bad intent
toward the United States of America that they might be able to get away
with things. They might be able to do things in this current
environment as a consequence of Congress not willing to allow what
normally the Commander in Chief would be allowed to do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Warner amendment, maybe
I can offer a little solace to my colleague from Nebraska, which I
think is consistent with the intent of the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee.
First of all, as the Senator from Colorado pointed out, the primary
point of the Warner amendment is to ensure that two specific studies
are done; that this cannot be done just on the certification of the
President. That is the primary distinction between this amendment and
the amendment from the Senator from Nebraska.
With respect to those two studies, one of them is the quadrennial
review. That is the review that Congress now requires of the President
every 4 years. It is a very long set of requirements that take all of
the defense needs of the country into account in a coordinated,
structured way.
It is in that context that I believe, incidentally, Governor Bush
would probably want to have this review done. I can't speak for
Governor Bush. But I am certain after having talked to him that he has
in mind approaching our defense structure generally in a somewhat
different way than the past administration has. He has some different
strategies in mind.
My guess is that he would want the nuclear review to be done
consistent with the quadrennial review so that the Nuclear Posture
Review would be coordinated with the quadrennial review. That is
precisely what the Warner amendment calls for. It says:

[[Page 9508]]

The secretary of defense shall submit to Congress in
unclassified and classified forms as necessary a report on
the result of the Nuclear Posture Review concurrently with
the Quadrennial Defense Review due in December of 2001.

The Senator from Nebraska is quite correct. That report would be
accelerated some. As a practical matter, however, it is not going to be
accelerated to the point that would occur in the year 2000, and as a
result it would, in fact, occur during the next administration--not
this administration, the way the amendment is written, at least as I
read it.
While it does not tie the Nuclear Posture Review to a specific date,
it does say that it should be submitted concurrently with the QDR,
whenever that happens to be submitted.
I think that is the answer to the Senator's question. I think this is
a very reasonable approach. I hope the Senator will support the
amendment for that reason.
I again go back to primarily the point that was made, and that is
that we have two different approaches. One relies on just the
certification of the President that he thinks this is a good thing to
do. The other specifically requires him to do the Nuclear Posture
Review and the quadrennial review and to submit those two concurrently.
Then the President can, if need be, bring the force structure down.
I would like to make one other point, if I could. If the Senator from
Nebraska wishes to interrupt me, that is fine.
The second point I want to make is this: There is a tendency to speak
in just sort of hypothetical terms about numbers: Well, 6,000 is a lot
or 3,000 seems more reasonable.
What everyone really needs to understand is that we are talking about
one of the most complex sets of interrelated considerations that exist
in our defense strategic posture.
The Senator from Nebraska, as the vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee until very recently, appreciates this point as well as
anyone. I know that. Among the things that have to be considered, for
example, in bringing the number of warheads down, are two things:
First, though we all talk in terms of warheads, the Senator from
Nebraska knows and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee knows
that isn't what we really count. We count delivery systems. Those
delivery systems include ICBMs, missiles on submarines, and bombers,
which are the three legs of the triad that deliver the warheads.
Here is just one consideration that goes into this equation. The
United States has a need to project its conventional forces. We are the
superpower of the world. We try to keep peace in parts of the world
when other nations cannot do so because among other things, we have the
reach to get to those places. We recently involved those forces in
Kosovo, and before that we did it in the gulf war. In both cases we
used our bomber forces.
Some of these bomber forces, such as the B-2 bomber, clearly count in
terms of strategic warheads. If we were to bring the strategic warheads
down too far, the result of that would be to take out of service
bombers which we need not just for strategic purposes but for
conventional purposes as well.
That is why this gets to be a pretty complicated matter and why it
shouldn't be done quickly. It certainly shouldn't be done merely for
political reasons. I am not suggesting that any President would do
that.
That is why clearly a Nuclear Posture Review is critical to any
proposal that the President would make in this regard or any decision
he would announce. Because you are talking about the interrelationship
between conventional and strategic forces, you should tie this to the
QDR as well.
That is why the Warner amendment very wisely says the Nuclear Posture
Review, and the quadrennial review should be submitted concurrently,
and that when they are, the President could make a decision to reduce
our warheads below that called for by this agreement.
One more point in response to a point that the Senator from
Massachusetts made earlier. The inference of his remarks was now that
START II has been ratified by both the United States and Russia, there
is no reason why we can't bring these warhead numbers down. But that is
not true. START II has not been ratified unconditionally by the Duma.
The Duma in Russia ratified START II with conditions, and until those
conditions are satisfied, Russia will not submit its articles of
ratification. They will not become effective. Until they are deposited
with the appropriate international body, and I believe it is Geneva,
Switzerland, the Duma ratification of START II is not effective. It is
conditional upon two things that the U.S. won't approve: the so-called
multilateralization agreement and another agreement which limits the
way in which our tactical missile defenses could be arrayed.
We are at a stalemate in terms of START II. That is why it is
inaccurate to argue that since both countries have now ratified START
II, the President might as well bring the numbers down. That is not
true. There may be good reason to bring those numbers down irrespective
of START II, but it is not an argument that because both countries have
ratified START II, now the President should bring the warhead numbers
down. In point of fact, START II has not yet been legally ratified by
Russia.
The bottom line is I agree with President Bush. I take it, to some
extent based upon what I know of Senator Kerrey's comments, that we
ought to make a determination which makes sense for America. The world
is different now than it used to be. The President ought to, upon
proper review, determine the size of our nuclear strategic forces.
Where I think perhaps we may have a disagreement, although perhaps he
now is convinced, is that rather than simply saying the President can
have that authority and can exercise it irrespective of what the
Congress did last year in passing the law that said no, rather than
taking that approach, it makes much more sense to ensure that the
President makes this decision with the calm, cool reflection of the
quadrennial review and the strategic nuclear posture review having been
done. When those two things are done and submitted concurrently, it
will be an appropriate time for the President then to make this
decision.
Mr. KERREY. First, I appreciate very much the statement of the
Senator from Arizona. We have been together on a number of occasions
before the intelligence committee and in the public environment talking
about the threat of the missiles, especially from rogue states. I have
enjoyed those associations very much.
He is quite right; the systems are extremely complicated. We do talk
about warheads and we ought to focus on the platforms. One of the
problems is that it is very rare we have a chance to focus on any of
these. It is debated too little, in my view. These are not bullets;
these are very complicated systems. If you are the STRATCOM, you have a
Presidential directive that tells you what you are supposed to do.
Again, that is where it all begins, with a Presidential directive and a
PPD 60 that was updated during the Clinton administration. You set
forth talents. You are the CINC in charge of this. You have ICBMs,
submarine launch ballistic missiles; you have your bombers at your
disposal; and you are calculating whether they will be reliable,
whether they are available, whether they will be able to do what that
Presidential directive says you have to do. I am challenging the
Presidential directive, the policy itself.
As I understand it, I thought earlier we could have some flexibility
in this amendment. I am uncomfortable tying this thing to quadrennial
review. I don't want to speak for the administration. I am not on the
Armed Services Committee so I haven't been there when they made the
presentations, but I have, as a consequence of being provoked to do so,
requested a briefing from STRATCOM that was given to General
Shalikashvili in 1997 and was presented to the Armed Services
Committee. I believe both the chairman and ranking member received that
briefing, as well. I am satisfied that is a current analysis. I am
satisfied that it needs relatively little attention.
I don't agree with what the chairman has said, saying that the
President has

[[Page 9509]]

not been evaluating this over the last 7 years. He has arms control
negotiators. In fact, he has resisted pressure from this side of the
aisle to do the very thing I am talking about right now. He has been
unwilling to do it; he has been unwilling to go lower, to do the thing
that President Bush did in 1991.
I am not certain, even if this section were stricken, that the
President would take any action, but I am not willing to accept that
there hasn't been a sufficient amount of review done on this, and I
think it would be unwise, as I hear now, not only restricting President
Clinton but restricting President-elect Bush or President-elect Gore.
Earlier in a colloquy with the author of the amendment, it seemed
there was some flexibility. But I hear the Senator from Arizona saying,
no, there is not; it would have to be submitted concurrent with the
quadrennial review, which is expected in December of 2001, and it may
not be done 2001. It could take longer than December of 2001. We are
saying that the current President and future Presidents could not, if
they got an attractive offer from the Russians to accept the kind of
modifications in ABM that permit a vigorous deployment of missile
defense along the lines of what Governor Bush is talking about, this
would prohibit Governor Bush from doing that unless we came in and
changed the law again.
I think we should not be tying the hands of the President in these
kinds of negotiations. What current law does, as modified by the
Senator from Virginia, is to untie it slightly, but as I understand it
now and if the Senator from Virginia agrees regarding the explanation
of the Senator from Arizona in an earlier evaluation, that could not be
done, but only submitted concurrent with the submission of the
quadrennial review.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERREY. I yield.
Mr. LEVIN. My understanding is the Senator from Arizona and the
Senator from Virginia would have to make a decision on this because it
is his amendment. But my understanding is that the decision of the
President to lower the force structure--what he negotiates is a totally
different issue. We are not limiting what the President can negotiate
in terms of a treaty which will then be submitted to the Senate.
We are talking about a force structure which has to be maintained,
subject to being changed either by treaty when ratified becomes the law
of the land, or by a subsequent law.
What this language does, as I understand it, and I think I partly
agree with the Senator from Arizona, is that he could not lower the
force structure until that Quadrennial Defense Review and Nuclear
Posture Review are submitted. I think that is the way the amendment
reads.
However, I think I agree with what the Senator from Virginia
suggested before, which is if that Quadrennial Defense Review and
Nuclear Posture Review is submitted before December of 2001, at that
point this waiver could be exercised by a President.
Mr. KYL. That is exactly my understanding, too. That is precisely the
way I think it reads.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. LEVIN. What is interesting to me is that there has been an
argument from the Senator from Virginia and our good friend from
Arizona that there should be a review; until there is a review, there
should not be a reduction in our force from START I levels.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
Mr. LEVIN. There was a review in 1994--1994. In 1994, the START II
level was deemed to be adequate by the chiefs. There was a nuclear
posture review in 1994.
Then, in 1996, we come along and say you can't go to START II levels.
You have to stay with START I levels, we said, by law--by law.
So we had this thoughtful Nuclear Posture Review that took place in
1994, but we won't let a Commander in Chief implement that Nuclear
Posture Review, which was thoughtfully carried out and which supported
the START II levels in 1994 because we came along a year and a half
later and said you have to stick with the START I levels.
Now the chiefs are very much opposed to that requirement in law that
restricts us to START I levels, the higher levels, and doesn't allow a
Commander in Chief to go to the START II levels. They have written us,
and they have testified. Here is General Shelton:

I would definitely oppose inclusion of any language that
mandates specific force structure levels.

General Shelton:

The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to consider
options that will reduce the strategic forces to the levels
recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review.

That was 1994. He went on:

The START I legislative restraint will need to be removed
before we can pursue these options. Major costs will be
incurred if we remain at START I levels.

So we required that they stick at START I levels, in 1996. And then
some of us now are critical of the Commander in Chief for not going to
a different force structure. We are saying: Well, that's the law. We
passed the law. We require him to stay at the START I levels. And now
some of us criticize him for trying to do something precipitously,
without adequate study.
There was an adequate study. It was called a Nuclear Posture Review
in 1994, which said the START II levels were adequate for the security
of this country. We will not let him go to the START II levels. Then,
as my good friend from Nebraska points out, in 1997 there was an
additional review. I do not think any of us want to suggest the chiefs
did not do a thoughtful review in 1997, saying we could safely go, in a
START III agreement, to a lower level than START II. But we are stuck
at START I. We are at START I levels. Now we are saying we will let the
next President go to a lower level than START I, but not this, because
we want it to be thoughtful, when we had a thoughtful review in 1994.
We will not let them go on. We had a thoughtful review in 1997 to which
we won't let him go.
Of course, it should be thoughtful. We have had two of them right in
the Record, right before us, that we are saying, in the Kerrey
amendment, to which we ought to allow a Commander in Chief to go. We
have the Chiefs saying they want the option to go to the START II
levels. Unless we say the chiefs do not act thoughtfully--and I do not
think anybody in this Chamber wants to take that position--then it
seems to me we should allow a Commander in Chief to go to the
thoughtful Posture Review level of 1994 and the thoughtful 1997 level.
So the first thing we need to do is interpret what this amendment
means. I do not know if Senator Warner agrees with this, but I think
Senator Kyl has suggested the way I phrased that interpretation was
accurate. I would be asking a question, even though Senator Kerrey has
the floor, of Senator Warner, whether he agrees with Senator Kyl's
interpretation of the Warner amendment.
Mr. KERREY. Let me ask Senator Warner the question.
Mr. WARNER. I ask my colleague to restate his position for clarity,
and then I will clearly indicate.
Mr. KERREY. In answering the question of the Senator from Michigan,
that portion that was directed to me at least, first of all I say you
are right. I think the question is, Do we need an additional review,
more than we have already had, to support a President if the President
decides to go at lower levels? That is what this amendment says. This
amendment says we need additional review and it needs to be more
thoughtful than we have had thus far.
I am prepared to say, with the little I know--you know more than I on
this subject--that we have had thoughtful and serous review done. What
the amendment does is it ties the hands of a President, this President
and the President-elect, if we have to wait for it to be submitted
concurrently with the quadrennial review, and it weakens him as a
consequence. It says to the people who are negotiating with him, if an
offer is put on the table by this President that is different from what
the current law allows, he cannot do it. He can't sit down and
negotiate with President Putin to go to lower levels in

[[Page 9510]]

exchange for a modification of ABM because the law prevents him from
doing it.
It weakens an incumbent President. That is exactly what it does. I
think that is what it is intended to do. That is what it will
successfully accomplish. I don't think--in fact, I know--from my
experience of the Senator from Virginia that is precisely the opposite
of the sort of thing he would want. He would avoid it. I am going to
listen to the answer of the Senator from Virginia and then come back in
the morning to hear even more.
But in the spirit of bipartisanship, I understand the Senator from
Virginia is going to be offering later, perhaps, an amendment that
would provide some resources for the operation of a World War II
memorial.
Mr. WARNER. That is my intention.
Mr. KERREY. I would like to be added as a cosponsor of that.
Mr. WARNER. At long last, he is joining me. I am going to do that as
soon as the opportunity presents itself.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe the question of the Senator from
Michigan through the Senator from Nebraska to the Senator from Virginia
is whether he agreed with me.
My interpretation is simply the language of the amendment which says
that the Nuclear Posture Review shall be submitted concurrently with
the quadrennial review, which is due in December----
Mr. WARNER. No later than.
Mr. KYL. No later than December 2001. It could be, therefore,
submitted prior to that date. It all depends upon when the QDR would be
submitted. But it does have to be at the same time.
If I could just make one other point, I am advised by staff that the
last quadrennial review did not include a review of the nuclear
posture. So the last Nuclear Posture Review was in fact in 1994.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague is correct on that. I can
verify that. And I agree with his interpretation of my amendment. It is
as simple as that.
Mr. LEVIN. I think I did say the Nuclear Posture Review of 1994,
which was a thoughtful review which supports START II levels. The
Commander has been precluded from going to that by our law.
Mr. WARNER. It comes down to a very practical application, that we
believe strongly--and this amendment recites it--that certain steps
should be taken before any President makes such important decisions
with regard to the numbers in our future arsenals.
Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, this debate can
continue tomorrow. I think we have had an excellent debate. I think we
have narrowed, for the benefit of the Senate, where the differences are
on the two sides.
Unless my colleague from Colorado has further to say on this
amendment, I will proceed to do another amendment at this time.
Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for just one procedural question?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, of course.
Mr. LEVIN. Is it the intention, then, of the Senator from Virginia to
modify his pending amendment?
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Michigan. It is not my intention
to modify the amendment of the Senator from Virginia at the desk at
this time.
Mr. LEVIN. The modification I was referring to was not a technical
modification to comply with the unanimous consent agreement. The
modification I was referring to is whether the Senator from Virginia is
intending to modify any of the language relative to that 2001 date.
Mr. WARNER. At this time I do not think it is necessary. I will ask
the Chair, for the purposes of clarity, is the amendment of the Senator
from Virginia in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it is.
Mr. WARNER. There was some concern, technically, heretofore that it
was not.
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we will lay aside this amendment for the
time being.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent agreement we are
operating under at the present time does not contemplate any additional
amendments, so it would require unanimous consent.
Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I am simply at this point in time asking
my colleague for unanimous consent that I can send to the desk an
amendment relating to the World War II veterans memorial.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, we just need a few minutes
to look at it. We just received it.
Mr. WARNER. Why don't we put in a brief quorum call, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3189

(Purpose: To require the disposal of a certain quantity of titanium
from the National Defense Stockpile)

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have consulted with my distinguished
colleague, and I am going to now send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Roth, Mr. Helms, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Gorton, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment
numbered 3189.

Mr. WARNER. 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 613, after line 12, insert the following:

SEC. 3403. DISPOSAL OF TITANIUM.

(a) Disposal Required.--Subject to subsection (b), the
President shall, by September 30, 2010, dispose of 30,000
short tons of titanium contained in the National Defense
Stockpile so as to result in receipts to the United States in
a total amount that is not less than $180,000,000.
(b) Minimization of Disruption and Loss.--The President may
not dispose of titanium under subsection (a) to the extent
that the disposal will result in--
(1) undue disruption of the usual markets of producers,
processors, and consumers of titanium; or
(2) avoidable loss to the United States.
(c) Treatment of Receipts.--Notwithstanding section 9 of
the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50
U.S.C. 98h), funds received as a result of the disposal of
titanium under subsection (a) shall be applied as follows:
$174,000,000 to defray the costs of health care benefit
improvement for retired military personnel; and $6,000,000
for transfer to the American Battle Monuments Commission for
deposit in the fund established under section 2113 of title
36, United States Code, for the World War II memorial
authorized by section 1 of Public Law 103-32 (107 Stat. 90).
(d) World War II Memorial.--(1) The amount transferred to
the American Battle Monuments Commission under subsection (c)
shall be used to complete all necessary requirements for the
design of, ground breaking for, construction of, maintenance
of, and dedication of the World War II memorial. The
Commission shall determine how the amount shall be
apportioned among such purposes.
(2) Any funds not necessary for the purposes set forth in
paragraph (1) shall be transferred to and deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury.
(e) Relationship to Other Disposal Authority.--The disposal
authority provided in subsection (a) is new disposal
authority and is in addition to, and shall not affect, any
other disposal authority provided by law regarding materials
in the National Defense Stockpile.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our beloved former colleague, former
majority leader, Senator Dole, and others have been very active in
raising funds to build a memorial to those who served in World War II.
I have been in consultation with him, as have other Members of the
Senate, with regard to the success of this memorial effort.

[[Page 9511]]

It has been successful. Today Senator Dole was proud to receive a
donation from the private sector in excess of some $14 million. What a
fitting day, the 56th anniversary of D-Day. I called Senator Dole,
after consultation with a number of my colleagues, most specifically
those colleagues in addition to myself who served in World War II, to
get their concurrence in a decision that I had made sometime earlier to
the effect that I thought Congress should participate in the funding of
a portion of this memorial, a relatively small portion that remains to
be raised to reach the goal. I asked Senator Dole to come today, which
he did several hours ago. We met. We reached concurrence on the
following language, which I will address to the Senate.
This is becoming a campaign to build this memorial. It is all
America. It is extraordinary. I was very heavily involved in the
funding, the legislation and other aspects of the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial, spent 2 or 3 years before, in fact, or more working with the
courageous group that envisioned that magnificent memorial. I can
remember when it was just a glimmer in our eyes, the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial. I think there were 10,000 different designs that came in. I
remember going out to Andrews Air Force Base where all the designs for
the Vietnam Veterans Memorial were posted. We had a group of experts
examine them.
Finally, the experts came down on the design which is the current
wall. It was designed by a young architectural student or just a
graduate, 21 years old. It was as if the hand of providence reached
down and touched those individuals who started that campaign, who saw
it through at times when we didn't have $5 in the bank and we worked to
rescue it. Then this brilliant woman, Maya Lin, created the design out
of 10,000 submissions. So much for that history.
I have a very modest association with Senator Dole and others who are
working on this, but I am happy to present this to the Senate tonight
as America's campaign. Citizens across our land, corporations,
foundations, veterans groups, civic, fraternal, professional
organizations and State legislatures, yes, indeed, State legislatures,
have generously contributed to this important cause. Hundreds of
thousands of individual Americans, young and old, are rallying behind
the opportunity to say thank you to a generation of Americans from the
World War II generation. It is to the military men and women who wore
the uniforms, but I, as a young person who went into the service in
January 1945, remember the war was raging, the Battle of the Bulge had
not been completed yet. The campaign in Iwo Jima was about to start.
The whole of America was involved in that war, whether you were in
uniform or whether you were on the home front.
This is a recognition of the contribution of millions of Americans,
upwards of 16 million who wore the uniform in that period, and treble
that amount at home were involved in the industrial base, all of the
activities to support those who were on the battlefronts in the Pacific
and in Europe.
So it was America's generation of uniformed and those civilians here
at home who fought courageously and sacrificed in so many ways to make
victory assured against tyranny.
The memorial campaign currently is progressing toward raising the
$139.6 million needed to build this lasting memorial to the generation
that conquered tyranny in the 20th century. While the campaign is very
close to the goal, we in the Congress now have an opportunity to show
our support and add our shoulder to the wheel.
The site on The National Mall has been chosen, preliminary design
approved, and the intent is to break ground on Veterans Day weekend,
this November. Since the private sector is generously donating the
funds needed to design, construct, and maintain the memorial--over $120
million as of today--I believe it is appropriate for Congress also to
support the memorial campaign.
The amendment I introduce tonight, together with my distinguished
colleague from Michigan, Mr. Levin, will show the support of Congress
for this important project. Specifically, the amendment provides for $6
million to the American Battle Monuments Commission from the revenues
of sale of titanium from the national defense stockpile--
nonappropriated funds, Mr. President. The $6 million should be used to
complete all necessary requirements for the design of, groundbreaking
for, construction of, maintenance of, and dedication of the World War
II memorial.
The Commission plans to complete construction and dedicate the
memorial on Veterans Day, 2002. We cannot wait a moment longer to show
our support for this project. It is astonishing that over 1,000 men and
women each day who proudly wore the uniform, of that 16 million total,
are passing on to their great rewards--1,000 a day who die. Now it is
the hour for Congress to act and put our shoulder to the wheel to give
our expression, along with all other Americans, for this great project.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I congratulate and thank the Senator from
Virginia for his leadership in this matter. This is a relatively small
contribution from the people, acting through its Congress. The private
sector is funding 95 percent of this effort. This is really symbolic
almost, but it is an important contribution. It symbolizes where the
heart of this institution, this Congress, is, and reflects where the
American people are because they would, I think, applaud what the good
Senator from Virginia is doing here tonight, and I am happy to join. I
thank him. He points out many things that I won't amplify, given the
hour, except to say it is surely the right day today, this 56th
anniversary of D-Day.
When he talks about how the American people who participated in that
effort are all being honored, surely first and foremost are our
veterans, but all the American people who are behind them; it is such
an important point for all of us to remember.
I remember as a kid the minute, little contribution we kids were
making, going around the streets looking for wrappers that we could
peel off the foil, put it together in a little ball of metal, and then,
with all the little balls of metal, put together a tank or an airplane.
But first and foremost, obviously, it is the veterans, those who didn't
come back and those who did.
I thank the Senator from Virginia for doing this. I don't know if he
listed all the cosponsors.
Mr. WARNER. I was about to do that. It is so hard for the current
generation of people to remember that period. Both of us do. I happen
to have been in uniform. I remember where we had a little book of
stamps, savings bonds, and you put your quarter stamps in. You were
rationing butter, meat, shoes and clothing. We never thought about it.
It was our way of backing the men and women in uniform. I remember it
was 3 gallons, I think, a week of gasoline that you had. My father was
a doctor, and I remember that doctors had an additional allocation of
gasoline so they could make hospital calls and visit homes. It was just
an extraordinary hour in America, the way there was a total effort.
Mr. LEVIN. All the way down to the kids.
Mr. WARNER. Yes. I remember picking up little bits off the cigarette
packs and the tin foil.
Mr. LEVIN. We used to flatten cans. After we were done with a can of
food, we would take off the other end that hadn't been opened, put it
in a box, flatten the can, and carry in the boxes of tins.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, does the Senator remember the collection
of scrap metal? I will never forget it. In those days, the Nation's
Capital, where we lived, had great big trash trucks, and the trucks ran
overtime. They would come down the street, and people would come out
and put all kinds of scrap metal in the trucks. I remember the person
who lived across from me came out with an armful of magnificent guns--
shotguns and rifles that belonged to her husband--and the trash guys
looked at them and just threw them in the truck. I don't know that
those guns ever got to the scrap heap,

[[Page 9512]]

but I remember that as if it were yesterday.
Mr. LEVIN. I saw letters of President Roosevelt the other day
thanking people for their donations--I think it was of telescopes; I am
not sure. It was something which people just put into the war effort,
either scrapped or used in some way.
This is a special tribute to those of our colleagues, including
yourself, who were in World War II. I know you are going to list them.
But as this honor roll of heroes is read by the Senator from Virginia,
I think we are all going to stand very proud that we have so many
Members still in this body who served in World War II and, of course,
many who did serve in this body who served in World War II who are also
being honored. Senator Dole, of course, is very much in the lead in
this effort, but so many others came before us who are currently in
this body who served.
How many are there who served in this body?
Mr. WARNER. I have spoken to every one of them today. I will read
their names in the order of seniority of the Senate: Senator Thurmond,
who crossed the beaches on D-Day. He did it in a glider, and it
crashed, he was injured, but he went on and took up his duties despite
that. Senator Inouye is one of the most highly decorated Members of the
Senate. The President upgraded his decoration from the Distinguished
Service Cross to the Medal of Honor; is that correct?
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. It will be presented in a ceremony this
month at the White House. That was something Senator Inouye was not
even aware of until he read about it.
Mr. WARNER. No. There is not a more modest Member of the Senate.
Mr. LEVIN. So true.
Mr. WARNER. What a great strength he has been to national defense in
the 22 years we have worked on this.
Fritz Hollings was in the European campaign. Senator Stevens was an
Air Corps pilot, before there was an Air Force; he flew in the Pacific.
Senator Bill Roth was in the Army. Senator Helms was in the Navy.
Senator Moynihan was in the Navy, and he was proud to call me Secretary
of the Navy. I was just a petty officer third class. Senator Lautenberg
served. Senator Gorton served in the Army right at the end. Senator
Akaka served. I was a young sailor, and we were trained during the
invasion of Japan, and the war ended very precipitously.
Mr. LEVIN. Senator Bob Kerrey also wanted to be added as a cosponsor.
Mr. WARNER. Senator Robert Kerrey is a Medal of Honor winner. We will
add him as a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that they all be made
cosponsors, along with myself and Senator Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3189) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague for joining me and for
his kind remarks about our colleagues.
Mr. President, we have made some accomplishments today. The hour is 8
o'clock, and we started promptly at about 2:45. I thank all who
participated in moving this. We have an order for tomorrow which lays
out the work.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

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

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE
OCCASION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASSOCIATION'S CONGRESSIONAL
CHARTER

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of professional
pleasure and personal pride that I rise today to honor an organization
in which I am a life member and served as the 21st national president
nearly 50 years ago. The organization of which I speak is our neighbor
across First Street, the Reserve Officers Association of the United
States, though it is perhaps best known simply by its initials--ROA.
The association was organized in 1922, at the instigation of General of
the Armies John J. Pershing, who was then serving as the Army's Chief
of Staff. Like many others who served in uniform in World War I,
General Pershing was convinced that the war could have been
significantly shortened or avoided altogether if an adequate pool of
trained officers had existed at the time. Taking his sentiments to
heart, 140 Reserve officers met at Washington's Willard Hotel and
organized the Reserve Officers Association. It was largely through the
dedicated efforts of this voluntary organization and its members that
the United States established its Officer Reserve Corps, which was to
supply the great majority of America's trained officers in the days
leading up to World War II. It is appropriate for the Senate to note
that these first ROA members were citizen-soldiers who clearly saw the
approaching storm clouds. They pushed the nation toward an
unprecedented level of pre-war preparedness that arguably saved lives
and formed the very foundations of the great victories of democracy
that were to follow.
With the end of the war, the ROA resumed its normal operations,
raising and maintaining the nation's awareness of the role and
contributions of its military forces in the uneasy post-war world. It
was in these tense days, in June 1950, that the Congress granted the
ROA the formal charter that established the association's object and
purpose. That formulation was clear and direct, unambiguous and
unequivocal: ROA was ``to support a military policy for the United
States that will provide adequate national security and to promote the
development and execution thereof.''
For 50 years, the ROA has followed that guidance, and taken the lead
in rigorously advocating a strong and viable national defense posture
for our nation. The ROA has worked to support concepts that have
strengthened our ability to preserve our freedom and to advance our
national interests across the world. It worked to revitalize and fund
the Selective Service System, support our Cold War allies, and focus
the weight of public opinion in favor of our national commitment during
the Gulf War and expanding NATO. It has played a major role in
persuading the Congress to provide more than $15 billion in critically
needed equipment for our nation's Reserve components. In addition, the
ROA has also clearly understood that not all ideas are good ideas. It
successfully opposed efforts to combine the Army Reserve and National
Guard, and to disestablish the Coast Guard, and Air Force Reserves, as
well as the Selective Service System and the commissioned officer corps
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Mr. President, the ROA has, for the past 78 years, proven itself to
be a strong and articulate voice in the halls of Congress and the
corridors of government for all our service members. It has lived up to
its charter and supported the cause of national defense in seasons when
it has not been popular to do so. It has established an enviable
reputation for nonpartisan expertise and even-handed advocacy, a
reputation that has grown and flourished as defense issues have become
ever more complex in these days of the Total Force Policy. The ROA
enjoys the confidence of the Congress and of the Department of Defense.
Its successful legislative efforts have made it a valued partner in the
formulation and development of the annual defense bills and in building
broad, bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform. Over the
years I have learned that serious debate on any issue dealing with

[[Page 9513]]

our Reserve forces is not complete until we have heard from the ROA. As
the number of members of Congress with personal military experience has
declined, the importance of ROA's contribution to developing our
military policy has increased exponentially. The ROA has played and
will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the debate over the
appropriate roles and missions of our Armed Forces. The nation is most
fortunate to have such an asset to call upon. We should all be
grateful.
Mr. President, I urge all Senators to join me in congratulating the
Reserve Officers Association of the United States on the fiftieth
anniversary of the granting of its congressional charter.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LIEUTENANT GENERAL PHILLIP J. FORD, USAF

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a life of
service devoted to defending the values and ideals of our nation. On
July 1, 2000 the country will lose to retirement its Deputy Commander
in Chief of the United States Strategic Command, Lieutenant General
Phillip J. Ford, USAF. Through his leadership, General Ford has taken
the United States and U.S. Strategic Command into a new world
environment. During his career, his guidance and foresight helped see
the U.S. Military into the new millennium.
Throughout a career that spans four decades, General Ford has
commanded the 8th Air Force, the 384th Bomb Wing, and the 524th Bomb
Squadron. As commander of the 384th at McConnell Air Force Base,
Kansas, he transformed and entire installation to bring in and support
a new B-1 bomber wing. General Ford has also served as commandant of
the Air Command and Staff College and held key staff positions at the
Headquarters of the U.S. Air Force, Military Airlift Command, Air
Mobility Command and Strategic Air Command.
As the nation's top bomber commander supporting the United States
Central Command, General Ford directed an unprecedented global power
strike against Iraq during Operation DESERT FOX. Despite tactical and
weapon system limitations, his bombers succeeded in retargeting their
air launched cruise missiles while airborne and en route to their
targets. His forces delivered their weapons on time and on target,
guaranteeing mission success.
As Deputy Commander in Chief of the United States Strategic Command,
and as a strong proponent of an enduring, stable, strategic
relationship with Russia, General Ford championed the Defense
Department's cooperative threat reduction activities, to include
military-to-military contacts. General Ford's historic military-to-
military exchanges with senior Russian nuclear commanders built a
legacy of respect, mutual understanding and cooperation. The general's
insight in planning and evaluating the command's communication
capabilities assured the nation that the communication between the
President, Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs and men and women at the
helm of ballistic missile submarines, intercontinental ballistic
missiles and nuclear bombers remained intact despite Y2K concerns. His
efforts will have an enduring, positive impact on strategic stability
for many years to come.
Lieutenant General Ford and his wife, Kris leave the military after a
distinguished 34 year career serving their nation. The people of the
United States salute General Ford and Mrs. Ford and wish them well as
they begin a new chapter of their lives after military service.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF CHANCELLOR ROBERT KHAYAT'S INDUCTION INTO THE
MISSISSIPPI SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my close
friend, Robert Khayat. On March 9, 2000, Chancellor Khayat was inducted
into the Mississippi Sports Hall of Fame. I want to recognize
Chancellor Khayat not just because of his recent induction into this
prestigious group, but also for his dedication to the State of
Mississippi.
Robert Khayat played college baseball and football at our mutual alma
mater, the University of Mississippi. Playing catcher for Ole Miss, he
led the team to two consecutive SEC Baseball Championships. A two-time
All SEC player, Bob Khayat earned three letters in his sophomore,
junior, and senior years.
During Bob Khayat's college football career he demonstrated a
definitive leadership role. At the position of place-kicker, ``Golden
Toe,'' as he was called, led the Rebels' extraordinary football team to
many a victory. His name is forever in the University of Mississippi's
history books as one of the greatest place kickers to set foot on the
Ole Miss campus. Coach John Vaught's team secured many victories
because of Bob Khayat's athletic ability. He was selected as the place-
kicker on the Ole Miss Team of the Century.
After graduating from Ole Miss, Bob Khayat played professional
football for the Washington Redskins. In his time with the Redskins he
scored 204 points, tied the all-time Redskins record for most field
goals made in a single game, and was voted into the Pro Bowl. In
recognition of his great achievements, the NFL presented Bob Khayat
with the 1998 Career Achievement Award for his accomplishments on and
off the field.
While performing in the NFL, Robert Khayat pursued his law degree at
the University of Mississippi Law School. After graduating third in his
class and earning his Juris Doctorate degree in 1966, Bob Khayat
entered private practice in Pascagoula, Mississippi. In 1969 he became
a law professor at Ole Miss.
From 1980 to 1981, Bob Khayat took a leave of absence to pursue a
Masters of Law degree, which he received from Yale Law School.
Returning to teach at Ole Miss Law School, he was promoted to Associate
Dean before serving as Vice Chancellor for University Affairs in 1984.
In 1994 he served as interim athletic director before becoming the
University of Mississippi's 15th Chancellor.
Chancellor Robert Khayat plays an instrumental role for the State of
Mississippi. He is known for his tireless leadership which he has
exemplified as a student, an athlete, a professor and finally as
Chancellor of the University of Mississippi. Chancellor Khayat's
character is a tremendous asset to Ole Miss. As a person, he is a role
model for all who know him.
Mr. President, on behalf of my fellow Mississippians, I would like to
commend Chancellor Khayat for his leadership, his accomplishments, and
his continued dedication to making our home state a better place. While
I am recognizing Chancellor Khayat for his induction into the
Mississippi Sports Hall of Fame, his many talents and abilities
distinguish him in countless other areas as well.

____________________

IN MEMORY OF DR. WALTER WASHINGTON

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I rise to remember an admirable person
and a devoted educator, Dr. Walter Washington. Dr. Washington served as
a classroom teacher, assistant principal, Dean of Utica Junior College,
President of Utica Junior College for twelve years, and served as
President of Alcorn State University from 1969 to 1994. Dr. Washington
retired as President of Alcorn State University on June 30, 1994, and
was subsequently named President Emeritus by the Mississippi Board of
Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.
During his tenure as both an educator and administrator, Dr.
Washington was a leader in the State of Mississippi and throughout the
country. He was a mentor to all who met him, and he set a high standard
for his successors. His impact on Mississippi was evident in his work
as a representative of the state on several national commissions.
As a man of many talents, he served on the Advisory Council of the
National Urban League's Black Executive Exchange Program and the U.S.
President's Advisory Council on Historically Black Colleges and
Universities. In 1982, he was awarded the Outstanding Presidential
Cluster Citation by President Ronald Reagan.

[[Page 9514]]

Dr. Washington was a member of several professional organizations,
including Kappa Delta Phi, Phi Delta Kappa, and Alpha Kappa Mu Honor
Society. He served as president of the Mississippi Teachers Association
and held membership in the Mississippi Association of Educators and the
national Education Association.
Dr. Washington married his college sweetheart, the former Carolyn
Carter, in 1949. In addition to his devotion to his wife, he was
involved in many community organizations. Dr. Washington received the
Silver Beaver Award from the Boy Scouts of America, the Distinguished
Service Award and Distinguished Alumni Award from Peabody College, and
the Service to Humanity Award from Mississippi College. He was listed
among Ebony's 100 Most Influential Black Americans in 1974, 1975, and
1976, and was selected Mississippi Man-of-the-Year in Education in
1981.
Dr. Washington passed away on December 1, 1999, but his legacy will
live on as an eternal flame. I was deeply saddened to hear the news of
his death.
Dr. Washington's reputation for hard work and academic excellence set
an example which will continue to inspire greatness in the men and
women of Mississippi. Such a reputation is the greatest tribute to a
man's life. His insight on predicting the needs of future students
helped to mold Alcorn State University into one of Mississippi's great
universities.
Mr. President, Mississippians and Americans are grateful for Dr.
Washington's public service, and I commend him for his leadership and
accomplishments.

____________________

ACCESS TO INNOVATION FOR MEDICARE PATIENTS ACT

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are so fortunate to live in an era
when modern medical breakthroughs are an almost common occurrence.
Every day brings new research and insight into the human body and
diseases that, unfortunately, affect our friends, families, co-workers,
and ourselves. For example, there are several wonderful new therapies
that help people with chronic diseases like rheumatoid arthritis,
multiple sclerosis, and Hepatitis C live more active and pain-free
lives. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Access to
Innovation for Medicare Patients Act (S. 2644), which would extend
Medicare coverage to new self-injected biological therapies for these
chronic diseases.
One of the most important things I do as a United States Senator is
listen to the people and the stories of their lives. The story of one
of my constituents, Judith Levinson of Rockville, Maryland, is a
compelling example of the power of these new therapies. Judith was
diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) when she was 40 years old. At
first, her fingers and toes swelled up and sent sharp pains into her
arms and shoulders. Over the next few years, she had multiple surgeries
to place artificial knuckles in her fingers, to fuse her thumbs, and to
replace both of her wrists with steel rods. Her feet have also been
affected. Judith had six surgeries on her feet because bone
deterioration made walking very difficult and painful. She now wears a
size 2 shoe because so much bone has been removed from her feet.
Unfortunately, Judith's suffering did not end with the surgeries.
During recovery, her hands had to be placed in cages in order to heal
properly--which made her completely dependent on others for daily
activities. On a scale of 1 to 10, Judith rated her daily pain as an 8.
In January of 1999, Judith's doctor prescribed a new self-injectable
drug called Enbrel, which had just been approved by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for the treatment of advanced RA. I am proud to
add that the Johns Hopkins University's Division of Rheumatology was
instrumental in the development of this breakthrough therapy as one of
its clinical trial sites. Judith says that, within five weeks, she had
less swelling in her fingers and she had more energy. As she puts it,
she is in ``go mode.'' I am happy to report that Judith has resumed
writing, takes daily walks with her family without stopping at every
street corner, and truly believes that this treatment has changed her
life.
Judith is fortunate in that her insurance plan covers the cost of
Enbrel, with a small co-payment. Medicare, on the other hand, does not
allow coverage of self-administered injectable drugs. It covers only
drugs that are administered in a physician's office. That means that
many Medicare beneficiaries are going without treatment because they
can't afford it themselves, or that they are treated with a therapy
that is covered but may not be the most appropriate or effective
treatment. That doesn't make sense. I am very proud that most of the
breakthroughs in medicine today were invented in the United States. But
breakthroughs alone aren't enough--I believe that every American ought
to have access to those breakthroughs. Medicare patients are certainly
no exception.
It is gratifying that this legislation is supported by a broad range
of women, senior, minority, religious, rural, and health professional
organizations like the Alliance for Aging Research, the American Public
Health Association, the National Farmers Union, the Older Women's
League (OWL), the National Hispanic Council on Aging, and more than a
dozen other organizations. OWL, the only national membership
organization that works on the issues unique to midlife and older
women, has stressed the importance of access to innovative medical
treatments for older women and urged Congress to recognize that ``73%
of women on Medicare have two or more concurrent chronic conditions,
which often lead to limitations in the activities of daily living and
the need for long-term care. In order to improve the health of women
suffering with chronic diseases . . . Congress should extend Medicare
coverage to self-administered injectables.''
Mr. President, we must ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access
to promising and innovative new therapies. This legislation will help
thousands of people living with chronic conditions like RA, MS, and
Hepatitis C live better, happier, and more productive lives. I urge my
colleagues to join Senators Gorton, Murray, myself and the other co-
sponsors in supporting it.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday,
June 5, 2000, the Federal debt stood at $5,642,401,863,301.59 (Five
trillion, six hundred forty-two billion, four hundred one million,
eight hundred sixty-three thousand, three hundred one dollars and
fifty-nine cents).
Five years ago, June 5, 1995, the Federal debt stood at
$4,903,928,000,000 (Four trillion, nine hundred three billion, nine
hundred twenty-eight million).
Ten years ago, June 5, 1990, the Federal debt stood at
$3,127,410,000,000 (Three trillion, one hundred twenty-seven billion,
four hundred ten million).
Fifteen years ago, June 5, 1985, the Federal debt stood at
$1,776,269,000,000 (One trillion, seven hundred seventy-six billion,
two hundred sixty-nine million).
Twenty-five years ago, June 5, 1975, the Federal debt stood at
$522,954,000,000 (Five hundred twenty-two billion, nine hundred fifty-
four million) which reflects a debt increase of more than $5 trillion--
$5,119,447,863,301.59 (Five trillion, one hundred nineteen billion,
four hundred forty-seven million, eight hundred sixty-three thousand,
three hundred one dollars and fifty-nine cents) during the past 25
years.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

A RETROSPECTIVE ON RACE

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a
moving autobiographical article written by Ward Connerly. Mr.
Connerly's intelligence and personal experience with racism blend
together into a truly insightful analysis and I encourage my colleagues
to read about Mr. Connerly's uniquely American story.

[[Page 9515]]

Mr. President, I ask that the article which appeared in the June 2000
edition of The American Enterprise be printed in the Record.

Laying Down the Burden of Race

(By Ward Connerly)

Not long ago, after I'd given a speech in Hartford,
Connecticut, I saw a black man with a determined look on his
face working his way toward me through the crowd. I steeled
myself for another abrasive encounter of the kind I've come
to expect over the past few years. But once this man reached
me he stuck out his hand and said thoughtfully, ``You know, I
was thinking about some of the things you said tonight. It
occurred to me that black people have just got to learn to
lay down the burden. It's like we grew up carrying a bag
filled with heavy weights on our shoulders. We just have to
stop totin' that bag.''
I agreed with him. I knew as he did exactly what was in
this bag: weakness and guilt, anger, and self-hatred.
I have made a commitment not to tote racial grievances,
because the status of victim is so seductive and so available
to anyone with certain facial features or a certain cast to
his skin. But laying down these burdens can be tricky, as I
was reminded not long after this Connecticut meeting. I had
just checked into the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco to
attend an annual dinner as master of ceremonies. After
getting to my room, I realized that I'd left my briefcase in
the car and started to go back to the hotel parking garage
for it. As I was getting off the basement elevator, I ran
into a couple of elderly white men who seemed a little
disoriented. When they saw me, one of them said, ``Excuse me,
are you the man who unlocks the meeting room?''
I did an intellectual double-take and then, with my racial
hackles rising, answered with as much irritation as I could
pack into my voice: ``No, I'm not the man who unlocks the
rooms.''
The two men shrank back and I walked on, fuming to myself
about how racial profiling is practiced every day in subtle
forms by people who would otherwise piously condemn it in
state troopers working the New Jersey Turnpike. As I stalked
toward the garage, I didn't feel uplifted by my righteous
anger. On the contrary, I felt crushed by it. It was a heavy
burden, so heavy, in fact, that I stopped and stood there for
a minute, sagging under its weight. Then I tried to see
myself through the eyes of the two old men I'd just run into:
someone who was black, yes, but more importantly, someone
without luggage, striding purposefully out of the elevator as
if on a mission, dressed in a semi-uniform of blazer and gray
slacks.
I turned around and retraced my steps.
``What made you think I was the guy who unlocks the meeting
rooms?'' I asked when I caught up with them.
``You were dressed a little like a hotel employee, sir,''
the one who had spoken earlier said in a genuinely
deferential way. ``Believe me, I meant no insult.''
``Well, I hope you'll forgive me for being abrupt,'' I
said, and after a quick handshake I headed back to the
garage, feeling immensely relieved.
If we are to lay this burden down for good, we must be
committed to letting go of racial classifications--not
getting beyond race by taking race more into account, as
Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun disastrously advised,
but just getting beyond race period as a foundation for
public policy.
Yet, I know that race is a scar in America. I first saw
this scar at the beginning of my life in the segregated
South. Black people should not deny that this mark exists: it
is part of our connection to America. But we should also
resist all of those, black and white, who want to rip open
that scar and make race a raw and angry wound that continues
to define and divide us.
Left to their own devices, I believe, Americans will
eventually merge and melt into each other. Throughout our
history, there has been a constant intermingling of people--
even during the long apartheid of segregation and Jim Crow.
It is malicious as well as unreasonable not to acknowledge
that in our own time the conditions for anger have diminished
and the conditions for connection have improved.
We all know the compelling statistics about the
improvements in black life: increased social and vocational
mobility, increased personal prestige and political power.
But of all the positive data that have accumulated since the
Civil Rights Act of 1964--when America finally decided to
leave its racial past behind--the finding that gives me most
hope is the recent survey showing that nearly 90 percent of
all teenagers in America report having at least one close
personal friend of another race.
My wife Ilene is white. I have two racially mixed children
and three grandchildren, two of whose bloodlines are even
more mixed as a result of my son's marriage to a woman of
half-Asian descent. So my own personal experience tells me
that the passageway to that place where all racial division
ends goes directly through the human heart.
Not long ago, Mike Wallace came to California to interview
Ilene and me for a segment on ``60 Minutes.'' He seemed
shocked when I told him that race wasn't a big topic in our
family. He implied that we were somehow disadvantaging the
kids. But Ilene and I decided a long time ago to let our kids
find their way in this world without toting the bag of race.
They are lucky, of course, to have grown up after the great
achievements of the civil rights movement, which changed
America's heart as much as its laws. But we have made sure
that the central question for our children, since the moment
they came into this world, has always been who are you, not
what are you. When we ignore appeals to group identity and
focus instead on individuals and their individual humanity,
we are inviting the principles of justice present since the
American founding to come inside our contemporary American
homes.
I won't pretend this is always easy. While a senior at
college, I fell in love with an effervescent white woman
named Ilene. When Ilene's parents first learned how serious
we were about each other, they reacted with dismay and spent
long hours on the phone trying to keep the relationship from
developing further. Hoping for support from my own relatives,
I went home one weekend and told Mom (the grandmother who had
raised me) about Ilene. She was cold and negative. ``Why
can't you find yourself a nice colored girl?'' she blurted
out. I walked out of the house and didn't contact her for a
long time afterward.
Ilene and I now felt secretive and embattled. Marrying
``outside your race'' was no easy decision in 1962. I knew
that Ilene had no qualms about challenging social norms, but
I was less sure that she could deal with exclusion by her
family, which seemed to me a real possibility. Nonetheless,
she said yes when I proposed, and we were married, with no
family members present.
I called Mom the day after and told her. She apologized for
what she'd said earlier. Ilene's parents were not so quick to
alter their position. For months, the lines of communication
were down. Sometimes I came home from work and found Ilene
sitting on the couch crying.
Finally her parents agreed to see her, but not me. I drove
her up to their house and waited in the car while she went
in. As the hours passed, I seethed. At one point I started
the engine and took off, but I didn't know the area and so,
after circling the block, came back and parked again. When
Ilene finally came out of the house, she just cried for
nearly the entire return trip.
Today, people would rush to hold Ilene's parents guilty of
racism.
But even when I was smoldering with resentment, I knew it
wasn't that simple. These were good people--hard working,
serious, upstanding. They were people, moreover, who had
produced my wife, a person without a racist bone in her body.
In a sense, I could sympathize with my new in-laws; there
were no blacks in their daily life, and they lived in a small
town where everyone knew everything about everyone else. Our
marriage was a leap nothing in her parents' lives had
prepared them to take.
But their reaction to me still rankled. After having to
wait in the car that afternoon I vowed never to go near their
house again.
For a long time we didn't see Ilene's parents. But we did
see her Aunt Markeeta and Uncle Glen. They were wonderful
people. Glen, dead now, was a salt-of-the-earth type who
worked in a sawmill, and Markeeta had a personality as
piquant as her name. They integrated us into their circle of
friends, who became our friends too. In those healing days,
we all functioned as an extended family.
If I had to pick the moment when our family problems began
to resolve themselves if would be the day our son Marc was
born.
Not long after, we were invited to come for a visit. This
time I was included in the invitation. I remember sitting
stiffly through the event, which had the tone of the recently
released film, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? I was supremely
uncomfortable, but I also sensed that the fever had broken.
And indeed, a peace process was in place. The visits became
more frequent. The frigid tolerance gradually thawed into
welcome.
There was no single dramatic moment that completed the
reconciliation; no cathartic conversation in which we all
explored our guilt and misconceptions. Instead, we just got
on with our lives, nurturing the relationship that had been
born along with my son. It grew faster than he did. Within a
year we were on our way to becoming what we are now--a close-
knit, supportive family. Today, my relationship with my in-
laws could not be better. I love them very much, and they let
me know that the feeling is mutual.
The moral is clear. Distance exaggerates difference and
breeds mistrust; closeness breaks down suspicion and produces
connection. My life so far tells me that our future as a
nation is with connection.
Most people call me a black man. In fact, I'm black in the
same way that Tiger Woods and so many other Americans are
black--by the ``one drop of blood'' rule used by yesterday's
segregationists and today's racial ideologues. In my case,
the formula has more or less equal elements of French
Canadian, Choctaw, African, and Irish American. But just
reciting the fractions provides no insight about the richness
of life produced by the sum of the parts.

[[Page 9516]]

A journalist for the New York Times once described my
bloodline as being right out of a Faulkner novel. He was
right. And my family was always trying to understand how the
strands of DNA dangling down through history had created
their individual selves. They had their share of guilty
secrets and agonized over the consequences of bad blood,
whatever its racial origin. But in their actions, they, like
Faulkner's characters, treated race and other presumed
borders between people as being permeable.
I grew up with my mother's people. My maternal grand-father
was Eli Soniea, a mixed-blood Cajun born in the tiny
Louisiana town of Sulphur. He eventually settled in
Leesville, not far from the Texas border, a sleepy town with
hazy foothills stretching behind it like a movie backdrop.
Eli died ten years before I was born, and I never knew him.
But photographs of him have always intrigued me. He was light
skinned, had straight black hair, and a serious look. I've
been told he spoke a pidgin French and English and was an
ambitious man. He worked as a carpenter, sometimes ran a
construction gang, and amassed enough money to buy some land
and build a restaurant and bar in Leesville, He was evidently
a no-nonsense type who didn't like anyone, especially his own
kin, putting on airs.
Eli's wife, my grandmother Mary Smith--or ``Mom,'' as I
always called her--was half Irish and half Choctaw. This
latter element was clearly evident in her high cheekbones and
broad features, and in the bloom of her young womanhood she
was sometimes referred to as an ``Indian Princess.'' Mom was
born and raised in Texas. She married Eli Soniea as a result
of an ``arrangement'' brokered by her parents, after which he
brought her to Louisiana.
In their early life together, the two of them lived in that
part of Leesville known as ``Dago Quarters'' because of the
large number of Italian immigrants. After Eli's early death--
when I was growing up you didn't ask why or how someone died;
the mere fact of it ended all discussion--Mary's only income
was from the restaurant and bar he had built, which she
leased to people who did business with the servicemen from
the nearby Army base. Because money was tight, she moved the
family to a less expensive neighborhood, the predominantly
black ``Bartley Quarters.''
The complexions of Mom's own six children ranged from light
to dark. (William, for instance, was always known as ``Red,''
because of this Indian look and coloring.) But whatever their
exact coloration or facial characteristics, they all had
``colored'' on their birth certificates. In Louisiana in
those days, being ``colored'' was not just a matter of blood;
it was also a question of what neighborhood you lived in and
what people you associated with. ``Colored'' is on my birth
certificate.
The Sonieas' race problem came not only from whites but
from blacks too. Leesville's social boundaries were
reasonably porous, but if you were falling down through the
cracks rather than moving up, as the Sonieas were doing after
Eli died, you attracted notice. My grandmother often recalled
how her new neighbors in Bartley Quarters called her and her
children ``high yellers,'' a term coined by white Southern
racists but used with equal venom by blacks too. In fact,
Mom's kids had so much trouble that officials tried to
convince them to transfer out of the school to escape the
racial animosity. This experience left some of my relatives
with hard feelings that never really went away. During the
campaign for California's Proposition 209, for instance, when
I was being accused of selling out ``my people,'' my Aunt
Bert got annoyed one day and said, ``When we lived back in
Leesville, they didn't want to be our ``brothers and
sisters'; they didn't own us as `their people' then; so why
do they think we owe them something now because of skin
color?
My biological mother Grace, Bert's little sister, was the
youngest of Mom's children. I wish I had more memories of
her. I have only one sharp image in my mind: a face resting
in satin in a casket. Old photographs show my mother as a
beautiful woman with a full, exotic face. But she wasn't
beautiful lying there with a waxy, preserved look, certainly
not to a terrified four-year-old dragged up to the front of
the church to pay his last respects. I still remember
standing there looking at her with my cousin Ora holding my
hand to keep me from bolting as the pandemonium of a Southern
black funeral--women yelling, crying, fainting, and lying
palsied on the floor--rose to a crescendo all around me.
According to family legend, she died of a stroke. But I
suspect that this claim was really just my family's way of
explaining away something infinitely more complex. Two other
facts about my mother's life may have had something to do
with her early passing. First, she had been in a serious car
accident that left her with a steel plate in her head. And
secondly, she had been physically abused by my father.
I didn't find this out until I was in my fifties. The
information accidentally escaped during a conversation with
my Aunt Bert, who said, when the subject of my father came
up, ``You know, your Uncle Arthur once said, excuse the
expression, `That son of a bitch once took out a gun and shot
at me!' ''
I asked her why.
``Because Arthur told your father that if he ever beat your
mother again he'd kill him, and your father got out a gun.''
I guess Roy Connerly was what they called a ``fancy man''
back then. Judging from his photos, he was quite handsome,
with light skin and a wicked smile, and a reputation as a
gambler, a drinker, and a womanizer. He worked odd jobs, but
it seems that his real profession was chasing women. I've
been told so many times about the day he got tired of me and
my mother and turned us in at my grandmother's house that it
has come to feel like my own legitimate memory.
He arrived there one afternoon with the two of us and with
his girlfriend of the moment, a woman named Lucy. My Aunt
Bert was watering the lawn when he walked into the yard.
``Is Miss Mary here?'' my father asked.
Bert said yes.
``Go get her,'' he ordered.
Bert went in to get Mom, who appeared on the porch wiping
her hands on her apron.
``I'm giving them back to you, Miss Mary,'' Roy said,
gesturing at my sobbing mother and at me, the miserable child
in her arms. ``I want to be with Lucy.''
Always composed in a crisis, Mom looked at him without
visible emotion and said, ``Thank you for bringing them.''
A few days later he brought my red wagon over. Then Roy
Connerly vanished from my life.
Later on I learned that Roy Connerly eventually got rid of
Lucy and, at the age of 39, entered a relationship with a 15-
year-old girl named Clementine and had a couple of kids by
her. But nothing more than that for over 50 years. Then, just
a couple of years ago, a writer doing a profile on me for the
New York Times called one day.
``Are you sitting down?'' he asked melodramatically.
I asked him what was up. He said that in his research about
my background he had discovered that my father was still
alive, 84 years old, and living in Leesville. The writer gave
me his phone number.
I didn't do anything about it for a long time. Then, in the
fall of 1998, I was invited to debate former Congressman
William Gray at Tulane University in New Orleans. One of the
things that made me accept was how close it was to Leesville.
But I didn't actually decide to go there until after the
speech. I came back to the hotel, rented a car, and got
directions from the concierge.
It was a four-hour drive in a dreary rain. I warned myself
not to surrender to counterfeit sentiment that would make a
fool of both me and my father.
I stopped on the outskirts of town and called from a
convenience store. My father's wife Clementine answered. I
told her who I was and asked if I could come by and see him.
There were muffled voices on the other end of the line, then
she came back on and said that I should stay put and she'd
send someone out to lead me to the house.
A few minutes later, a couple of young men in a beat-up
blue car came by and motioned at me. I followed them down the
main street and over railroad tracks to a run-down
neighborhood of narrow houses and potholed roads without
sidewalks.
We got out of the car and went into a tiny, shuttered house
whose living room was illumined only by a small television
set. I introduced myself to Clementine, and we talked about
my father for a minute or two. She emphasized that the man I
was about to meet was very old, quite ill, and easily
confused.
When she led me into the bedroom, I saw him, sunk down in
the mattress, a bag of bones. His hands and feet were gnarled
and knobby with arthritis, but in his face I saw my own
reflection.
I touched his arm: ``How are you feeling today?''
He looked up at me uncomprehendingly: ``All right.''
``You know who I am?''
Seeing that he was lost in a fog, Clementine said, ``It's
Billy,'' using my childhood nickname. He looked at her, then
at me.
``Oh, Billy,'' the voice was thin and wavering. ``How long
you're staying?''
I told him I couldn't stay long.
There was an awkward silence as I waited for him to say
something. But he just stared at me. We looked at each other
for what seemed like a very long time. Finally, a lifetime's
worth of questions came tumbling out.
``Did you ever care how I was doing?'' I asked him.
``No,'' he replied uncertainly.
``Did you ever try and get in touch with me?''
``No,'' he looked at me blankly.
``Did you ever even care what happened to me?''
``No.''
At this point Clementine intervened: ``I don't even think
he knows what you're asking.''
I stood there a moment, resigning myself to the situation.
I would never get an explanation for his absence from my
life. Then Joseph, one of the young men who'd guided me to
the house and who I now realized was my

[[Page 9517]]

half-brother, beckoned me out of the room. In the hallway, he
asked if I'd like to visit some of my other relatives living
nearby. I said yes and he took me outside. We crossed the
street to a narrow house where an elderly woman was waiting
for us. Joseph introduced her to me as my Aunt Ethel. She
cordially invited us in.
Ethel had married my father's brother and served as the
family's unofficial archivist and historian. As we talked,
she asked if I knew anything about my father's family. I said
no. Ethel showed me some photos. She told me that his mother,
born in 1890, was named Fannie Self Conerly, and that they
spelled it with one n then. She said that Fannie's mother was
Sarah Ford Lovely, who had died at the age of 98, when I was
a boy. This woman, my great-grandmother, had been born a
slave.
After I walked back to my father's house and sat for a
while beside him. I stood and said, ``I've got to be going.
You take care of yourself.''
``You too,'' he said to me. ``You ever coming back this way
again, Billy?''
I smiled and waved and left without answering, and without
asking him the one question that was still on my mind: Did
you beat my mother like they say? Did you hasten her death
and thus deprive me of both of you?
On the drive back to New Orleans I thought about my
discoveries--this sickly old man who was my life's most
intimate stranger; the fact that his blood and mine had once
been owned by another human being. I felt subtly altered, but
still the same. My father's gift to me, if you could call it
that, was a deeper realization that it is not the life we're
given that counts, but the life we make of the life we're
given.

____________________

DELAWARE RT. 52--KENNETT PIKE, NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY DESIGNATION

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my continued
endorsement for the Federal Highway Administration's National Scenic
Byways Program, and to express my support for the Kennett Pike
Preservation Committee's efforts to seek both state and federal scenic
byways designation for Route 52, the Kennett Pike, in New Castle
County, Delaware.
The National Scenic Byways Program recognizes roadways that exhibit
outstanding examples of scenic, historic, recreational, cultural,
archeological or natural qualities along their routes. The Kennett Pike
boasts a number of cultural, scenic, historic and recreational values
that I believe make it an excellent candidate for federal designation
as a national scenic byway.
Originally constructed in the 1700's and named Doe Run, the Kennett
Pike maintains much of its original character, despite more than 200
years of steady development in the area. During the Revolutionary War,
General George Washington and his troops were thought to have marched
along the road, and, during the Civil War, soldiers settled at Camp
Brandywine, now the location of an intersection on the Pike.
Along its route, not only will you find world renown tourist
attractions, including Winterthur Museum, Hagley Museum and Longwood
Gardens, but also historic villages, numerous inns, farms, parks and
mills. Within the Kennett Pike Corridor, over 30 sites are already
listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with many more
sites in the corridor also eligible for the historic designation.
In addition to its historic and cultural relevance, the Kennett Pike
has been designated a greenway by the State of Delaware. A ride along
the Pike reveals a beautiful landscape of rolling hills, forests and a
state park. The Kennett Pike is truly a gem among the ever increasingly
populated suburban landscape of the middle Atlantic region.
In the Fall of 1999, the State of Delaware received a grant from the
Federal Highway Administration, in the amount of $140,000, to establish
a state scenic byways program. A roadway can only be nominated for a
national scenic byway designation after it has been designated on the
state level.
It is my hope that the State will act quickly and implement its
scenic byways program, so I can continue my efforts to see that Route
52, the Kennett Pike, is designated the first national scenic byway in
the State of Delaware.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on June 9, 2000, at the annual
State Conference of the Fraternal Order of Police in Lansing, Michigan,
there will be a memorial service honoring seventy-four law enforcement
officers who have died over the past year, four of whom died in the
line of duty. I rise today in their memory, and to thank them
posthumously for their many courageous efforts.
There is perhaps no greater sign of dedication to a community than
risking one's life to protect it. Law enforcement officers do this on a
daily basis. They risk their lives to ensure that our streets and our
neighborhoods are safe. We must not let ourselves forget the incredible
dedication that these men and women have to the people they protect.
Theirs should not be a thankless job.
Mr. President, the comfort, the protection, and the safety that we
enjoy often comes at a very high price to the law enforcement officers
themselves. Last year, in the State of Michigan, four officers were
killed in the line of duty. In the name of protecting our communities,
and our families, they left behind their own communities, and their own
families.
As a tribute to these four officers, Mr. President, I would like to
have their names inserted into the Congressional Record:
Officer Leslie (Les) Keely of the Flint Police Department, Trooper
Frederick Hardy, Michigan State Police, Detroit Post, Trooper Rick Lee
Johnson, Michigan State Police, Paw Paw Post, Officer Gary Priess,
DeWitt Township Police.
I do this not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of all of my
constituents, as a symbol of our appreciation and our gratitude for the
work that law enforcement officers do every day throughout the State of
Michigan. While this is a small gesture, I hope it will hold some
meaning to their families and their fellow officers.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JOHN P. SPUTZ

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is a distinct honor for me
to pay tribute to John P. Sputz on the occasion of his retirement from
BAE Systems North America.
Mr. President, for more than four decades, John has devoted his life
to serving this country's defense needs. Under John's leadership, he
and I worked together to further the efforts of the Link-16 program.
This program, which includes systems that use secure, anti-jam, line-
of-sight data radio communications, has moved from the research phase
in 1971 to a major Defense Department program in the 1990s. Thanks to
John, this program is about to go into service for the Army, Navy and
Air Force as well as for our allies in NATO and elsewhere.
John was also responsible for developing and expanding programs like
the F-22 advanced tactical fighter program, the Joint Striker Fighter
Program and the programmable digital radio technologies that will one
day replace all legacy radios with cost-effective and flexible
communications systems.
Mr. President, John's commitment to BAE Systems North America is
unsurpassed. Even after retiring, John will continue serving his
company as President of MIDSCO, a multi-national joint venture company
which helped manage the development of the MIDS Program. I hope the
example that John set will inspire BAE Systems North America to achieve
even higher goals. I know I speak for everyone who knows John when I
thank him for his dedication to our country and wish him the very best
in the future.

____________________

AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the
winner of the American Sportfishing Association's Lifetime Achievement
Award, Mr. Johnny Morris, who is also a friend of mine. This award is
being given to Johnny today in recognition of his outstanding lifetime
contribution to sportfishing.
Johnny Morris is the founder of Bass Pro Shops, which offers anglers
and

[[Page 9518]]

sportsmen the same equipment that the tournament professionals use. His
business has expanded from its original store to include eight
additional shops, a catalog, a line of Bass Pro products and a
wholesale operation that supplies more than 7,000 independent sporting
goods stores in the United States and several foreign countries.
Since 1970, Johnny has provided a place for sportsmen, and the entire
family, to outfit their outdoor and sporting activities. Because of my
love for the outdoors and fishing, the Bass Pro Shops has long been one
of my favorite places in Springfield to visit. I am not alone. The Bass
Pro Shops is one of Missouri's top tourist sites, attracting over three
and a half million visitors a year.
In addition to outfitting anglers, Johnny donates ten percent of Bass
Pro Shops' earnings to conservation efforts, which benefit fishing
areas far beyond Missouri's borders. Johnny believes ``the future of
the sport and of our business depends more on conservation and how we
manage our natural resources than absolutely anything else.'' To
further that belief, Johnny is an outspoken supporter of not-for-profit
and youth organizations that support or raise awareness of conservation
issues. Organizations such as the Missouri Beautification Association,
which helps clean up trash along Missouri's roadways and riverbanks,
and ``Operation Game Thief,'' a program launched to curb poaching in
Missouri, have benefitted from Johnny Morris' support. In March 1998,
the first ever World's Fishing Fair was hosted by Bass Pro Shops, and
the proceeds were given to Missouri forests and fisheries. I personally
have witnessed Johnny's commitment to his community through the many
educational events which Bass Pro Shops hosts. Great Outdoors Day, for
example, brings together families to learn more about hiking, fishing,
archery, shooting and conservation through hands-on experience. He also
hosts Kids' Fishing Fun Day in Springfield, an event that brings
thousands of young participants to a local pond to try their hand at
sportfishing. His efforts show that individual initiative to preserve
one's local environment for future generations is not only responsible
citizenship but just plain good sense.
I commend Johnny Morris both for receiving this award and for his
efforts to enrich the fishing experience for all Americans and to
promote conservation through the Bass Pro Shops.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, on June 9, 2000, at the annual
State Conference of the Fraternal Order of Police in Lansing, Michigan,
there will be a memorial service honoring 70 active and associate
members of the F.O.P. In addition, four law enforcement officers who
gave the ultimate sacrifice, dying in the line of duty, will also be
honored. I rise today in their memory, and to thank them posthumously
for their many courageous efforts.
There is perhaps no greater sign of dedication to a community than
risking one's life to protect it. Law enforcement officers do this on a
daily basis. They risk their lives to ensure that our streets and our
neighborhoods are safe. We must not let ourselves forget the incredible
dedication that these men and women have to the people they protect.
Theirs should not be a thankless job.
Mr. President, the comfort, the protection, and the safety that we
enjoy often comes at a very high price to the law enforcement officers
themselves. Last year, in the State of Michigan, four officers were
killed in the line of duty. In the name of protecting our communities,
and our families, they left behind their own communities, and their own
families.
As a tribute to these four officers, Mr. President, I would like to
have their names inserted into the Congressional Record: Officer Leslie
(Les) Keely of the Flint Police Department, Trooper Frederick Hardy,
Michigan State Police, Detroit Post, Trooper Rick Lee Johnson, Michigan
State Police, Paw Paw Post, Officer Gary Priess, DeWitt Township
Police.
I do this not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of all of my
constituents, as a symbol of our appreciation and our gratitude for the
work that law enforcement officers do every day throughout the State of
Michigan. While this is a small gesture, I hope it will hold some
meaning to their families and their fellow officers.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MARC KOENINGS

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an
accomplished and respected steward of our National Park System, Marc
Koenings, Superintendent of Assateague Island National Seashore. Marc
has recently been selected to head Gateway National Recreation Area in
New York and New Jersey and I want to wish him well with this important
new assignment and thank him for the terrific job he did in managing
Assateague over the past seven years.
Throughout his 29-year career in public service, Marc Koenings has
distinguished himself as a leader in natural and cultural resource
management and conservation at the local, national and international
levels. Beginning with the Peace Corps in 1971, Marc also served for
nine years in a variety of positions with the Heritage Recreation and
Conservation Service before joining the National Park Service. He
quickly advanced to top management jobs in four Parks including Golden
Gate National Recreation Area, Point Reyes National Seashore and Virgin
Islands National Park where he made substantial contributions to
improving park facilities, protecting park resources and developing
highly professional work forces.
I came to know Marc in 1993 shortly after he came to Maryland from
Virgin Islands National Park. I had invited Interior Secretary Bruce
Babbitt to join me on a tour of Assateague Island and to officially
dedicate the Beach-to-Bay Indian Trail as a National Recreational
Trail. Marc served as host and Master of Ceremonies for the visit and I
was immediately impressed not only by his professionalism, but by the
knowledge and vision which he had for Assateague after such a short
period on the job. Over the past seven years, I have had the
opportunity and privilege to work closely with Superintendent Koenings
and members of his staff at Assateague in efforts to restore the north
end of the island, construct a new pedestrian/bicycle bridge, protect
the seashore from encroaching development, and develop the new Coastal
Ecology Teaching and Research Laboratory. I know from personal
experience that these initiatives would not be taking place, but for
his persistent efforts, energy and innovation. In addition to these
projects, under Marc's leadership, Assateague's barrier island visitors
center was expanded and improved, a new Administrative facility was
constructed, and new partnerships were formed to develop water trails
and promote other eco-tourism opportunities in the area.
The efforts of Marc Koenings throughout his career in the National
Park Service have had a lasting effect not only on the parks he has
worked to protect, but on the people with whom he has come in contact.
He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues in the Park
Service as well as the visitors and citizens in the local communities
surrounding the parks. It is my firm conviction that public service is
one of the most honorable callings, one that demands the very best,
most dedicated efforts of those who have the opportunity to serve their
fellow citizens and country. Throughout his career Marc Koenings has
exemplified a steadfast commitment to meeting this demand. I want to
extend my personal congratulations and thanks for his many years of
hard work and dedication to the principal conservation mission of the
National Park Service and join with his friends and coworkers in
wishing him and his family well with his new endeavors.

____________________

[[Page 9519]]

TRIBUTE TO KENTUCKY'S TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING TEAM MEMBERS

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express
congratulations to all of the team members at the Toyota assembly
plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, on being recognized by J.D. Power and Associates for the high quality of vehicles which they have produced.
It is my understanding that the Georgetown assembly plant is the
only plant in North America to win this award this year. Moreover, I
understand that all of the cars produced at the Georgetown plant have
been ranked best in their category in this year's J.D. Power and
Associates survey of the best cars and trucks. Not only is it an
outstanding achievement to be chosen by J.D. Power--whose rankings are
widely considered to be the industry standard for new car quality--to
receive a Gold Plant Quality Award in recognition of outstanding
vehicle quality, but to receive this honor for the fourth time in ten
years is a truly remarkable accomplishment. I commend you and all of
your hard work in earning this award.
News of the announcement by J.D. Power of the Georgetown plant's
award follows closely on the announcement by Toyota that the company
hit a milestone with a record-breaking production of 1 million vehicles
in North America. A significant amount of the credit for this
accomplishment, too, belongs to the hard-working folks at the
Georgetown facility, and I want to congratulate you on this
achievement, as well.
I am proud of the relationship between Toyota Motor Manufacturing and
the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Since Kentucky made its original
investment in Toyota in 1986, the state has realized a 36.8 percent
annual rate of return, and has benefited greatly from the more than $5
billion which Toyota has invested statewide. Most of all, though, I am
proud of the work being done by the Kentuckians who work at the Toyota
plant. On behalf of myself and my colleagues in the United States
Senate, congratulations again on your significant achievement.

____________________

10TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ADOPT-A-SCHOOL PROGRAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in May of 1990, the Second Grace
United Methodist Church of Detroit and the First United Methodist
Church of Northville collaborated to ``adopt'' a Detroit Public School,
Dixon Elementary School. On June 16, 2000, the two churches, one
metropolitan and one suburban, will celebrate the tenth anniversary not
only of the Adopt-a-School Program, but also of their unique
relationship. I rise today to commemorate this occasion.
The primary emphasis of the Adopt-a-School Program is the mentoring
plan. Adults from both of the churches, as well as the local community,
provide tutoring and role modeling for the students. In addition to
weekly one-on-one sessions, the mentoring plan also includes a
toastmasters club, in which students practice speaking in front of
audiences, and a great books program, which introduces students to
famous books and authors.
In its ten years, the program has experienced continual expansion, as
additional activities have been added for the students. There is an
awards dinner each year at Second Grace to recognize students who have
attained high levels of academic achievement. Christmas and Easter
parties are held each year, as well as the Dixon School Spring Cleanup
and Flower Planting Day. Church members also participate in school
functions, including career day and musical programs. Finally, what
began as a summer field trip has evolved into monthly Saturday field
trips for the mentors and their pupils.
Mr. President, the partners are pleased with how the Adopt-a-School
Program has developed in the last ten years. The program has touched
the lives of over 300 students at Dixon Elementary School, and there is
no measure for success like that. The partners look forward to its
continued development in the coming years. In addition, efforts will be
made by the two churches, along with Dixon Elementary School, to
develop a training program to share the Adopt-a-School program with
other faith-based communities interested in serving our children in
urban schools.
Mr. President, I applaud the efforts of the many people whose hard
work over the last ten years has made this birthday celebration
possible. Each year, when the partners renew their commitment to this
program, it is a testament to the bridges that can be built when people
simply reach out to one another. On behalf of the entire United States
Senate, I would like to wish the Adopt-a-School Program a happy 10th
Anniversary, and continued success in the future.

____________________

SMURFIT-STONE CONTAINER'S MISSOULA MILL NAMED PLANT OF THE YEAR

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to bring your attention
to the fact that the Smurfit-Stone Container Plant in Missoula, Montana
has received the Jefferson Smurfit Group Worldwide Award as plant of
the year.
As you know, Montana's wood products industry has been hit extremely
hard with federal regulation and the lack of available federal fiber to
keep our mills running. Despite these hardships, our mill workers and
managers continue to take great pride in their work and continue to do
the best with the hand they have been dealt.
The result is that Missoula's Smurfit-Stone Container employees have
ensured that their mill rose above the other 563 Smurfit facilities
world wide and defined themselves as being able to increase
productivity and reduce operating costs while actually improving safety
and the quality of production.
These accomplishments were worker driven and accompanied a 20%
reduction of OSHA incidents last year. Some times efficiency comes at
the expense of safety or environmental responsibility. This is not the
case at the Missoula plant. In addition to reducing injuries, the plant
was able to increase paper efficiency while reducing waste, energy
consumption and maintenance costs. While Montana's wood products
industry relies on renewable natural resources, we are keenly aware
that these resources must be conserved and used responsibly. Smurfit-
Stone container consistently looks for ways to make the fiber available
to them go as far as possible. It makes sense from both a business and
an environmental standpoint, and it is a goal that makes them one of
the top employers in Montana.
As I mentioned, Montana has been hit extremely hard by federal
restrictions on the wood products industry. As a result we have lost 17
mills in Montana over the last decade. These mills provided jobs for
thousands of families and numerous communities. While times are
extremely tough, Montanans involved in the industry still take great
pride in what they do. This is reflected in the honor recently bestowed
on the Missoula Smurfit-Stone Container paper mill. Clearly, this mill
deserves recognition not only by their parent group, but by Congress as
well.

____________________

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN BUSINESS OWNERS GREATER DETROIT CHAPTER
CELEBRATES ITS 20TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the
National Association of Women Business Owners Greater Detroit Chapter,
which tonight will celebrate its 20th Anniversary. Since 1980, members
of the Greater Detroit Chapter have maintained their commitment not
only to helping fellow women business owners throughout Michigan, but
also to helping the communities in which these businesses reside.
In its twenty years, the Greater Detroit Chapter, originally the
Michigan Chapter, has done much to publicize the efforts of women
business owners, and to create alliances between women business owners
in the State of Michigan. In 1982, chapter members organized the first
statewide conference for women business owners, during which awards
were given to women business owners in the following categories:
Pioneer, Innovator, Dedication to Women Business Owners and Community
Service.

[[Page 9520]]

In bringing women business owners together from throughout the state,
the chapter makes it easier for members to work together on a local
level. In 1994, NAWBO North, a networking group of Northern Oakland
County members, was formed. In the years since, following the
successful model of NAWBO North, satellites have been established in
Plymouth, Detroit, Sterling Heights, Brighton, Southfield and Ann
Arbor. Involvement in a satellite allows chapter members to work with
one another to benefit the community. Currently, 89 percent of chapter
members donate money to charities, 76 percent volunteer their time to
local organizations, 65 percent serve on local boards, and 61 percent
mentor other women.
The Greater Detroit Chapter of the NAWBO has also established many
programs to assist women owned businesses. In 1990, the Greater Detroit
Chapter helped to launch the EXCELI (The Initiative for Entrepreneurial
Excellence) Project in Detroit, along with corporate partner Deloitte
and Touche, the Small Business Administration, NAWBO's National
Foundation and the YWCA. In 1994, the chapter took over sole
responsibility of this program.
In 1993, Huntington Banks of Michigan entered into a partnership with
the chapter to offer market-rate financing to chapter member companies
through a special lending process for service businesses. And in June
of 1996, Comerica Bank announced its Power Perks Program, in which
ideas, resources, and benefits are provided exclusively to NAWBO
members. Over the next two years, Comerica invested approximately $10
million in the program.
Mr. President, women-owned small businesses are the fastest growing
segment of the business community. By the year 2010, they will make up
more than one-half of all businesses in the United States. Traveling
through the State of Michigan I know that women business owners are
working very hard to be successful. The twentieth anniversary of the
National Association of Women Business Owners Greater Detroit Chapter
is certainly evidence of this.
And this incredible growth has been accomplished in spite of some
disadvantages. For example, it is clear that the federal government
does not do business with a representative percentage of women-owned
businesses. This issue was brought to my attention by NAWBO members at
a Small Business Committee meeting I held last August in Troy,
Michigan.
Mr. President, in 1994, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act
established a modest five percent goal of federal procurement dollars
for women-owned businesses. Last year, though, women-owned businesses
received only 2.4 percent of the total dollar value of all prime
federal contracts.
Mr. President, these standards have to change. There are too many
women in this nation working too hard, only to not find the proper
support from Washington. Earlier this week, I cosponsored Senate
Resolution 311, a resolution urging the President to adopt a policy in
support of the five percent federal procurement goal, and to encourage
the heads of the federal departments and agencies to undertake a
concerted effort to meet this five percent goal before the end of the
fiscal year 2000. I strongly hope that this action on my part and the
part of my colleagues will lead to an increased procurement for women
owned businesses this fiscal year.
Mr. President, I applaud the many members of the National Association
of Women Business Owners Greater Detroit Chapter on the great work they
are doing for women business owners throughout the State of Michigan. I
feel that there is much more we can do here in Washington to support
them, and I hope that changes will be made, and followed through upon,
in this regard. On behalf of the entire United States Senate, I wish
the greater Detroit Chapter a happy 20th Anniversary, and continued
success in the future.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.

executive messages referred

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting a
withdrawal and sundry nominations which were referred to the
appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE RECEIVED ON MAY 30, 2000

enrolled bills signed

A message from the House of Representatives, delivered during the
adjournment of the Senate, announced that the Speaker has signed the
following enrolled bills:

H.R. 4489. An act to amend section 110 of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,
and for other purposes.
H.R. 3293. An act to amend the law that authorized the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial to authorize the placement within
the site of the memorial of a plaque to honor those Vietnam
veterans who died after their service in the Vietnam war, but
as a direct result of that service.

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

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:

S. 2645. A bill to provide for the application of certain
measures to the People's Republic of China in response to the
illegal sale, transfer, or misuse of certain controlled
goods, services, or technology, and for other purposes.
H.R. 3244. An act to combat trafficking of persons,
especially into the sex trade, slavery, and slavery-like
conditions in the United States and countries around the
world through prevention, through prosecution and enforcement
against traffickers, and through protection and assistance to
victims of trafficking.

____________________

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-9119. A communication from the Oklahoma City National
Memorial Trust transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
final rule entitled ``Rules and Regulations for Oklahoma City
National Memorial'', received May 22, 2000; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9120. A communication from the Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Indiana Regulatory Program''
(SPATS No. IN-147-FOR), received May 23, 2000; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9121. A communication from the Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Oklahoma Regulatory Program''
(SPATS No. OK-027-FOR), received May 23, 2000; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-9122. A communication from the Bureau of Export
Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Revisions and Clarifications to the Export Administration
Regulations; Commerce Control List'' (RIN0694-AB86), received
May 22, 2000; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
EC-9123. A communication from the Legislative and
Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
final rule entitled ``Privacy of Consumer Financial
Information'' (RIN1557-AB77), received May 22, 2000; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-9124. A communication from the Agricultural Marketing
Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Department of
Agriculture transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Milk in the New England and Other Marketing
Areas; Order Amending the Orders; Correction'' (Docket Number
DA-97-12), received May 22, 2000; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9125. A communication from the Agricultural Marketing
Service, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Department of
Agriculture transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Marketing Order Regulating the Handling of
Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision of the
Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3

[[Page 9521]]

(Native) Spearmint Oil for the 1999-2000 Marketing Year''
(Docket Number FV00-985-3 FIR), received May 22, 2000; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9126. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Tebufenozide; Benzoic Acid, 3,5- dimethyl1 - (1,1 ,-
dimethylethyl) -2 - (4-ethylbenzoyl) hydrazide; Pesticide
Tolerance'' (FRL # 6555-1), received May 19, 2000; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-9127. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Colorado; Designation of Areas for Air Quality
Planning Purposes, Canon City'' (FRL # 6706-5), received May
23, 2000; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9128. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control
District, and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control
District'' (FRL # 6585-9), received May 23, 2000; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9129. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories'' (FRL # 6706-1), received May 23,
2000; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9130. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Categories'' (FRL # 6706-2), received May 23,
2000; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9131. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; Control of Emissions from Existing Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators; Correction'' (FRL #
6705-7), received May 22, 2000; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-9132. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio;
Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes,
Ohio'' (FRL # 6701-8), received May 22, 2000; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9133. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Removal of the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for
Chloroform from the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations'' (FRL # 6705-4), received May 22, 2000; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-9134. A communication from the Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a final rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon''
(FRL # 6601-1), received May 22, 2000; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-9135. A communication from the Federal Trade Commission
transmitting a report entitled ``Privacy Online: Fair
Information Practices in the Electronic Marketplace''; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-9136. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
(44); Amdt. No. 1989 (5-4/5-18)'' (RIN2120-AA65) (2000-0027),
received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9137. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
(127); Amdt. No. 1990 (5-4/5-18)'' (RIN2120-AA65) (2000-
0026), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9138. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
(87); Amdt. No. 1992 (5-18/5-22)'' (RIN2120-AA65) (2000-
0028), received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-9139. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prohibition
Against Certain Flights Within the Territory and Airspace of
Ethiopia; Docket No. 2000-7340 (5-16/5-18)'' (RIN2120-AH01),
received May 18, 2000; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-9140. A communication from the Federal Aviation
Administration, Department of Transportation, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Revision to
the Legal Description of the Hayward Air Termination Class D
Airspace Area, CA; Docket No. 00-AWP-4 (5-2/5-22)'' (RIN2120-
AA66) (2000-0115), received May 22, 2000; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By. Mr. CAMPBELL, from the Committee on Indian Affairs,
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an
amendment to the title:
S. 1507: A bill to authorize the integration and
consolidation of alcohol and substance programs and services
provided by Indian tribal governments, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 106-306).

____________________

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. WARNER:
S. 2669. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
extend to persons over age 64 eligibility for medical care
under CHAMPUS and TRICARE; to extend the TRICARE Senior Prime
demonstration program in conjunction with the extension of
eligibility under CHAMPUS and TRICARE to such persons, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 2670. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, to require major rules of agencies to be
approved by Congress in order to take effect, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 2671. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to promote pension opportunities for women, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2672. A bill to provide for the conveyance of various
reclamation projects to local water authorities; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. REID:
S. 2673. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued
use as cemeteries; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2674. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code to
provide for realignment of the Department of Defense
workforce; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2675. A bill to establish an Office on Women's Health
within the Department of Health and Human Services; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Enzi,
Mr. Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Helms, Mr. Allard, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 2676. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act
to provide for inflation adjustments to the mandatory
jurisdiction thresholds of the National Labor Relations
Board; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Helms):
S. 2677. A bill to restrict assistance until certain
conditions are satisfied and to support democratic and
economic transition in Zimbabwe; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. BRYAN (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Reid, and
Mr. Allard):
S. 2678. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to treat gold, silver, and platinum, in either coin or bar,
in the same manner as stocks and bonds for purposes of

[[Page 9522]]

the maximum capital gain rate for individuals; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Breaux):
S. 2679. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
stainless steel rail car body shells; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mrs. HUTCHISON:
S. 2680. A bill to authorize such sums as may be necessary
for a Balkan Stabilization Conference as convened by the
United States and to express the sense of Congress that the
president should convene such a conference to consider all
outstanding issues related to the execution of the Dayton
Accords and the peace agreement with Serbia that ended
Operation Allied Force; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. DASCHLE (for Mr. Breaux):
S. 2681. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
stainless steel rail care body shells; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
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; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2683. A bill to deauthorize a portion of the project for
navigation, Kennebunk River, Maine; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2684. A bill to redesignate and reauthorize as anchorage
certain portions of the project for navigation, Narraguagus
River, Milbridge, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. THURMOND:
S.J. Res. 46. A joint resolution commemorating the 225th
Birthday of the United States Army; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
S.J. Res. 47. A joint resolution disapproving the extension
of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee
on Finance.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Abraham,
Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Sessions):
S. Con. Res. 119. A concurrent resolution commending the
Republic of Croatia for the conduct of its parliamentary and
presidential elections; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

legislation regarding medicare-eligible military retirees

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, S. 2669, to
afford members the opportunity to examine the issues related to the
complicated military medical program. We desire to change the existing
program to encompass, in the future, retirees over age 65.
Beginning in World War II promises were made to military members that
they and their families would be provided health care if they served a
full career. Subsequent legislation was enacted which cut off medical
benefits at age 65, leaving them to depend on the Medicare system,
which has provided to be inefficient. This is a breach of promise made
on behalf of our country to retirees who devoted a significant portion
of their lives with careers in service to their country. I recognize
with profound sorrow how we broke this promise to these retirees.
I have gone back and carefully examined these issues. There is no
statutory foundation providing for entitlement to military health care
benefits. It does not exist. It is a myth. But good faith
representation was made to these members. Who made the commitment is
irrelevant. I know personally that these representations were made. I
served in the military and heard the same promises.
My Committee has made a determination, a bipartisan decision, that we
would fix the issue of health care for our older retirees, this year.
We have started with a series of bills, strengthening them as we went
along, listening to those beneficiaries who use the system. The
legislation I bring to the floor today repeals the restriction barring
65 and older military retirees and their families from continued access
to the military health care system. If enacted, this legislation will
provide an equal benefit for all military health care system
beneficiaries, retirees, reservists, guardsmen and families. This puts
all beneficiaries in the same class. It is fairly expensive, but we
need to do it.
The legislation is a quantum leap over the provisions included in the
Committee markup of the annual Defense bill. While the markup includes
a comprehensive drug benefit regardless of age, the legislation goes
further and provides uninterrupted access to complete health care
services.
As a result of my initiatives, all military retirees, irrespective of
age, will now enjoy the same health care benefit.
In Town Hall meetings, I have listened carefully to the health care
concerns of military retirees--particularly those over age 65 who have
lost their entitlement to health care within the current military
health care system. The constant theme that runs through their requests
is that, once they reach the point at which they are eligible for
Medicare, they are no longer guaranteed care from the military health
care system. This discriminatory characteristic of our current system--
that has been in effect since 1964--reduces retiree medical benefits
and requires a significant change in the manner in which health care is
obtained at a point in the lives of our older military retirees when
stability and confidence are most important. This bill, in effect,
repeals the 1964 law.
The bill that I am proposing today would eliminate the current
discrimination based on age and would permit military retirees and
their dependents to be served by the military health care system
throughout their lives. Under my proposal, it would not matter whether
the military retiree is 47 years old or 77 years old. He or she will be
covered by the military health care system while on active duty and
throughout their retirement. No new systems will be required, although
the existing military system may require assistance from the Congress
to strengthen its ability to serve all retirees. This bill eliminates
the confusing and ineffective transfer of funds from Medicare to the
Department of Defense. Military retirees will not be required to pay
the high cost of additional basic or supplemental insurance premiums to
ensure their health care needs are met. Military readiness will not be
adversely impacted and our commitment to those who served a full career
will be fulfilled.
In order to permit the Department of Defense to plan for restoring
the health care benefit to all retirees, my bill would be effective on
October 1, 2001. While some may advocate an earlier effective date, it
is simply not feasible to expand the medical coverage to the 1.8
million Medicare-eligible retirees overnight.
What is apparent to me is that the will of the Congress, reflecting
the will of the Nation, is that now is the time to act on this issue.
My bill would eliminate the discriminatory practice that caused concern
among our military retirees and will restore full benefits of the
military health care system to all retirees.
Access to military health care has reached a crisis point. With the
reduction in the number of military hospitals and with the growth in
the retiree population, addressing the health care needs of our older
retirees has become increasingly difficult. These beneficiaries should
be assured that their health care needs will be met. They were promised
a healthcare benefit, they served to earn a benefit, and our country
needs to fulfill the commitments that were made to them.
I am well aware of the legislative alternatives that have been
proposed to address military retiree health care needs. I have
struggled to examine the most acute needs of these beneficiaries

[[Page 9523]]

and have struggled to develop a plan that equally benefits all our
retirees, not just those fortunate enough to live near a military
medical facility, or those fortunate enough to be selected through some
sort of lottery to be allowed to participate in the various pilot
programs now underway. My goal is to provide health care through a
means that is available to all beneficiaries, in an equitable and
complete manner.
As I have made it clear throughout the year, improving the military
health care system has been the Committee's top quality of life
initiative this year. My Committee has held hearings and listened to a
variety of beneficiary representatives. I have traveled throughout my
state and listened to the concerns of retirees. I conducted an
extensive town hall meeting in Norfolk in March. I have met with many
retirees and their representatives at my office, during my travels, and
even in social settings. I have listened.
This extensive review has allowed me to examine carefully how to
approach this issue. The number one priority I heard from retirees was
the importance of access to pharmaceuticals. This inspired me to
develop S. 2087, which provided a mail order pharmacy benefit for all
military beneficiaries, including--for the first time--all Medicare
eligible retirees. S. 2087 also addressed a number of other issues with
the military health care system including some critical improvements to
the TRICARE program for both active duty and retirees and their family
members. I appreciate the bipartisan support of so many of my
colleagues in crafting and introducing this critical first step.
In my many meetings with retirees, and through discussions with my
colleagues, I came to understand the need to further enhance S. 2087. I
proposed amendments to the budget resolution to increase the funding
available to address retiree health care needs. Then, again with
bipartisan support, I crafted a new piece of legislation which improved
and enhanced the pharmacy provisions of the original legislation. With
special assistance from Senator Snowe and Senator Kennedy, the new S.
2486 included an enhanced pharmacy benefit with no enrollment fees,
that included both retail and mail order programs. This improved
legislation addressed the major unmet need of retirees, access to
pharmaceuticals, and provides an equitable benefit, one that is not
discriminatory based on age. This legislation was included during
Committee consideration of the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Bill, with the overwhelming support of Committee members.
The bill now before the Congress compliments my earlier efforts and
those of the Committee. This bill, in conjunction with the provisions
in the Defense Authorization Bill, would provide a complete health care
benefit for all military retirees. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and my statement
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2669

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE
ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

(a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section
1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not
apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance
program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.);
and
``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is
entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A)
or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)(2))
or section 226A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(a)).''; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1) who
satisfy only the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of paragraph (2), but not subparagraph (C) of such
paragraph,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(2) who do not satisfy the condition specified in
subparagraph (A) of such paragraph''.
(b) Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration
Program.--Paragraph (4) of section 1896(b) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking
``3-year period beginning on January 1, 1998'' and inserting
``period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December
31, 2002''.
(c) Repeal of Related Demonstration Program.--Section 702
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2431; 10 U.S.C. 1079
note) is repealed.
(d) Effective Dates.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the amendments made by this section shall take effect on
October 1, 2001.
(2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect
on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 2670. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to
require major rules of agencies to be approved by Congress in order to
take effect, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.

the congressional regulatory review reform act of 2000

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation to curb Federal over-regulation by the executive branch of
Government and to restore congressional accountability for the
regulatory process.
The annual regulatory costs of the Federal Government on the private
sector have been estimated to be $200-$800 billion annually. The pace
and scope of over-regulation has accelerated under the Clinton
Administration. For example, the IRS has tried to raise taxes
administratively, the EPA has exceeded its authority with the Clean
Water Action Plan and the National Park Service is trying to eliminate
snowmobile use in our national parks, all without congressional
authorization. Increasingly, we have found that this administration
tries to advance through regulation and executive order an agenda it
cannot get done through the normal legislative process. In fact, there
are currently 137 major regulations in the works that will each have at
least a $100 million cost. That means these new regulations will impose
at least a $13.7 billion yearly impact on the economy.
Unfortunately, Congress has allowed this to happen. For years
Congress has delegated its most fundamental responsibility--the
creation of laws--to the executive branch. Consequently, rather than
just enforce laws, these unelected bureaucrats now also write the laws.
These regulatory bureaucracies have often been called the fourth branch
of Government. This fourth branch has misinterpreted, undercut and
directly contradicted the will of Congress time and time again. It is
well past time to end this ``regulation without representation.''
As many of my colleagues know, Congress passed the Congressional
Review Act in 1996 in an attempt to slow the executive regulatory
machine. For the first time, this law established a process by which
Congress can review and disapprove virtually all federal agency rules.
Unfortunately, the promise of the Act has not been fulfilled.
Between 1996 and 1999, 12,269 non-major rules and 186 major rules
were submitted to Congress by federal agencies. Only seven joint
resolutions of disapproval were introduced, pertaining to five rules.
None passed either House. In fact, none have even been debated on the
floor of either House.
The legislation I introduce today will address the flaws in the
Congressional Review Act and restore the proper balance between the
congressional and executive branches when it comes to rule-making. The
Congressional Regulatory Review Reform Act will require all major rules
(those with a $100 million annual impact as defined by the Office of
Management in consultation with GAO) to be approved by Congress before
they take effect. If Congress disapproves a rule, an agency will be
precluded from proposing the same or similar rule for a period of 6
months. A rule may be given interim effectiveness if the President
determines and certifies that a rule should take effect because of an
imminent threat to health and safety or emergency (this decision

[[Page 9524]]

is not judicially reviewable). Finally, the president is authorized to
establish, by executive order a program for the systematic review of
agency rules.
I believe that congressional review and accountability for federal
regulations will improve efficiency and lessen federal government
intervention in the daily lives of the American people. Congress cannot
allow the Executive Branch to continue to legislate through rules and
regulations. Congress must be responsible. Congress must take back its
constitutionally granted authority over the rule-making process.
This is not a partisan issue. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
suggested this idea as long ago as 1984. Nor is the purpose of this
legislation to overturn a great number of rules submitted by agencies.
It is intended to increase incentives regulators have to respond to the
views of the general public, rather than narrow interests and to make
Congress and the president more politically accountable for the
resulting rules.
Mr. President, I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting
this commonsense, good government reform.
______

By Mr. ASHCROFT:
S. 2671. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to promote
pension opportunities for women, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.

the pension opportunities for women's equality in retirement act

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pension
Opportunities for Women's Equality in Retirement (POWER) Act of 2000.
This legislation is important because the current tax code often fails
to give women--especially women who take time off to raise children--
sufficient opportunities to earn a large enough pension to guarantee
their financial security in retirement.
The facts demonstrate that women need help in building pensions for
their future. In America today, two-thirds of women over 65 have no
pension other than Social Security. This translates into 300,000 women
in my home state of Missouri and 14 million women nationwide. At the
same time, the median income from assets for women age 65 and over is
only $860 a year. Retirement is often compared to a three-legged stool,
with the three legs being pensions, savings, and Social Security. Now,
everyone knows what happens to a three legged stool when one of the
legs is missing: it falls over. But these statistics shows that many,
too many, American women are trying to manage their retirements on only
one leg of the stool.
As a result of the lack of pensions and relatively low savings among
American women, older women are twice as likely as older men to be
living near or below the federal poverty threshold. Further, the
poverty rates for widows, divorced women, and never-married women are
significantly higher than the rate for all elderly women. The 20
million elderly American women--including 440,000 in Missouri--carry an
extremely high risk of poverty.
The causes for this risk can be found in the tax code and pension
rules. One of the key elements of pension building is called vesting.
Employees cannot build pension assets until they vest, or serve at a
particular job for a redetermined amount of time, often 5 years.
Employers have a perfectly good reason for vesting requirements--they
want to encourage job stability--and there is no inherent bias in these
requirements. But the effect of these requirements is to make it harder
for women to build up pension assets. The reason for this is that the
median job tenure for women is 3.8 years, well below the median job
tenure for men, as well as the 5 years most pension plans require for
vesting.
Another problem women face is that 59 percent of women have not
figured out how much they need to save for retirement. When workers,
men and women alike, are younger, they are frequently not thinking of
how much they need to save for retirement. Younger workers are
concerned with mortgages, school loans, children's needs. When these
workers get older, and start thinking about retirement, they often
increase the amount of money they will put away for retirement.
Unfortunately women, who have often spent less time in the workplace,
have less time in which to make the required `catch-up' contributions
that will help create a stable and secure retirement. This process is
made even harder by existing rules that limit the amounts of the catch-
up contributions.
Given the difficulties women, especially unmarried women, face in
their retirement years, I believe that it is time for the Congress to
step up and to ensure that retirement security law provides for higher
contribution limits for working women, easier catch-up to make up for
years women missed in the labor force, and increased portability of
pensions.
The POWER Act of 2000 will do three major things: First, the bill
will increase contribution limits, allowing workers to contribute more
money to retirement accounts during their working years, thereby
ensuring that their retirements will be more secure.
For workers who are over fifty, the bill allows additional pension
contributions of up to 50 percent more than allowed under current law.
This provision is particularly helpful to women who leave the labor
force to raise their children, and then want to ``catch-up'' when they
are older by increasing their contributions in the years leading up to
retirement. This bill also requires employers to vest employees
earlier, so that women, who have shorter average job tenures, can
accrue pension benefits earlier.
The bill's third section eases portability of pensions among workers
who switch jobs. The bill eases rollovers and requires that rollovers
apply to all retirement plans. In addition, the bill extends pension
rollovers to include post-tax as well as pre-tax distributions, and
calls for the post-tax distributions to be accounted for separately.
These provisions are not controversial. They have all passed both the
Senate and the House of Representatives as part of the Taxpayer Refund
and Relief Act. President Clinton vetoed that earlier bill. I disagree
with the President, but he is entitled to his opinion. On these
provisions, however, it is impossible to claim that these female-
friendly provisions will cost too much money. The provisions in this
bill will help all workers save more for retirement, and develop larger
pensions for their golden years.
This bill will particularly help women, who face a much greater risk
of poverty. While the POWER Act will help both women and men save for
retirement, it will correct specific pension inequalities in the
current law that particularly hurt women. Missouri's nearly 900,000
working women certainly will benefit through enhanced opportunities to
create financial security for retirement. In Missouri, 65 percent of
working age women are in the paid labor force. According to the
Missouri Women's Council, only 26 percent of older women receive a
pension, compared with 47 percent of men. In addition, the pensions
that women do receive are significantly less than those of men--$4,200
for women, on average, compared with $7,800 for men.
I hope that the Senate will take quick action on this matter, to help
American women provide for safe and secure retirements.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2672. A bill to provide for the conveyance of various reclamation
projects to local water authorities; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

THE SUGAR PINE DAM AND RESERVOIR CONVEYANCE ACT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this
bill today which will provide for the transfer of the Sugar Pine Dam
and Reservoir Project in the Central Valley Project to the Forest Hills
Public Utility District. I continue to support the transfer of the
Bureau of Reclamation projects to the local water districts which
operate and benefit from them.
This bill is important in one other way. The language in this bill
will correct the financial inequity that affects

[[Page 9525]]

CVP beneficiaries. Some of the costs of constructing Bureau of
Reclamation projects have been allocated to other CVP contractors even
though the projects have never been operationally integrated into the
CVP. Thus, Irrigation and Municipal and Industrial (M&I) contractors
such as Contra Costa Water District, East Bay MUD, Santa Clara Valley
Water District, Sacramento MUD, City of Fresno and a number of others
have incurred substantial costs without ever receiving any benefit.
This bill has the bipartisan support of Congressman George Miller and
John Doolittle in the House. And I can think of no opposition to
assisting Forest Hills Public Utility District and other M&I
contractors with this legislation.
______

By Mr. REID:
S. 2673. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries,
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the eureka county cemetery conveyance act

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Eureka County
Cemetery Conveyance Act.
The settlement of Beowawe, Nevada was destination and home to
pioneers that settled the isolated high desert of the central Great
Basin. The inhabitants of this community set aside a specific community
cemetery to provide the final resting place for friends and family who
passed away. The early settlers established and managed the cemetery in
the late 1800's. The Beowawe cemetery is on land currently managed by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
The site of these historic cemetery was established prior to the
creation of the BLM as an agency. The BLM was created in 1946. Under
current law, the agency must sell the encumbered land at fair market
value to this community. My bill provides for conveyance of this
cemetery to Eureka County, at no cost. It is unconscionable to me that
this community would have to buy their ancestors back from the Federal
government.
I sincerely hope that members of Congress recognize the benefit to
the local community that the conveyances would provide and pass this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2673

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the historical use by settlers and travelers since the
late 1800's of the cemetery known as ``Maiden's Grave
Cemetery'' in Beowawe, Nevada, predates incorporation of the
land on which the cemetery is situated within the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management; and
(2) it is appropriate that that use be continued through
local public ownership of the parcel rather than through the
permitting process of the Federal agency.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE TO EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA.

(a) Conveyance.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), shall
convey, without consideration, subject to valid existing
rights, to Eureka County, Nevada (referred to in this section
as the ``county''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to the parcel of land described in
subsection (b).
(b) Description of Land.--The parcel of land referred to in
subsection (a) is the parcel of public land (including any
improvements on the land) known as ``Maiden's Grave
Cemetery'', consisting of approximately 10 acres and more
particularly described as S1/2NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, N1/2SE1/4SW1/
4SW1/4 of section 10, T.31N., R.49E., Mount Diablo Meridian.
(c) Use of Land.--
(1) In general.--The county shall continue the use of the
parcel conveyed under subsection (a) as a cemetery.
(2) Reversion.--If the Secretary, after notice to the
county and an opportunity for a hearing, makes a finding that
the county has discontinued the use of the parcel conveyed
under subsection (a) as a cemetery, title to the parcel shall
revert to the Secretary.
(d) Right-of-Way.--At the time of the conveyance under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall grant the county a right-
of-way allowing access for persons desiring to visit the
cemetery and other cemetery purposes over an appropriate
access route.
______

By Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 2674. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code to provide for
realignment of the Department of Defense workforce; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

the department of defense civilian workforce realignment act of 2000

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, the Federal Government is facing
a little-known, yet serious problem that jeopardizes its ability to
provide services to the American people--a crisis in human capital. The
federal workforce has endured years of downsizing, hiring freezes, and
inadequate investment in the dedicated men and women who comprise the
federal civil service. As a result, the Federal Government is ill-
equipped to compete with the private sector for a new generation of
technology-savvy workers to replace the nearly 900,000 ``baby boomers''
who will be eligible for retirement from the civil service in the next
5 years.
To meet that challenge, I rise today to introduce legislation, along
with my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator Mike DeWine, that will
help one critical department of our Federal Government--the Department
of Defense--get a head start in addressing its future workforce needs.
Our bill, the ``Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment
Act of 2000,'' provides the Department of Defense with greater
flexibility to adequately manage its civilian workforce and align its
human capital to meet the demands of the post-cold-war environment.
During the last decade, the Department of Defense underwent a massive
civilian workforce downsizing program that saw a cut of more than
280,000 positions. In addition, the Defense Department--like other
federal departments--was subject to hiring restrictions. Taken
together, these two factors have inhibited the development of mid-level
career, civilian professionals; the men and women who serve a vital
role in the management and development of our nation's military. The
extent of this problem is exhibited in the fact that right now, the
Department is seriously understaffed in certain key occupations, such
as computer experts and foreign language specialists. The lack of such
professionals has the potential to affect the Defense Department's
ability to respond effectively and rapidly to military threats to our
nation.
The need to address the pending human capital crisis in the federal
workforce is increasingly apparent, as more and more leaders
acknowledge that our past policies did not consider future federal
workforce needs. Indeed, in testimony before the Oversight of
Government Management Subcommittee, which I chair, the head of the
General Accounting Office, Comptroller General David Walker, stated,
``(I)n cutting back on the hiring of new staff in order to reduce the
number of their employees, agencies also reduced the influx of new
people with the new competencies needed to sustain excellence.''
The bill that Senator DeWine and I are introducing today will help
respond to these concerns by giving the Department of Defense the
assistance it needs to shape the ``skills mix'' of the current
workforce in order to address shortfalls brought about by years of
downsizing. Our bill will also help the Department meet its needs for
new skills in emerging technological and professional areas.
Another area of concern for the Department of Defense--as well as
many other federal agencies--is the serious demographic challenges that
exist in its workforce. The average Defense Department employee is 45
years old, and more than a third of the Department's workforce is age
51 or older. In the Department of the Air Force, for example, 45
percent of the workforce will be eligible for either regular retirement
or early retirement by 2005.
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, OH, is an excellent
example of

[[Page 9526]]

the demographic challenge facing military installations across the
country. Wright-Patterson is the headquarters of the Air Force Materiel
Command, and employs 22,700 civilian federal workers. By 2005, 60
percent of the Base's civilian workforce will be eligible for either
regular retirement or early retirement. Although a mass exodus of all
retirement-eligible employees is not anticipated, there is a genuine
concern that a significant portion of the Wright-Patterson civilian
workforce, including hundreds of key leaders and employees with crucial
expertise, could decide to retire, leaving the remaining workforce
without experienced leadership and absent essential institutional
knowledge.
This combination of factors poses a serious challenge to the long-
term effectiveness of the civilian component of the Defense Department,
and by implication, the national security of the United States.
Military base leaders, and indeed the entire Defense establishment,
need to be given the flexibility to hire new employees so they can
begin to develop another generation of civilian leaders and employees
who will be able to provide critical support to our men and women in
uniform.
That is the purpose of the legislation we are introducing today. The
Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act addresses the
current imbalance between the federal workforce and the skills needed
to run the Federal Government in the 21st century, as well as the age
imbalance between new employees and the potential mass retirement of
senior public employees in the next 5 years. If we wait for this
``retirement bubble'' to burst before we begin to hire new employees,
then not only will we be woefully understaffed in a number of key
areas, but we will have fewer seasoned individuals left in the federal
workforce who can provide training and mentoring.
The provisions in our bill will allow the Defense Department to
conduct a smoother transition by bringing new employees into the
Department over the next 5 years. The new employees will have the
opportunity to work with and learn from their more experienced
colleagues, and invaluable institutional knowledge will be passed
along.
While this proposal does not address all of the human capital needs
of the Defense Department, it will help ensure that the Department of
Defense recruits and retains a quality civilian workforce so that our
Armed Forces may remain the best in the world. It is extremely
important to the future vitality of the Department's civilian workforce
and the national security of the United States that we address the
human capital crisis while we have the opportunity. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
printed in full in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2674

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 ``Department of Defense
Civilian Workforce Realignment Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR VOLUNTARY SEPARATIONS IN
REDUCTIONS IN FORCE.

Section 3502(f)(5) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``September 30, 2001'' and inserting
``September 30, 2005''.

SEC. 3. EXTENSION, REVISION, AND EXPANSION OF AUTHORITIES FOR
USE OF VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAY AND
VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT.

(a) Extension of Authority.--Subsection (e) of section 5597
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``September 30, 2003'' and inserting ``September 30, 2005''.
(b) Revision and Addition of Purposes for Department of
Defense VSIP.--Subsection (b) of such section is amended by
inserting after ``transfer of function,'' the following:
``restructuring of the workforce (to meet mission needs, to
achieve one or more strength reductions, to correct skill
imbalances, or to reduce the number of high-grade,
managerial, or supervisory positions),''.
(c) Installment Payments.--Subsection (d) of such section
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) shall be paid in a lump-sum or in installments;'';
(2) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(3) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) if paid in installments, shall cease to be paid upon
the recipient's acceptance of employment by the Federal
Government as described in subsection (g)(1).''.

SEC. 4. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARY EARLY
RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8336 of title
5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``except in the case
of an employee described in subsection (o)(1),'' after
``(2)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(o)(1) An employee of the Department of Defense who,
before October 1, 2005, is separated from the service after
completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of
age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an
immediate annuity under this subchapter if the employee is
eligible for the annuity under paragraph (2) or (3).
``(2)(A) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is
eligible for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the
employee--
``(i) is separated from the service involuntarily other
than for cause; and
``(ii) has not declined a reasonable offer of another
position in the Department of Defense for which the employee
is qualified, which is not lower than 2 grades (or pay
levels) below the employee's grade (or pay level), and which
is within the employee's commuting area.
``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(i), a separation
for failure to accept a directed reassignment to a position
outside the commuting area of the employee concerned or to
accompany a position outside of such area pursuant to a
transfer of function may not be considered to be a removal
for cause.
``(3) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is eligible
for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the employee
satisfies all of the following conditions:
``(A) The employee is separated from the service
voluntarily during a period in which the organization within
the Department of Defense in which the employee is serving is
undergoing a major organizational adjustment, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense.
``(B) The employee has been employed continuously by the
Department of Defense for more than 30 days before the date
on which the head of the employee's organization requests the
determinations required under subparagraph (A).
``(C) The employee is serving under an appointment that is
not limited by time.
``(D) The employee is not in receipt of a decision notice
of involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance.
``(E) The employee is within the scope of an offer of
voluntary early retirement, as defined on the basis of one or
more of the following objective criteria:
``(i) One or more organizational units.
``(ii) One or more occupational groups, series, or levels.
``(iii) One or more geographical locations.
``(iv) Any other similar criteria that the Secretary of
Defense determines appropriate.
``(4) The determinations necessary for establishing the
eligibility of a person for an immediate annuity under
paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
``(5) In this subsection, the term `major organizational
adjustment' means any of the following:
``(A) A major reorganization.
``(B) A major reduction in force.
``(C) A major transfer of function.
``(D) A workforce restructuring--
``(i) to meet mission needs;
``(ii) to achieve one or more reductions in strength;
``(iii) to correct skill imbalances; or
``(iv) to reduce the number of high-grade, managerial,
supervisory, or similar positions.''.
(b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8414 of
such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by inserting ``except in the
case of an employee described in subsection (d)(1),'' after
``(B)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d)(1) An employee of the Department of Defense who,
before October 1, 2005, is separated from the service after
completing 25 years of service or after becoming 50 years of
age and completing 20 years of service is entitled to an
immediate annuity under this subchapter if the employee is
eligible for the annuity under paragraph (2) or (3).
``(2)(A) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is
eligible for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the
employee--
``(i) is separated from the service involuntarily other
than for cause; and
``(ii) has not declined a reasonable offer of another
position in the Department of Defense for which the employee
is qualified, which is not lower than 2 grades (or pay
levels) below the employee's grade (or pay level), and which
is within the employee's commuting area.

[[Page 9527]]

``(B) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(A)(i), a separation
for failure to accept a directed reassignment to a position
outside the commuting area of the employee concerned or to
accompany a position outside of such area pursuant to a
transfer of function may not be considered to be a removal
for cause.
``(3) An employee referred to in paragraph (1) is eligible
for an immediate annuity under this paragraph if the employee
satisfies all of the following conditions:
``(A) The employee is separated from the service
voluntarily during a period in which the organization within
the Department of Defense in which the employee is serving is
undergoing a major organizational adjustment, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense.
``(B) The employee has been employed continuously by the
Department of Defense for more than 30 days before the date
on which the head of the employee's organization requests the
determinations required under subparagraph (A).
``(C) The employee is serving under an appointment that is
not limited by time.
``(D) The employee is not in receipt of a decision notice
of involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable
performance.
``(E) The employee is within the scope of an offer of
voluntary early retirement, as defined on the basis of one or
more of the following objective criteria:
``(i) One or more organizational units.
``(ii) One or more occupational groups, series, or levels.
``(iii) One or more geographical locations.
``(iv) Any other similar criteria that the Secretary of
Defense determines appropriate.
``(4) The determinations necessary for establishing the
eligibility of a person for an immediate annuity under
paragraph (2) or (3) shall be made in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.
``(5) In this subsection, the term `major organizational
adjustment' means any of the following:
``(A) A major reorganization.
``(B) A major reduction in force.
``(C) A major transfer of function.
``(D) A workforce restructuring--
``(i) to meet mission needs;
``(ii) to achieve one or more reductions in strength;
``(iii) to correct skill imbalances; or
``(iv) to reduce the number of high-grade, managerial,
supervisory, or similar positions.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 8339(h) of such
title is amended by striking out ``or ( j)'' in the first
sentence and inserting ``( j), or (o)''.
(2) Section 8464(a)(1)(A)(i) of such title is amended by
striking out ``or (b)(1)(B)'' and ``, (b)(1)(B), or (d)''.
(d) Effective Date; Applicability.--The amendments made by
this section--
(1) shall take effect on October 1, 2000; and
(2) shall apply with respect to an approval for voluntary
early retirement made on or after that date.

SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PAYMENTS FOR ACADEMIC TRAINING.

(a) Sources of Postsecondary Education.--Subsection (a) of
section 4107 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) any course of postsecondary education that is
administered or conducted by an institution not accredited by
a national or regional accrediting body (except in the case
of a course or institution for which standards for
accrediting do not exist or are determined by the head of the
employee's agency as being inappropriate), regardless of
whether the course is provided by means of classroom
instruction, electronic instruction, or otherwise.''.
(b) Waiver of Restriction on Degree Training.--Subsection
(b)(1) of such section is amended by striking ``if
necessary'' and all that follows through the end and
inserting ``if the training provides an opportunity for an
employee of the agency to obtain an academic degree pursuant
to a planned, systematic, and coordinated program of
professional development approved by the head of the
agency.''.
(c) Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--The heading for
such section is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 4107. Restrictions''.

(3) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``4107. Restrictions.''.

SEC. 6. STRATEGIC PLAN.

(a) Requirement for Plan.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a strategic plan for the exercise of the authorities
provided or extended by the amendments made by this Act. The
plan shall include an estimate of the number of Department of
Defense employees that would be affected by the uses of
authorities as described in the plan.
(b) Consistency With DoD Performance and Review Strategic
Plan.--The strategic plan submitted under subsection (a)
shall be consistent with the strategic plan of the Department
of Defense that is in effect under section 306 of title 5,
United States Code.
(c) Appropriate Committees.--For the purposes of this
section, the appropriate committees of Congress are as
follows:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Government Reform of the House of Representatives.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, today Senator Voinovich and I are
introducing the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment
Act of 2000. This legislation is designed to give the Department of
Defense some of the administrative flexibility it needs to shape the
civilian workforce to meet the tremendous national defense challenges
that face our nation well into this century.
My colleague from Ohio and I, along with our Ohio colleagues in the
House, Mr. Hobson and Mr. Hall have been working on this issue for
almost two years. What has fostered this bipartisan unity is the
current workforce situation at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in
Dayton, Ohio. What we have seen there is a rather large microcosm of a
current and growing problem that affects the civilian workforce
throughout our defense infrastructure. At Wright-Patterson, this
problem threatens to diminish significantly the pool of talented
experts in critical research and development fields. As I have often
said, Wright-Patterson is the brain power behind our air power, and is
the central reason why our Air Force is second to none in technological
and aeronautical superiority.
Wright-Patterson has already lost a significant number of people who
constituted that brain power as a result of Cold War downsizing. In the
last decade alone, 8,000 positions at Wright-Patterson have been lost.
For the entire Department of Defense, approximately 280,000 positions
were lost during the same period. At the same time we were downsizing,
hiring restrictions prevented the Defense Department from establishing
a foundation of younger innovators. In short, the combination of
downsizing, retirement, and a hiring freeze has left a shallow talent
pool of young skilled workers.
The statistics tell the story. Today, for example, nearly one out of
10 civilian workers at Wright-Patterson's Aeronautical Systems Center
are under the age of 35, while more than one-third of the workforce is
over the age of 50. In less than five years, more than half of this
workforce will be eligible for retirement, but only 2.5 percent will be
under the age of 35. This trend is typical for all civilian functions
at Wright-Patterson.
The Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Realignment Act would
extend, revise and expand the Defense Department's limited authority to
use voluntary incentive pay and voluntary early retirement. Our bill
would allow for the Department to utilize the added authority to
restructure the civilian workforce to meet missions needs and to
correct skill imbalances. Given the significant numbers of eligible
federal retirees the Department will face in just a few short years,
this legislation would give the Department the ability to better manage
this extraordinary transition period. Just as important, this smoother
transition period would allow for better and more effective development
of our younger workers, who will have a better chance to learn and gain
from the expertise of the older generation of innovators.
The legislation we are introducing, fundamentally for Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, is about maintaining technological
superiority. That superiority is the foundation of future Air Force
dominance in the skies. It's that simple. Weakening that foundation
places the lives of our pilots and the security of our nation at risk.
Our legislation is a positive step toward rebuilding and strengthening
that foundation with an investment in those who will make tomorrow's
discoveries and breakthroughs that will keep our pilots safe and our
nation secure.
I am pleased that the Department of the Air Force and the Department
of Defense have expressed the need for

[[Page 9528]]

workforce realignment legislation. I believe the legislation Senator
Voinovich and I are introducing today will meet the concerns they have
expressed not just to us, but also to other members of the House and
Senate.
I want to thank Senator Voinovich for his efforts and leadership on
his legislation, and also want to extend my appreciation to his staff,
especially Aric Newhouse and Andrew Richardson, for their hard work.
The Miami Valley community also has been of great help in demonstrating
the importance of this issue not just to Wright-Patterson but also to
the entire region and the nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 2675. A bill to establish an Office on Women's Health within the
Department of Health and Human Services; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

women's health office act of 2000

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Women's Health Office Act of 2000 and I am pleased to be joined on this
legislation by my friend and colleague, Senator Barbara Mikulski.
Companion legislation to this bill has been introduced in the House by
Congresswomen Connie Morella and Carolyn Maloney.
The Women's Health Office Act of 2000 provides permanent
authorization for offices of women's health in five federal agencies:
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Agency for Health Care
Research and Quality (AHRQ); the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA); and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Currently, only two women's health offices in the federal government
have statutory authorization: the Office of Research on Women's Health
at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Office for Women's
Services within the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA).
For too many years, women's health care needs were ignored or poorly
understood, and women were systematically excluded from important
health research. One famous medical study on breast cancer examined
hundreds of men. Another federally-funded study examined the ability of
aspirin to prevent heart attacks in 20,000 medical doctors, all of whom
were men, despite the fact that heart disease is the leading cause
among women.
Today, Members of Congress and the American public understand the
importance of ensuring that both genders benefit equally from medical
research and health care services. Unfortunately, equity does not yet
exist in health care, and we have a long way to go. Knowledge about
appropriate courses of treatment for women lags far behind that for men
for many diseases. For years, research into diseases that predominantly
affect women, such as breast cancer, went grossly underfunded. And many
women do not have access to reproductive and other vital health
services.
Throughout my tenure in the House and Senate, I have worked hard to
expose and eliminate this health care gender gap and improve women's
access to affordable, quality health services. Ten years, ago, as co-
chairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues (CCWI),
Representative Pat Schroeder and I, along with Representative Henry
Waxman, called for a GAO investigation into the inclusion of women and
minorities in medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
This study documented the widespread exclusion of women from medical
research, and spurred the Caucus to introduce the first Women's Health
Equity Act (WHEA) in 1990. This comprehensive legislation provided
Congress with its first broad, forward-looking health agenda designed
to redress the historical inequities that face women in medical
research, prevention and services.
Three years later Congress enacted legislation mandating the
inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials at NIH through the
National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-43).
Also included in the NIH Revitalization Act was language establishing
the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health--language based on my
original Office of Women's Health bill that was introduced in the 104th
Congress.
And yet, despite all the progress that we have made, there is still a
long way to go on women's health care issues. Last month, the GAO
released a report--a ten-year update--on the status of women's research
at NIH (``NIH Has Increased Its Efforts to Include Women in Research,''
published on May 2, 2000). This report found that since the first GAO
report and the 1993 legislation, NIH has made significant progress
toward including women as subjects in both intramural and external
clinical trials.
However, the report notes that the Institutes have made less progress
in implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials be
designed and carried out to permit valid analysis by sex, which could
reveal whether interventions affect women and men differently. The GAO
found that NIH researchers will include women in their trials--but then
they will either not do analysis on the basis of sex, or if no
difference was found, they will not publish the sex-based results.
NIH has done a good job of improving participation of women in
clinical trials, but our commitment to women's health this is not about
quotas and numbers. It is about real scientific advances that will
improve our knowledge about women's health. At a time when we are on
track to double funding for NIH, it is troubling that the agency has
still failed to fully implement both its own guidelines and Congress's
directive for sex-based analysis. And as a result, women continue to be
shortchanged by federal research efforts.
The crux of the matter is that NIH's problems exist despite the fact
that it has an Office of Women's Health that is codified in law. If NIH
is having problems, imagine the difficulties we will have in continuing
the focus on women's health in offices that don't have this legislative
mandate, and that may change focus with a new HHS Secretary or Agency
Director.
Offices of Women's Health across the Public Health Service are
charged with coordinating women's health activities and monitoring
progress on women's health issues within their respective agencies, and
they have been successful in making federal programs and policies more
responsive to women's health issues. Unfortunately, all of the good
work these offices are doing is not guaranteed in Public Health Service
authorizing law. Providing statutory authorization for federal women's
health offices is a critical step in ensuring that women's health
research will continue to receive the attention it requires in future
years.
Codifying these offices of women's health is important for several
reasons: First, it re-emphasizes Congress's commitment to focusing on
women's health. Second, it ensures that Agencies will enact Congress's
intent with good faith. Finally, it ensures that appropriations will be
available in future years to fulfill these commitments.
By statutorily creating Offices of Women's Health, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Women's Health will be able to better monitor
various Public Health Service agencies and advise them on scientific,
legal, ethical and policy issues. Agencies would establish a
Coordinating Committee on Women's Health to identify and prioritize
which women's health projects should be conducted. This will also
provide a mechanism for coordination within and across these agencies,
and with the private sector. But most importantly, this bill will
ensure the presence of enduring offices dedicated to addressing the
ongoing needs and gaps in research policy, programs, and education and
training in women's health.
Improving the health of American women requires a far greater
understanding of women's health needs and conditions, and ongoing
evaluation in the areas of research, education, prevention, treatment
and the delivery of services. I urge my colleagues to join Senator
Mikulski and me in supporting

[[Page 9529]]

this legislation, to help ensure that women's health will never again
be a missing page in America's medical textbook.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join my good friend and
colleague, Senator Snowe, to introduce the Women's Health Office Act of
2000. I'm pleased to join Senator Snowe in introducing this bill
because it establishes an important framework to address women's health
within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Historically, women's health needs were ignored or inadequately
addressed by the medical establishment and the government. It is really
only in the last ten years that the health of women has begun to
receive more attention. A 1990 General Accounting Office (GAO) report
acknowledged the historical pattern of neglect of women in health
research, and especially the exclusion of women as research subjects in
many clinical trials. This was unacceptable. Women make up half or more
of the population and must be adequately included in clinical research.
That's why I fought to establish the Office of Research on Women's
Health (ORWH) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ten years ago.
We needed to ensure that women were included in clinical research, so
that we would know how treatments for a particular disease or condition
would affect women. Would men and women react the same way to a
particular treatment for heart disease? We had no way of knowing
because women were not being included in clinical trials.
While the ORWH began its work in 1990, I wanted to ensure that it
stayed at NIH and had the necessary authority to carry out its mission
of ensuring that women were included in clinical research. That's why I
authored legislation in 1990 and 1991 to formally establish the ORWH in
the Office of the Director of NIH. These provisions were later enacted
into law in the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993.
Last year, Senator Harkin, Senator Snowe, and I requested that GAO
examine how well the NIH and ORWH was carrying out the mandates under
the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. The results were mixed. While NIH
had made substantial progress in ensuring the inclusion of women in
clinical research, it had made less progress in encouraging the
analysis of study findings by sex. This means that women are being
included in clinical trials, but we are not able to fully reap the
benefits of inclusion because analysis of how interventions affect men
and women is not being done. While the NIH is taking steps to address
this, we are missing information from research done over the last few
years about how the outcomes of the research varied or not for men and
women.
NIH is but one agency in the DHHS. Other agencies in DHHS do not even
have women's health offices. How are these other agencies addressing
women's health? Only NIH and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA) have statutory authorization for
offices dedicated to women's health. Other agencies in HHS have a
hodgepodge of women's health offices or advisors/coordinators, some of
whom have experienced cuts in their funding. For example, funding for
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Women's Health has
decreased from $2 million in Fiscal Year 1995 to $1.6 million in Fiscal
Year 2000. In addition, funding for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's (CDC) Office of Women's Health was cut more than 10%
between Fiscal Year 1999 and Fiscal Year 2000.
I believe we need a consistent and comprehensive approach to address
the needs of women's health in the DHHS. This bill that I join Senator
Snowe in introducing today would do just that. The Women's Health
Office Act of 2000 would provide authorization for women's health
offices in DHHS, CDC, the FDA, the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality (AHRQ), and the Health Resources and Serivces Administration
(HRSA).
This legislation establishes an important framework and build on
existing efforts. The HHS Office on Women's Health would take over all
functions which previously belonged to the current Office of Women's
Health of the Public Health Service. The HHS Office would be headed by
a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Women's Health who would also chair an
HHS Coordinating Committee on Women's Heath. The responsibilities of
the HHS Office would include establishing short and long-term goals,
advising the Secretary of HHS on women's health issues, monitoring and
facilitating coordination and stimulating HHS activities on women's
health, establishing a national Women's Health Information Center to
facilitate exchange of and access to women's health information, and
coordinating private sector efforts to promote women's health.
Under this legislation, the Offices of Women's Health in CDC, FDA,
HRSA, and AHRQ would be housed in the office of the head of each agency
and be headed by a Director appointed by the head of the respective
agency. The offices would assess the current level of activity on
women's health in the agency; establish short-term and long-term goals
for women's health and coordinate women's health activities in the
agency; identify women's health projects to support or conduct; consult
with appropriate outside groups on the agency's policy regarding women;
serve on HHS' Coordinating Committee on Women's Health; and establish
and head a coordinating committee on women's health within the agency
to identify womens' health needs and make recommendations to the head
of the agency. The FDA office would also have specific duties regarding
women and clinical trials. All the offices, including the HHS Office
beginning no later than Jan. 31. 2002, would submit a report every two
years to the appropriate Congressional committees documenting
activities accomplished. In addition, the bill authorizes
appropriations for all the offices through 2005
I believe that this bill will establish a valuable and consistent
framework for addressing women's health in the Department of Health and
Human Services. It will help to ensure that women's health research
will continue to have the resources it needs in the coming years. This
bill is a priority of the Women's Health Research Coalition. The
Coalition is comprised of nearly three dozen academic centers,
voluntary health associations and membership organizations with a
strong focus on women's health research and gender-based biology. I
encourage my colleagues to join Senator Snowe and myself in supporting
and cosponsoring this important legislation for women.
______

By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Allard, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr. Inhofe):
S. 2676. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide
for inflation adjustments to the mandatory jurisdiction thresholds of
the National Labor Relations Board; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

legislation regarding inflation adjustments to mandatory jurisdiction
thresholds of the national labor relations board

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2676

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS TO MANDATORY JURISDICTION
THRESHOLDS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

Section 14(c)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (29
U.S.C. 164(c)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1)(A) Mandatory Jurisdiction.--The Board shall assert
jurisdiction over any labor dispute involving any class or
category of employers over which it would assert jurisdiction
under the standards prevailing on August 1, 1959, with the
financial threshold amounts adjusted for inflation under
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Inflation Adjustments.--The Board, beginning on
October 1, 2000, and not less

[[Page 9530]]

often than every 5 years thereafter, shall adjust each of the
financial threshold amounts referred to in subparagraph (A)
for inflation, using as the base period the later of (i) the
most recent calendar quarter ending before the financial
threshold amount was established, or (ii) the calendar
quarter ending June 30, 1959. The inflation adjustments shall
be determined using changes in the Consumer Price Index for
all urban consumers published by the Department of Labor and
shall be rounded to the nearest $10,000. The Board shall
prescribe any regulations necessary for making the inflation
adjustments.''.
____

[From the Dallas Morning News, Apr. 28, 2000]

Mike Huckabee: Government's Flawed Pursuit of Microsoft

(By Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas)

As a lifelong Southerner, I am proud our region is known
for its hospitality and common sense. It seems the Justice
Department could use a little of both in the handling of its
antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corp.
When Federal Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson recently issued
his ruling, he gave credence to the flawed logic upon which
the government has built its case.
That flawed logic should have precluded the federal
government from bringing the case in the first place.
Washington bureaucrats shouldn't be in the business of
choosing winners and losers in the private sector. That
responsibility belongs to consumers.
The government's theory behind the case is that America's
high-technology industry has been victimized by Microsoft's
stifling competition and squelching innovation. Every piece
of the federal government's theory is an insult to the free-
enterprise system and the will of consumers.
First, there is no more competitive industry in the world
than America's high-tech market. That is as true today as it
was before the federal government's five-year, $30 million
attempt to regulate free enterprise. There are thousands of
companies selling software products today, far more than at
the start of the trial.
And in the time since the federal government and 19 state
attorneys general filed their suit, America's technology
industry has produced one-third of the nation's economic
growth.
Those facts hardly would support the government's
characterization of the information technology industry as a
shell of its former self.
As for innovation, consider the change in the simple matter
of personal computing since 1995. In 1995, the personal
computer was just starting to have its potential realized
with the development--among other innovations--of Windows 95.
Just as Windows 95 has since been rendered obsolete by
Microsoft itself, so now is the debate beginning about the
future of the personal computer as we know it. Many believe
the PC soon will be replaced by Internet-based appliances in
phones, televisions and hand-held computing devices. The
technology industry in 2000 looks nothing like it did in
1995.
Just as many of the technologies of the mid-'90s now are
obsolete, so are the issues the government has raised in this
case. The high-tech market has moved--and will continue to
move--too quickly for any government to keep tabs on it
through regulation. By the time federal bureaucrats get
around to fixing rules, the market will change them. That is
the way of the new economy, built on competition, innovation
and customer service.
The federal government's case against Microsoft attacks all
three principles.
Instead of the self-regulating competition that has enabled
Microsoft to lead the technology industry to its current
heights, the government favors either breaking up the company
or regulating away its freedom to innovate and compete. The
federal government's ``remedy'' would insert bureaucrats into
the technology market in ways never before imagined. Those
Washington bureaucrats would be involved in questions of
product design and marketing. That would empower pencil-
pushing Beltway bureaucrats to second-guess innocent computer
programmers and entrepreneurs. The new arrangement would
enable regulators to pick winners and losers in the
marketplace, stripping consumers of their rights.
In a free market, it is consumers, not bureaucrats, who
should control the destinies of individual industries and
companies. In response to consumers' influence over the
market, companies have lowered prices, created new products
and focused on customer services. The government's scheme
would negate those market forces. It also would preclude the
industry and the government from working together to bridge
the digital divide, since the industry probably would be
forced to raise prices to account for new regulatory
compliance costs. Higher prices would prohibit low-income
families from enjoying newer technologies, so poor families
would remain behind the technological curve.
The Justice Department has wasted the taxpayers' money and
attacked the interests of consumers, from the case's
inception to the intentional failure of government lawyers to
settle the case to the reckless breakup scheme it hatched to
punish Microsoft. The suit is a deliberate attempt by the
government to circumvent the economic authority of consumers
and entrepreneurs in the free market. It seems the least the
federal government could show the American people would be a
little bit of hospitality and common sense on this
issue.
______

By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 2677. A bill to restrict assistance until certain conditions are
satisfied and to support democratic and economic transition in
Zimbabwe; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

legislation to promote political and economic reform in zimbabwe

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on its surface, the turmoil and
death toll of Zimbabwe's brutal farm invasions is an economic and
racial battle. At its core, it is an engineered effort to distract from
the government's assault on a besieged democratic opposition movement.
The crisis in Zimbabwe has profound implications for Africa far beyond
the killings and lawlessness necessary to sustain it. It has the
potential to fundamentally compromise the future of the entire region
and the United States' most basic interests there. But it is a crisis
which we are ill-prepared to address, and time is not on our side.
President Robert Mugabe's orchestration and blessing of the invasions
of predominantly white-owned commercial farms--the backbone of
Zimbabwe's export economy--by so-called war veterans is actually a
shrewd maneuver to disguise behind the veil of a racial drama his
relentless attack on the democratic institutions and rule of law in
Zimbabwe. By successfully casting the issue as one of race rather than
his own lawlessness. President Mugabe has paralyzed the very forces
which should otherwise call his bluff.
Most notable among the paralyzed are other African heads of state--
and Kofi Annan. The deliberate introduction of a racial element to the
controversy has left them in an untenable position: if they dare
criticize behavior they find outrageous or even dangerous, they would
seemingly side against black Africans on behalf of ``colonial'' whites.
Thus neighboring heads of state--some of whom have shown great
commitment to democracy and racial reconciliation in their own
countries--are unhappily muted, even seemingly compelled to support
President Mugabe's antics.
Yet the near paralysis of the United States is of greatest concern.
Over 10,000 Zimbabwean troops from the thin green line which keeps
Laurent Kabila in power in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The
volatile Kabila, in turn, determines whether or not the war in Congo
ends peacefully--a goal to which the administration has staked
considerable political capital during ``the month of Africa'' at the
United Nations. Thus, President Mugabe has presented us with a
ludicrous choice between support for democracy in Zimbabwe and the
chance to prevent Kabila from plunging Congo back into full scale war.
The United States is frozen lest we provoke them.
Relatively small Zimbabwe's ability to direct the fate of Congo and
the entire central African region is testament to its weight on the
continent and why its internal chaos is reason for great concern.
Zimbabwe can be a force for good or bad in southern Africa, the region
which will in turn, drive either the progress or further demise of the
entire continent south of the Sahara. Zimbabwe is currently a driving
force for its demise. The best chance to reverse that is through
support for the democratic forces challenging a leader whose
increasingly destructive acts imperil the continent. The United States'
policy imperative in Zimbabwe could not be clearer, but we are
seemingly unprepared to take the necessary steps to aggressively defend
democracy and our national interests.
First, the United States must be willing to ``decouple'' our support
for democracy in Zimbabwe from the war in Congo. As in any hostage
situation, you never let the captor dictate the terms. That will
require commitment of considerable political capital and diplomatic
muscle. It will require taking some necessary risks.
Second, the United States should not wait until after ballots are
cast for parliament on June 24 and 25 to declare

[[Page 9531]]

whether the elections were ``free and fair'' or even ``flawed but
representative.'' The government's attempt to steal the election now
through violence, intimidation, and brazen manipulation of procedures
are in daily news reports. Silence on that point makes us accomplices
in its attempts to maintain its grip on power and false pretense of
democracy. More insidious, the world is helping to pave the way for the
same deception and violence in the critical 2002 presidential elections
by essentially demonstrating how little we expect when it comes to
democracy in Africa. It stands in shameful contrast to our expectations
and actions in South Africa in 1994.
Third, we must explicitly link international financial support and
cooperation with Zimbabwe to the fate of its democratic institutions.
With the virtual end of support from international lending institutions
and economic aid, we have precious few ``sticks'' at our disposal. The
``carrots'' are real, through. We must use them to communicate that
democracy brings immediate benefits and to entice and generously shore
up any gains made, including progress on real land reform. In the 20
years since independence, land reform, which is broadly supported in
Zimbabwe and among donors, has been slow and has benefitted ruling
party insiders.
It is critical that the United States be clear about its support for
peaceful democratic transition in Zimbabwe. That fact must be
communicated to the Zimbabwean government in no uncertain terms, and to
the Zimbabwean people. They should know that we back them in their
struggle for democracy.
But it must be more than just words. The United States should be
prepared to meet the needs of those fighting for democracy, and to be
there to assist them should they have the opportunity to govern.
Mr. President, to that end, Senators Feingold and Helms have joined
me in introducing the Zimbabwe Democracy Act. The legislation contains
several critical democratic support mechanisms which we should act
quickly to put in place.
First, it unequivocally states the policy of the United States is to
support the people of Zimbabwe in their struggles to effect peaceful,
democratic change, achieve broad-based and equitable economic growth,
and restore the rule of law.
It suspends bilateral assistance to the government of Zimbabwe;
suspends any debt reduction measures for the government of Zimbabwe;
and instructs the U.S. executive directors of the multilateral lending
institutions to vote against the extension of any credit or benefits to
the government of Zimbabwe until rule of law and democratic
institutions are restored.
It includes explicit exceptions for humanitarian, health and
democracy support programs. It authorizes a legal assistance fund for
individuals and institutions which are suffering under the breakdown of
rule of law. The legal fees for torture victims, independent media
supporting free speech and other democratic institutions challenging
election results or undemocratic laws can be paid from the funds.
It provides new authority for broadcasting of objective and reliable
news to listeners in Zimbabwe.
It doubles next year's funding for democracy programs in Zimbabwe.
It expresses the sense of the Senate that the United States should
support election observers to the parliamentary and presidential
elections.
It prepares the United States to act decisively to support democracy.
If the President certifies to Congress that rule of law has been
restored, freedom of speech and association is respected, free
elections have been conducted, Zimbabwe is pursuing an equitable and
legal land reform program, and the army is under civilian control, a
series of programs to support democratic transition and aggressively
promote economic recovery are initiated:
Suspended assistance is restored.
The Secretary of Treasury is directed to undertake a review of
Zimbabwe's bilateral debt for the purposes of elimination of that debt
to the greatest extent possible.
It directs the U.S. executive directors at the multilateral
institutions to propose and support programs for the elimination of
Zimbabwe's multilateral debt, and that those institutions initiate
programs to support rapid economic recovery and the stabilization of
the Zimbabwe dollar.
It allocates an initial US$16 million for alternative land reform
programs under the Inception Phase of the Land Reform and Resettlement
Program--including acquisition and resettlement costs.
It directs the establishment of a ``Southern Africa Finance Center''
in Zimbabwe which will serve as a joint office for the Export-Import
Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Trade
Development Agency to pursue, facilitate and underwrite American
private investment in Zimbabwe and the region.
Mr. President, the future stability of Zimbabwe is in the United
States national interest. That future is dependent on the viability of
the democratic legal and economic institutions in Zimbabwe which are
currently under assault. It is clear that the United States must
support those individuals and institutions, both during the current
assaults and especially if they gain in elections.
This legislation offers clear support for democratic institutions and
the rule of law now, and it provides aggressive future United States
economic and institutional support for a transition to democracy,
including real land reform based on equitable distribution and title to
the land.
In the end, President Mugabe may simply dismiss all international and
internal pressure. He has both the power to do so and increasingly
seems to have the inclination, despite the costs. Even so, the United
States cannot be intimidated or compromised. We must act decisively and
quickly to support the democratic institutions upon which he is waging
war. It is upon the fate of those institutions and individuals which so
much of Africa's future depends.
______

By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mrs. Boxer):
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; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

legislation regarding the voice of america/africa archives

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with
Senator Boxer, a bill to authorize the Broadcasting Board of Governors
to make available to a private entity archival materials from the
Africa Division of the Voice of America. This bill is also being
introduced today in the other body by Representative Cynthia McKinney,
who initiated this proposal and asked me to introduce the Senate
version of the bill.
The bill authorizes the Broadcasting Board of Governors to make
available to the Institute for Media Development, a non-profit
organization, archival materials of the Africa Division of the Voice of
America (VOA). These materials, currently stored at the VOA in analog
form, will be put into modern digital form and made available to
scholars through the University of California, Los Angeles, and any
other institution of higher learning approved by the Board.
I believe this is a very useful public-private partnership that will
result in a positive benefit to scholars of African studies. As I am
sure my colleagues are aware, the Voice of America is not broadcast in
the United States. Programs which may be of interest to students and
scholars of African politics, history, literature and foreign policy
are often inaccessible. Moreover, there is no systematic means, much
less the funds, to make such archival material available. And once the
programs are aired, there is no guarantee that the analog tape on which
they are recorded will be preserved. History may literally be lost, if
news shows and interviews with prominent figures in various African
countries are not preserved. Storing these recordings in a central
archive should prove invaluable in years to come.
There will be no cost to the U.S. Government. The bill requires that
the

[[Page 9532]]

government be reimbursed for any expenses it incurs in making such
materials available, and for the indemnification of the government in
the event that the materials are used in a manner that violates the
copyright laws of the United States. I would not anticipate that such
copyright violations will occur, because the bill also makes clear that
materials made available may be used only for academic and research
purposes and may not be used for public or commercial broadcast
purposes.
I am pleased that the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations
has agreed to place this legislation on the agenda of the committee
later this week. I hope the Committee, and then the full Senate, will
give its approval.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed at this point in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2682

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AVAILABILITY OF CERTAIN MATERIALS OF THE VOICE OF
AMERICA.

(a) Authority.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
Broadcasting Board of Governors (in this Act referred to as
the ``Board'') is authorized to make available to the
Institute for Media Development (in this Act referred to as
the ``Institute''), at the request of the Institute,
previously broadcast audio and video materials produced by
the Africa Division of the Voice of America.
(2) Deposit of materials.--Upon the request of the
Institute and the approval of the Board, materials made
available under paragraph (1) may be deposited with the
University of California, Los Angeles, or such other
appropriate institution of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)) that is approved by the Board for such purpose.
(3) Supersedes existing law.--Materials made available
under paragraph (1) may be provided notwithstanding section
501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange
Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) and section 208 of the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 (22
U.S.C. 1461-1a).
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Authorized purposes.--Materials made available under
this Act shall be used only for academic and research
purposes and may not be used for public or commercial
broadcast purposes.
(2) Prior agreement required.--Before making available
materials under subsection (a)(1), the Board shall enter into
an agreement with the Institute providing for--
(A) reimbursement of the Board for any expenses involved in
making such materials available;
(B) the establishment of guidelines by the Institute for
the archiving and use of the materials to ensure that
copyrighted works contained in those materials will not be
used in a manner that would violate the copyright laws of the
United States (including international copyright conventions
to which the United States is a party);
(C) the indemnification of the United States by the
Institute in the event that any use of the materials results
in violation of the copyright laws of the United States
(including international copyright conventions to which the
United States is a party);
(D) the authority of the Board to terminate the agreement
if the provisions of paragraph (1) are violated; and
(E) any other terms and conditions relating to the
materials that the Board considers appropriate.
(c) Crediting of Reimbursements to Board Appropriations
Account.--Any reimbursement of the Board under subsection (b)
shall be deposited as an offsetting collection to the
currently applicable appropriation account of the Board.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

The authority provided under this Act shall cease to have
effect on the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2683. A bill to deauthorize a portion of the project for
navigation, Kennebunk River, Maine; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2684. A bill to redesignate and reauthorize as anchorage certain
portions of the project for navigation, Narraguagus River, Milbridge,
Maine; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Legislation Regarding Maine River Navigation Projects

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills
that are important to my State of Maine. The first piece of legislation
pertains to the Narraguagus River dredge in Milbridge and will
reauthorize former Corps project areas so as to design a portion of the
11-foot channel as anchorage. The town has provided the Corps with
harbor use data that indicates that the 11-foot channel need only be
dredged to 9 feet.
I have already requested $30,000 for FY01 Energy and Water
appropriations to complete plans and specifications for a maintenance
dredge of the 11-,
9-, and 6-foot channel from Narraguagus Bay to the town landings and
the 6-foot anchorages in Milbridge. The project serves the important
commercial fishing and lobstering fleet, acquaculture operations, and
fish packing facility, and a small recreational fleet.
The second bill concerns the Kennebunk River in Kennebunkport that
deauthorizes a small elongated section of the Federal Navigation
Channel. Not only would this allow much needed moorings from a nearby
marina to remain where they have been positioned, but most importantly,
the deauthorization would be the last piece needed so that the
important dredge project can go forward.
This is a very active channel, Mr. President, and the dredge is
extremely important for the safe passage not only for fishermen, but
also for the tour boats, transporting up to 150 people, which go in and
out of the busy harbor area throughout the spring, summer and fall
months. Anyone who has been to the ``Port'' during the heavy tourist
season can tell you it is a very popular attraction, particularly the
tour boat trips that take tourists out past the breakwater for a view
of the Maine coastline. The New England District Corps has given its
approval for the deauthorization as has the town and the Joint River
Commission.
I look forward to the speedy passage of these two non-controversial
bills separately and to support their inclusion into legislation
reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, for which
passage is being considered in this Congress.
______

By Mr. THURMOND:
S.J. Res. 46. A joint resolution commemorating the 225th birthday of
the United States Army; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

commemorating june 6, 2000, as the united states army's 225th birthday

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today on the anniversary of D-Day, June
6th, 1944, I have the great privilege to introduce a joint resolution
honoring the United States Army on its 225th birthday.
Before there was a United States of America, there was an American
Army, born on June 14th, 1775. On the town square of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, a small group of American colonists came together to
form an army, under the authority of the Continental Congress. This
June 14th, we will look back over those 225 years and see clearly that
the forming of the colonial Army was the prelude to the birth of our
nation. As the Army's slogan for this commemoration says, it was the
``Birth of an army and the birth of freedom.''
Like Members of this body, to be a soldier is to believe in something
other than what we can achieve for ourselves as individuals. I am proud
to help celebrate the Army birthday, marking more than two centuries of
selfless service to the United States of America. More than 42 million
Americans have raised their right hands to take an oath, both in times
of crisis and in times of peace.
As I introduce this resolution, I ask that each of you please join me
next month to extend the heartfelt thanks of this Congress to each and
every soldier for their outstanding service to our nation!
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint
resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to note that
Senator Thurmond, who took the floor and introduced a joint resolution
commending our Armed Forces, is someone

[[Page 9533]]

who should also be commended personally today. This is the 56th
anniversary of Senator Thurmond's landing in the D-Day invasion.
As we consider the construction of the museum in New Orleans, LA, to
pay tribute to those soldiers and all those involved in the D-Day
invasion, we should take a moment on the floor of the Senate to pay
tribute to our colleague from South Carolina, who had such a
distinguished career in the military. It is almost inconceivable to
think he was there as a volunteer to fly a glider into the D-Day
invasion--probably one of the more dangerous assignments of the men and
women in uniform who made that invasion such a success. The fact that
he is here today is a tribute to not only his longevity, but his
continued dedication to this country.
On behalf of a generation--frankly, I wasn't born when that occurred
but have been the beneficiary of that victory--I say to my colleague
from South Carolina that we are in deepest debt to him for his personal
service to this country, and for his courage in participating in that
D-Day invasion. I commend not only him but also all of those who made
that invasion such a success, and hope that on this 56th anniversary
all of the people involved, and their families who waited expectantly
to hear the results of that invasion, will be remembered in the
thoughts and prayers of every American family.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words.
I would do it again, if necessary.
Mr. DURBIN. There is no doubt in the mind of any Member of the Senate
that Senator Thurmond would volunteer again, as he just promised that
he would. I thank the Senator again.

S.J. Res. 46

Whereas on June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress,
representing the citizens of 13 American colonies, authorized
the establishment of the Continental Army;
Whereas the collective expression of the pursuit of
personal freedom that caused the authorization and
organization of the United States Army led to our Nation's
Declaration of Independence and the codification of our basic
principles and values in the Constitution of the United
States;
Whereas for the past 225 years, our Army's central purpose
has been to fight and win wars that were typically fought and
won on distant, foreign battlefields, while at home, the Army
provided for the Nation's security;
Whereas whatever the mission, the Nation turns to its Army
for decisive victory, regardless of whether those are
measured in the defeat of foreign Army forces or the timely
delivery of humanitarian assistance at home or abroad;
Whereas the 172 battle streamers carried on the Army's flag
are testament to the valor, commitment, and sacrifice of
those who have served and fought under its banner;
Whereas Valley Forge, New Orleans, Mexico City, Gettysburg,
Verdun, Bataan, Normandy, Pusan, Ia Drang Valley, Grenada,
Panama, and Kuwait are but a few of the places where American
soldiers have won extraordinary distinction and respect for
our Nation and our Army;
Whereas ``Duty, Honor, Country'' are more than mere words,
they are the creed by which the American soldier lives and
serves;
Whereas while no one can predict the cause, location, or
magnitude of future battles, there is one certainty --
American soldiers of character, selflessly serving the
Nation, will continue to be the credentials of our Army;
Whereas the Army is prepared to answer the Nation's call,
and such calls have been increasing in number and disparity
in recent years;
Whereas the threats are less distinct and less predictable
than the past, but more complex and just as real and
dangerous;
Whereas our Army, the world's most capable and respected
ground force, is in the midst of an unparalleled
transformation as it prepares for the new challenges of the
next century and a different world;
Whereas future forces will be prepared to conduct quick,
decisive, highly sophisticated operations anywhere, anytime;
and
Whereas our Army will be ready to fight and win our
Nation's call to service at home and abroad: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That
Congress--
(1) recognizes the valor, commitment, and sacrifice that
American soldiers have made throughout the history of the
Nation;
(2) commends the United States Army and American soldiers
for 225 years of selfless service; and
(3) calls upon the President to issue a proclamation
recognizing the 225th birthday of the United States Army and
calling upon the people of the United States to observe that
anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
______

By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
S.J. Res. 47. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of the
waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974
with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee on Finance.

legislation regarding the trade act of 1974 with respect to vietnam

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise to introduce
a resolution concerning our trade relationship with the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam. On June 2, 2000, the President of the United
States formally recommended a waiver of the application of the Trade
Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam. I am deeply troubled by the
President's decision to grant this waiver in light of Vietnam's
continuing poor record on human rights. One need only look at the 1999
U.S. State Department report on human rights practices in Vietnam to
recognize that the Vietnamese Government once again has failed to meet
recognized standards with respect to such fundamental rights as freedom
of emigration, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, to name only
a few, which are so often taken for granted in our great country.
I would like to quote from this revealing report to emphasize my
point. The State Department declared the following regarding Vietnam:
``The Government's human rights record remained poor; . . . and serious
problems remain . . . The Government continued to repress basic
political and some religious freedoms and to commit numerous abuses . .
. the Government arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens, including
detention for peaceful expression of political and religious views . .
. The Government significantly restricts freedom of speech, the press,
assembly, and association . . . The Government restricts freedom of
religion and significantly restricts the operation of religious
organizations other than those entities approved by the State . . .
Citizens' access to passports frequently was constrained by factors
outside the law, such as bribery and corruption. Refugee and immigrant
visa applicants sometimes encountered local officials who arbitrarily
delayed or denied passports based on personal animosities or on the
officials' perception that an applicant did not meet program criteria
or in order to extort a bribe.'' The list of violations outlined by our
State Department goes on, but I will stop here.
Mr. President, the resolution I have introduced keeps faith with the
original Congressional intent of the Trade Act of 1974. Our dedication
to fundamental human rights must be resolute, even when it means one
powerful interest group or another does not get its way. Unfortunately,
the President's decision to grant this waiver once again undermines the
United States' long-standing dedication to human rights and sends a
message to the rest of the world that the United States is more
interested in profits over principles. Finally, rewarding Communist
Vietnam by allowing U.S. tax dollars to subsidize business operations
in Hanoi, while at the same time their leaders hold back key POW/MIA
records from the war, is a disgrace to the men and women who valiantly
served our country and were honored just last week on Memorial Day.
This Presidential waiver should be overturned by the Congress, as is
our right under the law.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 459

At the request of Mr. Baucus, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
459, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the
State ceiling on private activity bonds.

S. 620

At the request of Mr. Sarbanes, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 620, a bill to grant a
Federal charter to Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated, and
for other purposes.

S. 656

At the request of Mr. Reed, the names of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. L. Chafee) and the Senator

[[Page 9534]]

from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) were added as cosponsors of S. 656, a
bill to provide for the adjustment of status of certain nationals of
Liberia to that of lawful permanent residence.

S. 784

At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the names of the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. Lugar) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Reed) were
added as cosponsors of S. 784, a bill to establish a demonstration
project to study and provide coverage of routine patient care costs for
medicare beneficiaries with cancer who are enrolled in an approved
clinical trial program.

S. 818

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 818, a bill to
require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study
of the mortality and adverse outcome rates of medicare patients related
to the provision of anesthesia services.

S. 1016

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1016, a bill to
provide collective bargaining for rights for public safety officers
employed by States or their political subdivisions.

S. 1020

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Grams) 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. 1110

At the request of Mr. Lott, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1110, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to establish the National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Engineering.

S. 1159

At the request of Mr. Stevens, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland), the
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) were added as cosponsors of S. 1159, a bill
to provide grants and contracts to local educational agencies to
initiate, expand, and improve physical education programs for all
kindergarten through 12th grade students.

S. 1227

At the request of Mr. L. Chafee, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1227, a bill
to amend title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide States with the option to allow
legal immigrant pregnant women and children to be eligible for medical
assistance under the medical program, and for other purposes.

S. 1446

At the request of Mr. Lott, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1446, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an additional advance refunding of bonds
originally issued to finance governmental facilities used for essential
governmental functions.

S. 1487

At the request of Mr. Akaka, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as cosponsors of S. 1487,
a bill to provide for excellence in economic education, and for other
purposes.

S. 1709

At the request of Mr. Kyl, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Gramm) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1709, a bill to provide Federal
reimbursement for indirect costs relating to the incarceration of
illegal aliens and for emergency health services furnished to
undocumented aliens.

S. 1716

At the request of Mr. Torricelli, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1716, a bill to
amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to
require local educational agencies and schools to implement integrated
pest management systems to minimize the use of pesticides in schools
and to provide parents, guardians, and employees with notice of the use
of pesticides in schools, and for other purposes.

S. 1717

At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1717, a bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security
Act to provide for coverage of pregnancy-related assistance for
targeted low-income pregnant women.

S. 1805

At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1805, a bill to
restore food stamp benefits for aliens, to provide States with
flexibility in administering the food stamp vehicle allowance, to index
the excess shelter expense deduction to inflation, to authorize
additional appropriations to purchase and make available additional
commodities under the emergency food assistance program, and for other
purposes.

S. 1851

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1851, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that seniors
are given an opportunity to serve as mentors, tutors, and volunteers
for certain programs.

S. 1883

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1883, a bill to amend title 5, United States
Code, to eliminate an inequity on the applicability of early retirement
eligibility requirements to military reserve technicians.

S. 1900

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) 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. 1941

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Montana (Mr.
Burns) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1941, a bill to amend the Federal
Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to authorize the Director of
the Federal Emergency Management Agency to provide assistance to fire
departments and fire prevention organizations for the purpose of
protecting the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire-
related hazards.

S. 2003

At the request of Mr. Johnson, the names of the Senator from
Missouri, (Mr. Ashcroft) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2003, a bill to restore health care coverage
to retired members of the uniformed services.

S. 2061

At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2061, a bill
to establish a crime prevention and computer education initiative.

S. 2062

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2062, a bill to amend chapter 4
of title 39, United States Code, to allow postal patrons to contribute
to funding for organ and tissue donation awareness through the
voluntary purchase of certain specially issued United States postage
stamps.

S. 2078

At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from New
Mexico, (Mr. Bingaman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2078, a bill to
authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of Congress to
Muhammad Ali in recognition of his outstanding athletic accomplishments
and enduring contributions to humanity, and for other purposes.

S. 2084

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the name of the Senator from Michigan

[[Page 9535]]

(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2084, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the amount of the charitable
deduction allowable for contributions of food inventory, and for other
purposes.

S. 2274

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the names of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) were
added as cosponsors 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.

2308

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

S. 2311

At the request of Mr. Jeffords, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum), and
the Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe) were added as cosponsors of S. 2311,
supra.
At the request of Mr. Leahy, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2311, supra.
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) were added as cosponsors 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. 2322

At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts, (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2322, a bill
to amend title 37, United States Code, to establish a special
subsistence allowance for certain members of the uniformed services who
are eligible to receive food stamp assistance, and for other purposes.

S. 2330

At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor 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. 2357

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2357, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to permit retired members of the Armed Forces
who have a service-connected disability to receive military retired pay
concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.

S. 2365

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

S. 2390

At the request of Mr. DeWine, the name of the Senator form Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2390, a bill to establish a
grant program that provides incentives for States to enact mandatory
minimum sentences for certain firearms offenses, and for other
purposes.

S. 2408

At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Domenici) and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2408, a bill to authorize the President to
award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to the Navajo Code Talkers
in recognition of their contributions to the Nation.

S. 2413

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2413, a bill to
amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to clarify
the procedures and conditions for the award of matching grants for the
purchase of armor vests.
At the request of Mr. campbell, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2413, supra.

S. 2459

At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Robb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2459, a bill to provide for
the award of a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to former President
Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan in recognition of their service
to the Nation.

S. 2514

At the request of Mr. Grams, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. McCain) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2514, a bill to improve
benefits for members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces and
their dependants.

s. 2519

At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2519, a bill
to authorize compensation and other benefits for employees of the
Department of Energy, its contractors, subcontractors, and certain
vendors who sustain illness or death related to exposure to beryllium,
ionizing radiation, silica, or hazardous substances in the performance
of their duties, and for other purposes.

s. 2585

At the request of Mr. Graham, the names of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Moynihan), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone), the Senator
from New York (Mr. Schumer), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
Sarbanes) 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
Security 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. 2586

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2586, a bill
to reduce the backlog in the processing of immigration benefit
applications and to make improvements to infrastructure necessary for
the effective provision of immigration services, and for other
purposes.

s. 2589

At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2589, a bill to amend the
Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require periodic cost of living
adjustments to the maximum amount of deposit insurance available under
the Act, and for other purposes.

s. 2601

At the request of Mr. Ashcroft, the names of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Abraham) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Coverdell)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2601, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from the gross income of an employee
any employer provided home computer and internet access.

s. 2617

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor 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
Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) 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.

[[Page 9536]]

s. 2625

At the request of Ms. Collins, the names of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Ashcroft), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) were added as cosponsors of S. 2625, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to revise the performance standards
and certification process for organ procurement organizations.

s. con. res. 53

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the names of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Abraham) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone)
were added as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 53, a concurrent resolution
condemning all prejudice against individuals of Asian and Pacific
Island ancestry in the United States and supporting political and civic
participation by such individuals throughout the United States.

s. con. res. 113

At the request of Mr. Moynihan, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 113, a
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress in
recognition of the 10th anniversary of the free and fair elections in
Burma and the urgent need to improve the democratic and human rights of
the people of Burma.

s. con. res. 118

At the request of Mr. Helms, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Fitzgerald) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Abraham) were added
as cosponsors of 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.

s. res. 260

At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
Wellstone) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 260, a resolution to
express the sense of the Senate that the Federal investment in programs
that provide health care services to uninsured and low-income
individuals in medically under served areas be increased in order to
double access to care over the next 5 years.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 119--COMMENDING THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Abraham, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Sessions) submitted the following concurrent
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. Con. Res. 119

Whereas the fourth Croatian parliamentary elections, held
on January 3, 2000, marked Croatia's progress toward meeting
its commitments as a participating state of the Organization
on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and as a member
of the Council of Europe;
Whereas Croatia's third presidential elections were
conducted smoothly and professionally and concluded on
February 7, 2000, with the landslide election of Stipe Mesic
as the new President of the Republic of Croatia;
Whereas the free and fair elections in Croatia, and the
following peaceful and orderly transfer of power from the old
government to the new, is an example of democracy to the
people of other nations in the region and a major
contribution to the democratic development of southeastern
Europe; and
Whereas the people of Croatia have made clear that they
want Croatia to take its rightful place in the family of
European democracies and to develop a closer and more
constructive relationship with the Euro-Atlantic community of
democratic nations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) the people of the Republic of Croatia are to be
congratulated on the successful elections and the outgoing
Government of Croatia is to be commended for the democratic
standards with which it managed the elections;
(2) the United States should support the efforts of the new
Government of Croatia to increase its work on refugee return,
privatization reform, media reform, and further cooperation
with the International Criminal Tribunal for Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) to set an example to other countries in the
region;
(3) the Congress strongly supports Croatia's commitment to
democracy and will give its full support to the efforts of
the new Government of Croatia to fully implement democratic
reforms;
(4) the United States should continue to promote Croatian-
American economic, political, and military relations and to
recognize Croatia as a loyal partner in south central Europe;
and
(5) taking into consideration Croatia's contributions as a
committed partner in the region, the Congress recommends
establishing a strategic partnership with the Republic of
Croatia and supports the serious consideration of Croatia's
candidacy for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization's Partnership for Peace program and its
candidacy for accession into the World Trade Organization.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

______

WARNER (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3173

Mr. WARNER (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr.
Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Murkowski)
proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2001 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal
year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; as follows:

Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert the following:

SEC. 701. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE
ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT 2001

______

COLLINS AMENDMENTS NOS. 3174-3178

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Ms. COLLINS submitted five amendments intended to be proposed by her
to the bill (S. 2593) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes; as follows:

Amendment No. 3174

On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 8126. Of the total amount appropriated by title II
under the heading ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'' for the
procurement of C-212 short takeoff and landing, fixed-wing
aircraft, $15,000,000 may be used for the procurement of C-
212 short takeoff and landing, fixed-wing aircraft for the
Army National Guard for the use of Special Forces Groups of
the Army National Guard.
____

Amendment No. 3175

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

[[Page 9537]]

Sec. 8126. In addition to other amounts appropriated by
title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'', there is hereby appropriated for the
purposes under that heading $2,000,000: Provided, That such
amount shall be available for continued design and analysis
under the reentry systems applications program for the
advanced technology vehicle.
____

Amendment No. 3176

On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 8126. In addition to other amounts appropriated by
title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'', there is hereby appropriated for
the purposes under that heading $6,000,000: Provided, That
such amount shall be available for the initial production of
units of the ALGL / STRIKER to facilitate early fielding of
the ALGL / STRIKER to special operations forces.
____

Amendment No. 3177

On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 8126. In addition to other amounts appropriated by
title IV under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'', there is hereby appropriated for the
purposes under that heading $2,000,000: Provided, That such
amount shall be available for the Marine Corps advanced
technology demonstration program for the delivery of the
prototype units of the ALGL / STRIKER for testing and
evaluation by the Marine Corps that, except for this section,
would otherwise be an unfunded requirement of the Marine
Corps.
____

Amendment No. 3178

On page 109, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
Sec. 8126. In addition to other amounts appropriated by
title III under the heading ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'',
there is hereby appropriated for the purposes under that
heading $7,000,000: Provided, That such amount shall be
available for the procurement of the integrated bridge system
for special warfare rigid inflatable boats under the Special
Operations Forces Combatant Craft Systems program.
______

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

______

McCAIN AMENDMENT NO. 3179

Mr. McCAIN proposed an amendment to the bill, S. 2549, supra; as
follows:

On page 206, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 610. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS ELIGIBLE
TO RECEIVE FOOD STAMP ASSISTANCE.

(a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following
new section:

``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance

``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.

McCAIN AMENDMENTS NOS. 3180-3182

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. McCAIN submitted three amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill, S. 2549, supra; as follows:

Amendment No. 3180

On page 206, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SEC. 610. RESTRUCTURING OF BASIC PAY TABLES FOR CERTAIN
ENLISTED MEMBERS.

(a) In General.--The table under the heading ``ENLISTED
MEMBERS'' in section 601(c) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105-65;
113 Stat. 648) is amended by striking the amounts relating to
pay grades E-7, E-6, and E-5 and inserting the amounts for
the corresponding years of service specified in the following
table:

ENLISTED MEMBERS
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7...................................................... 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,148.60
E-6...................................................... 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.40
E-5...................................................... 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,715.70
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7...................................................... 2,277.80 2,350.70 2,423.20 2,495.90 2,570.90
E-6...................................................... 2,022.60 2,096.40 2,168.60 2,241.90 2,294.80
E-5...................................................... 1,821.00 1,893.00 1,967.10 1,967.60 1,967.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-7...................................................... 2,644.20 2,717.50 2,844.40 2,926.40 3,134.40

[[Page 9538]]

E-6...................................................... 2,332.00 2,332.00 2,335.00 2,335.00 2,335.00
E-5...................................................... 1,967.60 1,967.60 1,967.60 1,967.60 1,967.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by
subsection (a) shall take effect as of October 1, 2000, and
shall apply with respect to months beginning on or after that
date.
____

Amendment No. 3181

On page 236, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

SEC. 646. POLICY ON INCREASING MINIMUM SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
BASIC ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES AGE 62 OR
OLDER.

It is the sense of Congress that there should be enacted
during the 106th Congress legislation that increases the
minimum basic annuities provided under the Survivor Benefit
Plan for surviving spouses of members of the uniformed
services who are 62 years of age or older.

SEC. 647. SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVORS OF
ALL MEMBERS WHO DIE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Entitlement.--(1) Subsection (d)(1) of section 1448 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Surviving spouse annuity.--The Secretary concerned
shall pay an annuity under this subchapter to the surviving
spouse of--
``(A) a member who dies on active duty after--
``(i) becoming eligible to receive retired pay;
``(ii) qualifying for retired pay except that he has not
applied for or been granted that pay; or
``(iii) completing 20 years of active service but before he
is eligible to retire as a commissioned officer because he
has not completed 10 years of active commissioned service; or
``(B) a member not described in subparagraph (A) who dies
on active duty, except in the case of a member whose death,
as determined by the Secretary concerned--
``(i) is a direct result of the member's intentional
misconduct or willful neglect; or
``(ii) occurs during a period of unauthorized absence.''.
(2) The heading for subsection (d) of such section is
amended by striking ``retirement-eligible''.
(b) Amount of Annuity.--Section 1451(c)(1) of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--In the case of an annuity provided under
section 1448(d) or 1448(f) of this title, the amount of the
annuity shall be determined as follows:
``(A) Beneficiary under 62 years of age.--If the person
receiving the annuity is under 62 years of age or is a
dependent child when the member or former member dies, the
monthly annuity shall be the amount equal to 55 percent of
the retired pay imputed to the member or former member. The
retired pay imputed to a member or former member is as
follows:
``(i) Except in a case described in clause (ii), the
retired pay to which the member or former member would have
been entitled if the member or former member had been
entitled to that pay based upon his years of active service
when he died.
``(ii) In the case of a deceased member referred to in
subparagraph (A)(iii) or (B) of section 1448(d)(1) of this
title, the retired pay to which the member or former member
would have been entitled if the member had been entitled to
that pay based upon a retirement under section 1201 of this
title (if on active duty for more than 30 days when the
member died) or section 1204 of this title (if on active duty
for 30 days or less when the member died) for a disability
rated as total.
``(B) Beneficiary 62 years of age or older.--
``(i) General rule.--If the person receiving the annuity
(other than a dependent child) is 62 years of age or older
when the member or former member dies, the monthly annuity
shall be the amount equal to 35 percent of the retired pay
imputed to the member or former member as described in clause
(i) or (ii) of the second sentence of subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Rule if beneficiary eligible for social security
offset computation.--If the beneficiary is eligible to have
the annuity computed under subsection (e) and if, at the time
the beneficiary becomes entitled to the annuity, computation
of the annuity under that subsection is more favorable to the
beneficiary than computation under clause (i), the annuity
shall be computed under that subsection rather than under
clause (i).''.
(c) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on October 1, 2000, and
shall apply with respect to deaths occurring on or after that
date.

SEC. 648. FAMILY COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE.

(a) Insurable Dependents.--Section 1965 of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) The term `insurable dependent', with respect to a
member, means the following:
``(A) The member's spouse.
``(B) A child of the member for so long as the child is
unmarried and the member is providing over 50 percent of the
support of the child.''.
(b) Insurance Coverage.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 1967
of title 38, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(a)(1) Subject to an election under paragraph (2), any
policy of insurance purchased by the Secretary under section
1966 of this title shall automatically insure the following
persons against death:
``(A) In the case of any member of a uniformed service on
active duty (other than active duty for training)--
``(i) the member; and
``(ii) each insurable dependent of the member.
``(B) Any member of a uniformed service on active duty for
training or inactive duty training scheduled in advance by
competent authority.
``(C) Any member of the Ready Reserve of a uniformed
service who meets the qualifications set forth in section
1965(5)(B) of this title.
``(2)(A) A member may elect in writing not to be insured
under this subchapter.
``(B) A member referred to in subparagraph (A) may also
make either or both of the following elections in writing:
``(i) An election not to insure a dependent spouse under
this subchapter.
``(ii) An election to insure none of the member's children
under this subchapter.
``(3)(A) Subject to an election under subparagraph (B), the
amount for which a person is insured under this subchapter is
as follows:
``(i) In the case of a member, $200,000.
``(ii) In the case of a member's spouse, the amount equal
to 50 percent of the amount for which the member is insured
under this subchapter.
``(iii) In the case of a member's child, $10,000.
``(B) A member may elect in writing to be insured or to
insure an insurable dependent in an amount less than the
amount provided under subparagraph (A). The amount of
insurance so elected shall, in the case of a member or
spouse, be evenly divisible by $10,000 and, in the case of a
child, be evenly divisible by $5,000.
``(4) No dependent of a member is insured under this
chapter unless the member is insured under this subchapter.
``(5) The insurance shall be effective with respect to a
member and the member's dependents on the first day of active
duty or active duty for training, or the beginning of a
period of inactive duty training scheduled in advance by
competent authority, or the first day a member of the Ready
Reserve meets the qualifications set forth in section
1965(5)(B) of this title, or the date certified by the
Secretary to the Secretary concerned as the date
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance under this subchapter
for the class or group concerned takes effect, whichever is
the later date.''.
(2) Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking
out the first sentence and inserting the following: ``If a
person eligible for insurance under this subchapter is not so
insured, or is insured for less than the maximum amount
provided for the person under subparagraph (A) of subsection
(a)(3), by reason of an election made by a member under
subparagraph (B) of that subsection, the person may
thereafter be insured under this subchapter in the maximum
amount or any lesser amount elected as provided in such
subparagraph (B) upon written application by the member,
proof of good health of each person to be so insured, and
compliance with such other terms and conditions as may be
prescribed by the Secretary.''.
(c) Termination of Coverage.--(1) Subsection (a) of section
1968 of such title is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting
``and any insurance thereunder on any insurable dependent of
such a member,'' after `` any insurance thereunder on any
member of the uniformed services,'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) with respect to an insurable dependent of the
member--
``(A) upon election made in writing by the member to
terminate the coverage; or
``(B) on the earlier of--
``(i) the date of the member's death;
``(ii) the date of termination of the insurance on the
member's life under this subchapter;

[[Page 9539]]

``(iii) the date of the dependent's death; or
``(iv) the termination of the dependent's status as an
insurable dependent of the member.
(2) Subsection (b)(1)(A) of such section is amended by
inserting ``(to insure against death of the member only)''
after ``converted to Veterans' Group Life Insurance''.
(d) Premiums.--Section 1969 of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) During any period in which any insurable dependent
of a member is insured under this subchapter, there shall be
deducted each month from the member's basic or other pay
until separation or release from active duty an amount
determined by the Secretary (which shall be the same for all
such members) as the premium allocable to the pay period for
providing that insurance coverage.
``(2)(A) The Secretary shall determine the premium amounts
to be charged for life insurance coverage for dependents of
members under this subchapter.
``(B) The premium amounts shall be determined on the basis
of sound actuarial principles and shall include an amount
necessary to cover the administrative costs to the insurer or
insurers providing such insurance.
``(C) Each premium rate for the first policy year shall be
continued for subsequent policy years, except that the rate
may be adjusted for any such subsequent policy year on the
basis of the experience under the policy, as determined by
the Secretary in advance of that policy year.
``(h) Any overpayment of a premium for insurance coverage
for an insurable dependent of a member that is terminated
under section 1968(a)(5) of this title shall be refunded to
the member.''.
(e) Payments of Insurance Proceeds.--Section 1970 of such
title is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Any amount of insurance in force on an insurable
dependent of a member under this subchapter on the date of
the dependent's death shall be paid, upon the establishment
of a valid claim therefor, to the member or, in the event of
the member's death before payment to the member can be made,
then to the person or persons entitled to receive payment of
the proceeds of insurance on the member' life under this
subchapter.''.
(f) Effective Date and Initial Implementation.--(1) This
section and the amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the first day of the first month that begins more
than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
except that paragraph (2) shall take effect on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in consultation with
the Secretaries of the military departments, the Secretary of
Transportation, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, shall take such action as is
necessary to ensure that each member of the uniformed
services on active duty (other than active duty for training)
during the period between the date of the enactment of this
Act and the effective date determined under paragraph (1) is
furnished an explanation of the insurance benefits available
for dependents under the amendments made by this section and
is afforded an opportunity before such effective date to make
elections that are authorized under those amendments to be
made with respect to dependents.
____

Amendment No. 3182

On page 239, after line 22, add the following:

Subtitle F--Additional Benefits For Reserves and Their Dependents

SEC. 671. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that it is in the national
interest that the President provide 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
military training.

SEC. 672. 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
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;
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 a person
who is a member of the Selected Reserve in good standing (as
determined by the Secretary concerned).
``(c) Dependents.--A dependent of a person described in
subsection (b) may 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; 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. 673. 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 adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 12604. Attendance at inactive-duty training
assemblies: billeting in Department of Defense facilities

``(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 the Reserve's home to be eligible for billeting in
Department of Defense facilities on the same basis as a
member of the armed forces on active duty who is traveling
under orders away from the member's duty station.
``(b) Proof of Reason for Travel.--The Secretary shall
include in regulations under subsection (a) means for
establishing that a Reserve seeking billeting in Department
of Defense facilities under that subsection is traveling for
attendance at inactive-duty training at a location more than
50 miles from the Reserve's home.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``12604. Attendance at inactive-duty training assemblies: billeting in
Department of Defense facilities.''.
(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. 674. 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.''.

SEC. 675. 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 a reserve component not covered by
paragraph (1) or (2), but only during a period, following a
release from active duty under a call or order to active duty
for more than 29 days under a mobilization authority (as
determined by the Secretary of Defense), that is not in
excess of twice the length of time served on active duty.''.
(b) Dependents.--Paragraph (5) of such section, as
redesignated by subsection (a), is

[[Page 9540]]

amended by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``(3), and
(4)''.
(c) Implementing Regulations.--Regulations to implement the
amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall be
prescribed not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______

KERREY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3183

Mr. KERREY (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Durbin) proposed an amended to the bill, S. 2549, supra;
as follows:

Strike section 1017 and insert the following:

SEC. 1017. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR
DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY
SYSTEMS IN EXCESS OF MILITARY REQUIREMENTS.

Section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1948) is
repealed.
______

WARNER AMENDMENT NO. 3184

Mr. WARNER proposed an amendment to amendment No. 3183 proposed by
Mr. Kerrey to the bill, S. 2549, supra; as follows:

In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:

``SEC. 1017. CORRECTION OF SCOPE OF WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR
LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS; AUTHORITY
TO WAIVE LIMITATION.

``(a) Section 1302(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1948),
as amended by section 1501(a) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65;
113 Stat. 806), is further amended by striking ``the
application of the limitation in effect under paragraph
(1)(B) or (3) of subsection (a), as the case may be,'' and
inserting ``the application of the limitation in effect under
subsection (a) to a strategic nuclear delivery system.
``(b) Authority To Waive Limitation on Retirement or
Dismantlement of Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems.--After
the submission of the report on the results of the nuclear
posture review to Congress under section 1015(c)--
``(1) the Secretary of Defense shall, taking into
consideration the results of the review, submit to the
President a recommendation regarding whether the President
should waive the limitation on the retirement or
dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems in
section 1302 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 1948); and
``(2) the President, taking into consideration the results
of the review and the recommendation made by the Secretary of
Defense under paragraph (1), may waive the limitation
referred to in that paragraph if the President determines
that it is in the national security interests of the United
States to do so.''.
______

BENNETT AMENDMENT NO. 3185

(Ordered to lie on the table).
Mr. BENNETT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 2549, supra; as follows:

On page 462, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1210. ADJUSTMENT OF COMPOSITE THEORETICAL PERFORMANCE
LEVELS OF HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

(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.
______

ROBB AMENDMENTS NOS. 3186-3187

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. ROBB submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 2549, supra; as follows:

Amendment No. 3186

On page __, between lines __ and __, insert the following:

SEC. . DEFENSE TRAVEL SYSTEM.

(a) Requirement for Report.--Not later than November 30,
2000, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the Defense
Travel System.
(b) Content of Report.--The report shall include the
following:
(1) A detailed discussion of the development, testing, and
fielding of the system, including the performance
requirements, the evaluation criteria, the funding that has
been provided for the development, testing, and fielding of
the system, and the funding that is projected to be required
for completing the development, testing, and fielding of the
system.
(2) The schedule that has been followed for the testing of
the system, including the initial operational test and
evaluation and the final operational testing and evaluation,
together with the results of the testing.
(3) The cost savings expected to result from the deployment
of the system and from the completed implementation of the
system, together with a discussion of how the savings are
estimated and the expected schedule for the realization of
the savings.
(4) An analysis of the costs and benefits of fielding the
front-end software for the system throughout all 18
geographical areas selected for the original fielding of the
system.
(c) Limitations.--(1) Not more than 25 percent of the
amount authorized to be appropriated under section __ for the
Defense Travel System may be obligated or expended before the
date on which the Secretary submits the report required under
subsection (a).
(2) Funds appropriated for the Defense Travel System
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations referred to
in paragraph (1) may not be used for a purpose other than the
Defense Travel System unless the Secretary first submits to
Congress a written notification of the intended use and the
amount to be so used.
____

Amendment No. 3187

On page 545, following line 22, add the following:

PART IV--OTHER CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2876. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORMER NATIONAL GROUND
INTELLIGENCE CENTER, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Administrator of General
Services may convey, without consideration, to the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia (in this section referred to as the
``City''), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property, including any
improvements thereon, formerly occupied by the National
Ground Intelligence Center and known as the Jefferson Street
Property.
(b) Authority To Convey Without Consideration.--The
conveyance authorized by subsection (a) may be made without
consideration if the Administrator determines that the
conveyance on that basis would be in the best interests of
the United States.
(c) Purpose of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) shall be for the purpose of permitting the
City to use the parcel, directly or through an agreement with
a public or private entity, for economic development
purposes.
(d) Reversionary Interest.--If, during the 5-year period
beginning on the date the Administrator makes the conveyance
authorized by subsection (a), the Administrator determines
that the conveyed real property is not being used for a
purpose specified in subsection (c), all right, title, and
interest in and to the property, including any improvements
thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United
States shall have the right of immediate entry onto the
property.
(e) Inapplicability of Certain Property Management Laws.--
The conveyance authorized by subsection (a) shall not be
subject to the following:
(1) Sections 2667 and 2696 of title 10, United States Code.
(2) Section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411).
(3) Sections 202 and 203 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 483, 484).
(f) Limitation on Certain Subsequent Conveyances.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), if at any time after the
Administrator makes the conveyance authorized by subsection
(a) the City conveys any portion of the parcel conveyed under
that subsection to a private entity, the City shall pay to
the United States an amount equal to the fair market value
(as determined by the Administrator) of the portion conveyed
at the time of its conveyance under this subsection.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to a conveyance described in that
paragraph only if the Administrator makes the conveyance
authorized by subsection (a) without consideration.
(3) The Administrator shall cover over into the general
fund of the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts any amounts
paid the Administrator under this subsection.
(g) 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 Administrator. The cost of the survey shall be borne
by the City.
(h) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance as the Administrator considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

[[Page 9541]]

______

KERREY AMENDMENT NO. 3188

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. KERREY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 2549, supra; as follows:

On page 368, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(7) The ability of the United States to deter a nuclear
attack with strategic forces at the levels proposed for a
third treaty between the United States and the Russian
Federation on the reduction and limitation of strategic
offensive arms, with consideration being given to the
estimated effect on the Russian Federation of a nuclear
retaliation by the United States.
______

WARNER AMENDMENT NO. 3189

Mr. WARNER proposed an amendment to the bill, S. 2549, supra; as
follows:

On page 613, after line 12, insert the following:

SEC. 3403. DISPOSAL OF TITANIUM.

RYAN WHITE CARE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000

______

JEFFORDS (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 3190

Mr. WARNER (for Mr. Jeffords (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr.
Frist)) proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 2311) to revise and
extend the Ryan White CARE Act programs under title XXVI of the Public
Health Service Act, to improve access to health care and the quality of
health care under such programs, and to provide for the development of
increased capacity to provide health care and related support services
to individuals and families with HIV disease, and for other purposes;
as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.).
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. References; table of contents.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

Sec. 101. Duties of planning council, funding priorities, quality
assessment.
Sec. 102. Quality management.
Sec. 103. Funded entities required to have health care relationships.
Sec. 104. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 105. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 106. Replacement of specified fiscal years regarding the sunset on
expedited distribution requirements.
Sec. 107. Hold harmless provision.
Sec. 108. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

Sec. 121. State requirements concerning identification of need and
allocation of resources.
Sec. 122. Quality management.
Sec. 123. Funded entities required to have health care relationships.
Sec. 124. Support services required to be health care-related.
Sec. 125. Use of grant funds for early intervention services.
Sec. 126. Authorization of appropriations for HIV-related services for
women and children.
Sec. 127. Repeal of requirement for completed Institute of Medicine
report.
Sec. 128. Supplement grants for certain States.
Sec. 129. Use of treatment funds.
Sec. 130. Increase in minimum allotment.
Sec. 131. Set-aside for infants, children, and women.

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

Sec. 141. Amendment of heading; repeal of formula grant program.
Sec. 142. Planning and development grants.
Sec. 143. Authorization of appropriations for categorical grants.
Sec. 144. Administrative expenses ceiling; quality management program.
Sec. 145. Preference for certain areas.
Sec. 146. Technical amendment.

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

Sec. 151. Research involving women, infants, children, and youth.
Sec. 152. Limitation on administrative expenses.
Sec. 153. Evaluations and reports.
Sec. 154. Authorization of appropriations for grants under parts A and
B.

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUNDING PRIORITIES,
QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

[[Page 9542]]

costs of eligible individuals and families with HIV disease.
``(F) Capacity development needs resulting from gaps in the
availability of HIV services in historically underserved low-
income communities.
``(2) Comprehensive service delivery plan.--The council
shall develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and
delivery of health and support services described in section
2604. Such plan shall be compatible with any existing State
or local plans regarding the provision of such services to
individuals with HIV disease.
``(3) Assessment of fund allocation efficiency.--The
council shall assess the efficiency of the administrative
mechanism in rapidly allocating funds to the areas of
greatest need within the eligible area.
``(4) Statewide statement of need.--The council shall
participate in the development of the Statewide coordinated
statement of need as initiated by the State public health
agency responsible for administering grants under part B.
``(5) Coordination with other federal grantees.--The
council shall coordinate with Federal grantees providing HIV-
related services within the eligible area.
``(6) Community participation.--The council shall establish
methods for obtaining input on community needs and priorities
which may include public meetings, conducting focus groups,
and convening ad-hoc panels.
``(e) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with eligible metropolitan areas, affected
communities, experts, and other appropriate individuals and
entities, to develop epidemiologic measures for establishing
the number of individuals living with HIV disease who are not
receiving HIV-related health services; and
``(B) provide advice and technical assistance to planning
councils with respect to the process for establishing
priorities for the allocation of funds under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Exception.--Grantees under this part shall not be
required to establish priorities for individuals not in care
until epidemiologic measures are developed under paragraph
(1).''.

SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) Funds Available for Quality Management.--Section 2604
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-14) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as
subsections (d) through (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Quality Management.--
``(1) Requirement.--The chief elected official of an
eligible area that receives a grant under this part shall
provide for the establishment of a quality management program
to assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infection and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services.
``(2) Use of funds.--From amounts received under a grant
awarded under this part, the chief elected official of an
eligible area may use, for activities associated with its
quality management program, not more than the lesser of--
``(A) 5 percent of amounts received under the grant; or
``(B) $3,000,000.''.
(b) Quality Management Required for Eligibility for
Grants.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (5) through (8), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) that the chief elected official of the eligible area
will satisfy all requirements under section 2604(c);''.

SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

(a) Use of Amounts.--Section 2604(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(d)(1)) (as so redesignated by section 102(a)) is amended
by inserting ``and the State Children's Health Insurance
Program under title XXI of such Act'' after ``Social Security
Act''.
(b) Applications.--Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a))
is amended by inserting after paragraph (3), as added by
section 102(b), the following:
``(4) that funded entities within the eligible area that
receive funds under a grant under section 2601(a) shall
maintain appropriate relationships with entities in the area
served that constitute key points of access to the health
care system for individuals with HIV disease (including
emergency rooms, substance abuse treatment programs,
detoxification centers, adult and juvenile detention
facilities, sexually transmitted disease clinics, HIV
counseling and testing sites, mental health programs, and
homeless shelters) and other entities under section 2652(a)
for the purpose of facilitating early intervention for
individuals newly diagnosed with HIV disease and individuals
knowledgeable of their status but not in care;''.

SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``HIV-related--'' and inserting ``HIV-related services, as
follows:'';
(2) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) by striking ``outpatient'' and all that follows through
``substance abuse treatment and'' and inserting the
following: ``Outpatient health services.--Outpatient and
ambulatory health services, including substance abuse
treatment,''; and
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a period;
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``(B) inpatient case
management'' and inserting ``(C) Inpatient case management
services.--Inpatient case management''; and
(4) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Outpatient support services.--Outpatient and
ambulatory support services (including case management), to
the extent that such services facilitate, enhance, support,
or sustain the delivery, continuity, or benefits of health
services for individuals and families with HIV disease.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)), as amended by
section 102(b), is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end thereof;
(2) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated), by striking the
period and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) that the eligible area has procedures in place to
ensure that services provided with funds received under this
part meet the criteria specified in section 2604(b)(1).''.

SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)), as amended by section 104(a), is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Early intervention services.--Early intervention
services as described in section 2651(b)(2), with follow-
through referral, provided for the purpose of facilitating
the access of individuals receiving the services to HIV-
related health services, but only if the entity providing
such services--
``(i)(I) is receiving funds under subparagraph (A) or (C);
or
``(II) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in section 2605(a)(4), that maintains
a relationship with an entity described in subclause (I) and
that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV disease;
``(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief
elected official that Federal, State, or local funds are
inadequate for the early intervention services the entity
will provide with funds received under this subparagraph; and
``(iii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief
elected official that funds will be utilized under this
subparagraph to supplement not supplant other funds available
for such services in the year for which such funds are being
utilized.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''.

SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCAL YEARS REGARDING THE
SUNSET ON EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
and inserting ``for a fiscal year''.

SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

Section 2603(a)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(4)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(4) Limitation.--With respect to each of fiscal years
2001 through 2005, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount
of a grant made to an eligible area under paragraph (2) for
such a fiscal year is not less than an amount equal to 98
percent of the amount the eligible area received for the
fiscal year preceding the year for which the determination is
being made.''.

SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Section 2604(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-14(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``council''; and
(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF
NEED AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.

(a) General Use of Grants.--Section 2612 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--A State''; and
(2) in the matter following paragraph (5)--

[[Page 9543]]

(A) by striking ``Services'' and inserting:
``(b) Delivery of Services.--Services'';
(B) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)''; and
(C) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(2) and section 2613'';
(b) Application.--Section 2617(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) the size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, except that by not
later than October 1, 2002, the State shall take into account
the needs of individuals not in care, based on epidemiologic
measures developed by the Secretary in consultation with the
State, affected communities, experts, and other appropriate
individuals (such State shall not be required to establish
priorities for individuals not in care until such
epidemiologic measures are developed);'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) the availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources;
``(vi) the capacity development needs resulting in gaps in
the provision of HIV services in historically underserved
low-income and rural low-income communities; and
``(vii) the efficiency of the administrative mechanism in
rapidly allocating funds to the areas of greatest need within
the State;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) an assurance that capacity development needs
resulting from gaps in the provision of services in
underserved low-income and rural low-income communities will
be addressed; and
``(D) with respect to fiscal year 2003 and subsequent
fiscal years, assurances that, in the planning and allocation
of resources, the State, through systems of HIV-related
health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
of section 2612(a), will make appropriate provision for the
HIV-related health and support service needs of individuals
who have been diagnosed with HIV disease but who are not
currently receiving such services, based on the epidemiologic
measures developed under paragraph (1)(C)(i);''.

SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) State Requirement for Quality Management.--Section
2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) the State will provide for--
``(i) the establishment of a quality management program to
assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infections and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services; and
``(ii) a periodic review (such as through an independent
peer review) to assess the quality and appropriateness of
HIV-related health and support services provided by entities
that receive funds from the State under this part;'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D), the following:
``(E) an assurance that the State, through systems of HIV-
related health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) of section 2612(a), has considered strategies for
working with providers to make optimal use of financial
assistance under the State medicaid plan under title XIX of
the Social Security Act, the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act, and other
Federal grantees that provide HIV-related services, to
maximize access to quality HIV-related health and support
services;
(4) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end; and
(5) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking
the period and inserting ``; and''.
(b) Availability of Funds for Quality Management.--
(1) Availability of grant funds for planning and
evaluation.--Section 2618(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(3)) is
amended by inserting before the period ``, including not more
than $3,000,000 for all activities associated with its
quality management program''.
(2) Exception to combined ceiling on planning and
administration funds for states with small grants.--Paragraph
(6) of section 2618(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(6)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(6) Exception for quality management.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (5), a State whose grant under this part for a
fiscal year does not exceed $1,500,000 may use not to exceed
20 percent of the amount of the grant for the purposes
described in paragraphs (3) and (4) if--
``(A) that portion of the amount that may be used for such
purposes in excess of 15 percent of the grant is used for its
quality management program; and
``(B) the State submits and the Secretary approves a plan
(in such form and containing such information as the
Secretary may prescribe) for use of funds for its quality
management program.''.

SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

Section 2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)), as amended
by section 122(a), is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(H) that funded entities maintain appropriate
relationships with entities in the area served that
constitute key points of access to the health care system for
individuals with HIV disease (including emergency rooms,
substance abuse treatment programs, detoxification centers,
adult and juvenile detention facilities, sexually transmitted
disease clinics, HIV counseling and testing sites, mental
health programs, and homeless shelters), and other entities
under section 2652(a), for the purpose of facilitating early
intervention for individuals newly diagnosed with HIV disease
and individuals knowledgeable of their status but not in
care.''.

SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

(a) Technical Amendment.--Section 3(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 1996 (Public Law 104-146)
is amended by inserting ``before paragraph (2) as so
redesignated'' after ``inserting''.
(b) Services.--Section 2612(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22(a)(1)), as so designated by section 121(a), is amended by
striking ``for individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting
``, subject to the conditions and limitations that apply
under such section''.
(c) Conforming Amendment to State Application
Requirement.--Section 2617(b)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(2)),
as amended by section 121(b), is further amended by inserting
after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) an assurance that the State has procedures in place
to ensure that services provided with funds received under
this section meet the criteria specified in section
2604(b)(1)(B); and''.

SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

Section 2612(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-22(a)), as amended by
section 121, is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) to provide, through systems of HIV-related health
services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), early
intervention services, as described in section 2651(b)(2),
with follow-up referral, provided for the purpose of
facilitating the access of individuals receiving the services
to HIV-related health services, but only if the entity
providing such services--
``(A)(i) is receiving funds under section 2612(a)(1); or
``(ii) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in section 2617(b)(4), that maintains
a referral relationship with an entity described in clause
(i) and that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV
disease;
``(B) demonstrates to the State's satisfaction that other
Federal, State, or local funds are inadequate for the early
intervention services the entity will provide with funds
received under this paragraph; and
``(C) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State that
funds will be utilized under this paragraph to supplement not
supplant other funds available for such services in the year
for which such funds are being utilized.''.

SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIV-RELATED
SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETED INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE REPORT.

Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-36) is repealed.

SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.

Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

[[Page 9544]]

as part of the State application submitted under section
2617, submit a detailed description of the manner in which
the State will use amounts received under the grant and of
the severity of need. Such description shall include--
``(1) a report concerning the dissemination of supplemental
funds under this section and the plan for the utilization of
such funds in the emerging community;
``(2) a demonstration of the existing commitment of local
resources, both financial and in-kind;
``(3) a demonstration that the State will maintain HIV-
related activities at a level that is equal to not less than
the level of such activities in the State for the 1-year
period preceding the fiscal year for which the State is
applying to receive a grant under this part;
``(4) a demonstration of the ability of the State to
utilize such supplemental financial resources in a manner
that is immediately responsive and cost effective;
``(5) a demonstration that the resources will be allocated
in accordance with the local demographic incidence of AIDS
including appropriate allocations for services for infants,
children, women, and families with HIV disease;
``(6) a demonstration of the inclusiveness of the planning
process, with particular emphasis on affected communities and
individuals with HIV disease; and
``(7) a demonstration of the manner in which the proposed
services are consistent with local needs assessments and the
statewide coordinated statement of need.
``(d) Definition of Emerging Community.--In this section,
the term `emerging community' means a metropolitan area--
``(1) that is not eligible for a grant under part A; and
``(2) for which there has been reported to the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a cumulative
total of between 500 and 1999 cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome for the most recent period of 5 calendar
years for which such data are available.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), with respect
to each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2001, the
Secretary, to carry out this section, shall utilize--
``(A) the greater of--
``(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated under 2677 to
carry out part B, excluding the amount appropriated under
section 2618(b)(2)(H), for such fiscal year that is in excess
of the amount appropriated to carry out such part in fiscal
year preceding the fiscal year involved; or
``(ii) $5,000,000;

to provide funds to States for use in emerging communities
with at least 1000, but less than 2000, cases of AIDS as
reported to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for the five year period
preceding the year for which the grant is being awarded; and
``(B) the greater of--
``(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated under 2677 to
carry out part B, excluding the amount appropriated under
section 2618(b)(2)(H), for such fiscal year that is in excess
of the amount appropriated to carry out such part in fiscal
year preceding the fiscal year involved; or
``(ii) $5,000,000;

to provide funds to States for use in emerging communities
with at least 500, but less than 1000, cases of AIDS reported
to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for the five year period preceding the
year for which the grant is being awarded.
``(2) Trigger of funding.--This section shall be effective
only for fiscal years beginning in the first fiscal year in
which the amount appropriated under 2677 to carry out part B,
excluding the amount appropriated under section
2618(b)(2)(H), exceeds by at least $20,000,000 the amount
appropriated under 2677 to carry out part B in fiscal year
2000, excluding the amount appropriated under section
2618(b)(2)(H).
``(3) Minimum amount in future years.--Beginning with the
first fiscal year in which amounts provided for emerging
communities under paragraph (1)(A) equals $5,000,000 and
under paragraph (1)(B) equals $5,000,000, the Secretary shall
ensure that amounts made available under this section for the
types of emerging communities described in each such
paragraph in subsequent fiscal years is at least $5,000,000.
``(4) Distribution.--The amount of a grant awarded to a
State under this section shall be determined by the Secretary
based on the formula described in section 2618(b)(2), except
that in applying such formula, the Secretary shall--
``(A) substitute `1.0' for `.80' in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I)
of such section; and
``(B) not consider the provisions of subparagraphs
(A)(ii)(II) and (C) of such section.''.

SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.

(a) State Duties.--Section 2616(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26(c))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``shall--'' and inserting ``shall use funds made available
under this section to--'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively and realigning
the margins of such subparagraphs appropriately;
(3) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end;
(4) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by striking
the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) encourage, support, and enhance adherence to and
compliance with treatment regimens, including related medical
monitoring.'';
(6) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--No State shall use funds under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the limitations on access to HIV/AIDS
therapeutic regimens as defined in subsection (e)(2) are
eliminated.
``(B) Amount of funding.--No State shall use in excess of
10 percent of the amount set-aside for use under this section
in any fiscal year to carry out activities under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the State demonstrates to the Secretary that
such additional services are essential and in no way diminish
access to therapeutics.''.
(b) Supplement Grants.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Supplemental Grants for the Provision of
Treatments.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under
paragraph (5), the Secretary shall award supplemental grants
to States determined to be eligible under paragraph (2) to
enable such States to increase access to therapeutics to
treat HIV disease as provided by the State under subsection
(c)(1)(B) for individuals at or below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty line.
``(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop criteria for
the awarding of grants under paragraph (1) to States that
demonstrate a severe need. In determining the criteria for
demonstrating State severity of need, the Secretary shall
consider eligibility standards and formulary composition.
``(3) State requirement.--The Secretary may not make a
grant to a State under this subsection unless the State
agrees that--
``(A) the State will make available (directly or through
donations from public or private entities) non-Federal
contributions toward the activities to be carried out under
the grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal
funds provided in the grant; and
``(B) the State will not impose eligibility requirements
for services or scope of benefits limitations under
subsection (a) that are more restrictive than such
requirements in effect as of January 1, 2000.
``(4) Use and coordination.--Amounts made available under a
grant under this subsection shall only be used by the State
to provide HIV/AIDS-related medications. The State shall
coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise
provided under this section in order to maximize drug
coverage.
``(5) Funding.--
``(A) Reservation of amount.--The Secretary shall reserve 3
percent of any amount referred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H)
that is appropriated for a fiscal year, to carry out this
subsection.
``(B) Minimum amount.--In providing grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of a
grant to a State under this part is not less than the amount
the State received under this part in the previous fiscal
year, as a result of grants provided under this
subsection.''.
(c) Supplement and not Supplant.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26(c)), as amended by subsection (b), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Supplement not Supplant.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available under this section
shall be used to supplement and not supplant other funding
available to provide treatments of the type that may be
provided under this section.''.

SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 2618(b)(1)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
28(b)(1)(A)(i)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``$100,000'' and
inserting ``$200,000''; and
(2) in subclause (II), by striking ``$250,000'' and
inserting ``$500,000''.
(b) Territories.--Section 2618(b)(1)(B) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
28(b)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ``the greater of $50,000
or'' after ``shall be''.
(c) Technical Amendment.--Section 2618(b)(3)(B) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-28(b)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and the Republic
of the Marshall Islands'' and inserting ``, the Republic of
the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and
the Republic of Palau, and only for purposes of paragraph (1)
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico''.

SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Section 2611(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-21(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``State shall use''; and
(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.

[[Page 9545]]

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OF FORMULA GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Amendment of Heading.--The heading of part C of title
XXVI is amended to read as follows:

``Part C--Early Intervention and Primary Care Services''.

(b) Repeal.--Part C of title XXVI (42 U.S.C. 300ff-41 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) by repealing subpart I; and
(2) by redesignating subparts II and III as subparts I and
II.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Information regarding receipt of services.--Section
2661(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-61(a)) is amended by striking
``unless--'' and all that follows through ``(2) in the case
of'' and inserting ``unless, in the case of''.
(2) Additional agreements.--Section 2664 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
64) is amended--
(A) in subsection (e)(5), by striking ``2642(b) or'';
(B) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``2642(b) or''; and
(C) by striking subsection (h).

SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

(a) Allowing Planning and Development Grant To Expand
Ability To Provide Primary Care Services.--Section 2654(c)
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide planning and
development grants to public and nonprofit private entities
for the purpose of--
``(A) enabling such entities to provide HIV early
intervention services; or
``(B) assisting such entities to expand the capacity,
preparedness, and expertise to deliver primary care services
to individuals with HIV disease in underserved low-income
communities on the condition that the funds are not used to
purchase or improve land or to purchase, construct, or
permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any
building or other facility.''; and
(2) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking ``paragraph (1)''
each place that such appears and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)''.
(b) Amount; Duration.--Section 2654(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
54(c)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Amount and duration of grants.--
``(A) Early intervention services.--A grant under paragraph
(1)(A) may be made in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
``(B) Capacity development.--
``(i) Amount.--A grant under paragraph (1)(B) may be made
in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
``(ii) Duration.--The total duration of a grant under
paragraph (1)(B), including any renewal, may not exceed 3
years.''.
(c) Increase in limitation.--Section 2654(c)(5) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-54(c)(5)), as so redesignated by subsection (b), is
amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting ``5
percent''.

SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CATEGORICAL
GRANTS.

Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-55) is amended by striking
``1996'' and all that follows through ``2000'' and inserting
``2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING; QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

Section 2664(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-64(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), to read as follows:
``(3) the applicant will not expend more than 10 percent of
the grant for costs of administrative activities with respect
to the grant;'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the applicant will provide for the establishment of a
quality management program to assess the extent to which
medical services funded under this title that are provided to
patients are consistent with the most recent Public Health
Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV disease and
related opportunistic infections and that improvements in the
access to and quality of medical services are addressed.''.

SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

Section 2651 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-51) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(d) Preference in Awarding Grants.--In awarding new
grants under this section, the Secretary shall give
preference to applicants that will use amounts received under
the grant to serve areas that are determined to be rural and
underserved for the purposes of providing health care to
individuals infected with HIV or diagnosed with AIDS.''.

SEC. 146. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 2652(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-52(a)) is amended--
(1) striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) health centers under section 330;''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (2) through (5), respectively.

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND
YOUTH.

(a) Elimination of Requirement To Enroll Significant
Numbers of Women and Children.--Section 2671(b) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (C) and
(D); and
(2) by striking paragraphs (3) and (4).
(b) Information and Education.--Section 2671(d) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-71(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The applicant will provide individuals with
information and education on opportunities to participate in
HIV/AIDS-related clinical research.''.
(c) Quality Management; Administrative Expenses Ceiling.--
Section 2671(f) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(f)) is amended--
(1) by striking the subsection heading and designation and
inserting the following:
``(f) Administration.--
``(1) Application.--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Quality management program.--A grantee under this
section shall implement a quality management program.''.
(d) Coordination.--Section 2671(g) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71(g))
is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Secretary acting through the Director of NIH, shall examine
the distribution and availability of ongoing and appropriate
HIV/AIDS-related research projects to existing sites under
this section for purposes of enhancing and expanding
voluntary access to HIV-related research, especially within
communities that are not reasonably served by such projects.
Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the
Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000, the Secretary shall
prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of Congress
a report that describes the findings made by the Director and
the manner in which the conclusions based on those findings
can be addressed.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 2671(j) (42
U.S.C. 300ff-71(j)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years
1996 through 2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through
2005''.

SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

Section 2671 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j), as
subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h), the following:
``(i) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) Determination by secretary.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Ryan White Care Act
Amendments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultation with
grantees under this part, shall conduct a review of the
administrative, program support, and direct service-related
activities that are carried out under this part to ensure
that eligible individuals have access to quality, HIV-related
health and support services and research opportunities under
this part, and to support the provision of such services.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph
(1) the Secretary, in consultation with grantees under this
part, shall determine the relationship between the costs of
the activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of
eligible individuals to the services and research
opportunities described in such paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under
this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements
as may be included in such determination.''.

SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff-74(c)) is amended by
striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``2001 through
2005''.

SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER
PARTS A AND B.

Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-77) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part A for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005; and
``(2) such sums as may be necessary to carry out part B for
each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.''.

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Schools; Centers.--Section 2692(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
111(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through
2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
(b) Dental Schools.--Section 2692(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
111(c)(2)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 1996 through
2000'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.
(c) Dental Schools and Programs.--Section 2692(b) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-111(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``777(b)(4)(B)'' and
inserting ``777(b)(4)(B) (as such section existed on the day
before the date of enactment of the Health Professions
Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-392)) and
dental hygiene programs that are accredited by the Commission
on Dental Accreditation''; and

[[Page 9546]]

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``777(b)(4)(B)'' and
inserting ``777(b)(4)(B) (as such section existed on the day
before the date of enactment of the Health Professions
Education Partnerships Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-392))''.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall enter into a contract with the Institute of
Medicine for the conduct of a study concerning the
appropriate epidemiological measures and their relationship
to the financing and delivery of primary care and health-
related support services for low-income, uninsured, and
under-insured individuals with HIV disease.
(b) Requirements.--
(1) Completion.--The study under subsection (a) shall be
completed not later than 21 months after the date on which
the contract referred to in such subsection is entered into.
(2) Issues to be considered.--The study conducted under
subsection (a) shall consider--
(A) the availability and utility of health outcomes
measures and data for HIV primary care and support services
and the extent to which those measures and data could be used
to measure the quality of such funded services;
(B) the effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery
(including the quality of services, health outcomes, and
resource use) within the context of a changing health care
and therapeutic environment as well as the changing
epidemiology of the epidemic;
(C) existing and needed epidemiological data and other
analytic tools for resource planning and allocation
decisions, specifically for estimating severity of need of a
community and the relationship to the allocations process;
and
(D) other factors determined to be relevant to assessing an
individual's or community's ability to gain and sustain
access to quality HIV services.
(c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date on which
the study is completed under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall prepare and submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report describing the
manner in which the conclusions and recommendations of the
Institute of Medicine can be addressed and implemented.

____________________

NOTICES OF HEARINGS

Committee on Indian Affairs

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the
Committee on Indian Affairs will meet during the session of the Senate
on Wednesday, June 7, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing on S.
2508, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act Amendments of
2000. The hearing will be held in room 485, Russell Senate Building.

Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public
that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests
and Public Land Management.
The hearing will take place on Saturday, June 17, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.
on the campus of the College of Southern Idaho, Twin Falls, Idaho.
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 joint legislative
hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power,
and the Committee on Indian Affairs. The purpose of the hearing is to
receive testimony on S. 2508, the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 7, 2000 at 2:30 p.m.
in room SR-485 of the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington,
D.C.

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 the oversight hearing
regarding the National Marine Fisheries Service's draft Biological
Opinion and its potential impact on the Columbia River operations,
which has been previously scheduled for Wednesday, June 14, 2000 at
2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in
Washington, D.C. has been indefinitely postponed.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on environment and public works

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June
6, at 10:00 a.m., to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 1311,
to establish Region XI of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 6, 2000, at
11:00 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts be authorized
to meet to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, June 6, 2000, at 11:00 a.m.,
in 226 Dirksen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff
members of the Committee on Armed Services appearing on the list I send
to the desk be extended the privilege of the floor during consideration
of S. 2549, and further, that David Hahn, a military fellow serving in
my Senate office be granted floor privileges for the duration of S.
2549.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The list is as follows:

Charles S. Abell, Charles W. Alsup, Judith A. Ansley, John
R. Barnes, Beth Ann Barozie, Romie L. Brownlee, Courtney A.
Burke, Christine E. Cowart, Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Madelyn R.
Creedon, Richard D. DeBobes, Marie Fabrizio Dickinson,
Kristin A. Dowley, Edward E. Edens IV, Pamela L. Farrell,
Richard W. Fieldhouse.
Mickie Jan Gordon, Creighton Greene, William C. Greenwalt,
Gary M. Hall, Mary Alice A. Hayward, Shekinah Z. Hill, Larry
J. Hoag, Lawrence J. Lanzillotta, George W. Lauffer, Gerald
J. Leeling, Peter K. Levine, Patricia L. Lewis, Paul M.
Longsworth, David S. Lyles, Thomas L. MacKenzie.
Michael J. McCord, Ann M. Mittermeyer, Thomas C. Moore,
Jennifer L. Naccari, David P. Nunley, Cindy Pearson, Sharen
E. Reaves, Suzanne K.L. Ross, Anita H. Rouse, Joseph T.
Sixeas, Cord A. Sterling, Madeline N. Stewart, Scott W.
Stucky, Eric H. Thoemmes, Michele A. Traficante, Roslyne D.
Turner.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
McCain's legislative fellow, Navy Comdr. Douglas J. Denneny, be granted
floor privileges during consideration of S. 2549.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mike Daly, a
fellow in the office of Senator Abraham, be granted floor privileges
during consideration of S. 2549.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Doug Flanders
of my staff have floor privileges during the entire debate of S. 2549.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of
the floor be granted to the following member of Senator Edwards' staff:
Bob Morgan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Martha McSally, a
fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the Defense
authorization bill, S. 2549.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

[[Page 9547]]

MEASURE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED--S. 1650

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
passage of S. 1650 be vitiated; further, the bill be indefinitely
postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________

JOINT REFERRAL

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, as if in executive session, I ask
unanimous consent that the nomination of Robert S. Larussa, of
Maryland, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade,
received on May 25, 2000, be jointly referred to the Committee on
Finance and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

NATIONAL MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1419, and the
Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1419) to amend title 36, United States Code, to
designate May as ``National Military Appreciation Month.''

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 1419) was read a third time and passed, as follows:

S. 1419

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. NATIONAL MILITARY APPRECIATION MONTH.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The freedom and security that citizens of the United
States enjoy today are direct results of the vigilance of the
United States Armed Forces.
(2) Recognizing contributions made by members of the United
States Armed Forces will increase national awareness of the
sacrifices that such members have made to preserve the
freedoms and liberties that enrich this Nation.
(3) It is important to preserve and foster admiration and
respect for the service provided by members of the United
States Armed Forces.
(4) It is vital for youth in the United States to
understand that the service provided by members of the United
States Armed Forces has secured and protected the freedoms
that United States citizens enjoy today.
(5) Recognizing the unfailing support that families of
members of the United States Armed Forces have provided to
such members during their service and how such support
strengthens the vitality of our Nation is important.
(6) Recognizing the role that the United States Armed
Forces plays in maintaining the superiority of the United
States as a nation and in contributing to world peace will
increase awareness of all contributions made by such Forces.
(7) It is appropriate to recognize the importance of
maintaining a strong, equipped, well-educated, well-trained
military for the United States to safeguard freedoms,
humanitarianism, and peacekeeping efforts around the world.
(8) It is proper to foster and cultivate the honor and
pride that citizens of the United States feel towards members
of the United States Armed Forces for the protection and
service that such members provide.
(9) Recognizing the many sacrifices made by members of the
United States Armed Forces is important.
(10) It is proper to recognize and honor the dedication and
commitment of members of the United States Armed Forces, and
to show appreciation for all contributions made by such
members since the inception of such Forces.
(b) National Military Appreciation Month.--Chapter 1 of
part A of subtitle I of title 36, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 144. National Military Appreciation Month

``The President shall issue each year a proclamation--
``(1) designating May as `National Military Appreciation
Month'; and
``(2) calling on the people of the United States to honor
the dedicated service provided by the members of the United
States Armed Forces and to observe the month with appropriate
ceremonies and activities.''.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in chapter 1
of part A of subtitle I of title 36, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 143
the following new item:

``144. National Military Appreciation Month.''.

____________________

RYAN WHITE CARE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2000

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar 548, S. 2311.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2311) to revise and extend the Ryan White CARE
Act programs under title XXVI of the Public Health Service
Act, and for other purposes.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill
(S. 2311) to amend the Ryan White CARE Act to improve access to health
care and the quality of 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 related purposes, which had been reported from the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, with an amendment to strike all
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. References; table of contents.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.

[[Page 9548]]

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUNDING PRIORITIES,
QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

Section 2602 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including providers of housing and
homeless services''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking
``shall--'' and all that follows and inserting ``shall have
the responsibilities specified in subsection (d).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Duties of Planning Council.--The planning council
established under subsection (b) shall have the following
duties:
``(1) Priorities for allocation of funds.--The council
shall establish priorities for the allocation of funds within
the eligible area, including how best to meet each such
priority and additional factors that a grantee should
consider in allocating funds under a grant, based on the
following factors:
``(A) The size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, including, subject
to subsection (e), the needs of individuals living with HIV
infection who are not receiving HIV-related health services.
``(B) The documented needs of the population with HIV
disease with particular attention being given to disparities
in health services among affected subgroups within the
eligible area.
``(C) The demonstrated or probable cost and outcome
effectiveness of proposed strategies and interventions, to
the extent that data are reasonably available.
``(D) Priorities of the communities with HIV disease for
whom the services are intended.
``(E) The availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such
Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and
families with HIV disease.
``(F) Capacity development needs resulting from gaps in the
availability of HIV services in historically underserved low-
income communities.
``(2) Comprehensive service delivery plan.--The council
shall develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and
delivery of health and support services described in section
2604. Such plan shall be compatible with any existing State
or local plans regarding the provision of such services to
individuals with HIV disease.
``(3) Assessment of fund allocation efficiency.--The
council shall assess the efficiency of the administrative
mechanism in rapidly allocating funds to the areas of
greatest need within the eligible area.
``(4) Statewide statement of need.--The council shall
participate in the development of the Statewide coordinated
statement of need as initiated by the State public health
agency responsible for administering grants under part B.
``(5) Coordination with other federal grantees.--The
council shall coordinate with Federal grantees providing HIV-
related services within the eligible area.
``(6) Community participation.--The council shall establish
methods for obtaining input on community needs and priorities
which may include public meetings, conducting focus groups,
and convening ad-hoc panels.
``(e) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with eligible metropolitan areas, affected
communities, experts, and other appropriate individuals and
entities, to develop epidemiologic measures for establishing
the number of individuals living with HIV disease who are not
receiving HIV-related health services; and
``(B) provide advice and technical assistance to planning
councils with respect to the process for establishing
priorities for the allocation of funds under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Exception.--Grantees under this part shall not be
required to establish priorities for individuals not in care
until epidemiologic measures are developed under paragraph
(1).''.

SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Section 2604(b)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
14(b)(1)), as amended by section 104(a), is further amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Early intervention services.--Early intervention
services as described in section 2651(b)(2), with follow-
through referral, provided for the purpose of facilitating
the access of individuals receiving the services to HIV-
related health services, but only if the entity providing
such services--
``(i)(I) is receiving funds under subparagraph (A) or (C);
or
``(II) is an entity constituting a point of access to
services, as described in section 2605(a)(4), that maintains
a relationship with an entity described in subclause (I) and
that is serving individuals at elevated risk of HIV disease;
``(ii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief
elected official that Federal, State, or local funds are
inadequate for the early intervention services the entity
will provide with funds received under this subparagraph; and
``(iii) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the chief
elected official that funds will be utilized under this
subparagraph to supplement not supplant other funds available
for such services in the year for which such funds are being
utilized.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''.

[[Page 9549]]

SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCAL YEARS REGARDING THE
SUNSET ON EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
and inserting ``for a fiscal year''.

SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF
NEED AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.

(a) General Use of Grants.--Section 2612 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
22) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A State'' and inserting ``(a) In
General.--A State''; and
(2) in the matter following paragraph (5)--
(A) by striking ``Services'' and inserting:
``(b) Delivery of Services.--Services'';
(B) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)''; and
(C) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(2) and section 2613'';
(b) Application.--Section 2617(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b))
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(A) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) the size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, except that by not
later than October 1, 2002, the State shall take into account
the needs of individuals not in care, based on epidemiologic
measures developed by the Secretary in consultation with the
State, affected communities, experts, and other appropriate
individuals (such State shall not be required to establish
priorities for individuals not in care until such
epidemiologic measures are developed);'';
(B) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(v) the availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources;
``(vi) the capacity development needs resulting in gaps in
the provision of HIV services in historically underserved
low-income and rural low-income communities; and
``(vii) the efficiency of the administrative mechanism in
rapidly allocating funds to the areas of greatest need within
the State;''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (F);
and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (B), the following:
``(C) an assurance that capacity development needs
resulting from gaps in the provision of services in
underserved low-income and rural low-income communities will
be addressed; and
``(D) with respect to fiscal year 2003 and subsequent
fiscal years, assurances that, in the planning and allocation
of resources, the State, through systems of HIV-related
health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
of section 2612(a), will make appropriate provision for the
HIV-related health and support service needs of individuals
who have been diagnosed with HIV disease but who are not
currently receiving such services, based on the epidemiologic
measures developed under paragraph (1)(C)(i);''.

SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

(a) State Requirement for Quality Management.--Section
2617(b)(4) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-27(b)(4)) is amended--
(1) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) the State will provide for--
``(i) the establishment of a quality management program to
assess the extent to which medical services provided to
patients under the grant are consistent with the most recent
Public Health Service guidelines for the treatment of HIV
disease and related opportunistic infections and to develop
strategies for improvements in the access to and quality of
medical services; and
``(ii) a periodic review (such as through an independent
peer review) to assess the quality and appropriateness of
HIV-related health and support services provided by entities
that receive funds from the State under this part;'';
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as
subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively;
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (D), the following:
``(E) an assurance that the State, through systems of HIV-
related health services provided under paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) of section 2612(a), has considered strategies for
working with providers to make optimal use of financial
assistance under the State medicaid plan under title XIX of
the Social Security Act, the State Children's Health
Insurance Program under title XXI of such Act, and other
Federal grantees that provide HIV-related services, to
maximize access to quality HIV-related health and support
services;'';
(4) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end; and
(5) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking
the period and inserting ``; and''.
(b) Availability of Funds for Quality Management.--
(1) Availability of grant funds for planning and
evaluation.--Section 2618(c)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(3)) is
amended by inserting before the period ``, including not more
than $3,000,000 for all activities associated with its
quality management program''.
(2) Exception to combined ceiling on planning and
administration funds for states with small grants.--Paragraph
(6) of section 2618(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-28(c)(6)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(6) Exception for quality management.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (5), a State whose grant under this part for a
fiscal year does not exceed $1,500,000 may use not to exceed
20 percent of the amount of the grant for the purposes
described in paragraphs (3) and (4) if--
``(A) that portion of the amount that may be used for such
purposes in excess of 15 percent of the grant is used for its
quality management program; and
``(B) the State submits and the Secretary approves a plan
(in such form and containing such information as the
Secretary may prescribe) for use of funds for its quality
management program.''.

SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIV-RELATED
SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETED INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE REPORT.

Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-36) is repealed.

SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.

Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

[[Page 9550]]

``SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.

(a) State Duties.--Section 2616(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26(c))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``shall--'' and inserting ``shall use funds made available
under this section to--'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as
subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively and realigning
the margins of such subparagraphs appropriately;
(3) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'' at the end;
(4) in subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated), by striking
the period and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) encourage, support, and enhance adherence to and
compliance with treatment regimens, including related medical
monitoring.'';
(6) by striking ``In carrying'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In carrying''; and
(7) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Limitations.--
``(A) In general.--No State shall use funds under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the limitations on access to HIV/AIDS
therapeutic regimens as defined in subsection (e)(2) are
eliminated.
``(B) Amount of funding.--No State shall use in excess of
10 percent of the amount set-aside for use under this section
in any fiscal year to carry out activities under paragraph
(1)(F) unless the State demonstrates to the Secretary that
such additional services are essential and in no way diminish
access to therapeutics.''.
(b) Supplement Grants.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-26)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Supplemental Grants for the Provision of
Treatments.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under
paragraph (5), the Secretary shall award supplemental grants
to States determined to be eligible under paragraph (2) to
enable such States to increase access to therapeutics to
treat HIV disease as provided by the State under subsection
(c)(1)(B) for individuals at or below 200 percent of the
Federal poverty line.
``(2) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop criteria for
the awarding of grants under paragraph (1) to States that
demonstrate a severe need. In determining the criteria for
demonstrating State severity of need, the Secretary shall
consider eligibility standards and formulary composition.
``(3) State requirement.--The Secretary may not make a
grant to a State under this subsection unless the State
agrees that--
``(A) the State will make available (directly or through
donations from public or private entities) non-Federal
contributions toward the activities to be carried out under
the grant in an amount equal to $1 for each $4 of Federal
funds provided in the grant; and
``(B) the State will not impose eligibility requirements
for services or scope of benefits limitations under
subsection (a) that are more restrictive than such
requirements in effect as of January 1, 2000.
``(4) Use and coordination.--Amounts made available under a
grant under this subsection shall only be used by the State
to provide HIV/AIDS-related medications. The State shall
coordinate the use of such amounts with the amounts otherwise
provided under this section in order to maximize drug
coverage.
``(5) Funding.--
``(A) Reservation of amount.--The Secretary shall reserve 3
percent of any amount referred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H)
that is appropriated for a fiscal year, to carry out this
subsection.
``(B) Minimum amount.--In providing grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of a
grant to a State under this part is not less than the amount
the State received under this part in the previous fiscal
year, as a result of grants provided under this
subsection.''.
(c) Supplement and Not Supplant.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26(c)), as amended by subsection (b), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Supplement Not Supplant.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available under this section
shall be used to supplement and not supplant other funding
available to provide treatments of the type that may be
provided under this section.''.

SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.

SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Section 2611(b) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-21(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``for each population under this
subsection'' after ``State shall use''; and

[[Page 9551]]

(2) by striking ``ratio of the'' and inserting ``ratio of
each''.

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OF FORMULA GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Amendment of Heading.--The heading of part C of title
XXVI is amended to read as follows:

``Part C--Early Intervention and Primary Care Services''.

SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

(a) Allowing Planning and Development Grant To Expand
Ability To Provide Primary Care Services.--Section 2654(c)
(42 U.S.C. 300ff-54(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide planning and
development grants to public and nonprofit private entities
for the purpose of--
``(A) enabling such entities to provide HIV early
intervention services; or
``(B) assisting such entities to expand the capacity,
preparedness, and expertise to deliver primary care services
to individuals with HIV disease in underserved low-income
communities on the condition that the funds are not used to
purchase or improve land or to purchase, construct, or
permanently improve (other than minor remodeling) any
building or other facility.''; and
(2) in paragraphs (2) and (3) by striking ``paragraph (1)''
each place that such appears and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)''.
(b) Amount; Duration.--Section 2654(c) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-
54(c)), as amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) Amount and duration of grants.--
``(A) Early intervention services.--A grant under paragraph
(1)(A) may be made in an amount not to exceed $50,000.
``(B) Capacity development.--
``(i) Amount.--A grant under paragraph (1)(B) may be made
in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
``(ii) Duration.--The total duration of a grant under
paragraph (1)(B), including any renewal, may not exceed 3
years.''.
(c) Increase in Limitation.--Section 2654(c)(5) (42 U.S.C.
300ff-54(c)(5)), as so redesignated by subsection (b), is
amended by striking ``1 percent'' and inserting ``5
percent''.

SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CATEGORICAL
GRANTS.

Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-55) is amended by striking
``1996'' and all that follows through ``2000'' and inserting
``2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING; QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

SEC. 146. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Section 2652(a) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-52(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) health centers under section 330;''; and
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (6) as
paragraphs (2) through (5), respectively.

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND
YOUTH.

SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

Section 2671 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-71) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j), as
subsections (j) and (k), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (h), the following:
``(i) Limitation on Administrative Expenses.--
``(1) Determination by secretary.--Not later than 12 months
after the date of enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000, the Secretary, in consultation with
grantees under this part, shall conduct a review of the
administrative, program support, and direct service-related
activities that are carried out under this part to ensure
that eligible individuals have access to quality, HIV-related
health and support services and research opportunities under
this part, and to support the provision of such services.
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the
expiration of the 12-month period referred to in paragraph
(1) the Secretary, in consultation with grantees under this
part, shall determine the relationship between the costs of
the activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of
eligible individuals to the services and research
opportunities described in such paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under
this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements
as may be included in such determination.''.

SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff-74(c)) is amended by
striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``2001 through
2005''.

SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER
PARTS A AND B.

Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-77) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

[[Page 9552]]

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

Amendment No. 3190

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, Senator Jeffords has an amendment at the
desk for himself and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner), for Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Frist, proposes an amendment numbered
3190.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure today that
the Senate is considering the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources
and Emergency Act Amendments of 2000, a measure that will reauthorize a
national program providing primary health care services to people
living with HIV and AIDS. I especially want to commend Senators Hatch
and Kennedy for the leadership they have provided since the
inauguration of the legislation establishing the Ryan White programs
over a decade ago. I also want to commend Senator Frist whose medical
expertise played a critical role in key provisions of the bill and
continues to be an invaluable resource to our efforts on the range of
health issues that come before the Senate. I want to recognize Senator
Dodd for his unwavering support for this legislation and people living
with HIV and AIDS. Finally, I want to acknowledge Senator Enzi's
recognition of the growing burden that AIDS and HIV have placed on
rural communities throughout the country and the need to address those
gaps in services.
Since its inception in 1990, the Ryan White program has enjoyed broad
bipartisan support. During the last reauthorization of the Ryan White
CARE Act in 1996, the measure garnered a vote of 97 to 3 on its final
passage. As evidence that strong bipartisan support continues, I am
happy to report that last month this reauthorization bill was passed
unanimously out of committee. The bipartisan support for this important
legislation underlines the critical need for the assistance this Act
provides across the nation.
With this reauthorization, we mark the ten years through which the
Ryan White CARE Act has provided needed health care and support
services to HIV positive people around the country. Titles I and II
have provided much needed relief to cities and states hardest hit by
this disease, while Titles III and IV have had a direct role in
providing healthcare services to underserved communities. Ryan White
program dollars provide the foundation of care so necessary in fighting
this epidemic and have allowed States and communities around the
country to successfully address the needs of people affected by HIV
disease.
In a recently released report, the General Accounting Office found
that CARE Act funds are reaching the infected groups that have
typically been underserved, including the poor, the uninsured, women,
and ethnic minorities. In fact, these groups form a majority of CARE
Act clients and are being served by the CARE Act in higher proportions
than their representation in the AIDS population. The GAO also found
that CARE Act funds support a wide array of primary care and support
services, including the provision of powerful therapeutic regimens for
people with HIV/AIDS that have dramatically reduced AIDS diagnoses and
deaths.
Much has occurred to change the course of the AIDS epidemic since the
last reauthorization. During the last reauthorization, Congressman
Coburn and our colleague, Senator Frist, focused our attention on the
needs of women living with HIV/AIDS and the problems associated with
perinatal transmission of HIV. Since then, the CARE Act has helped to
dramatically reduce mother-to-child transmission through more effective
outreach, counseling, and voluntary testing of mothers at risk for HIV
infection. Between 1993 and 1998, perinatal-acquired AIDS cases
declined 74% in the U.S. In this bill, I have continued to support
efforts to reach women in need of care for their HIV disease and have
included provisions to ensure that women, infants and children receive
resources in accordance with the prevalence of the infection among
them.
Another key success has been the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. This
program has provided people with HIV and AIDS access to newly
developed, highly effective therapeutics. Because of these drugs,
people are maintaining their health and living longer. The AIDS death
rate and the number of new AIDS cases have been dramatically reduced.
From 1996 to 1998, deaths from AIDS dropped 54% while new AIDS cases
have been reduced by 27%. However, these treatments are very expensive,
do not provide a cure, and do not work for everyone.
AIDS, HIV, the people it infects and families that it has affected
are not in the news today as often as they have been in the past. But
for too many of us, this lack of bad news has created a false sense of
complacency. While the rate of decline in new AIDS cases and deaths is
leveling off, HIV infection rates continue to rise in many areas;
becoming increasingly prevalent in rural and underserved urban areas;
and also among women, youth, and minority communities. Local and state
healthcare systems face an increasing burden of disease, despite our
success in treating and caring for people living with HIV and AIDS.
Unfortunately, rural and underserved urban areas are often unable to
address the complex medical and support services needs of people with
HIV infection. Thus, Ryan White programs remain as vital to the public
health of this nation as it was in 1990 and in 1996. As the AIDS
epidemic reaches into rural areas and into underserved urban
communities across the country, this legislation will allow us to adapt
our care systems to meet the most urgent needs in the communities
hardest hit by the epidemic.
The bill being considered today was developed on a bipartisan basis,
working with other Committee Members, community stakeholders and
elected officials at the state and local levels from whom we sought
input to ensure that we addressed the most important problems facing
communities of people with HIV infection. I held a hearing in March
before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to learn
whether the program has been successful and whether it needed to be
changed. We received testimony from Ryan White's mother, Jeanne White,
from Surgeon General David Satcher, from a person living with AIDS, as
well as state and local officials familiar with the importance of this
program. I especially want to commend Dr. Chris Grace of Vermont who
testified as to the particular challenges of providing

[[Page 9553]]

care to people living with HIV/AIDS in rural, and sometimes remote,
parts of the country. It was clear from our witnesses' statements that,
despite the successes, challenges remain.
To address these challenges, we have developed a bill that will
improve access to care in underserved urban and rural areas. My bill
will double the minimum base funding available to states through the
CARE Act to assist them in developing systems of care for people
struggling with HIV and AIDS. The bill also includes a new supplemental
state grant to target assistance to small and mid-sized metropolitan
areas to help them address the increasing number of people with HIV/
AIDS living outside of urban areas that receive assistance under Title
I of the Act. Rural and underserved areas receive a preference for
planning, early intervention, and capacity development grants under
title III. In order to assist states in expanding access to appropriate
HIV/AIDS therapeutics to low-income people with HIV/AIDS, a
supplemental grant has been added to the AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
The bill remains primarily a system of grants to State and local
jurisdictions, thereby ensuring that grantees can respond to local
needs. States, EMAs, and the affected communities will still decide how
to best prioritize and address the healthcare needs of their HIV-
positive citizens. This bill reinforces the ability of States and EMAs
to identify and meet local needs.
Finally, in recognition of the changing nature of the epidemic, I
have asked the Institute of Medicine to complete a study of the
financing and delivery of primary care and support services for low
income, uninsured, and under-insured individuals with HIV disease,
within 21 months after the enactment of this Act. Changes in HIV
surveillance and case reporting, and the effects of these changes on
program funding, will be included in this study. The recommendations
from this study will help Congress and the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to ensure the most effective and efficient use of
Federal funds for HIV and AIDS care and support.
I intend to see this bill become law this year so that the people
struggling to overcome the challenges of HIV and AIDS continue to
benefit from high quality medical care and access to lifesaving drugs.
We have made incredible progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and I
want to be sure that every person in America in need of assistance
benefits from our tremendous advances.
Many groups and individuals have contributed significantly to
crafting this bill, but I want to acknowledge those at the Health
Resources and Services Administration, especially Dr. Joseph O'Neill,
Associate Administrator of the HIV/AIDS bureau; John Palenicek,
Director of the Office of Policy and Program Development; Doug Morgan,
Director of the Division of Service Systems; and Howard Lerner,
Principal Adviser for Telehealth and International Collaboration, HIV/
AIDS. All of the groups united under the umbrella of the National
Organizations Responding to AIDS (NORA) deserve recognition.
Representing a diverse community of people with AIDS, CARE Act service
providers, and administrative agencies, NORA clearly and effectively
communicated to Congress the needs and priorities of their
constituents.
I also want to thank several staff members who have worked long and
hard to craft this bill and to address the concerns and needs of the
affected communities. Sean Donohue and William Oscar Fleming have
guided this effort from the beginning, building consensus across the
many policy issues, resulting in a bill that meets the pressing needs
of people with HIV and AIDS and enjoys broad bipartisan support.
Stephanie Robinson and Idalia Sanchez, for Senator Kennedy, were key to
reaching agreement on this bill and have provided invaluable assistance
and support throughout the development of this legislation. I would
also like to recognize Dave Larson and Mary Sumpter Johnson, of Senator
Frist's office, for their support for the needs of rural and
underserved communities throughout the nation. Similarly, Jeannie
Ireland with Senator Dodd's office, Helen Rhee, working for Senator
DeWine, Libby Rolfe, for Mr. Sessions, and Raissa Geary and Mary Jordan
in Senator Enzi's office, provided valuable input. Without the efforts
of these staff members, we would not have such a strong, well-balanced,
and targeted reauthorization bill before us today.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, as amended, the
bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3190) was agreed to.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The bill (S. 2311), as amended, was read a third time and passed, as
follows:

S. 2311

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 ``Ryan White CARE Act
Amendments of 2000''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. References; table of contents.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

Sec. 161. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Institute of Medicine study.

[[Page 9554]]

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO HIV HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

Subtitle A--Amendments to Part A (Emergency Relief Grants)

SEC. 101. DUTIES OF PLANNING COUNCIL, FUNDING PRIORITIES,
QUALITY ASSESSMENT.

Section 2602 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-12) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``, including providers of housing and
homeless services''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``shall--'' and all that
follows and inserting ``shall have the responsibilities
specified in subsection (d).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Duties of Planning Council.--The planning council
established under subsection (b) shall have the following
duties:
``(1) Priorities for allocation of funds.--The council
shall establish priorities for the allocation of funds within
the eligible area, including how best to meet each such
priority and additional factors that a grantee should
consider in allocating funds under a grant, based on the
following factors:
``(A) The size and demographic characteristics of the
population with HIV disease to be served, including, subject
to subsection (e), the needs of individuals living with HIV
infection who are not receiving HIV-related health services.
``(B) The documented needs of the population with HIV
disease with particular attention being given to disparities
in health services among affected subgroups within the
eligible area.
``(C) The demonstrated or probable cost and outcome
effectiveness of proposed strategies and interventions, to
the extent that data are reasonably available.
``(D) Priorities of the communities with HIV disease for
whom the services are intended.
``(E) The availability of other governmental and non-
governmental resources, including the State medicaid plan
under title XIX of the Social Security Act and the State
Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI of such
Act to cover health care costs of eligible individuals and
families with HIV disease.
``(F) Capacity development needs resulting from gaps in the
availability of HIV services in historically underserved low-
income communities.
``(2) Comprehensive service delivery plan.--The council
shall develop a comprehensive plan for the organization and
delivery of health and support services described in section
2604. Such plan shall be compatible with any existing State
or local plans regarding the provision of such services to
individuals with HIV disease.
``(3) Assessment of fund allocation efficiency.--The
council shall assess the efficiency of the administrative
mechanism in rapidly allocating funds to the areas of
greatest need within the eligible area.
``(4) Statewide statement of need.--The council shall
participate in the development of the Statewide coordinated
statement of need as initiated by the State public health
agency responsible for administering grants under part B.
``(5) Coordination with other federal grantees.--The
council shall coordinate with Federal grantees providing HIV-
related services within the eligible area.
``(6) Community participation.--The council shall establish
methods for obtaining input on community needs and priorities
which may include public meetings, conducting focus groups,
and convening ad-hoc panels.
``(e) Process for Establishing Allocation Priorities.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 24 months after the date
of enactment of the Ryan White CARE Act Amendments of 2000,
the Secretary shall--
``(A) consult with eligible metropolitan areas, affected
communities, experts, and other appropriate individuals and
entities, to develop epidemiologic measures for establishing
the number of individuals living with HIV disease who are not
receiving HIV-related health services; and
``(B) provide advice and technical assistance to planning
councils with respect to the process for establishing
priorities for the allocation of funds under subsection
(d)(1).
``(2) Exception.--Grantees under this part shall not be
required to establish priorities for individuals not in care
until epidemiologic measures are developed under paragraph
(1).''.

SEC. 102. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

SEC. 103. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

SEC. 104. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

SEC. 105. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

[[Page 9555]]

utilized under this subparagraph to supplement not supplant
other funds available for such services in the year for which
such funds are being utilized.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Application Requirements.--
Section 2605(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-15(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``services to
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``services for
individuals with HIV disease'' and inserting ``services as
described in section 2604(b)(1)''.

SEC. 106. REPLACEMENT OF SPECIFIED FISCAL YEARS REGARDING THE
SUNSET ON EXPEDITED DISTRIBUTION REQUIREMENTS.

Section 2603(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-13(a)(2)) is amended by
striking ``for each of the fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
and inserting ``for a fiscal year''.

SEC. 107. HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION.

SEC. 108. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Part B (Care Grant Program)

SEC. 121. STATE REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING IDENTIFICATION OF
NEED AND ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.

SEC. 122. QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

SEC. 123. FUNDED ENTITIES REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTH CARE
RELATIONSHIPS.

SEC. 124. SUPPORT SERVICES REQUIRED TO BE HEALTH CARE-
RELATED.

SEC. 125. USE OF GRANT FUNDS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES.

[[Page 9556]]

``(B) demonstrates to the State's satisfaction that other
Federal, State, or local funds are inadequate for the early
intervention services the entity will provide with funds
received under this paragraph; and
``(C) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the State that
funds will be utilized under this paragraph to supplement not
supplant other funds available for such services in the year
for which such funds are being utilized.''.

SEC. 126. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HIV-RELATED
SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN.

Section 2625(c)(2) (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33(c)(2)) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' and inserting
``fiscal years 2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 127. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR COMPLETED INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE REPORT.

Section 2628 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-36) is repealed.

SEC. 128. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS FOR CERTAIN STATES.

Subpart I of part B of title XXVI of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-11 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following:

``SEC. 2622. SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award supplemental
grants to States determined to be eligible under subsection
(b) to enable such States to provide comprehensive services
of the type described in section 2612(a) to supplement the
services otherwise provided by the State under a grant under
this subpart in emerging communities within the State that
are not eligible to receive grants under part A.
``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a
supplemental grant under subsection (a) a State shall--
``(1) be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart;
``(2) demonstrate the existence in the State of an emerging
community as defined in subsection (d)(1); and
``(3) submit the information described in subsection (c).
``(c) Reporting Requirements.--A State that desires a grant
under this section shall, as part of the State application
submitted under section 2617, submit a detailed description
of the manner in which the State will use amounts received
under the grant and of the severity of need. Such description
shall include--
``(1) a report concerning the dissemination of supplemental
funds under this section and the plan for the utilization of
such funds in the emerging community;
``(2) a demonstration of the existing commitment of local
resources, both financial and in-kind;
``(3) a demonstration that the State will maintain HIV-
related activities at a level that is equal to not less than
the level of such activities in the State for the 1-year
period preceding the fiscal year for which the State is
applying to receive a grant under this part;
``(4) a demonstration of the ability of the State to
utilize such supplemental financial resources in a manner
that is immediately responsive and cost effective;
``(5) a demonstration that the resources will be allocated
in accordance with the local demographic incidence of AIDS
including appropriate allocations for services for infants,
children, women, and families with HIV disease;
``(6) a demonstration of the inclusiveness of the planning
process, with particular emphasis on affected communities and
individuals with HIV disease; and
``(7) a demonstration of the manner in which the proposed
services are consistent with local needs assessments and the
statewide coordinated statement of need.
``(d) Definition of Emerging Community.--In this section,
the term `emerging community' means a metropolitan area--
``(1) that is not eligible for a grant under part A; and
``(2) for which there has been reported to the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention a cumulative
total of between 500 and 1999 cases of acquired immune
deficiency syndrome for the most recent period of 5 calendar
years for which such data are available.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), with respect
to each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 2001, the
Secretary, to carry out this section, shall utilize--
``(A) the greater of--
``(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated under 2677 to
carry out part B, excluding the amount appropriated under
section 2618(b)(2)(H), for such fiscal year that is in excess
of the amount appropriated to carry out such part in fiscal
year preceding the fiscal year involved; or
``(ii) $5,000,000;
to provide funds to States for use in emerging communities
with at least 1000, but less than 2000, cases of AIDS as
reported to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for the five year period
preceding the year for which the grant is being awarded; and
``(B) the greater of--
``(i) 25 percent of the amount appropriated under 2677 to
carry out part B, excluding the amount appropriated under
section 2618(b)(2)(H), for such fiscal year that is in excess
of the amount appropriated to carry out such part in fiscal
year preceding the fiscal year involved; or
``(ii) $5,000,000;
to provide funds to States for use in emerging communities
with at least 500, but less than 1000, cases of AIDS reported
to and confirmed by the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention for the five year period preceding the
year for which the grant is being awarded.
``(2) Trigger of funding.--This section shall be effective
only for fiscal years beginning in the first fiscal year in
which the amount appropriated under 2677 to carry out part B,
excluding the amount appropriated under section
2618(b)(2)(H), exceeds by at least $20,000,000 the amount
appropriated under 2677 to carry out part B in fiscal year
2000, excluding the amount appropriated under section
2618(b)(2)(H).
``(3) Minimum amount in future years.--Beginning with the
first fiscal year in which amounts provided for emerging
communities under paragraph (1)(A) equals $5,000,000 and
under paragraph (1)(B) equals $5,000,000, the Secretary shall
ensure that amounts made available under this section for the
types of emerging communities described in each such
paragraph in subsequent fiscal years is at least $5,000,000.
``(4) Distribution.--The amount of a grant awarded to a
State under this section shall be determined by the Secretary
based on the formula described in section 2618(b)(2), except
that in applying such formula, the Secretary shall--
``(A) substitute `1.0' for `.80' in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I)
of such section; and
``(B) not consider the provisions of subparagraphs
(A)(ii)(II) and (C) of such section.''.

SEC. 129. USE OF TREATMENT FUNDS.

[[Page 9557]]

referred to in section 2618(b)(2)(H) that is appropriated for
a fiscal year, to carry out this subsection.
``(B) Minimum amount.--In providing grants under this
subsection, the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of a
grant to a State under this part is not less than the amount
the State received under this part in the previous fiscal
year, as a result of grants provided under this
subsection.''.
(c) Supplement and not Supplant.--Section 2616 (42 U.S.C.
300ff-26(c)), as amended by subsection (b), is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Supplement not Supplant.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, amounts made available under this section
shall be used to supplement and not supplant other funding
available to provide treatments of the type that may be
provided under this section.''.

SEC. 130. INCREASE IN MINIMUM ALLOTMENT.

SEC. 131. SET-ASIDE FOR INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND WOMEN.

Subtitle C--Amendments to Part C (Early Intervention Services)

SEC. 141. AMENDMENT OF HEADING; REPEAL OF FORMULA GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Amendment of Heading.--The heading of part C of title
XXVI is amended to read as follows:

``Part C--Early Intervention and Primary Care Services''.

SEC. 142. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

SEC. 143. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CATEGORICAL
GRANTS.

Section 2655 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-55) is amended by striking
``1996'' and all that follows through ``2000'' and inserting
``2001 through 2005''.

SEC. 144. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES CEILING; QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.

SEC. 145. PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

SEC. 146. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

Subtitle D--Amendments to Part D (General Provisions)

SEC. 151. RESEARCH INVOLVING WOMEN, INFANTS, CHILDREN, AND
YOUTH.

SEC. 152. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

[[Page 9558]]

shall determine the relationship between the costs of the
activities referred to in paragraph (1) and the access of
eligible individuals to the services and research
opportunities described in such paragraph.
``(B) Limitation.--After a final determination under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may not make a grant under
this part unless the grantee complies with such requirements
as may be included in such determination.''.

SEC. 153. EVALUATIONS AND REPORTS.

Section 2674(c) (42 U.S.C. 399ff-74(c)) is amended by
striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``2001 through
2005''.

SEC. 154. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER
PARTS A AND B.

Section 2677 (42 U.S.C. 300ff-77) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 2677. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Subtitle E--Amendments to Part F (Demonstration and Training)

SEC. 161. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY.

____________________

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9:30 a.m.
on Wednesday, June 7. I further ask unanimous consent that on
Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings
be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time
for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I
further ask unanimous consent that the Senate then resume consideration
of S. 2549, the Department of Defense authorization bill under the
previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the
Senate will convene at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow and resume debate on the
Defense authorization bill. Under the order, there are 90 minutes of
debate remaining on the Kerrey amendment and the Warner second-degree
amendment, both regarding strategic forces. Following the use or
yielding back of time, there will be up to 2 hours of debate on the
Johnson and Warner amendments regarding CHAMPUS and TRICARE. If all
time is used, Senators can expect to cast up to four votes at
approximately 1 p.m. Further amendments are expected to be offered and
debated throughout the day. Therefore, additional votes could be
anticipated.

____________________

RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the
previous order. And I personally express my appreciation to the
Presiding Officer and others who enabled us to go well into the night.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:04 p.m., recessed until
Wednesday, June 7, 2000, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate June 6, 2000:

THE JUDICIARY

K. GARY SEBELIUS, OF KANSAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS, VICE G. THOMAS VAN BEBBER,
RETIRING.
KENNETH O. SIMON, OF ALABAMA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA VICE SAM C.
POINTER, JR., RETIRED.
JOHN E. STEELE, OF FLORIDA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA VICE A NEW POSITION
CREATED BY PUBLIC LAW 106-113, APPROVED NOVEMBER 29, 1999.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

LISA GAYLE ROSS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE AN
ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, VICE NANCY KILLEFER,
RESIGNED.
LISA GAYLE ROSS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, VICE NANCY
KILLEFER, RESIGNED.

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO
THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general

COL. BRUCE S. ASAY, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:

To be major general

BRIG. GEN. PAUL W. ESSEX, 0000

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be major general

BRIG. GEN. WAYNE D. MARTY, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be lieutenant general

MAJ. GEN. DAN K. MCNEILL, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be brigadier general

COL. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, 0000
COL. VINCENT E. BOLES, 0000
COL. GARY L. BORDER, 0000
COL. THOMAS P. BOSTICK, 0000
COL. HOWARD B. BROMBERG, 0000
COL. JAMES A. COGGIN, 0000
COL. MICHAEL L. COMBEST, 0000
COL. WILLIAM C. DAVID, 0000
COL. MARTIN E. DEMPSEY, 0000
COL. JOSEPH F. FIL, JR., 0000
COL. BENJAMIN C. FREAKLEY, 0000
COL. JOHN D. GARDNER, 0000
COL. BRIAN I. GEEHAN, 0000
COL. RICHARD V. GERACI, 0000
COL. GARY L. HARRELL, 0000
COL. JANET E. A. HICKS, 0000
COL. JAY W. HOOD, 0000
COL. KENNETH W. HUNZEKER, 0000
COL. CHARLES H. JACOBY, JR., 0000
COL. GARY M. JONES, 0000
COL. JASON K. KAMIYA, 0000
COL. JAMES A. KELLEY, 0000
COL. RICKY LYNCH, 0000
COL. BERNARDO C. NEGRETE, 0000
COL. PATRICIA L. NILO, 0000
COL. F. JOSEPH PRASEK, 0000
COL. DAVID C. RALSTON, 0000
COL. DON T. RILEY, 0000
COL. DAVID M. RODRIGUEZ, 0000
COL. DONALD F. SCHENK, 0000
COL. STEVEN P. SCHOOK, 0000
COL. GRATTON O. SEALOCK II, 0000
COL. STEPHEN M. SEAY, 0000
COL. JEFFREY A. SORENSON, 0000

[[Page 9559]]

COL. GUY C. SWAN III, 0000
COL. DAVID P. VALCOURT, 0000
COL. ROBERT M. WILLIAMS, 0000
COL. W. MONTAGUE WINFIELD, 0000
COL. RICHARD P. ZAHNER, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be major general

BRIG. GEN. LAWRENCE R. ADAIR, 0000
BRIG. GEN. BUFORD C. BLOUNT III, 0000
BRIG. GEN. STEVEN W. BOUTELLE, 0000
BRIG. GEN. JAMES D. BRYAN, 0000
BRIG. GEN. EDDIE CAIN, 0000
BRIG. GEN. JOHN P. CAVANAUGH, 0000
BRIG. GEN. BANTZ J. CRADDOCK, 0000
BRIG. GEN. KEITH W. DAYTON, 0000
BRIG. GEN. KATHRYN G. FROST, 0000
BRIG. GEN. LARRY D. GOTTARDI, 0000
BRIG. GEN. NICHOLAS P. GRANT, 0000
BRIG. GEN. STANLEY E. GREEN, 0000
BRIG. GEN. CRAIG D. HACKETT, 0000
BRIG. GEN. FRANKLIN L. HAGENBECK, 0000
BRIG. GEN. HUBERT L. HARTSELL, 0000
BRIG. GEN. GEORGE A. HIGGINS, 0000
BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM J. LESZCZYNSKI, 0000
BRIG. GEN. MICHAEL D. MAPLES, 0000
BRIG. GEN. THOMAS F. METZ, 0000
BRIG. GEN. DANIEL G. MONGEON, 0000
BRIG. GEN. WILLIAM E. MORTENSEN, 0000
BRIG. GEN. ERIC T. OLSON, 0000
BRIG. GEN. RICHARD J. QUIRK III, 0000
BRIG. GEN. RICARDO S. SANCHEZ, 0000
BRIG. GEN. GARY D. SPEER, 0000
BRIG. GEN. MITCHELL H. STEVENSON, 0000
BRIG. GEN. CHARLES H. SWANNACK, JR., 0000
BRIG. GEN. TERRY L. TUCKER, 0000
BRIG. GEN. JOHN R. WOOD, 0000

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be vice admiral

VICE ADM. WALTER F. DORAN, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be vice admiral

REAR ADM. JOSEPH W. DYER, 0000

IN THE AIR FORCE

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

CATHERINE T. BACON, 0000
KARIN G. MURPHY, 0000

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED
STATES OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE
RESERVE OF THE ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203
AND 12211:

To be colonel

BRENT M. BOYLES, 0000
EMILE R. DUPERE, 0000
WILLIAM A. HOSE, 0000
MEADE G. LONG III, 0000
JACK T. OGLE, 0000
FRANK J. TODERICO, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND FOR REGULAR
APPOINTMENT IN THE MEDICAL CORPS OR DENTAL CORPS (IDENTIFIED
BY AN ASTERISK(*)) UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C. SECTIONS 624, 531
AND 3064:

To be colonel

*ROBERT S. ADAMS, JR, 0000 MC
YVONNE M. ANDEJESKI, 0000 MC
VINCENT C. BENTLEY, 0000 MC
BENJAMIN W. BERG, 0000 MC
KENNETH A. BERTRAM, 0000 MC
MARK D. BRISSETTE, 0000 MC
JAMES E. BRUCKART, 0000 MC
RALF P. BRUECKNER, 0000 MC
CHRISHON S. BURT, 0000 DE
JOHN J. BUYER, JR, 0000 DE
KEVIN J. CARLIN, 0000 MC
JOHN D. CASLER, 0000 MC
EDWARD CATHRIGHT, JR, 0000 DE
WILLIAM M. CHAMBERLIN, 0000 MC
EDWARD R. CHESLA, 0000 DE
*RYO S. CHUN, 0000 MC
ELIZABETH E. CORRENTI, 0000 MC
MARC G. COTE, 0000 MC
LEMUEL L. COVINGTON, 0000 DE
TIMOTHY W. CRAIN, 0000 MC
STEVEN E. CROSS, 0000 DE
DAVID F. CRUDO, 0000 MC
CHARLENE A. CZUSZAK, 0000 DE
JIMMY R. DANIELS, 0000 DE
RANDY N. DAVIS, 0000 DE
MICHAEL G. DORAN, 0000 DE
JOSEPH J. DRABICK, 0000 MC
STEVEN L. EIKENBERG, 0000 DE
DAVID C. ELLIOTT, 0000 MC
ROBERT B. ELLIS, 0000 MC
WILLIAM C. ELTON, 0000 DE
WILLIAM S. EVANS, JR, 0000 MC
*MICHAEL E. FARAN, 0000 MC
BRIAN H. FEIGHNER, 0000 MC
TRENT C. FILLER, 0000 DE
JOSEPH P. FRENO, JR, 0000 DE
WILLIAM B. GAMBLE, 0000 MC
JOHN M. GRIFFIES, 0000 DE
STEVEN R. GRIMES, 0000 MC
JEFFREY L. HAIUM, 0000 DE
KEVIN L. HALL, 0000 MC
DAVID K. HAYES, 0000 MC
RICHARD D. HEEKIN, 0000 MC
DAVID R. HILL, 0000 DE
STEVEN D. HOKETT, 0000 DE
*ISMAIL JATOI, 0000 MC
JOHN A. JOHNSON, 0000 MC
DAVID L. JONES, 0000 MC
THOMAS A. JORDAN, 0000 DE
DANIEL S. JORGENSON, 0000 MC
RICHARD W. KRAMP, 0000 MC
MARGOT R. KRAUSS, 0000 MC
*STEVEN G. LANG, 0000 MC
STEVEN B. LARSON, 0000 MC
JAMES G. MADISON, III, 0000 DE
JAMES R. MALCOLM, 0000 MC
DAVID W. MARTIN, 0000 MC
ROBERT R. MARTIN, 0000 MC
MARK E. MCCLARY, 0000 DE
GEORGE B. MC CLURE, 0000 MC
PETER L. MC EVOY, 0000 MC
GEORGE W. MC MILLIAN, 0000 DE
DALIA R. MERCEDBRUNO, 0000 MC
GORDON B. MILLER, JR, 0000 MC
JULIA A. MORGAN, 0000 MC
DAVID D. MUKAI, 0000 MC
CRIS P. MYERS, 0000 MC
STEVEN A. OLDER, 0000 MC
DAVID T. ORMAN, 0000 MC
VERNON C. PARMLEY, 0000 MC
PHILLIP H. PATRIDGE, 0000 DE
ALAN D. PEARSON, 0000 MC
RUSSELL C. PECK, 0000 DE
PATRICIA A. POWERS, 0000 MC
JON A. PROCTOR, 0000 MC
THOMAS J. REID III, 0000 MC
PAUL C. REYNOLDS, 0000 MC
THOMAS A. ROZANSKI, 0000 MC
ARTHUR C. SCOTT, 0000 DE
ROBERT L. SHEFFLER, 0000 MC
KARL C. STAJDUHAR, 0000 MC
WELLINGTON SUN, 0000 MC
GEOFFREY A. THOMPSON, 0000 DE
*MICHAEL B. TIERNEY, 0000 MC
ROBERT A. TONEY, 0000 DE
GEORGE C. TSOKOS, 0000 MC
DEAN S. UYENO, 0000 DE
DAVID W. VAUGHN, 0000 MC
DOUGLAS N. WADE, 0000 DE
VAN E. WAHLGREN, 0000 MC
PAUL G. WELCH, 0000 MC
*SHARON A. WEST, 0000 MC
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY AND FOR REGULAR
APPOINTMENT IN THE MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS (MS), MEDICAL
SPECIALIST CORPS (SP), VETERINARY CORPS (VC) AND NURSE CORPS
(AN) (IDENTIFIED BY AN ASTERISK(*)) UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTIONS 624, 531, AND 3064:

To be major

*ROBIN M. ADAMS-MC CALLUM, 0000 AN
*WADE K. ALDOUS, 0000 MS
*ANTHONY M. ARMSTRONG, 0000 MS
*LLOYNETTA H. ARTIS, 0000 AN
*DAVID A. AUT, 0000 MS
*MARVELLA BAILEY, 0000 AN
*DEAN S. BANCROFT, 0000 MS
*WILLIAM P. BARRAS, 0000 AN
*RICHARD E. BAXTER, 0000 SP
*JOHN C. BEACH, 0000 VC
*JAMES R. BEAN, 0000 SP
*DAVID P. BEAUCHENE, 0000 MS
*THOMAS A. BELL, 0000 MS
*STEPHEN M. BENTZ, 0000 MS
*REX A BERGGREN, 0000 MS
*KENNETH J. BETHARDS, 0000 AN
*JAMIE A. BLOW, 0000 MS
*WILLA R. BOBBITT, 0000 SP
*ROBERT S. BOHAM, 0000 MS
*ANTHONY J. BOHLIN, 0000 AN
*SCOTT D. BORMANIS, 0000 VC
*TIMOTHY G. BOSETTI, 0000 MS
*SHARON W. BOWERS, 0000 MS
*JAMES C. BOXMEYER, 0000 MS
*ROBERT E. BOYLES, 0000 SP
*TODD J. BRIERE, 0000 MS
*MATTHEW S. BROOKS, 0000 MS
*MURIEL L. BROWN, 0000 MS
*WILLIAM D. BRUNSON, JR., 0000 MS
*THOMAS S. BUNDT, 0000 MS
*NELSON BURGOSVIERA, 0000 AN
*CHARLES L. BURTON, 0000 MS
*JOSEPH T. CABELL, 0000 AN
*THOMAS G. CAHILL, 0000 AN
*DEBORAH M. CANADA, 0000 MS
*JOHN L. CANADY, II, 0000 AN
*REAGON P. CARR, 0000 MS
*RENE W. CARRIGAN, 0000 MS
*MICHELLE C. CARROLL, 0000 MS
*NAOMI S. CHILDRES, 0000 AN
*MARY R. CHIZMAR, 0000 MS
*STEPHEN A. CIMA, 0000 MS
*MICHAEL N. CLEMENSHAW, 0000 MS
*EDDRICK B. CLYATT, 0000 MS
*CHRISTOPHER COLACICCO, 0000 MS
*ROBERT C. CONRAD, 0000 MS
*MICHAEL R. COOPER, 0000 AN
*NORMANDIA J. COSME, 0000 MS
*KATHLEEN E. COUGHLIN, 0000 AN
*JOEL S. CRADDOCK, 0000 MS
*DEBORAH J. CRAWFORD, 0000 AN
*DAISY M. DAVIS, 0000 AN
*EARL D. DAVIS, 0000 AN
*MICHAEL B. DAVIS, 0000 MS
*PAUL J. DAVIS, 0000 MS
*KENNETH E. DESPAIN, 0000 VC
*PAUL R. DICKINSON, 0000 AN
*GEORGETTE M. DIGGS, 0000 AN
*PAULA DOULAVERIS, 0000 MS
*SHANDRA R. DRAYTON, 0000 AN
*RICHARD P. DUNCAN, 0000 MS
*RAYMOND DURANT, 0000 MS
*ROBERT P. DURKEE, 0000 AN
*CHRISTINE L. EDWARDS, 0000 SP
*SCOTT G. EHNES, 0000 MS
*ROBERT A. ELIESON, 0000 AN
*SAMUEL L. ELLIS, 0000 MS
*BENJAMIN H. ERVIN, 0000 MS
*FRANKIE L. EVANS, 0000 AN
*ANDREW J. FABRIZIO, 0000 SP
*SCOTT H FISCHER, 0000 MS
*WILLIAM S. FLOURNOY, 0000 VC
*DARREN K. FONG, 0000 MS
*LISA A. FORSYTH, 0000 MS
*ELIZABETH A. FRALEY, 0000 AN
*PETER M. FRANCO, 0000 MS
*ELLEN H. GALLOWAY, 0000 MS
*VIVIAN B. GAMBLES, 0000 AN
*DAWN M. GARCIA, 0000 AN
*PATRICK M. GARMAN, 0000 MS
*ROGER S. GEERTSEMA, 0000 VC
*WILLIAM E. GEESEY, 0000 MS
*JOHN P. GERBER, 0000 SP
*NORMAN F. GLOVER, 0000 AN
*AGUSTIN S. GOGUE, 0000 MS
*KERRIE J. GOLDEN, 0000 SP
*RAOUL F. GONZALES, 0000 VC
*JOSE L. GONZALEZ, 0000 AN
*CHAD B. GOODERHAM, 0000 AN
*KEVIN M. GOPON, 0000 MS
*SONG H. GOTIANGCO, 0000 MS
*MARY P. GOVEKAR, 0000 MS
*PATRICK W. GRADY, 0000 MS
*LILLIAN GREEN, 0000 AN
*EVERETT W. GREGORY, JR., 0000 MS
*SARAH L. HALE, 0000 VC
*CAROL F. HALLE, 0000 AN
*LAWRENCE W. HALLSTROM, 0000 MS
*JAMES P. HANLON, 0000 MS
*LARRY G. HARRIS, 0000 SP
*MENDALOSE O. HARRIS, 0000 AN
*MICHAEL L. HARRIS, 0000 AN
*LORI D. HENNESSY, 0000 SP
*JEFFREY S. HILLARD, 0000 MS
*LARRY W. HOFF, 0000 SP
*SUSAN M. HOLLIDAY, 0000 AN
*REBECCA K. HOLT, 0000 VC
*RICHARD W. HOYT, JR., 0000 MS
*VERA L. HUDGENS, 0000 MS
*JENNIFER L. HUMPHRIES, 0000 MS
*JOHN E. HURLEY III, 0000 SP
*JOSELITO S. IGNACIO, 0000 MS
*PATRICK M. JENKINS, 0000 AN
*LOUISE D. JOHNSON, 0000 AN
*JEAN M. JONES, 0000 AN
*LAMONT G. KAPEC, 0000 MS
*MICHAEL J. KAPP, 0000 AN
*JAMES R. KELLEY, 0000 MS
*MICHAEL D. KENNEDY, 0000 SP
*LYLE D. KEPLINGER, JR., 0000 AN
*DENNIS B. KILIAN, 0000 MS
*JOHN D. KING, 0000 AN
*RICHARD J. KING, 0000 MS
*LINDA M. KNAPP, 0000 MS
*BRIAN K. KONDRAT, 0000 AN
*KAREN M. KOPYDLOWSKI, 0000 MS
*STUART R. KOSER, 0000 AN
*JOYCE M. KRAIMER, 0000 MS
*KATHLEEN M. KRAL, 0000 VC
*MARK D. KRUEGER, 0000 MS
*RANDY J. LANDRY, 0000 AN
*HEIDI M. LANG, 0000 VC
*WILLIE H. LATTIMORE, 0000 MS
*STEVE R. LAWRENCE, 0000 VC
*LISA A. LEHNING, 0000 AN
*PETER A. LEHNING, 0000 MS
*VINCENT L. LETO, 0000 AN
*ANGELIQUE R. LIKELY, 0000 AN
*STEPHEN J. LINCK, 0000 AN
*DAVID T. LINDBLAD, 0000 SP
*BRIDGET E. LITTLE, 0000 AN
MARK B. LITTLE, 0000 MS
*JEFFREY LOCKWOOD, 0000 AN
PAULA C. LODI, 0000 MS
*JULIE C. LOMAX, 0000 AN
*ANTHONY J. LOPICCOLO, JR., 0000 MS

[[Page 9560]]

*JOHN H. LOREY, 0000 MS
*SHANNON M. LYNCH, 0000 SP
*JENNY M. MAC DONALD, 0000 MS
*ROSEMARY A. MACKEY, 0000 AN
*PETER J. MARINICH, 0000 AN
RICK L. MARTIN, 0000 AN
STEVEN R. MATSON, 0000 MS
GORDON D. MAYES, 0000 MS
SCOTT D. MC DANNOLD, 0000 AN
*TERENCE S. MC DOWELL, 0000 MS
*BRUCE G. MC LENNAN, 0000 SP
*DANNY J. MC MILLIAN, 0000 SP
*JOHN B. MC NALLY, 0000 MS
*HECTOR L. MENDOZA, 0000 MS
*DONALD W. MILLER, 0000 AN
*TINA L. MILSTEAD, 0000 AN
DAVID G. MOATS, 0000 MS
*ROBERT D. MON, 0000 MS
*WADE D. MORCOM, 0000 AN
*HEATHER H. MORIYAMA, 0000 SP
*ANDREA K. MORMILE, JR., 0000 VC
*LYNNE M. MORRIS, 0000 SP
*VENEE MORTHOLE, I, 0000 VC
*ANTHONY F. MORTON, 0000 SP
*ARTHUR R. MORTON III, 0000 MS
DANNY J. MORTON, 0000 MS
*KELLY C. MOSS, 0000 MS
RICHARD G. MUCKERMAN, 0000 AN
KEVIN J. MULALLEY, 0000 MS
*PETER H. MURDOCK, 0000 AN
*DINO L. MURPHY, 0000 MS
*NOREEN A. MURPHY, 0000 VC
*LAURA E. NEWKIRK, 0000 AN
*RHONDA D. NEWSOME, 0000 AN
*JOSEPH NOVAK, JR., 0000 VC
ANDREW R. OBRIEN, 0000 SP
JOHN C. OSBORN, 0000 MS
*TERRY G. OWENS, 0000 MS
*JANET D. PAIGE, 0000 AN
*SANG J. PAK, 0000 MS
BONNIE L. PAPPASSOLITAIRE, 0000 AN
*JACK PERRY, JR., 0000 MS
*JENNIFER B. PETERS, 0000 AN
*RIVERA L. PETERSEN, 0000 AN
*LLOYD T. PHINNEY, 0000 VC
*RAYMOND L. PHUA, 0000 SP
*AMERICA PLANAS, 0000 AN
*AZIZ N. QABAR, 0000 MS
TIMOTHY J. RAPP, 0000 MS
*JENNI L. READING, 0000 AN
*REGINALD J. RICHARDS, 0000 MS
*DWIGHT L. RICKARD, 0000 MS
*EFREN L. ROSA, 0000 AN
*BRADY H. ROSE, 0000 MS
*MICHELLE W. ROSECRANS, 0000 AN
*ROBERT R. ROUSSEL, 0000 MS
*MATTHEW M. RUEST, 0000 AN
*PAMELA J. RUGGIERO, 0000 MS
*JOHN A. RUIBAL, 0000 SP
*PIETER A. RUTKOWSKI, 0000 AN
*BRETT H. SALADINO, 0000 VC
*MICHAEL A. SALAMY, 0000 MS
*JAMES L. SALL, 0000 AN
PAUL M. SANDER, 0000 MS
*JOHN G. SANDERS, 0000 MS
*MARTA E. SANDERS, 0000 AN
*MICHAEL R. SARDELIS, 0000 MS
*SARAH W. SAUER, 0000 AN
*JOHN M. SCHWARZ, 0000 SP
*CELESTINE A. SECTION, 0000 AN
*DAVID W. SEIFFERT, 0000 AN
*TERRY L. SHIER, 0000 AN
*ANNE M. SILVASY, 0000 AN
*AMELIA M. SMITH, 0000 AN
*ANDREW J. SMITH, 0000 MS
*PHILIP L. SMITH, 0000 MS
*ZACHARY D. SMITH, 0000 MS
*LISA M. SNYDER, 0000 AN
*SHAUNA L. SNYDER, 0000 MS
*JAMES W. SOUTH, 0000 SP
*DAVID M. SPERO, 0000 MS
*SARA J. SPIELMANN, 0000 SP
*MARGARET M. STUBNER, 0000 AN
*SHANNON A. STUTLER, 0000 VC
*MARIA B. SUMMERS, 0000 AN
*SANDRA L. SUMMERS, 0000 AN
*KERRY J. SWEET, 0000 MS
*LINDA A. SWENSON, 0000 AN
*AMY L. SWIECICHOWSKI, 0000 MS
*THOMAS A. SYDES, JR., 0000 MS
*MICHAEL J. TALLEY, 0000 MS
*GARY E. TALSMA, 0000 MS
*SYDNA L. TAYLOR, 0000 MS
*MAX L. TEEHEE, 0000 VC
*ANGELA D. THIBAULTWOODS, 0000 MS
*LISA A. TOVEN, 0000 AN
*LORI L. TREGO, 0000 AN
*JAMES E. TUTEN, 0000 MS
*GARY L. VEGH, 0000 AN
*JOSE R. VELEZRODRIGUEZ, 0000 AN
*HEIDI K. VIGEANT, 0000 AN
*ROBERT J. VOLLMUTH, 0000 MS
*ERIC L. WADE, 0000 MS
*WANDA C. WADE, 0000 MS
*MICHAEL J. WALKER, 0000 SP
*CATHY M. WALTER, 0000 AN
*ROBIN L. WALTERS, 0000 AN
*CHRISTOPHER A. WARING, 0000 SP
*NOVELLA C. WASHINGTON, 0000 MS
*GREGORY A. WEAVER, 0000 SP
*JERALD L. WELLS, 0000 SP
*RODERICK S. WHITE, 0000 MS
*WAYNE H. WHITE, 0000 MS
*WAYNE K. WHITTENBERG, 0000 AN
*EVELYN J. WILLIAMS, 0000 AN
*KANDACE J. WOLF, 0000 AN
*BRIDGET C. WOLFE, 0000 AN
*COLLEEN D. WOLFORD, 0000 AN
*STEPHEN C. WOOLDRIDGE, 0000 MS
*EDWARD E. YACKEL, 0000 AN
TOU T. YANG, 0000 MS
ESMERALDO ZARZABAL, JR., 0000 MS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE MEDICAL CORPS (MC)
AND DENTAL CORPS (DE) UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 624
AND 3064:

To be major

KELLY L. ABBRESCIA, 0000 MC
MICHAEL T. ADAMS, 0000 MC
TODD S. ALBRIGHT, 0000 MC
JERRY B. AMMON, 0000 MC
JOSE P. ANZILOTTI, 0000 MC
GERALD M. ARNOLD, 0000 MC
AMY J. ASATO, 0000 MC
RICHARD M. ASTAFAN, 0000 MC
JANE M. BARKER, 0000 MC
TRACY J. BARNETT, 0000 MC
VINCENT J. BARNHART, 0000 MC
JOHN P. BARRETT, 0000 MC
TIMOTHY P. BARRON, 0000 MC
JAMES D. BARRY, 0000 MC
CHRISTY W. BATTS, 0000 MC
WILLIAM K. BAXTER, 0000 MC
ANTHONY A. BEARDMORE, 0000 MC
GARY W. BEAVER, 0000 MC
BRENT J. BELL, 0000 MC
PHILIP J. BELMONT, 0000 MC
THELMA D. BENDECK, 0000 MC
PAUL D. BENNE, 0000 MC
MICHAEL B. BERRY, 0000 MC
LESLIE A. BORD, 0000 MC
MARK E. BOSELEY, 0000 MC
DANIEL J. BOUDREAUX, 0000 MC
BARBARA L. BOWSHER, 0000 MC
DOUGLAS A. BOYER, 0000 MC
MELVILLE D. BRADLEY, 0000 MC
STEVEN M. BRADY, 0000 MC
ERIC T. BREITER, 0000 MC
KENT G. BROCKMANN, 0000 MC
LAWRENCE D. BRODER, 0000 MC
CHARLES M. BROWN, 0000 MC
STEPHEN J. BROWN, 0000 MC
ROGER A. BROWNE, 0000 MC
PAUL C. BURNEY, 0000 MC
DARLENE M. BURNS, 0000 MC
THOMAS E. BYRNE, 0000 MC
TIMOTHY J. CAFFREY, 0000 MC
ARTHUR B. CAJIGAL, 0000 MC
WALTER CANNON, JR., 0000 MC
MICHAEL F. CARNUCCIO, 0000 MC
SEAN T. CARROLL, 0000 MC
VICTORIA W. CARTWRIGHT, 0000 MC
JEFFERSON P. CASTO, 0000 MC
VIOLA CHEN, 0000 MC
MARK A. CHISHOM, 0000 DE
KAO B. CHOU, 0000 MC
PAUL CHUPKA, 0000 MC
DAVID S. COBB, 0000 MC
HENRY B. COHEN, 0000 MC
TAMMY L. COLES, 0000 MC
JOHN R. COLLINGHAM, 0000 MC
JOHN J. COMBS, 0000 MC
AMY B. CONNORS, 0000 MC
ELLIS O. COOPER III, 0000 MC
GEORGE L. COPPIT III, 0000 MC
MARCO A. CORCHADOBARRETO, 0000 MC
CORINNE F. COYNER, 0000 MC
DONALD M. CRAWFORD, 0000 MC
SCOTT M. CROLL, 0000 MC
PEDRO J. CRUZTORRES, 0000 MC
JUAN E. CUEBAS, 0000 MC
GEORGE H. CUMMINGS, JR., 0000 MC
TIMOTHY M. CUPERO, 0000 MC
DONA C. DAHL, 0000 MC
ERIK A. DAHL, 0000 MC
JULIET M. DANIEL, 0000 MC
RUSSELL A. DAVIDSON, 0000 MC
SHELTON A. DAVIS, 0000 MC
DOUGLAS A. DEGLER, 0000 MC
MICHAEL J. DELGADO, 0000 DE
PAULA M. DENNERLEIN, 0000 MC
JUDITH K. DENTON, 0000 MC
TROY M. DENUNZIO, 0000 MC
JOHN P. DEUEL, 0000 MC
PETER G. DEVEAUX, 0000 MC
JEANNE C. DILLON, 0000 MC
MICHAEL E. DINOS, 0000 DE
JAMES T. DODGE, 0000 MC
STEPHANIE R. EARHART, 0000 MC
JOHN S. EARWOOD, 0000 MC
MARY E. EARWOOD, 0000 MC
DAVID M. EASTY, 0000 MC
MARSHALL E. EIDENBERG, 0000 MC
VESNA ELE, 0000 DE
JIMMY S. ELLIS, 0000 MC
STEPHEN R. ELLISON, 0000 MC
JAY C. ERICKSON, 0000 MC
KAREN C. EVANS, 0000 MC
ANDRE FALLOT, 0000 MC
JOHN W. FAUGHT, 0000 MC
FREDERICK A. FENDERSON, 0000 DE
TOMAS M. FERGUSON, 0000 MC
DOUGLAS S. FILES, 0000 MC
ROGER K. FINCHER, 0000 MC
LOUIS N. FINELLI, 0000 MC
WALTER A. FINK, JR., 0000 MC
ERIC J. FISHER, 0000 MC
THOMAS R. FITZSIMMONS, 0000 MC
CHRISTIAN M. FLYNN, 0000 MC
DAVID A. FOHRMAN, 0000 MC
KAMALA P. FOSTER, 0000 MC
CHARLES J. FOX, 0000 MC
STEPHANIE R. FUGATE, 0000 MC
DOMINIC R. GALLO, 0000 MC
KEVIN J. GANCARCZYK, 0000 MC
TIMOTHY A. GARDNER, 0000 MC
MITCHELL A. GARRISON, 0000 MC
ALAN GATLIN, 0000 MC
ROGER L. GELPERIN, 0000 MC
BARNETT T. GIBBS, 0000 MC
NEIL C. GILLESPIE, 0000 MC
THEODORE E. GLYNN, 0000 MC
BENJAMIN S. GONZALEZ, 0000 MC
CHARLES M. GOODEN, 0000 MC
KIM E. GOODSELL, 0000 MC
CHRISTOPHER G. GORING, 0000 MC
ANDREW C. GORSKE, 0000 MC
LEONARD J. GRADO, 0000 MC
JAMES D. GRADY, 0000 MC
STEVE A. GRANADA, 0000 MC
BARRY L. GREEN, 0000 MC
MARK E. GREEN, 0000 MC
SCOTT D. GREENWALD, 0000 MC
MELANIE L. GUERRERO, 0000 MC
KATHRYN A. HACKMAN, 0000 MC
MARK I. HAINER, 0000 MC
ERIC A. HALL, 0000 DE
MICHAEL C. HARNISCH, 0000 MC
STEPHEN A. HARRISON, 0000 MC
JOHN P. HARVEY, 0000 MC
PETER W. HEETDERKS, 0000 MC
MICHAEL D. HENRY, 0000 DE
STEPHEN M. HENRY, 0000 MC
THOMAS M. HERNDON, 0000 MC
MARK L. HIGDON, 0000 MC
DEMETRICE L. HILL, 0000 MC
KEITH J. HILL, 0000 MC
HOWARD R. HOLBROOKS, 0000 MC
MICHAEL G. HOLMAN, 0000 MC
PHILLIP S. HOLMES, 0000 MC
KURTIS R. HOLT, 0000 MC
ANTHONY L. HORALEK, 0000 DE
EDWARD E. HORVATH, 0000 MC
MICHAEL D. HUBER, 0000 MC
ROBERT W. HUNTER, 0000 MC
FAHEEM HUSSAIN, 0000 MC
JAE I. HWANG, 0000 DE
MARK R. JACKSON, 0000 MC
AARON L. JACOB, 0000 MC
JEFFREY A. JACOBY, 0000 MC
RICHARD K. JANSEN, 0000 MC
DEREK K. JOHNSON, 0000 MC
JEFFREY A. JOHNSON, 0000 MC
PATRICIA P. JONAS, 0000 MC
BRIAN P. JONES, 0000 MC
HEKYUNG L. JUNG, 0000 DE
JENNIFER S. JURGENS, 0000 MC
SHAWN F. KANE, 0000 MC
DEAN E. KARAS, 0000 MC
SANJIV M. KAUL, 0000 MC
SEAN KEENAN, 0000 MC
STEVEN M. KENT, 0000 MC
LLOYD H. KETCHUM, 0000 MC
JESSICA H. KIM, 0000 MC
RICHARD J. KING, 0000 MC
SCOTT E. KINKADE, 0000 MC
ELIZABETH T. KINZIE, 0000 MC
HOMER E. KIRBY III, 0000 MC
PETER F. KIRKHAM, 0000 MC
CHRISTOPHER KLEM, 0000 MC
JOHN E. KOBERT, 0000 MC
STACEY G. KOFF, 0000 MC
SEAN C. KOSKINEN, 0000 MC
CHRISTINE M. KOVAC, 0000 MC
DANIEL L. KRASHIN, 0000 MC
MARY V. KRUEGER, 0000 MC
GEORGE M. KYLE, 0000 MC
JAVIER E. LAGUNARAMOS, 0000 MC
NEIL J. LAHURD, JR., 0000 MC
DZUNG V. LE, 0000 MC
TIMOTHY C. LEE, 0000 MC
RICHARD T. LEI, 0000 DE
COLLEEN M. LENNARD, 0000 MC
JACK E. LEWI, 0000 MC
TO S. LI, 0000 MC
ANTHONY C. LITTRELL, 0000 MC
JOHN D. LIVERINGHOUSE, 0000 MC
JOHN J. LLOYD, 0000 MC
CELESTE M. LOMBARDI, 0000 MC
MALCOLM C. MACLAREN, 0000 MC
ANTHONY MAIORANA, 0000 DE
JAMIL A. MALIK, 0000 MC
MICHAEL A. MALLOY, 0000 MC
KRISTEN M. MANCUSO, 0000 MC
ANTHONY C. MANILLA, 0000 MC
ANDREA R. MANZO, 0000 MC
MICHAEL D. MARSH, 0000 MC
DAVID C. MARTIN, 0000 MC
MARYANN MASONE, 0000 MC
PHILLIP L. MASSENGILL, 0000 MC
PARNELL C. MATTISON, 0000 MC
EDWARD L. MC DANIEL, 0000 MC
MYRON B. MC DANIELS, 0000 MC
HOUDE L. MC GRAIL, 0000 MC
PAUL A. MC GRIFF, 0000 DE

[[Page 9561]]

MARK K. MC PHERSON, 0000 MC
MARLA R. MELENDEZ, 0000 MC
RENE F. MELENDEZ, 0000 MC
JULIE A. MESSNER, 0000 MC
MELLISSA A. MEYER, 0000 MC
MICHAEL S. MEYER, 0000 MC
ROBERT L. MILLER, 0000 MC
TIMOTHY P. MONAHAN, 0000 MC
JAIME L. MONTILLASOLER, 0000 MC
KEVIN E. MOORE, 0000 MC
ROBERT W. MOORE, 0000 MC
KIMBERLY A. MORAN, 0000 MC
MICHAEL D. MOREHOUSE, 0000 DE
JAMES J. MORRIS, 0000 MC
JAMES H. MUELLER, 0000 DE
JOHN P. MULLIGAN, 0000 MC
JOSEPH A. MUNARETTO, 0000 MC
SHAWN C. NESSEN, 0000 MC
LORANCE H. NEWBURN, 0000 MC
STACEY R. NIEDER, 0000 MC
ALEXAN E. NIVEN, 0000 MC
TAKARA K. NOVOA, 0000 MC
JODY L. NUZZO, 0000 MC
RICARDO C. ONG, 0000 MC
JOSEPH R. ORCHOWSKI, 0000 MC
MICHAEL S. OSHIKI, 0000 MC
NEIL E. PAGE, 0000 MC
DOUGLAS W. PAHL, 0000 MC
ANDREW D. PALALAY, 0000 DE
DONG S. PARK, 0000 DE
KIP K. PARK, 0000 MC
SARA J. PASTOOR, 0000 MC
KIMBERLEY L. PERKINS, 0000 DE
JAMES L. PERSSON, 0000 MC
ANDREW C. PETERSON, 0000 MC
CECILY K. PETERSON, 0000 MC
THERON M. PETTIT, 0000 MC
ANDREW W. PIASECKI, 0000 MC
DONALD J. PIERANTOZZI, 0000 MC
AMY A. PITTMAN, 0000 MC
JULIE S. PLATT, 0000 MC
THOMAS R. PLUMERI, 0000 MC
JEANNE M. POITRAS, 0000 MC
ROGER D. POLISH, 0000 MC
FULTON L. PORTER III, 0000 MC
JOHN T. PRESSON, 0000 MC
MICHAEL W. PRICE, 0000 MC
RAFAEL L. PRIETO, JR., 0000 MC
MAXIMILIAN PSOLKA, 0000 MC
RAYMOND P. RADANOVICH, 0000 MC
ALVARADO O. RAMOS, 0000 MC
MITCHELL J. RAMSEY, 0000 MC
JOHN C. RAYFIELD, 0000 MC
SCOTT T. REHRIG, 0000 MC
ERIC C. RICE, 0000 MC
DAVID E. RISTEDT, 0000 MC
SCOTTIE B. ROOFE, 0000 MC
RICHARD C. ROONEY, 0000 MC
ANTONIO A. ROSA, 0000 MC
MICHAEL K. ROSNER, 0000 MC
MICHAEL C. ROYER, 0000 MC
RICHARD J. SAAD, 0000 MC
ROBERTO J. SARTORI, 0000 MC
STEPHEN L. SCHMIDT, 0000 MC
BRETT J. SCHNEIDER, 0000 MC
STEPHANIE L. SCHULTZ, 0000 MC
WILLIAM D. SCHULTZ, 0000 DE
GEORGE R. SCOTT, 0000 MC
STEPHEN R. SEARS, 0000 MC
JAMES A. SEBESTA, 0000 MC
MARK D. SHALAUTA, 0000 MC
ELIZABETH C. SHANLEY, 0000 MC
SCOTT B. SHAWEN, 0000 MC
RACHELLE E. SHERER, 0000 MC
LARRY J. SHRANATAN, 0000 MC
DEVEN SHROFF, 0000 DE
GRADY V. SHUE, JR., 0000 MC
MARK L. SIMMONS, 0000 MC
CLAYTON D. SIMON, 0000 MC
DARRELL E. SINGER, 0000 MC
ATUL SINGH, 0000 MC
ROBERT D. SKALA, 0000 MC
JOHN F. SLOBODA, 0000 MC
MICHAEL E. SMITH, 0000 MC
IDA M. SMLOPEZ, 0000 MC
ELIZABETH A. SNYDER, 0000 MC
PRISCILLA SONGSANAND, 0000 MC
BRIAN J. SONKA, 0000 MC
DALE A. SPENCER, 0000 MC
PHILIP C. SPINELLA, 0000 MC
JAMES J. STEIN, 0000 MC
CHARLES A. STILLMAN, 0000 MC
JON D. STINEMAN, 0000 DE
ROBERT L. STONE, 0000 DE
AMY L. STRAIN, 0000 MC
GEORGE M. STRICKLAND, 0000 MC
WILLIAM A. STRICKLING, 0000 MC
PETER J. STULL, 0000 MC
PREM S. SUBRAMANIAN, 0000 MC
HELEN M. SUNG, 0000 MC
STEVEN J. SVOBODA, 0000 MC
ROBERT D. SWIFT, 0000 MC
IRA P. SY, 0000 DE
STEVEN J. TANKSLEY, 0000 MC
BANGORN S. TERRY, 0000 DE
BRUCE E. THOMAS, 0000 MC
DAVID E. THOMAS, 0000 MC
ALVIN Y. TIU, 0000 MC
STEVEN K. TOBLER, 0000 MC
RAYMOND F. TOPP, 0000 MC
ROLANDO TORRES, 0000 MC
MARY A. TRAN, 0000 MC
LADD A. TREMAINE, 0000 MC
FERNANDO C. TRESPALACIOS, 0000 MC
DAWN C. UITHOL, 0000 MC
MARISOL VEGADERUCK, 0000 MC
RICARDO J. VENDRELL, 0000 DE
ADA M. VENTURA, 0000 MC
DAVID M. WALLACE, 0000 MC
PAULA M. WALLACE, 0000 MC
MICHAEL J. WALTS, 0000 MC
ANDREW J. WARGO, 0000 DE
KURT R. WASHBURN, 0000 MC
BRUCE K. WEATHERS, 0000 MC
CHARLES W. WEBB, 0000 MC
HEIDI L. WEBSTER, 0000 MC
ALDEN L. WEG, 0000 MC
ROBERT R. WELCH, 0000 MC
CHARLES F. WENNOGLE JR., 0000 MC
ROBERT B. WENZEL, 0000 MC
LELAND P. WERNER, 0000 MC
ROBERT R. WESTERMEYER II, 0000 MC
DARREN T. WHEELER, 0000 MC
BRADFORD P. WHITCOMB, 0000 MC
JASON S. WIEMAN, 0000 MC
TANYA A. WIESE, 0000 MC
ELLIS J. WILLIAMS, 0000 MC
KEITH J. WILSON, 0000 DE
SHAWN H. WILSON, 0000 MC
JOSHUA B. WINSLOW, 0000 MC
JEFFREY L. WOLFF, 0000 MC
RONALD N. WOOL, 0000 MC
GAIL A. WOOLHISER, 0000 DE
EYAKO K. WURAPA, 0000 MC
GUO Z. YAO, 0000 MC
KEN YEW, 0000 MC
SOPHIA L. YOHE, 0000 MC
DANIEL J. YOST, 0000 MC
ROBERT J. ZABEL, 0000 MC
TIMOTHY J. ZEIEN II, 0000 MC

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE
INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be colonel

ARTHUR J. ATHENS, 0000
GREGORY J. BAUR, 0000
CAREY L. BEARD, 0000
DANNY R. BUBP, 0000
RAYMOND L. BURKART, 0000
KEVIN O. CARMODY, 0000
THOMAS E. CAVANAUGH, 0000
MICHAEL G. CHESTON, 0000
JAMES J. COGHLAN, 0000
TERENCE M. COUGHLIN, 0000
WILLARD D. CRAGG, 0000
RICK D. CRAIG, 0000
JOHN M. CROLEY, 0000
JAMES E. DEOTTE, 0000
THOMAS E. DEOTZER, 0000
CHRISTOPHER E. DOUGHERTY, 0000
JEFFREY J. DOUGLASS, 0000
STEPHEN S. EVANS, 0000
WENDELL S. FINCH, 0000
REGINALD J. GHIDEN, 0000
FRANK R. GUNTER, 0000
DONALD E. HANCOCK, 0000
LAWRENCE E. HOLST, 0000
CHARLES A. JONES, 0000
JOSEPH R. KENNEDY, 0000
BRADLEY C. LAPISKA, 0000
DAVID M. LARSEN, 0000
JOSEPH W. LYDON III, 0000
THOMAS E. MANION, 0000
DAN R. MATER, 0000
SAMUEL D. MCVEY, 0000
MARK E. MEDVETZ, 0000
ROBERT L. MILLER, 0000
TRACY L. MORK, 0000
SCOTT S. OLSEN, 0000
WILLIAM C. PALMER, 0000
CHARLES H. PANGBURN III, 0000
KEITH J. PAVLISCHEK, 0000
ROY A. PEARSON, 0000
LLOYD L. PORTERFIELD II, 0000
ELARIO SEVERO, 0000
BENSON M. STEIN, 0000
SCOTT B. STOKES, 0000
BRIAN P. TURCOTT, 0000
STEVEN B. VITALI, 0000
CARL L. WALKER, 0000
CRAIG L. WALLEN, 0000
DAVID T. WILLIAMS, 0000
WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS III, 0000
MARC A. WORKMAN, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE
CORPS FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C. SECTION
531:

To be major

TRAY J. ARDESE, 0000
JAVIER J. BALL, 0000
BRIAN T. BALLARD, 0000
LLOYD E. BONZO II, 0000
ROBERT D. DASCH, JR., 0000
ROBERTO J. GOMEZ, 0000
BRIAN J. KAPPLE, 0000
MICHAEL F. KENNY, 0000
DOUGLAS C. KLEMM, 0000
DOUGLAS J. KUMBALEK, 0000
JOHN A. MULLIN, 0000
JOHN J. NEYLON, 0000
SEAN P. ODOHERTY, 0000
BENJAMIN J. PATRICK, 0000
DAVID R. PRISLIN, 0000
TRAVIS M. PROVOST, 0000
THOMAS P. SAMMEL, 0000
THOMAS P. SIMON, 0000
DAVID N. VANDIVORT, 0000
GROVER L. WRIGHT, JR., 0000

To be captain

CHARLES C. ABERCROMBIE III, 0000
ALLEN D. AGRA, 0000
RICHARD G. ALLISON, JR., 0000
ALAN B. ALTOM, 0000
KARL R. ARBOGAST, 0000
BRIAN E. ARGUS, 0000
RICHARD J. ARMSTRONG, 0000
JAY T. AUBIN, 0000
ANDREW J. AYLWARD, 0000
SPENCER W. BAILEY, 0000
ROBBIE J. BAKER, 0000
WILLIAM T. BAKER, 0000
ANTHONY J. BANGO, 0000
TIMOTHY J. BARBA, 0000
DENNIS C. BARD, 0000
WADE E. BARKER, 0000
DONALD A. BARNETT, 0000
CHRISTOPHER B. BATTS, 0000
GEORGE B. BEACH, 0000
SCOTT R. BEESON, 0000
ARTHUR R. BEHNKE, JR., 0000
MARCOS E. BERTAMINI, 0000
WAYNE R. BEYER, JR., 0000
BRIAN T. BILSKI, 0000
CAROLYN D. BIRD, 0000
ETHAN C. BISHOP, 0000
KEITH R. BLAKELY, 0000
PATRICK R. BLANCHARD, 0000
DERRICK J. BLOCK, 0000
CHARLES E. BODWELL, 0000
RICHARD A. BOGIN, 0000
DAVID M. BOLAND, 0000
HERBERT C. BOLLINGER, JR., 0000
JACK G. BOLTON, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. BONIFACE, 0000
MARK A. BOSLEY, 0000
ENRIQUE BOUGEOIS III, 0000
JOHN S. BOYCE, 0000
WILLIAM BOZEMAN, JR., 0000
DAVID R. BRAMAN, 0000
JAMES H. BRIDGMAN, 0000
ANDRE L. BROOKS, 0000
BRONCHAE M. BROWN, 0000
JASON P. BROWN, 0000
LARRY G. BROWN, 0000
DOUGLAS J. BRUNE, 0000
MICHAEL R. BRUNNSCHWEILER, 0000
MICHAEL D. BRYAN, 0000
JEROME BRYANT, 0000
ROBERT F. BUDA III, 0000
KEVIN C. BURTON, 0000
ANDREW J. BUTLER, 0000
GEORGE CADWALADER, JR., 0000
BRIAN C. CALLAGY, 0000
MATTHEW D. CALLAN, 0000
FRANK R. CAMPBELL, 0000
THOMAS H. CAMPBELL III, 0000
CHAD M. CASEY, 0000
WILLIAM J. CASLER, JR., 0000
DAVID M. CAVANAUGH, 0000
GREGORY L. CHANEY, 0000
FRANCIS K. CHAWK III, 0000
VICTOR A. CHIN, 0000
ALVIN S. CHURCH, 0000
DONALD J. CICOTTE, 0000
THOMAS G. CITRANO, 0000
PATRICK D. CLEMENTS, 0000
DANIEL H. COLEMAN, 0000
RAFFORD M. COLEMAN, 0000
CHAD R. CONNER, 0000
SCOTT M. CONWAY, 0000
DAVID M. COOPERMAN, 0000
MARK S. COPPESS, 0000
KEVIN S. CORTES, 0000
ANDREW J. CRICHTON, 0000
MITCHELL A. CRIGER, 0000
AARON M. CUNNINGHAM, 0000
WILLIAM H. CUPPLES, 0000
MATTHEW T. CURRIN, 0000
WARREN J. CURRY, 0000
KEVIN J. DALY, 0000
CHARLES E. DANIEL, 0000
VALERIE C. DANYLUK, 0000
KEITH C. DARBY II, 0000
JAMES M. DAVENPORT, 0000
DOMINIC J. DEFAZIO, 0000
CHRISTOPHER F. DELONG, 0000
CHARLES R. DEZAFRA III, 0000
DANIEL J. DIMICCO, 0000
MARK D. DISS, 0000
ARTHUR A. DIXON, 0000
SIMON M. DORAN, 0000
KEVIN M. DOWLING, 0000
DARREN E. DOYLE, 0000
MARK D. DUFFER, 0000
GREGORY S. DUFLO, 0000
JAN R. DURHAM, 0000
CURTIS V. EBITZ, JR., 0000
LARRY R. ECK, 0000
EDDIE J. EDMONDSON, JR., 0000

[[Page 9562]]

GEORGES T. EGLI, 0000
PETER J. EPTON, 0000
TIMOTHY R. ETHERTON, 0000
JAKE J. FALCONE, 0000
GREG A. FEROLDI, 0000
JOHN M. FIELD, 0000
MICHAEL J. FITZGERALD, 0000
DARREN C. FLEMING, 0000
CRAIG R. FLUENT, 0000
GORDON W. FORD, 0000
LEON J. FRANCIS, 0000
PHILIP H. FRAZETTA, 0000
FRANK I. FRITTMAN, 0000
ALEX K. FULFORD, 0000
KELVIN W. GALLMAN, 0000
ANTHONY E. GALVIN, 0000
MATTHEW C. GANLEY, 0000
SEAN B. GARICK, 0000
SANDY J. GASPER, 0000
DANA A. GEMMINGEN, 0000
ADAM C. GERBER, 0000
HIETH D. GIBLER, 0000
EDMUND L. GIBSON, JR., 0000
GEOFFREY S. GILLILAND, 0000
ERIC A. GILLIS, 0000
THOMAS R. GLUECK, JR., 0000
HOWARD L. GORDON III, 0000
PAUL A. GOSDEN, 0000
EDWARD C. GREELEY, 0000
DARRY W. GROSSNICKLE, 0000
SHAWN D. HANEY, 0000
JEFFREY C. HANIFORD, 0000
DOUGLAS J. HANLEY, JR., 0000
ANTHONY A. HARDINA, 0000
ELIAS B. HARMAN, 0000
AVONZO L. HARRISON, 0000
GARY C. HARRISON, JR., 0000
GARY D. HARRISON, 0000
CHRISTIAN D. HARSHBERGER, 0000
BRETT A. HART, 0000
KEVIN M. HEARTWELL, 0000
CARL C. HENGER, 0000
VINCENT B. HEPPNER, 0000
KISHA M. HILL, 0000
ERIC HIMLER, 0000
MICHAEL R. HODSON, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. HOFSTETTER, 0000
MITCHELL L. HOINES, 0000
TODD L. HOLDER, 0000
SEANAN R. HOLLAND, 0000
THOMAS M. HOLLEY, 0000
EVAN N. HOLT, 0000
CHARLES B. HOTCHKISS III, 0000
CHARLES T. HUNT, 0000
SEAN M. HURLEY, 0000
ADAM E. HYAMS, 0000
SCOTT D. HYDE, 0000
ROBBI L. HYLAND, 0000
DANIEL M. IVANOVIC, 0000
LEONARDO M. JAIME, 0000
PETER J. JANOW, 0000
EDWARD L. JEEP, 0000
DARRYL L. JELINEK, 0000
ERIC J. JESSEN, 0000
MICHAEL S. JOHNSON, 0000
CHERISH M. JOOSTBERNS, 0000
MICHAEL A. JUENGER, 0000
JASON W. JULIAN, 0000
JEREMY N. JUNGREIS, 0000
STEPHEN P. KAHN, 0000
MICHAEL P. KANE, 0000
SEKOU S. KAREGA, 0000
JOHN D. KAUFFMAN, 0000
PATRICK T. KAUFMANN, 0000
GERALD W. KEARNEY, JR., 0000
JASON T. KEEFER, 0000
AARON P. KEENAN, 0000
JAMES A. KEISLER, 0000
KEVIN B. KELLIHER, 0000
JOHN J. KELLY, JR., 0000
NICOLE A. KELSEY, 0000
LYLE R. KENDOLL, 0000
JEFFREY R. KENNEY, 0000
JOHN C. KETCHERSIDE, 0000
JOHN F. KIDD, 0000
MICHAEL B. KIDD, 0000
KEITH P. KINCANNON, 0000
DAVID B. KIRK, 0000
ANDREW S. KLEVEN, 0000
RICHARD A. KLUNK, 0000
ANTHONY G. KNIGHT, 0000
ERIC J. KNOWLTON, 0000
MELANIE A. KORTH, 0000
DANIEL R. KREIDER, 0000
KENT L. KROEKER, 0000
KEVIN J. KRONOVETER, 0000
KARL H. KUGA, 0000
JOHN P. LAGANA, JR., 0000
CHARLES B. LAKEY, 0000
GEORGE LAMBERT, 0000
MARK C. LARSEN, 0000
RONAN J. LASSO II, 0000
CHRISTIAN J. LEEUW, 0000
BRIAN R. LEWIS, 0000
GLENN E. LIGHT, 0000
GLEN P. LINDSTROM, 0000
DANIEL R. LINGMAN, 0000
BRIAN L. LIPIEC, 0000
GARY J. LOBERG, 0000
DAVID W. LOCKNER, 0000
JOHN P. LONGSHORE, 0000
ERIK C. LOQUIST, 0000
JOHN J. LUZAR, 0000
WILLIAM R. LYNCH, 0000
VICTOR I. MADUKA, 0000
STEPHANIE L. MALMANGER, 0000
EUGENE A. MAMAJEK, JR., 0000
MICHAEL P. MANDEL, 0000
KIRK E. MARSTON, 0000
ROBERT E. MARTIN, 0000
VINCE R. MARTINEZ, 0000
DEMETRIUS F. MAXEY, 0000
MATTHEW M. MAZURKIWECZ, 0000
BENJAMIN W. MC CAFFERY, 0000
FRANK L. MCCLINTICK, 0000
MATTHEW G. MCCLYMONDS, 0000
MICHAEL T. MCCOMAS, 0000
JAMES F. MCCOY, JR., 0000
DONALD B. MCDANIEL, 0000
RYAN F. MCDONALD, 0000
ERIK P. MCDOWELL, 0000
ROGER T. MCDUFFIE, 0000
MICHAEL R. MCGAHEE, 0000
WILLIAM H. MCHENRY II, 0000
DANIEL J. MCMICHAEL, 0000
JOHN L. MEDEIROS, JR., 0000
JOSE R. MEDINA, 0000
JAMES E. MEEK, 0000
DOWAL E. MEGGS, JR., 0000
CHARLES C. MERKEL, 0000
JONATHAN E. MICHAELS, 0000
MICHAEL W. MIDDLETON, 0000
JAMES R. MILLER, 0000
TIMOTHY P. MILLER, 0000
TERRY S. MILNER, 0000
THOMAS P. MITALSKI, 0000
ANDREW W. MOLITOR, 0000
MICHAEL J. MOONEY, 0000
MARTY A. MOORE, 0000
SAMUEL K. MOORE, 0000
ROBERT S. MORGAN, 0000
KAREN L. MORRISROE, 0000
JAMES D. MOSELEY, 0000
CHARLES J. MOSES, 0000
MICHAEL M. MOTLEY, 0000
ANDREW D. MUHS, 0000
MICHAEL B. MULLINS, 0000
BRENDAN S. MULVANEY, 0000
ANDREW J. MUNRO, 0000
JAMES A. MURPHY, 0000
JOHN C. MURRAY, 0000
MICAH T. MYERS, 0000
STEVEN K. NELSON, 0000
KEVIN R. NETHERTON, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. NOEL, 0000
BERNARD J. NOWNES II, 0000
THOMAS F. OATES, 0000
SEAN M. OBRIEN, 0000
THOR C. O CONNELL, 0000
THOMAS P. O LAUGHLIN, 0000
CHRISTOPHER H. OLIVER, 0000
ERIC R. OLSON, 0000
MICHAEL J. O NEIL, 0000
NEIL J. OWENS, 0000
RAMON A. OZAMBELA, 0000
STEVEN J. PACHECO, 0000
KEVIN L. PAETZOLD, 0000
GEORGE E. PAPPAS, 0000
RICHARD A. PARADISE, 0000
SEAN P. PATAK, 0000
JEFFERY S. PAULL, 0000
JEFFREY M. PAVELKO, 0000
CORNELL A. PAYNE, 0000
JABARI A. PAYNE, 0000
DANIEL K. PENCE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER R. PERRY, 0000
GEOFFREY S. PETERS, 0000
ROBERT W. PETERS III, 0000
ERIC J. PETERSON, 0000
JOHN D. PETERSON, 0000
DAVID H. PETTERSSON, 0000
MATTHEW H. PHARES, 0000
BLANDON N. PICL, 0000
SCOTT E. PIERCE, 0000
DONNA L. PLEMONS, 0000
GREGORY T. POLAND, 0000
TRAVIS L. POWERS, 0000
TIMOTHY R. POWLEDGE, 0000
TODD E. PRESCOTT, 0000
SCOTT T. PROFFITT, 0000
JAMES M. QUIRK, 0000
EDWARD J. RAPISARDA, 0000
ARCH RATLIFF III, 0000
RICHARD R. RAY, JR., 0000
MICHAEL T. RECCE, 0000
JOSEPH D. REEDY III, 0000
JACKSON L. REESE, 0000
BRENT C. REIFFER, 0000
JOHN REPS, 0000
ROBERT E. RHODE III, 0000
ANDREW M. RICE, 0000
THOMAS W. RICHTER, 0000
BRIAN T. RIDEOUT, 0000
DEAN R. RIDGWAY, 0000
ROBERT J. RITCHIE, 0000
PATRICK B. RIVERA, 0000
WILFRED RIVERA, 0000
MELINDA L. RIZER, 0000
CHESTER ROACH, 0000
ANTHONY J. ROBINSON, 0000
CHRISTOPHER C. ROBINSON, 0000
STEVEN ROBINSON, 0000
MICHAEL E. RODGERS, 0000
FRANCISCO J. RODRIGUEZ, 0000
CHRISTOPHER W. ROE, 0000
DALE S. ROLEN, 0000
NICHOLAS ROSADO, 0000
DANIEL N. RUBEL, JR., 0000
HAROLD J. RUDDY, 0000
MICHAEL P. RUFFING, 0000
BRIAN R. RUSH, 0000
BRIAN J. RUTHERFORD, 0000
EDWARD M. SAGER III, 0000
NORMA SALAS, 0000
PHILLIP D. SANCHEZ, 0000
REX W. SAPPENFIELD, 0000
CHARLES G. SASSER, 0000
WILLIAM R. SAUERLAND, JR., 0000
BRETON L. SAUNDERS, 0000
JOHN L. SCHAURES, 0000
DAVID J. SCHEINBLUM, 0000
TIMOTHY L. SCHNEIDER, 0000
WILLIAM F. SCHOEN, JR., 0000
LOUIS M. SCHOTEMEYER, 0000
RAYMOND J. SCHREINER, 0000
WILLIAM M. SCHUCK, JR., 0000
GREGORY A. SCOTT, 0000
GREGORY G. SEAMAN, 0000
BRIAN F. SEIFFERT, 0000
ANDROY D. SENEGAR, 0000
THEODORE W. SHACKLETON, 0000
JAMES L. SHELTON, JR., 0000
MATTHEW R. SHENBERGER, 0000
DALE E. SHORT, 0000
DONALD L. SHOVE, 0000
PHILIP R. SLEDZ, 0000
ANDREW Q. SMITH, 0000
RAHMAN K. SMITH, 0000
BRYAN M. SMYLIE, 0000
THOMAS M. SONGSTER II, 0000
JOHN W. SPAID, 0000
DEMETRY P. SPIROPOULOS, 0000
JASON V. SPRIGMAN, 0000
GARRY T. STEFFEN, 0000
MATTHEW W. STERNI, 0000
DAVID E. STRAUB, 0000
CHAD D. SWAN, 0000
BRIAN P. SWEENEY, 0000
ROBERT T. SWEGINNIS, 0000
WILLIAM M. TALANSKY, 0000
ANTHONY D. TAYLOR, 0000
JAMES T. TAYLOR, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. TEAGUE, 0000
MICHAEL R. TEUBNER, 0000
JAMES C. THEISEN, 0000
MARK R. THRASHER, 0000
ROBERT B. TIFFT, 0000
WILLIAM H. TORRICO, 0000
BRADLEY S. TRAGER, 0000
SCOTT R. TRUJILLO, 0000
ERIC B. TURNER, 0000
STEVEN R. TURNER, 0000
MICHAEL S. TYSON, 0000
LES P. VERNON, 0000
MICHAEL H. VILLAR, 0000
SCOTT A. VOIGTS, 0000
MICHAEL G. VOSE, 0000
KENT E. WALSH, 0000
RICHARD J. WEAVER, JR., 0000
CORY R. WECK, 0000
ROBERT S. WEILER, 0000
ANDREW J. WEIS, 0000
BRADLEY C. WESTON, 0000
JEROME S. WHALEN, 0000
BENJAMIN D. WILD, 0000
JUSTIN P. WILHELMSEN, 0000
MARK A. WILKINSON, 0000
JAMES H. WILLIAMS, 0000
JOSEPH D. WILLIAMS, 0000
KRISTIAN R. WILLIAMS, 0000
LABIN O. WILSON, 0000
ERIC S. WOLF, 0000
RONALD S. WOOD, 0000
JASON G. WOODWORTH, 0000
MATTHEW J. WORSHAM, 0000
ELLYN M. WYNNE, 0000
RANDALL S. YEARWOOD, 0000
JUDY J. YODER, 0000
ERNEST B. YOUNG, 0000
BRENDA YSASAGA, 0000
PHILLIP M. ZEMAN, 0000
ANTHONY M. ZENDER, 0000
RICHARD J. ZENDER, 0000
WAYNE R. ZUBER, 0000

To be first lieutenant

MARTIN L. ABREU, 0000
ERIC J. ADAMS, 0000
JOHN B. ADAMS, 0000
RICHARD D. ALBER, 0000
JOSHUA P. ANDERSON, 0000
GEORGE ANIKOW, 0000
JOSEPH J. ATHERALL, 0000
THOMAS A. ATKINSON, 0000
MIGUEL A. AYALA, 0000
MICHAEL J. BABILOT, 0000
RACHEL E. BARNEY, 0000
KENNETH C. BARR, 0000
FRANCIS A. BARTH III, 0000
KENNETH W. BATTAGLIA, 0000
CHRISTOPHER D. BEASLEY, 0000
STEPHANI M. BECK, 0000
BRIAN M. BELL, 0000
THEODORE C. BETHEA II, 0000
BRENT W. BLAND, 0000
ALDRICK C. BLUNT, 0000

[[Page 9563]]

ROBERT J. BODISCH, JR., 0000
JAMES A. BOERIGTER, 0000
KENNETH P. BOHO, 0000
MEREDITH M. BOOKER, 0000
GARY A. BOURLAND, 0000
LIA B. BOWLER, 0000
KEVIN J. BOYCE, 0000
BRADLY L. BOYD, 0000
JOHN M. BRADBURY, 0000
JASON L. BRADFORD, 0000
FRANK J. BROGNA III, 0000
RAY E. BROOKS, 0000
GREGORY L. BROWN, 0000
MICHAEL D. BROYAN, 0000
ALVIN L. BRYANT, JR., 0000
ROBERT B. BURGESS III, 0000
GAREY W. BURRILL, JR., 0000
MICHAEL J. BUTLER, 0000
SEAN K. BUTLER, 0000
GREGORY S. CARL, 0000
MARK E. CARLTON, 0000
FREDERICK J. CATCHPOLE, 0000
LEE K. CLARE, 0000
JESUS M. CLAUDIO, 0000
GREGORY H. CLAYTON, 0000
SCOTT E. COBB, 0000
DANIEL E. COLVIN, JR., 0000
ADAM S. CONWAY, 0000
JOHN COOK, 0000
HEATHER J. COTOIA, 0000
BRIAN P. COYNE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. CRIMI, 0000
JEFFREY L. CROCKER, 0000
COLIN A. CROSBY, 0000
HENRY L. CRUSOE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. CURTIN, 0000
THOMAS DANIELSEN, 0000
JON W. DAVENPORT, 0000
ARTHUR L. DAVIDSON, JR., 0000
JOHN S. DAVIDSON, 0000
SAMUEL D. DAVIS, 0000
SHALISA W. DAVIS, 0000
MANUEL J. DELAROSA, 0000
JOHN Y. DELATEUR, 0000
PATRICIA R. DEYONG, 0000
WILBERT DICKENS, 0000
JOHN J. DIETRICH, JR., 0000
FRANK DIORIO, JR., 0000
STEVEN A. DOLPHIN, 0000
BERNADETTE DOLSON, 0000
JOSEPH E. DONALD III, 0000
DAVID A. DOUCETTE, 0000
ERIC J. DOUGHERTY, 0000
TROY M. DOWNING, 0000
MATTHEW J. DREIER, 0000
AARON S. DUESING, 0000
RICHARD E. DUNN, 0000
MICHAEL A. DURHAM II, 0000
PATRYCK J. DURHAM, 0000
JAMES C. EDGE, 0000
JAMES F. EDWARDS III, 0000
JHAKE ELMAMUWALDI, 0000
BRUCE J. ERHARDT, JR., 0000
KYRL A. ERICKSON, 0000
EDWARD ESPOSITO, 0000
BRIAN L. FANCHER, 0000
ROBERT A. FARIAS, 0000
JOSEPH A. FARLEY, 0000
KRISTOPHER L. FAUGHT, 0000
THOMAS P. FAVOR, 0000
MELVIN FERDINAND, 0000
BETH A. FERLAND, 0000
MICHAEL D. FERRITTO, 0000
JOSE R. FIERRO, 0000
PAUL F. FILLMORE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER M. FLANAGAN, 0000
TIMOTHY M. FLYNN, 0000
DUANE C. FORSBERG, 0000
VICTOR A. FRAUSTO, 0000
STEVIE L. FRAZIER, 0000
IAN C. GALBRAITH, 0000
JOSEPH E. GALVIN, 0000
VINH V. GERALD, 0000
KATE I. GERMANO, 0000
JEREMY L. GETTINGS, 0000
THOMAS H. GILLEY, IV, 0000
SEAN M. GLEASON, 0000
ARMANDO GONZALEZ, 0000
JEFFREY D. GOODELL, 0000
REBECCA L. GOODRICHHINTON, 0000
BRADLEY V. GORDON, 0000
WILLIAM S. GOURLEY, 0000
CRAIG A. GRANT, 0000
SHANNON L. GREEN, 0000
STEVE GRGAS, 0000
DANIEL B. GRIFFITHS, 0000
JAIME L. GUTIERREZ, 0000
JOHN T. GUTIERREZ, 0000
MATTHEW B. HAKOLA, 0000
MARK A. HALEY, JR., 0000
MARGARET J. HALL, 0000
DAVID W. HANDY, 0000
SEAN M. HANKARD, 0000
RICHARD A. HARNEY, 0000
DARIN K. HARPER, 0000
CHARLES M. HARRIS, 0000
ROBERT C. HAWKINS, 0000
BRENDAN G. HEATHERMAN, 0000
MICHAEL E. HERNANDEZ, 0000
LARRY J. HERRING, 0000
RALPH HERSHFELT III, 0000
CHERRONE A. HESTER, 0000
MICHAEL D. HICKS, 0000
DALE A. HIGHBERGER, 0000
GARY E. HILL, 0000
WILLIAM D. HILL, 0000
CRAIG P. HIMEL, 0000
THOMAS A. HODGE, 0000
VALERIE L. HODGSON, 0000
LUKE T. HOLIAN, 0000
ALFRED C. HOLLIMON, 0000
TERRELL D. HOOD, 0000
ARTHUR C. HOUGHTBY II, 0000
JEFFREY S. HOUSTON, 0000
DAVID K. HUNT, 0000
ROBERT M. HUTTO, 0000
CHRISTOPHER J. IAZZETTA, 0000
FRANCINE M. IPPOLITO, 0000
STEVEN M. JACKSON, 0000
RESHANDA L. JENNINGS, 0000
GEORGE W. JOHNSON, 0000
DERRICK L. JONES, 0000
ERIC W. KELLY, 0000
DALLAS G. KEY, 0000
JAMES S. KIMBER, 0000
WILFRID A. KIRKBRIDE, 0000
JOSHUA KISSOON, 0000
CURT R. KNOWLES, 0000
EDWARD C. KOOKEN, 0000
CONSTANTINE KOUTSOUKOS, 0000
JASON J. LATONA, 0000
GABRIEL E. LEAL, 0000
ALAN J. LECOMPTE, JR., 0000
JONATHAN E. LEE, 0000
KATHY R. LEE, 0000
WILSON S. LEECH III, 0000
MATTHEW D. LERNER, 0000
LEONARD J. LEVINE, 0000
SHANE M. LONG, 0000
CHARLES B. LYNN III, 0000
WILLIAM R. MAKEPEACE IV, 0000
MICHAEL C. MARGOLIS, 0000
DELBERT L. MARRIOTT, 0000
DANIEL L. MARTIN, 0000
DAWN M. MARTIN, 0000
JAMES T. MARTIN, 0000
RICHARD S. MARTIN, 0000
ANDREW V. MARTINEZ, 0000
BRETT E. MATTHEWS, 0000
CRAIG S. MAYER, 0000
MICHAEL C. MC CARTHY, 0000
KENYA MC CLAIN, 0000
DAVID A. MC COMBS, 0000
KENNEY MC COMBS, 0000
LYLE L. MC DANIEL, JR., 0000
ARIC A. MC KENNA, 0000
BRIAN P. MC LAUGHLIN, 0000
PATRICK C. MC RAE, 0000
TODD A. MENKE, 0000
NATHAN A. MENTINK, 0000
ANDREW A. MERZ, 0000
DANIEL R. MILLANE, 0000
BRETT M. MILLER, 0000
DAVID H MILLS, 0000
JAMES W. MINGUS, 0000
BRUCE L. MORALES, 0000
STEVEN B. MURPHY, 0000
STEVEN R. MURPHY, 0000
TIMOTHY I. MURRAY, 0000
BARTON K. NAGLE, 0000
ANTHONOL L. NEELY, 0000
SHANNON J. NELLER, 0000
EDWARD T. NEVGLOSKI, 0000
NICHOLAS C. NUZZO, 0000
DEREK S. OST, 0000
RANDALL A. PAPE, 0000
DWAYNE E. PARKER, 0000
HENRY J. PARRISH, 0000
VICTOR A. PASTOR, 0000
TODD A. PATTERSON, 0000
EDWARD J. PAVELKA, 0000
ELIZABETH D. PEREZ, 0000
NICHOLAS R. PERKINS, 0000
LAURA M. PERRONE, 0000
CRAIG O. PETERSEN, 0000
DAVID W. PINION, 0000
RICHARD H. PITCHFORD, 0000
KEVIN J. PRINDIVILLE, 0000
CRAIG T. RALEIGH, 0000
OMAR J. RANDALL, 0000
JOHN G. RANDOLPH, 0000
MARK L. RANEY, 0000
GREGORY A. RATZLAFF, 0000
JORDAN D. REECE, 0000
KARL C. RENNE, 0000
BRIAN A. REYNALDO, 0000
RICHARD J. RIGHTER, 0000
MARK W. RODGERS, 0000
RUPERT S. RODRIGUEZ, 0000
SCOTT M. ROLPH, 0000
THOMAS J. ROPEL III, 0000
SAM L. ROY, 0000
RICHARD A. ROYSE, 0000
JUSTIN R. RUMPS, 0000
LEE M. RUSH, 0000
FREDERICK W. RUSSELL III, 0000
CHARLES W. RYAN, 0000
CHRISTI L. SADDLER, 0000
JOHN H. SAITTA, 0000
MATTHEW D. SAMS, 0000
ROBERT M. SANCHEZ, 0000
DONALD R. SANDERS, 0000
ROLAND G. SARINO, 0000
GLENN SCHMID, 0000
DAVID E. SCHNEIDER, 0000
PHILIP P. SCHRODE, 0000
KARL C. SCHUMACHER, 0000
CHRISTOPHER B. SHERIN, 0000
JOHN T. SILVA, 0000
FRANK L. SIMMONS, 0000
MATTHEW R. SIMMONS, 0000
ELIESER R. SMITH, 0000
GARY L. SMITH, 0000
JAMES R. SMITH, 0000
KEITH D. SMITH, 0000
MIRANDA D. SMITH, 0000
STEVEN C. SNEE, 0000
PETER R. SOLANO, 0000
ROBERT B. SOTIRE II, 0000
PAUL M. SPONHOLZ, 0000
JARED A. SPURLOCK, 0000
MAJOR L. STAPLES, 0000
JASON C. STAR, 0000
MICHAEL W. STEHLE, 0000
WILLIAM C. STOPHEL, 0000
RONALD D. STORER, 0000
JONATHAN J. STRASBURG, 0000
ROBERT A. SUCHER, 0000
ERIC N. SWIFT, 0000
COLON TAYLOR III, 0000
THOMAS M. TENNANT, 0000
GREGORY A. THIELE, 0000
RAYMON F. THOMAS, JR., 0000
NICHOLAS A. THOMPSON, 0000
VIRGIL E. TINKLE, 0000
EDMUND B. TOMLINSON, 0000
ADOLFO TORRES, 0000
JOSEPH M. TURGEON, 0000
TRAY A. TURNER, 0000
CHRISTOPHER G. VEAL, 0000
BENJAMIN M. VENNING, 0000
CHARLIE R. VONBERGEN, 0000
BRIAN J. VONHERBULIS, 0000
MICHAEL L. WAGNER, 0000
WALTER J. WALLACE, 0000
BRANDON M. WALLER, 0000
LAWRENCE M. WALZER, 0000
GREGORY J. WARDMAN, JR., 0000
DAREN V. WASHINGTON, 0000
KEITH S. WATSON, 0000
KEITH S. WEINSAFT, 0000
APRIL K. WHITESCARVER, 0000
MICHAEL S. WILBUR, 0000
WILLIAM T. WILBURN, JR., 0000
DARBY R. WILER, 0000
JOHN D. WILKERSON, 0000
JERRY D. WILLINGHAM, 0000
PETER A. WILSON, 0000
CRAIG A. WOLFENBARGER, 0000
KENNETH P. WOODS, 0000
TOMMY R. WRIGHT, 0000
JAMES L. ZEPKO, 0000
THOMAS G. ZIEGLER, JR., 0000

To be second lieutenant

WILLIAM B. ALLEN IV, 0000
DAVID W. BAAS, 0000
JOHN W. BLACK, 0000
MARK D. BORTNEM, 0000
TRENT L. BOTTIN, 0000
VINTON C. BRUTON IV, 0000
WALTER G. CARR, 0000
CLINT A. CASCADEN, 0000
GEORGE O. CHRISTEL, 0000
DOUGLAS A. COOK, 0000
BILLY R. CORNELL, 0000
JEFFREY W. DAVIS, JR., 0000
JOHN D. DIXON, 0000
TIMOTHY P. DORAN, 0000
JAMES W. EAGAN III, 0000
DAVID C. EMMEL, 0000
ROY H. EZELL III, 0000
DONALD W. FAUL II, 0000
JEREMY S. FILKO, 0000
BRADLEY R. FITZPATRICK, 0000
SHANE R. FLOYD, 0000
ANTHONY E. GIARDINO, 0000
KENNETH K. GOEDECKE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER M. HAAR, 0000
JONATHAN B. HAMILTON, 0000
JACOB R. HARRIMAN, 0000
BENJAMIN R. HERNANDEZ, JR., 0000
EDMUND B. HIPP, 0000
JAMES T. HOFFMANN, 0000
JOHN H. HOUSAND, JR., 0000
JEFFREY A. HUBLEY, 0000
IVAN F. INGRAHAM, 0000
KEVIN A. JACOBS, 0000
CHRISTOPHER R. KNARR, 0000
JAMES M. KOEHLER, 0000
ROBERT O. KOENIG, 0000
RUSSELL S. LASCINK, 0000
WILLIAM M. LENNON, 0000
RONALD L. LOBATO, 0000
JOHN M. MAYBERRY, 0000
BRYAN R. MC CLUNE, 0000
WILLIAM J. MITCHELL, 0000
PHILIP T. O HARA, 0000
KYLE G. PHILLIPS, 0000
JOSHUA M. PIECZONKA, 0000
JASON M. POPOWSKI, 0000
DONALD J. PRITCHARD, 0000
JAMES S. PRYOR, 0000
KEVIN R. ROOT, 0000
RICHARD M. RUSNOK, 0000
JESSE L. SJOBERG, 0000

[[Page 9564]]

GIUSEPPE A. STAVALE, 0000
CHRISTOPHER T. STEELE, 0000
STEVEN M. SUTEY, 0000
DEREK L. TRABAL, 0000
JASON M. WARDLOW, 0000
ROBERT J. WEINGART, 0000
CHRISTOPHER M. WESTHOFF, 0000
DAVID E. WESTIN, 0000
ROBERT F. WHALEN, 0000
BARIAN A. WOODWARD, 0000

____________________

WITHDRAWAL

Executive message transmitted by the President to the Senate on June
6, 2000, withdrawing from further Senate consideration the following
nomination:

The Judiciary

JAMES M. LYONS, OF COLORADO, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT
JUDGE FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, VICE JOHN P. MOORE, RETIRED,
WHICH WAS SENT TO THE SENATE ON SEPTEMBER 22, 1999.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

June 6, 2000

[[Page 9565]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, June 6, 2000

The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

Washington, DC,

June 6, 2000.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Judy Biggert to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

MORNING HOUR DEBATES

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

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no requests for morning hour
debates, pursuant to clause 12, rule I, the Chair declares the House in
recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 31 minutes a.m.) the House stood in
recess until noon.

____________________

{time} 1200

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert) at noon.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
God and Father of all nations, continue to guide the destiny of these
United States. Bless the Members of this House. You are their Counselor
and Guide. Give them satisfaction in their work, for You are the joy of
those who are faith-filled, and the glory of the humble.
May all their deliberations give rise to understanding and further
the cause of equal justice. May their determinations be honored and
respected, and renew the hope of freedom in the heart of the world.
In You we place our trust, for we believe You have called us to serve
this Nation. By Your divine inspiration we will reach the destiny You
have in mind for us, for You live now and forever. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

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

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. LAMPSON 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.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:

Office of the Clerk,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 30, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
clause 2(h) of rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on May 26, 2000 at 11:10
a.m.
That the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 3293; that
the Senate passed without amendment H.R. 4489; that the
Senate passed without amendment H. Con. Res. 280; that the
Senate passed without amendment H. Con. Res. 302.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely,
Jeff Trandahl,
Clerk of the House.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF MEMBER OF THE HONORABLE CHARLES F. BASS,
MEMBER OF CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Darwin Cusack, Chief of Staff to the Honorable
Charles F. Bass, Member of Congress:

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 30, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you, pursuant
to rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a grand jury subpoena for
documents issued by the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the precedents and privileges of the House.
Sincerely,
Darwin Cusack,
Chief of Staff.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair desires to announce that pursuant
to clause 4 of rule I, the Speaker pro tempore signed the following
enrolled bills on Thursday, June 1, 2000:
H.R. 3293, to amend the law that authorized the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial to authorize the placement within the site of the Memorial of
a plaque to honor those Vietnam veterans who died after their service
in the Vietnam war, but as a direct result of that service;
H.R. 4489, to amend section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and for other purposes.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO BOB HOPE

(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, today we honor the U.S. servicemen who
participated in the invasion of Western Europe by the Allies on June 6,
1944. It is only fitting, however, that we pay special tribute to a
gentleman who is admired by millions of our veterans.
Bob Hope is beloved for his tireless efforts to entertain U.S. troops
around the globe, from World War II to the Persian Gulf War.
As one of the countless soldiers that he entertained during Vietnam
and Desert Storm, I know personally of the positive impact that his
visits made to uplift our spirits.
Last week, Americans were saddened to learn of the legendary
entertainer's

[[Page 9566]]

illness requiring a stay at the Eisenhower Medical Center, near his
home, in Palm Springs.
With his devoted and loving wife, Delores, by his side, Mr. Hope is
recovering, and the family has asked that everyone keep Mr. Hope in
their prayers.
Mr. Hope, from those of us who were blessed by your courage and
commitment to our efforts around the globe, may God bless you. And, Mr.
Hope, we all hope that you get well soon, and our best wishes go out to
you and your family.

____________________

INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION

(Mr. LAMPSON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the issue of
international child abduction. For 3 months now, I have been coming to
the floor to tell the story of children who have been abducted abroad.
I have also been holding public events and introduced a resolution with
my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Well, all of this work is beginning to pay off. On Tuesday, May 22,
the House passed H. Con. Res. 293, urging signatories to the Hague
Convention to abide by that agreement. Just within the past 3 weeks, I
have heard amazing news from two different parents whose cases this
Congress has brought to light.
One of those parents, Jim Rinnaman, saw his daughter 3 weeks ago for
the first time in 4 years. Another, Paul Marinkovich, is bringing his
son home after 3 years of searching.
Madam Speaker, these parents are being reunited with their children
because of the work that Congress is doing and the pressure that these
countries are feeling from our Government and from the media.
On behalf of American parents, I want to thank my colleagues for
passing H. Con. Res. 293 and urge them to continue working with me on
this very important issue. By continuing to take action and raise
awareness, we can bring our children home.

____________________

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CANNOT HANDLE TRUTH

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Madam Speaker, an Iranian defector said Iran was
responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103, not Libya.
No kidding, Sherlock. The whole world was told that years ago, but
the Justice Department turned their back. Reports said that Iran hired
the Syrians and the Syrians recruited terrorists from all around the
world.
Beam me up. Those two Libyans may have been mules in general, but
they are scapegoats specifically.
I yield back the fact that from Waco to Ruby Ridge to now Pan Am 103,
the Justice Department just cannot handle the truth. I also yield back
the fact, my colleagues, that if these two Libyans masterminded the
bombing of Pan Am 103, they would have choked on a chicken bone years
ago in Kadafi's cell.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

____________________

DESIGNATING WASHINGTON OPERA IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AS NATIONAL OPERA

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4542) to designate the Washington Opera in Washington, D.C.,
as the National Opera.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 4542

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The Washington Opera, organized under the laws of the
District of Columbia, is designated as the ``National
Opera''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper or
other record of the United States to the Washington Opera
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to
the ``National Opera''.

General Leave

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 4542.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4542, to designate the
Washington Opera in Washington, D.C., as the National Opera.
The beginnings of the Washington Opera were unusual, as it was
founded by a music critic, Day Thorpe, of the now defunct Washington
Star, along with a few others who decided that the Nation's capital
should have an operatic enterprise of its own.
In the early years, the Washington Opera was limited by financial and
practical constraints to no more than one or two productions per year.
Since that time, the Washington Opera has grown and prospered. Today,
it is the resident opera company of the Kennedy Center, due primarily
to the artistic excellence of the ensemble.
In addition to performances, the Washington Opera has created several
education and community programs that serve a broad and diverse
population. These outreach programs are dedicated to enhancing the
lives and learning of the children and adults of the greater Washington
region, developing future audiences, and making the experience of opera
available to those who otherwise have limited access to this art form.
Through these programs, the Washington Opera has made extensive
outreach to the Washington, D.C. area public schools and to the
community at large. These programs have reached more than 150,000
individuals and have been driven by the idea that ``learning by doing''
is a highly effective way to spark young children's interest in the
arts.
The number and scope of programming has grown to 22 programs that
provide performance experiences, curriculum enhancement activities, in-
school artist and docent visits, professional development opportunities
for teachers and young artists, interactive family-oriented
presentations, and more.
Under the stewardship of Artistic Director Placido Domingo, the
Washington Opera has achieved the stature of a world-class company and
plays to standing-room-only audiences at the Kennedy Center Opera House
and Eisenhower Theater.
I would like to mention a personal note about this Artistic Director
Placido Domingo. When my daughter, at 17, was playing the professional
tour, I did not have the money to send a coach or anybody in the
family, so I gave her a lot of advice about not paying too much
attention to anybody, particularly men, as she moved from the Italian
Open to the Swiss Open to the German Open and then to the French Open.
And when she was leaving the French Open to go to the Paris Open, she
apparently was standing there in tears and this gentleman asked her
what was her problem? And she said, well, my luggage went the other way
and I have to play the first round of the French Open as soon as I get
to Paris.
The gentleman said, well, the first thing we have to do is put you in
first

[[Page 9567]]

class because you cannot be cramped up back there and then go play
tennis.
Well, if the father had known that, he really would have been upset
about some man moving her to first class.
When she got to Paris, the gentleman gave her a hundred dollars. And
she said, Well, I cannot take that. And he said, well, how will you
play? You only have your racket and your sneakers. You will have to buy
clothing.
When she came back and we were sitting there as a family watching
television, Placido Domingo and Johnny Denver were doing a couple of
the duets that they have done, and she said, Dad, that is the man that
put me in first class and that is the man who gave me the $100. And it
was Placido Domingo. And I understand that is typical of him.
The Washington Opera has earned its position of leadership in the
musical world without the government support typical in most world
capitals. The company has been a leader through its commitment to
sustain new American operas by presenting them in crucial second
productions, giving these new works life beyond the short span of their
premieres. It leads by championing the lesser known works of
significant musical work rarely presented on today's opera stages.
It has been hailed for its work with operas on the epic scale. As the
British magazine Opera Now recently stated, ``The Washington Opera is
carving out a new area of expertise . . . staging grand spectacles to
exacting standards with precision and power not often seen even at the
world's top houses.'' The company is also renowned for the number and
quality of its new productions, its discovery and nurturing of
important young talent, and the international collaboration system it
has pioneered with leading foreign companies.
Since 1980, the company has grown from a total of 16 yearly
performances of four operas to 80 yearly performances of eight operas,
while the budget has increased from $2 million to more than $25 million
per year. The company has averaged 98 percent attendance over the last
fourteen seasons--a remarkable sales record. It now earns approximately
65 percent of its total budget through ticket sales, raising the
remaining 35 percent through contributions from the individuals,
corporations, and foundations. A sign of fiscal strength, this ratio of
earned to contributed income is the highest of any opera company in the
country.
The Washington Opera has requested this legislation designating it as
the ``National Opera.'' There are precedents for granting private or
quasi-private entities a ``national'' designation. For example, the
National Aquarium in Baltimore and the National Aviary in Pittsburgh
both received their ``national'' designation through acts of Congress.
Such a designation does not bring with it federal funding or a federal
subsidy. Rather, it grants the entity national prominence, which may
increase ticket sales and improve fundraising prospects.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to vote ``yes''
on final passage.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be able to rise in support of the
legislation of my colleague. H.R. 4542, which would change the name of
the Washington Opera to the National Opera, is a piece of legislation
that our side supports wholeheartedly.

{time} 1215

This opera was born in 1956, which was the year I was born. It has
moved from two performances to now over 80 performances a year with an
attendance rate of 98 percent or better, and I want to compliment my
chairman for offering this legislation. I think it is an appropriate
designation to change the name.
It is a world-renowned opera; and to have the designation of the
National Opera, I think, is most appropriate.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Northern Virginia (Mr. Davis), an opera buff.
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R.
4542, the bill to designate the Washington Opera as the National Opera.
Since its founding in 1956, the Opera has been providing enrichment and
arts education to the Washington Metropolitan area.
From its humble beginnings under the stewardship of music critic Day
Thorpe, when a lack of funds limited them to two performances a year,
the Opera has consistently grown both in stature and in size. In 1980,
the Washington Opera had a total of 16 performances of four operas with
an operating budget of $2 million. Throughout the 1990s, the Opera has
truly emerged as a world class institution and has grown to 80
performances of eight operas with an annual budget of more than $25
million.
The great success the company has enjoyed is a credit both to its
management and the support it has received from the Washington
metropolitan community. Over the last 14 seasons, the company has
averaged a remarkable 98 percent attendance, with 65 percent of its
revenue coming from ticket sales. The remaining 35 percent of the
budget is provided by individual and corporate donations. The ratio of
65 earned to 35 contributed is evidence of the company's fiscal
strength and is the highest in the Nation.
The Washington Opera has earned its position of leadership in the
musical world without the crucial government support that is typical in
most world capitals, in a city without the strong business base that
helps fund many U.S. opera companies. The company has been a leader
through its commitment to sustain new American operas by presenting
them in crucial second productions, giving these new works life beyond
the short span of their premiers. It leads by championing lesser-known
works of significant musical worth rarely presented on today's opera
stages. It has been hailed for its work with operas on the epic scale.
As the British magazine Opera now recently stated, ``The Washington
Opera is carving out a new area of expertise, staging grand spectacles
to exacting standards with precision and power not often seen at the
world's top houses.''
The company is also renowned for the number and quality of its
productions, its discovery and nurturing of important young talent and
the international collaboration system it has pioneered with leading
foreign companies.
One of the greatest contributions to the D.C. metro area have come
from the company's educational outreach program. Reaching out beyond
the bounds of the opera community, the Washington Opera has made a
concerted effort to bring the arts to students around the region. As
budgets for arts education have continually shrunk, it is more
important than ever that private institutions have what limited
government support can be provided to reach our school-aged children.
It is with that goal in mind that I strongly support the passage of
H.R. 4542 and ask my colleagues to do the same. I want to thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his leadership on this
issue and shepherding this bill to the House floor.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Fattah) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, may I say that
the chairman of the committee introduced the last speaker as an opera
buff; the gentleman is better known in this House as a baseball buff,
but we are pleased to rank the gentleman to the rank of opera lovers.
In any case, Madam Speaker, great capitals normally have great
cultural institutions. I regret to say that for a very long time, the
Nation's capital did not have great cultural institutions. As a fourth
generation Washingtonian, I must say that growing up in the Nation's
capital was like growing up in a cultural desert. The only great
company was the National Symphony Orchestra, and I am pleased that now
the Congress would name the Washington Opera the National Opera.
I think this is most appropriate, particularly when we consider that
this is not a Nation that subsidizes the arts very greatly; and the
very least, it seems to me that we can do is recognize the arts in this
way.

[[Page 9568]]

Twenty-five million visitors come to the Nation's capital every year,
many of them the constituents of Members of the House and Senate. As
the Washington Opera becomes the National Opera, I believe that the
national Opera will set an example for the country and will welcome
millions who would otherwise not be inclined to attend the opera.
Throughout the world, the reputation of this company, particularly
since Placido Domingo became the artistic director, is generally
regarded as a world-class company. It plays to standing-room-only
audiences. It raises its own money. Now it asks very little of us. It
asks that we give it a name that will help it raise more of its own
money. I would like to bring to the attention of Members something of
what the Washington Opera Company does in its immediate area because it
has very energetic education and community programs that serve public,
private, and home-schooled students throughout the region, 31 percent
Anglo, 27 percent African American, 33 percent Latino, 8 percent Asian,
roughly reflecting the population of the region. 70 percent of those
served by these education and community programs are between the ages
of 5 and 18. Of the remaining 30 percent who are adults, 40 percent are
senior citizens.
Here is an opera company which has reached to every age group, every
ethnic group, and every section of the region. Now as the National
Opera Company, it will welcome people to come from all over the
country. Its education and community programs target adults and
students throughout the grades K through 12 and particularly
underserved populations. 40 percent are from the District, 35 percent
are from Maryland, 25 percent are from Virginia.
It is particularly appropriate that the chairman would rise to
support this bill, because this is in many ways a quintessential
educational enterprise. We now know increasingly as we learn more about
the brain and its functions that music can be important in the
intellectual as well as the social development of students. When the
Washington Opera Company comes to the Congress of the United States not
with its hands out for money but to ask that it be given a name that
will help it raise money, I strongly urge that the Congress give it the
public recognition that will help the Washington Opera Company grow as
a national opera company and will help it bring opera to increasing
millions of citizens of the United States.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to just reiterate my support for this legislation. This
opera raises over $25 million annually in private support, but I do
believe that the new designation as provided in this legislation
hopefully will provide additional impetus for those who want to support
the continuation of a great cultural institution. I want to compliment,
again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and also the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia for this legislation.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4542, a bill
designating the Washington Opera in Washington, DC, as the National
Opera. This opera company is known for the number and quality of new
productions, discovery and nurturing of important young talent, and an
international collaboration system with leading foreign companies.
The Washington Opera has achieved the stature of a world class
company and plays to standing-room only audiences at the Kennedy Center
Opera House and Eisenhower Theater. Like so many other institutions in
Washington, the opera attracts, entertains, and educates people from
all over the world.
The company has averaged 98% attendance over the last fourteen
season. It now earns approximately 65% of its total budget through
ticket sales, raising the remaining 35% through contributions from
individuals, corporations, and foundations.
A sign of fiscal strength, this ratio of earned to contributed income
is the highest of any opera company in the country. Beyond the value of
music itself, increasing evidence clarifies the role of music in the
intellectual and social development of our community.
The opera allows people to cross language and cultural barriers,
increase understanding, and build tolerance in a multi-cultural
setting.
The Washington Opera remains true to its mission of presenting the
highest quality opera in the Nation's Capital, broadening public
understanding and awareness of opera, and maintaining opera as a living
art form.
Madam Speaker, for over 40 years this opera company has been a beacon
of light not only for the Washington, DC community, but also for the
entire Nation. People from all over the United States and the world
realize this opera company is a reflection of our Nation's commitment
to the arts.
As a cosponsor of H.R. 4542, I stand in support of this bill to
designate the Washington Opera as the National Opera and urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4542, a bill to
designate the Washington Opera in Washington, DC, as the National
Opera. The Washington Opera has an impressive history that has earned
its position as one of opera's premier venues.
The Washington Opera continued to grow and flourish. In 1980, the
company has grown from a total of 16 performances and 4 operas to 80
performances and 8 operas, while the budget has increased from $2
million to more than $25 million. In 1980, the opera did not own a
single opera set; by the spring of 2000 the company had originated and
built 61 new productions, becoming one of the most prolific producing
companies in the United States.
The Washington Opera prides itself by providing world-class
productions for its audiences. The Washington Opera became the first
American Opera Company to produce a repertory season in two separate
theaters. Giving performances in the 2,200 seat Opera House and the
more intimate 1,100 seat Eisenhower theaters allow the company to
perform in settings that reflect each opera's proper acoustical
ambiance.
Along with providing quality entertainment, The Washington Opera
contributes to the education and diversity of the community. The
Education and Community Programs serve a diverse population of public,
private and the home school students that are 31% Anglo, 27% African-
American, 33% Latino, and 8% Asian. Roughly 70% of those served by
Washington Opera programs are students between the ages 5 to 18 of
various needs and abilities. Adults constitute the remaining 30%, of
which 40% are senior citizens.
Among other programs, The Washington Opera has developed teaching
methods that provide educators with tools to engage students in the
learning process. At a young age, students learn about the value of the
arts. There are 22 programs each providing performance experiences,
curricular enhancement activities and professional development
opportunities for both teachers and young artists. These programs
foster enthusiasm and help enrich our youths' educational experience.
Under the jurisdiction of Artistic Director Placido Domingo, The
Washington Opera's reputation continues to increase. The Washington
Opera plays to standing-room-only audiences at the Kennedy Center Opera
House and Eisenhower Theater. The Washington Opera has earned its
position of leadership in the musical world without the critical
governmental support typically offered to most world capitals, in a
city without the strong business base that helps fund many U.S.. opera
companies.
The Washington Opera has requested this legislation to designate The
Washington Opera as the ``National Opera.'' There are precedents for
granting private entities a ``national'' designation. For example, the
National Aquarium in Baltimore and the National Aviary in Pittsburgh
both received their ``national'' designation through acts of Congress.
Such a designation does not bring with it federal funding or a federal
subsidy.
This change will grant the group further prominence, which, in turn,
may expand ticket sales, improve fundraising capabilities and most
importantly, broaden the opera's community programs in an effort to
influence a greater breadth of individuals.
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4542, a bill
to designate the Washington Opera in Washington, D.C., as the National
Opera.
When first approached about the redesignation by Artistic Director
Placido Domingo, I thought of the Bard's famous line, ``What's in a
name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as
sweet.''
However, this ``national'' designation will aid the Washington Opera
in furthering their position of leadership in the musical world.
Founded in 1956, the Washington Opera has achieved the stature of a
world class company and plays to standing room only audiences at the
Kennedy Center Opera House and the Eisenhower Theater.
In the spring of 2000, the company had originated 61 new productions,
becoming one

[[Page 9569]]

of the most prolific producing companies in the United States. In
addition, the company has averaged 98 percent attendance over the last
fourteen seasons.
The Washington Opera has always recognized that their service to the
nation does not end with each production. Instead, Washington Opera's
Education and Community Programs department dedicates itself to
enhancing the lives and learning of children and adults by making the
experience of opera available to those who otherwise have limited
access to the art form. The Washington Opera has made extensive
outreach efforts to area public schools and to the greater Washington
community at large. Through their OperAccess program, they have
actively involved members of our community who are visually,
physically, or audibly impaired. By devoting themselves to broadening
the public's understanding and awareness of opera, the company has
served as the leader in maintaining opera as a living art form in
America.
The National Opera designation will serve to facilitate the company's
fundraising efforts and ticket sales, as well as oblige the company,
even more than in the past, to become the cradle for American opera.
I urge my colleagues to please support H.R. 4542 and to designate the
Washington Opera as the National Opera.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4542.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING CONGRESSIONAL PHILHARMONIC SOCIETY

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 229) expressing the sense of
Congress regarding the United States Congressional Philharmonic Society
and its mission of promoting musical excellence throughout the
educational system and encouraging people of all ages to commit to the
love and expression of musical performance.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Con. Res. 229

Whereas in February 1996, several Senators and members of
the House of Representatives participated in a performance of
the Broadway musical ``1776'', a story depicting the signing
of the Declaration of Independence;
Whereas in April 1996 several Senators and members of the
House of Representatives met with Maestro Martin Piecuch, the
music director of the musical ``1776'', and formed the United
States Congressional Choral Society;
Whereas on May 20, 1998, the United States Congressional
Choral Society debuted at St. Joseph's Church on Capitol
Hill, with standing ovations following its rendition of the
``Song of Democracy'' and the ``Battle Hymn of the
Republic'';
Whereas on March 13, 1999, the United States Congressional
Philharmonic Orchestra String Quartet played before the
Ambassador to the United States from Canada at the Embassy of
Canada in the District of Columbia;
Whereas on March 19, 1999, the United States Congressional
Choral Society appeared in performance at the Washington
National Cathedral;
Whereas on May 13, 1999, the United States Congressional
Philharmonic Orchestra String Quartet played before a
gathering of Ambassadors at the Benjamin Franklin Diplomatic
Reception Room of the United States Department of State;
Whereas the United States Congressional Philharmonic
Society is approved as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
under the Internal Revenue Code and is a corporation in good
standing under the laws of the State of Delaware;
Whereas the United States Congressional Philharmonic
Society will offer free concerts to the public in the
Washington metropolitan area;
Whereas the United States Congressional Philharmonic
Society will encourage the development of young musical
talent across the United States by providing educational
programs for schools across the nation and establishing
internships and scholarships; and
Whereas the United States Congressional Philharmonic
Society envisions holding a series of concerts focusing on
themes such as Celebrations of America, Salutes to the
States, a Great Americans series, and an International
Congressional Concert series: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the
United States Congressional Philharmonic Society should be
applauded--
(1) for organizing two musical groups, the United States
Congressional Choral Society and the United States
Congressional Philharmonic Orchestra;
(2) for having as its mission the promotion of patriotism,
freedom, democracy, and understanding of American culture
through sponsorship, management, and support of these groups
and their derivative ensembles as they communicate through
the international language of music in concerts and other
multimedia performances in the District of Columbia and
throughout the United States and the world; and
(3) for promoting musical excellence throughout the
educational system, from pre-school through post-graduate,
and encouraging people of all ages to commit to the love and
expression of musical performance.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 229 expressing the
sense of Congress regarding the United States Congressional
Philharmonic Society and its dual mission, promoting musical excellence
throughout the educational system and encouraging people of all ages to
commit to the love and expression of musical performance.
In February 1996, several Members of Congress participated in the
performance of the Broadway musical 1776, a story depicting the signing
of the Declaration of Independence. I practiced and rehearsed and then
was unable to participate. The Members of Congress so enjoyed this
experience that as an outgrowth, the United States Congressional Choral
Society was founded in April 1996. The Congressional Choral Society is
composed of Members, staff and friends of the United States Congress.
In fact, I have also performed with the choral society.
On May 20, 1998, the Congressional Choral Society debuted along with
the Washington Symphony Orchestra at St. Joseph's Church on Capitol
Hill with standing ovations following their rendition of the Song of
Democracy and the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The marriage of the
Congressional Choral Society and the Washington Symphony Orchestra gave
birth to the idea and the eventual reality of a congressional
Philharmonic orchestra. The United States Congressional Philharmonic
Society is the institution principally responsible for the formation,
development, and operation of the United States Congressional
Philharmonic Orchestra and the United States Congressional Choral
Society which, I might add, I have chaired in all 15 years of its
existence.
The vision of the Congressional Philharmonic Society is to become the
artistic voice of America through the international language of music.
The society will do that by encouraging congressional Members, staff,
and friends of the United States Congress to use their musical
resources and talents. Given those talents and resources, the society
can accept invitations to present musical programs and intends to
present musical performances that will enrich lives all across America
with patriotic and classical presentations.
The mission of the Congressional Philharmonic Society is to promote
patriotism, freedom, democracy, understanding, and world peace through
music. That mission will be accomplished by sponsoring, managing, and
supporting the Congressional Choral Society and the Congressional
Symphony Orchestra as they communicate through the international
language of music in concerts and other multimedia performances.
House Concurrent Resolution 229 is simple and straightforward. It
notes that the Congressional Philharmonic Society is approved as a
501(c)3 nonprofit organization under the Internal Revenue Code, offers
free concerts to

[[Page 9570]]

the public in the Washington metropolitan area, and encourages the
development of young musical talent across the United States by
providing internships, scholarships, and educational programs for
schools across the Nation.
This resolution states that it is the sense of the Congress that the
United States Congressional Philharmonic Society should be applauded
for having as its mission the promotion of patriotism, freedom,
democracy, and understanding of American culture through the
international language of music; and for promoting musical excellence
throughout the educational system, and encouraging people of all ages
to commit to the love and expression of musical performance.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia--Mr. Davis--for
introducing this resolution, and I would urge my colleagues to support
House Concurrent Resolution 229 and the Congressional Philharmonic
Society.

{time} 1230

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 229, and I am again amazed at the
multi-talented nature of the chairman of the Committee on Education and
the Workforce. I was not aware that he also performed in these
organizations beyond his work on the committee of setting a national
education policy, but he is truly a Renaissance man.
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation and the prime sponsor of it,
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). We came to the Congress
together, and I hold him in high esteem.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I appreciate his efforts in bringing this
bill to the floor.
I rise today as the proud sponsor of H. Con. Res. 229, which
expresses the sense of Congress regarding the United States
Philharmonic Society and its mission of promoting musical excellence
throughout the educational system and encouraging people of all ages to
commit to the joy and expression of musical performance.
I believe that all Americans should have the opportunity to
participate in music and art programs. Arts education programs and,
specifically, music education programs have a positive impact on the
lives of our children. Music education is a valuable lesson that serves
to enrich our children and our society, and the United States
Congressional Philharmonic Society plays a vital role in accomplishing
these goals.
The United States Congressional Philharmonic Society has created its
own unique and appropriate mission which promotes patriotism, freedom,
democracy, and understanding of American culture through sponsorship,
management, and support of these groups and their derivative ensembles
as they communicate through the international language of music in
concerts and other multimedia performances in the United States and the
world.
Under the organization of Maestro Martin Piecuch, the Congressional
Philharmonic Society has quickly established itself as a voice of
freedom and democracy through the art of music. Maestro Piecuch can be
credited with planting the seed for the Congressional Philharmonic
Society when he directed the Broadway musical 1776 at DAR Constitution
Hall in March of 1995 in which 12 Members of Congress played roles as
the Founding Fathers of this great Nation.
As the music director and conductor of the Washington Symphony
Orchestra, the maestro has played a great role in the world of music
for the citizens of Northern Virginia. He has served as resident
conductor, orchestra manager, and chorus manager at Wolf Trap Farm Park
for the Performing Arts and held the position of music director and
conductor with the Alexandria Choral Society.
The United States Congressional Philharmonic Society has developed a
concert series to promote democracy and peace throughout the world.
Most recently, on May 13, 2000, the String Quartet of the United States
Congressional Philharmonic Orchestra performed in the United States
Department of State Diplomatic Reception Room before the ambassadors to
America representing the South African Development countries.
I would also like to thank former United States Senator Charles Percy
for his support of the Congressional Philharmonic Society. Senator
Percy's leadership and guidance have played a great role in Society's
formation.
Madam Speaker, the United States Congressional Philharmonic Society
is a living example of how our country's principles of freedom and
liberty can be showcased to the entire world through music. I urge all
Members to join us in supporting this resolution.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I do want to mention that the Capitol Hill Choral Society which I
chair was the brainchild of Betty Buchanan who has been our director
for 13 years, and she is the wife of our former colleague, Congressman
John Buchanan. We have given many concerts with junior high choruses
throughout Washington, D.C.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con.
Res. 229.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H. Con. Res. 229.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN MUSIC

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 509) recognizing the importance of African-
American music to global culture and calling on the people of the
United States to study, reflect on, and celebrate African-American
music, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H. Res. 509

Whereas artists, songwriters, producers, engineers,
educators, executives, and other professionals in the music
industry provide inspiration and leadership through their
creation of music, dissemination of educational information,
and financial contributions to charitable and community-based
organizations;
Whereas African-American music is indigenous to the United
States and originates from African genres of music;
Whereas African-American genres of music such as gospel,
blues, jazz, rhythm and blues, rap, the Motown sound, and
hip-hop have their roots in the African-American experience;
Whereas African-American music has a pervasive influence on
dance, fashion, language, art, literature, cinema, media,
advertisements, and other aspects of culture;
Whereas the prominence of African-American music in the
20th century has reawakened interest in the legacy and
heritage of the art form of African-American music;
Whereas African-American music embodies the strong presence
of, and significant contributions made by, African-Americans
in the music industry and society as a whole;
Whereas the multibillion dollar African-American music
industry contributes greatly to the domestic and worldwide
economy;
Whereas African-American music has a positive impact on and
broad appeal to diverse groups, both nationally and
internationally; and
Whereas in 1979 President Carter recognized June as
African-American Music Month, and President Clinton
subsequently recognized June as African-American Music Month:
Now, therefore, be it

[[Page 9571]]

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the importance of the contributions of
African-American music to global culture and the positive
impact of African-American music on global commerce; and
(2) calls on the people of the United States to take the
opportunity to study, reflect on, and celebrate the majesty,
vitality, and importance of African-American music.

General Leave

Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H. Res. 509.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of H. Res. 509 offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), a very important member of our Committee on
Education and the Workforce. I particularly want to call to all of my
colleagues' attention that the gentleman has indicated that we will
have a most memorable and enjoyable meeting in the City of Brotherly
Love when our convention meets there. He has assured me that the bad
name that the city gets on sporting events from time to time has
nothing to do with the people of the City of Brotherly Love. I think he
said they come from across the river, the ones that cause the trouble.
Now he is in trouble with the people across the river.
Madam Speaker, African-American music has been a part of the American
and global culture for decades. From glorious gospel blues, jazz,
rhythm and blues to rap and hip-hop, African-American music has
influenced all aspects of our society in the form of dance, fashion,
language, art, literature, cinema, media, and advertisements.
Throughout time, African-American artists, songwriters, educators,
and other professionals in the music industry have provided inspiration
and leadership through their creation of music, dissemination of
educational information, and financial contributions to charitable and
community-based organizations that had allowed African-American music
to embody the strong presence of and significant contributions made by
African Americans. All in all, African-American music has made a
positive impact on and a broad appeal to diverse groups, both
nationally and internationally.
Madam Speaker, this resolution is very simple. We want to rightly
recognize and celebrate the magnificent contributions that African-
American music has provided, not only in shaping the social and
political fabric of our Nation, but to the global culture as well.
I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership in
authoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in its
support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H. Res. 509. I would like to thank the chairman
of the committee for facilitating this legislation's appearance here on
the floor, and I would share with him again that we look forward to
welcoming the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. It is the
first time our city will be hosting a convention in the last 50 years.
Philadelphia is an appropriate place for either of our national
parties to meet because it is the founding city of our country in which
the document that was referred to earlier, the Declaration of
Independence, was penned. Notwithstanding a few people who do not live
in our city who may come to a sporting event and not act appropriately,
the citizens of our city have agreed that they are going to be
Republicans for a whole week when they come for the convention.
Then, on this particular legislation, Philadelphia has played and
continues to play, a very important role in the development of African-
American music from the Philadelphia Sound, and Marian Anderson, and a
host of others. This year I have introduced this resolution,
particularly in honor of the late great Grover Washington, Jr. and
Curtis Mayfield who both have passed, but the contributions of African
Americans in the field of music are well known; and they go through all
of the different types of music, from gospel to jazz to hip-hop and the
like.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the majority, particularly the
chairman, for allowing this resolution. It is important because, in
this month of June under the leadership of the International
Association of African-American Music under the leadership of Diana
Williams, there will be an important acknowledgment, and this dates
back decades now from Jimmy Carter up through President Bill Clinton,
acknowledging this month, and I think it is appropriate that the
Congress does likewise. I want to thank all of my colleagues and hope
for favorable consideration of this resolution.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker. I rise today to express my support
for House Resolution 509 which extolls the contributions of African-
American music to American culture. I would like to thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, for their fine work in crafting this
resolution and also for allowing me to insert language into this bill
recognizing the importance of the Motown Sound.
Motown, as many of us will remember, Madam Speaker, is the recording
label started in Detroit, Michigan back in 1959.
The Motown story is the story of Berry Gordy, Jr., who was born in
Detroit, Michigan on November 28, 1929. He was the seventh of eight
children of Berry, Sr. and Bertha Gordy who themselves moved to Detroit
from the South. After being drafted into the Army in 1951, he obtained
his high school equivalency degree while in the Army. When Berry got
out of the Army 1953, he opened a jazz-oriented record store called the
3-D Record Mart with his family's help. By 1955, the store had failed
and Berry was working on the Ford automobile assembly line. While
working on the line, Berry constantly wrote songs, submitting them to
magazines, contests, and singers. His first break as a songwriter came
in 1957 when Jackie Wilson recorded ``Reet Petite'', a song he, his
sister Gwen and Billy Davis (under the pseudonym of Tyran Carlo) had
written. ``Reet Petite'' became a modest hit and netted Berry $1,000
for the song. The rest, as they say, is history--a wonderful history of
African-American contributions to American music and culture.
The list of entertainers that share their roots in Motown is long and
incredibly distinguished. Their music forms an integral part of the
American experience. This list includes Jackie Wilson, the Miracles,
the Four Tops, Marvelettes, Martha and the Vandellas, Supremes, the
Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, Mary Wells, Mickey Stevenson,
Smokey Robinson, Holland-Dozier-Holland, the Funk Brothers, Gladys
Knight and the Pips, the Isley Brothers, Diana Ross and the Supremes,
Marvin Gaye, Michael Jackson, the Jackson 5, the Commodores, and Lionel
Ritchie to name only a few. Motown afforded these and many other
talented performers the opportunity to showcase their music to all of
America.
In 1970 Motown established a new subsidiary label called Black Forum
that released the historical speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.,
Stokely Carmichael and black poets such as Langston Hughes and Margaret
Danner. The Motown label continues to thrive today, ensuring that
future generations will be able to enjoy this rich musical tradition.
For ready information about Motown I would like to express a special
thank you to Mike Callahan and his web page, http://www.bsnpubs.com/
motownstory.html. I would also like to recommend and thank the web site
of the Recording Institute Of Detroit at http://www.recordingeq.com/
motown.htm. There you can find a photo essay tour of the Motown
Historical Museum guided by Robert Dennis, Former Mastering Supervisor,
Motown. For the museum's excellent photos I would like to thank Nick
David for REQ and the Motown Historical Museum. An in-person visit is
always better. You can contact the museum at (313) 875-2264.
The Motown Historical Museum is housed in two adjacent and connected
buildings at 2648

[[Page 9572]]

West Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan. These are the two original
buildings out of the eight West Grand Boulevard buildings that Motown
owned on the boulevard in the 1960's--before the company moved its
headquarters to a ten-story office building on Woodward Avenue in
downtown Detroit. The Motown Studio A remained at Hitsville, USA.
In light of Motown's historic musical contribution, I felt it
necessary that we include recognition of the Motown Sound in this
resolution and highlight a fantastic chapter of the Detroit area's
place in history. Congratulations and thank you to Motown!
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to
support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 509, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. GOODLING. Madam. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

LES ASPIN POST OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4241) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1818 Milton Avenue in Janesville,
Wisconsin, as the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 4241

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LES ASPIN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1818 Milton Avenue in Janesville,
Wisconsin, shall be known and designated as the ``Les Aspin
Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Former Congressman Les Aspin faithfully served the people of
Wisconsin's First Congressional District for over 20 years as their
elected representative. During his time in Congress, he was a credit to
this institution we now serve in. A former U.S. Army captain, Aspin
served as the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services from 1985 to
1993. When the President called on him, Aspin continued his hard work
to improve our Nation's security by serving as the U.S. Secretary of
Defense from 1993 to 1994. This dedicated public servant passed away,
unfortunately, on May 21, 1995 at the age of 56.
Wisconsinites are very proud of Congressman Aspin and all that he has
done for Wisconsin's First District and the Nation. I believe that it
would be appropriate to honor the late Congressman Aspin by naming the
U.S. Post Office in Janesville, Wisconsin, my own hometown, as the Les
Aspin Post Office Building. Aspin's former Janesville office had been
housed in the old Janesville Post Office downtown, which is now the
Keeley Pharmacy, for over 2 decades.
As the Congressman who currently serves the First Congressional
District, and as a member of the opposite party that Congressman Aspin
served from, I believe that this still would be a fitting tribute to
Congressman Aspin, especially since this marks the 30th anniversary to
the year he was first elected to this congressional seat.
Les Aspin embodied honest public service and his example continues to
inspire Members of Congress today. I thank the gentleman from New York
(Mr. McHugh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Postal Service, and
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee
on Government Reform, for their cooperation and leadership in bringing
this bill to the floor today, and I would urge my colleagues to honor a
great American statesman who gave much to this institution and to
support H.R. 4241.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4241, joining my colleague,
the gentleman from the great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Les Aspin was a leader here in this Congress for many, many years
dealing with issues related to national defense and the Armed Forces,
but moreover, was a public servant who provided an extraordinary level
of leadership to our Nation. He is someone who, as is obvious by the
sponsorship of this bill, who enjoyed respect and support on both sides
of the aisle. I would like to compliment the gentleman for the
introduction.
Madam Speaker, we look forward to favorable, if not unanimous,
support for this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, for yielding time to me.
I would like to commend him for taking the leadership to bring this
measure before the House today to honor a distinguished son of the
State of Wisconsin and a friend of mine, Les Aspin.
While a member of the Democratic Party, Les was a person who took his
responsibilities as a United States Representative, not as a party
representative, seriously. He often broke party ranks to take actions
that he felt were right, and his leadership influenced many others in
this body, so that it ended up being quite effective.
I can remember myself wondering whether it made sense for us to get
involved in military action in the Gulf at the time of that crisis,
when Kuwait was invaded, or whether we should, as many counseled at the
time, rely on an embargo, which is still in effect, to bring down
Saddam Hussein and roll back the troops.
Les took the well of this House and repeatedly urged us to use
military force, overwhelming military force, and predicted that if we
marshalled that force it would not be effectively resisted, and we
would have, and gasps went from the crowd, if any casualties,
casualties in the hundreds, not the thousands.
At the time, people were predicting a quagmire and tens of thousands
of American troops and allied troops losing their lives. While it did
not seem to many that plausible at the time, Les proved to be
absolutely right. His counsel by a narrow vote was followed, and we did
roll back the invasion of Kuwait, and set an example that we hope will
deter others from taking similar action.
He broke ranks from the military community in opposing the B-2
weapons system. He broke ranks again with party orthodoxy in
supporting, but in a moderate way, the SDI, Strategic Defense
Initiative, feeling that we should not try in Congress to cut it off,
we should not throw money at it, but we should invest in research in
that area, as we could prudently and as the defense community indicated
could be absorbed.
He was well respected, a former educator, an economist at the
Marquette University, and a person who has been honored by Marquette
University; there is the Aspin Institute here in this city, which
trains many young people who come out to learn about government. I have
been pleased to have a number of Aspin Institute scholars in my own
office. Others in Congress I think can say the same.
I really am very, very pleased that my colleague and the worthy
successor

[[Page 9573]]

of former Defense Secretary and former Representative Les Aspin, former
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, has chosen to honor Mr.
Aspin in this way.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me, and for introducing this resolution to name the building for
somebody with whom many of us did serve in this House of
Representatives who truly was a great statesman.
He started off with a great education, certainly, having gone through
the Milwaukee schools, entering higher education, and then he became a
professor, serving very well. He went through the staff positions where
he worked for Senator Proxmire. He also worked for Walter Heller, who
was the chairman of President Kennedy's Council on Economic Advisors.
Also, he served as a captain in the United States Army. He was an
economic adviser to the Secretary of Defense. Then he was elected to
the House of Representatives in the 92nd Congress. Then he was
reelected to the 11 succeeding Congresses, serving, therefore, from
1971 in January until he resigned in January of 1993.
While serving here in Congress, he was a member of the Committee on
Armed Forces, and he was its chairman from the 99th through the 102nd
Congresses. We then know he became Secretary of Defense until his
resignation in 1994.
Additionally, from August, 1994, until his death at the age of 57 in
1995, he was professor of international policy, Washington Center for
Government, Marquette University. He was also chair of the Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board and of the Commission on the Roles and
Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community.
I want to point out, Madam Speaker, that here is a man who, from the
beginning of his career until the very end at age 57, devoted himself
in so many ways to the greatness of our country. He was indeed a
patriot and a public servant.
I want to congratulate our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan), sponsor of the legislation, having introduced it in
recognition of his predecessor, Les Aspin, who served this Nation and
his constituency for many years with great ability, dedication, and
finesse. I think he is indeed deserving of having the Post Office
located on 1818 Milton Avenue in Janesville, Wisconsin, named after
him. I urge all our colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Just to briefly reiterate, Madam Speaker, Les Aspin served the First
Congressional District for 22 years; served as Secretary of Defense,
was a scholar, was a professor and academic. He was known as a good
statesman, as an honest man.
Whether we agreed or disagreed on a given issue with Les Aspin, we
always knew that he thought issues through, and that he was going to
give good service to the First Congressional District of Wisconsin. He
was a gifted statesman. His memory will live on for quite a while.
We thought it would be especially fitting that the Janesville,
Wisconsin, Post Office be renamed after Les Aspin, given the fact that
his own office was housed in the old Janesville Post Office for a good
20 years. I might add, Madam Speaker, that the Janesville City Council
has passed a resolution affirming the designation of this Post Office.
Madam Speaker, I ask passage of this measure.
Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4241,
legislation designating the United States Post Office in Janesville,
Wisconsin as the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building.''
Les Aspin was a larger-than-life political icon who represented
Wisconsin's 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of
Representatives from 1971 to 1993. After being successfully reelected
in 1992, Les was appointed by President Bill Clinton to become this
nation's 18th Secretary of Defense, a position he held until February
3, 1994.
Les accomplished much in his nearly 57 years. Born in Milwaukee, Les
received a B.A. from Yale University in 1960, an M.A. from Oxford
University in 1962 where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and earned a Ph.D. in
economics from MIT in 1965. As an officer in the U.S. Army from 1966 to
1968, Les served as a systems analyst in the Pentagon under Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara. In 1970, after first contemplating running
for other state offices, Les was elected to the House of
Representatives, where he served for the next 22 years.
Once in the House, Les soon developed a special interest and
expertise in defense matters. In 1985, as a junior member of the House
Committee on Armed Services, Les leap-frogged Members much more senior
to become chair of this powerful committee. As chair, Les proved to be
a straight shooter, not one to always toe his party's political line.
Les was a strong early supporter of the Persian Gulf War, predicting in
advance that the U.S.'s military force would drive the Iraqis from
Kuwait. In a paper written prior to the war, Les stated that the United
States could win a quick military victory with light casualties. The
accuracy of his prediction lent credence to his already strong
reputation. As chair, Les' sentinel work on reshaping the Armed Forces
after the demise of the Soviet Union was instrumental in the formation
of post-Cold War strategies and policies for this nation.
In turn, Presidential candidate Bill Clinton relied on Les for his
wisdom and once elected named him as his first defense secretary.
During his tenure at the Pentagon, Les dealt with such weighty issues
as base closures, a shrinking Pentagon budget, and the growing threat
of regional conflicts. As Secretary, Les will always be remembered for
instituting the ``bottom-up'' review which took the first hard look at
the organizational structure of the military in a post-Cold War world.
After leaving the Pentagon in early 1994, Les joined the faculty of
Marquette University's international affairs program in Washington,
D.C. In March 1995, be became a member of the Commission on Roles and
Missions. In May, President Clinton chose him as chairman of the
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In March 1995, he
began work as chairman of still another study group, this on the Roles
and Capabilities of the Intelligence Community. Shortly thereafter, on
May 21, 1995, he died of a stroke.
Les was a brilliant man who, through his tremendous energy and work
ethic, worked tirelessly to shape this nation's vision for defense
policy and armed forces to meet the changing demands of the 21st
century. His intellect and perspective are sorely missed.
Wisconsin has sent a number of nationally known historical leaders to
represent them in Washington. Robert LaFollette, Melvin Laird, Bill
Proxmire and Gaylord Nelson to name just a few. Without question, Les
Aspin's name must be certainly added to this list.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in paying tribute to
former Congressman, Les Aspin.
Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4241, to
rename the Janesville, Wisconsin, Post Office the Les Aspin Post Office
Building.
I served with Les from 1985 until 1993, when he left to serve the
Clinton Administration as Secretary of Defense. Les was an incredibly
talented public servant with a mind that worked quickly and saw the
complexity of problems, both near-term and long-term. He was an amazing
man who never lost touch with the people he represented. He could talk
to farmers and mechanics as easily as he talked to presidents and prime
ministers, a trait I greatly admire. He never lost a political race and
worked his entire life to make this country a better place to live.
I think he surprised us all when he challenged Mel Price for the
Chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee, but for the face of
the House Representatives, it was indeed a good thing. Les brought a
new mind-set and new way of thinking to the different problems that we
faced as a country in the aftermath of the Cold War. He served in the
Army for 2 years and understood the nature of the animal.
As the Secretary of Defense, he led the efforts to address the
Quadrennial Defense Review to assess the needs of our military on a
regular basis. From this effort came the philosophy that the United
States may well need to fight two wars in the not-too-distant future
and in the course of that scenario, a rogue state could easily attack
the United States or exercise acts of terrorism against us. Les dubbed
the U.S. strategy scenario in this instance as ``win-hold-win.'' If the
U.S. was indeed in the two-war scenario, Les devised a strategy that
would win one war, hold our ground on a second war, and win the third.

[[Page 9574]]

Thankfully, we have not seen this worst-case scenario, fighting on
two fronts and holding a third, but we have seen terrorism against the
U.S. interests around the world, and despotism in Europe (again)
required our military response there. Les Aspin's ideas changed the way
the House Armed Services Committee operated and changed the way the
United States assessed threats and disposed of resources.
Les Aspin made this a better country and was wholly dedicated to
public service. I am proud that we will be naming the Janesville Post
Office after this great American. I hope Les Aspin's name on the
building will inspire pride in the young people in his community who
did not have the opportunity to know this politically savvy,
academically gifted creative thinker.
Mr. KLECZKA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4241,
legislation which will rename the post office in Janesville, Wisconsin,
as the ``Les Aspin Post Office Building.''
One of Wisconsin's favorite son's Les Aspin served his home state
with distinction during his eleven terms as Congressman from the First
District. He went on to serve the Clinton Administration as its first
Secretary of Defense. He served his home state and his country with
great honor.
Les began and ended his professional career as a professor at
Marquette University in Milwaukee. The university's Washington program,
which brings students to our Nation's capitol to experience firsthand
the way our government works, was renamed in 1996 the Les Aspin Center
for Government in his honor. I know Les would be proud to know that the
institute which bears his name is building upon his legacy by teaching
future generations of leaders about the values of civic involvement and
public service.
Madam Speaker, throughout Les' service to his country, his love and
commitment to his home state remained deep and unwavering. Today we
have the opportunity to further recognize the outstanding achievements
of one of our former colleagues who left us far too soon. Renaming the
post office in Janesville as the Les Aspin Post Office Building is a
fitting tribute to a man who served Wisconsin so well.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as an original
cosponsor and strong support of H.R. 4241 which designates the facility
of the U.S. Postal Service located at 1818 Milton Avenue in Janesville,
Wisconsin, as the Les Aspin Post Office Building.
I had the distinguished honor of serving with Mr. Aspin. As a fellow
Wisconsinite, I admired his dedication to public service that was
evident throughout his tenure; not only as a Member of the House of
Representatives, but as Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the
President's Intelligence Advisory Board, to name just a few.
Secretary Aspin did not begin his life's devotion to the public in
the political arena. He served this country in the U.S. Army from 1966
to 1968. He then entered politics and went on to served in this body
from 1971 to 1993. He served as the Chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee from 1985 to 1993. He was then appointed by
President Clinton as his first Secretary of Defense.
Secretary Aspin was known to share his knowledge and passion for
America in many circles. He continued his outreach by serving as a
distinguished professor for Marquette University in Milwaukee, WI, and
in Washington, DC. The naming of the Marquette University Washington
program, the Les Aspin Center for Government, recognized his service to
this program.
Secretary Aspin brought his love for his work and his sense of humor
into her personal life as well. As an avid dog lover, my fellow
Wisconsinite named his dog ``Junket,'' and Junket was equally
comfortable and welcome in the office and at home.
I believe that H.R. 4241 is a fitting tribute to a man who gave
tirelessly to the people he represented in Wisconsin during his tenure
as Congressman and the country during his tenure as Secretary of
Defense. I am honored to speak in support of H.R. 4241 and believe that
the recognition it would lend to Secretary Aspin, is well deserved.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4241.
The question was taken.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

MATTHEW F. McHUGH POST OFFICE

Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3030) to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 757 Warren Road in Ithaca, New York, as the
``Matthew F. McHugh Post Office''.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3030

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

(a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 757 Warren Road in Ithaca, New York, shall
be known and designated as the ``Matthew F. McHugh Post
Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Matthew F. McHugh Post Office''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

General Leave

Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on H.R. 3030.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MORELLA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), has introduced the bill before us, H.R. 3030.
Pursuant to the policy of the Committee on Government Reform, the
entire House delegation of the State of New York has cosponsored this
legislation.
The bill designates the facility of the United States Postal Service
located at 757 Warren Road in Ithaca, New York, as the Matthew F.
McHugh Post Office.
The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed H.R. 3030 and estimates
that the enactment of the bill would have no significant impact on the
Federal budget. Spending by the Postal Service is classified as off-
budget, and thus is not subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
Mr. McHugh studied at Mount St. Mary's College in Emmitsburg,
Maryland, the State that I represent. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in
1960 and was the President of the student body. He then received his
Juris Doctor from Villanova Law School, where he was the editor of the
Law Review. He was city prosecutor in Ithaca, practiced law in Ithaca,
New York, and was district attorney in Tompkins County, New York.
Matthew McHugh was the predecessor of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey) to Congress, and represented the 27th and 28th
Congressional Districts of New York. Representative McHugh was elected
to Congress in 1975 and he served until 1992. He served on the
Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations,
Export Financing and Related Programs, and the Subcommittee on Rural
Development, Agriculture and Related Agencies from 1978 to 1992.
He served on numerous other committees and organizations while in the
House, such as the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where he
was chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislation. He was acting chairman
of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and he served on the
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families; the Committee on
Veterans Affairs; the Committee on Agriculture; the Committee on the
Interior; the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus; and as the
chairman of the Democratic Study Group.
After leaving the House, Mr. McHugh continued his participation in
improving our Nation and the world. He is

[[Page 9575]]

presently the counselor to the president of the World Bank in
Washington, D.C., a position he assumed in 1993.
Prior to that, he was vice president, university counsel, and
secretary to the Corporation of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.
He continues to serve in various capacities in organizations, such as
the National Endowment for Democracy, the Central and East European Law
Initiative of the American Bar Association, the International Crisis
Group.
He is president of the Association of Former Members of Congress,
Bread for the World, New York State Regents Commission on Higher
Education, the Board of Consulters of the Villanova School of Law, and
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Mount St. Mary's College.
I had the pleasure of serving with Mr. McHugh and traveling with him
internationally in pursuit of the best interests of our country with
foreign affairs, and it is a great pleasure to be able to speak on
behalf of this bill to name the post office the Matthew F. McHugh Post
Office.
I urge our colleagues to support H.R. 3030, honoring our former
colleague by naming that postal facility at 757 Warren Road in Ithaca,
New York, as the Matthew F. McHugh Post Office.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey) will control the time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
There was no objection.
Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on
behalf of this initiative, which will name the postal facility in
Ithaca, New York, after my dear friend, colleague, and predecessor, the
Honorable Matthew F. McHugh.
It gives me particular pleasure to do so following the statements
that have been just made by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), whose service with Mr. McHugh overlapped.
I know that Matt holds the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella)
in great respect and affection, as do I, and I know very well that he
would be very pleased if he were in this room now to have just heard
the very lovely and kind and warm remarks that she made about him, as I
was just a moment ago.

{time} 1300

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) very
much for what she has just said.
Also, I want to say that I too am honored to stand before you today
to urge our support, the support of all the Members of the House, for
H.R. 3030, which would rename the new post office building in Ithaca,
New York, in honor of former Representative Matthew F. McHugh.
Matt was my predecessor in the House, and I know many people here who
served with him. He served with distinction for nine terms as a member
of the Committee on Appropriations for 14 years. Matt championed issues
like hunger in Africa that brought him no particular glory and no
attention. He was a passionate advocate for those who could not
adequately defend themselves and a voice for meeting our international
responsibilities in a humane way.
In his present position at the World Bank, and his many volunteer
efforts, he remains a strong, dedicated leader in securing human rights
for all.
Matt's road to Congress began like many Members, with a career in
law. He first moved to Ithaca, New York, in 1968 to join a law firm in
that city. Just 1 year later, he was elected as Tompkins County's
district attorney, making him the first Democrat to hold a county-wide
elected office there in decades.
In 1974, he was enlisted to run for the House seat which was then
being vacated by former Representative Howard Robison, a very
distinguished Republican who held that seat for a good many years and
who was retiring at that moment. Matt McHugh won that seat and served
the district admirably and well for 18 years.
When he retired from the House, he was widely praised by Members of
both parties as well as in the press for his thoughtfulness, his
fairness, and his integrity. A national columnist, upon the news of his
retirement, wrote that Matt McHugh was an example of ``the best the
House can offer.'' Our ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Obey) said, and I quote, ``In my view, there is no Member of this
House who more aptly sums up what public service ought to be all about
than does Matt McHugh.''
Throughout his years in Congress, he made Ithaca his home. Ithacans
continue to take pride in having sent a man of such distinction to the
House of Representatives, and community leaders there have told me that
they welcome such a permanent commemoration of Matt and his years of
public service. Although he was never the kind of man to seek such
honors, I know that he deserves recognition and this permanent
commemoration of the service he gave will remind people of the fine
example he set.
Naming the new Ithaca post office in his honor is one small way in
which we can acknowledge his years of hard work, dedication, and
commitment to the people of New York's 26th Congressional District.
I owe a special thanks also to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Houghton), our friend and colleague, in whose district the post office
lies, as well as to the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) for
his assistance in bringing this bill to the House. The gentleman from
New York (Mr. Houghton) served with Matt here for a number of years.
They were, during that service, good friends; and they continue to be
good friends to this day.
Matt still provides service for the country, as the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) has said, in his position as vice president and
counsel to the president of the World Bank.
He was, in fact, a distinguished Member of this House; indeed, as
many people referred to him during his service here, a man of the
House. And he continues to be a strong, dedicated, faithful citizen of
the United States. We all owe him a great thanks for his service to the
country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce).
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I probably knew Matt McHugh for longer than
anybody in this body, because I first met him at Villanova Law School
in the early 1960s when we were both students there. Above and beyond
being students together, we were counselors at that time to the
undergraduate students at Villanova University. I also came to know his
lovely wife, Alanna, then. They were dating at that time. And when we
talk about a great human being, we have to think of two human beings,
both Matt and his wonderful wife, Alanna.
From the very first day I knew him, through all of our 18 years in
Congress together to today, there is no one I have ever respected more,
both professionally and personally. Matt was the type of individual at
law school who never had a bad word to say about anyone. If he had a
bad thought, he kept it to himself. He only spoke well of others. He
was a kind man, a gentle man as a law student.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the tremendous job he did when he was the
district attorney in Tompkins County at the time of the uprisings at
Cornell, and he handled it so judiciously, so appropriately.
He was elected to Congress in the great Watergate year, 1974. He was
one of the ``Watergate Babies,'' and so was I. We were elected at the
same time, and we came to Congress on the same day.
As Members, we always like to double check ourselves. Are we doing
something right? Are we doing something wrong? And I always wanted to
know how Matt McHugh was going to vote on an issue, because if his
inclinations were the same as mine, I felt pretty secure in my
conviction. And if his inclinations differed from mine, that would give
me pause and concern, because I trusted his judgment and

[[Page 9576]]

knew that he was, perhaps more than anything else, an intellectually
honest person.
He was not a partisan. Sure, he was a Democrat more than Republican;
he labeled himself as such. But he was not a partisan Democrat. He
approached each and every issue on its merits.
There are not too many individuals we can say that of. He did not try
to fool others. He tried to give the total truth, not just a half-truth
that would serve his own purposes. But perhaps most importantly, he
never attempted to fool himself. And the most difficult thing in the
world is being honest with yourself.
So when we honor Matt McHugh, we are honoring one of the best persons
who has ever served in this House. I am just grateful that he has
continued to perform public service since he retired as a Member. When
he and I first knew each other, we were counselors to students. Now he
is the counselor to the president of the World Bank. And in that sense,
he is not just affecting millions of people in the world, or billions,
as we in Congress do, but virtually every person in the world in his
position as counselor to the president of the World Bank.
Matt would be the first to say that having one's name carved in stone
is not a true measure of the person or of his impact on the world. But
I and many others will take considerable pleasure in knowing that high
above Cayuga's waters for decades to come, Matt's name will be seen by
millions of Ithacans and other New Yorkers. And parents will tell their
children, Matt McHugh? Oh, he is probably the best public servant this
town, this county, this State has ever known.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you and all our colleagues will join me in
supporting this honor for one of the best Members of Congress our
institution has ever known, Matt McHugh.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San
Diego, California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for introducing this motion for
a great former Member of our body. I thank also the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton)
for their support of this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of rising in support of this measure to
name the post office in Ithaca after Matthew McHugh. We have heard a
lot about his legislative accomplishments, his work in the Committee on
Appropriations, his work at the World Bank. I had the privilege of
meeting Matt McHugh before he held any of those offices, a little after
the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) knew him.
I was a student at Cornell in 1968 when Matt McHugh was the Ithaca
city prosecutor. ``Town and gown'' relations between Cornell and Ithaca
were never very good, but in 1968 at the height of tensions around this
country and at the Cornell campus, literally uprisings, the tensions
were even worse. And yet the Ithaca city prosecutor was respected by
students at Cornell, and he respected us as students.
It was that mutual respect and that mutual sense of good feeling
which has characterized the career of Matt McHugh ever since that day.
At 30 years old, he was elected the first Democratic district
attorney for Tompkins County, New York. Many students at Cornell,
including myself, worked in that first campaign for Matt McHugh. The
respect that he earned in that job, as the gentleman from New York (Mr.
LaFalce) intimated earlier, led to his election to Congress in 1974,
again, as the first Democrat from that area in a very, very long time.
Now, Matt McHugh was the kind of man who kept up his relationships.
He was never a man who was unfriendly; always a gracious, sharing,
caring individual. I kept my relations with him as a Hill staffer in
the 1970s and 80's. And what we are saying today, those who knew him
and those who served with him, is that Matt McHugh saw politics as a
noble profession. Everybody who knows Matt McHugh, and knew him as an
elected official, learned that, in fact, politicians, elected
officials, could be noble; that elected officials had not only
intelligence and insight, but they had integrity and ethics, fairness,
and in the case of Matt McHugh, grace.
His wife, Alanna, and his wonderful daughters, played a key role in
all of his life. He was proud of them and they were proud of him, and
he showed what a family in politics could do together.
Mr. Speaker, having lived in Ithaca for 10 years, and I think the
only Cornell alumnus in this body at the present time, I know that all
Ithacans will be proud that a post office in their city will be named
after Matt McHugh.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank our friends, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for
their words about our dear friend, Matt McHugh. I also want to express
my deep appreciation to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella)
for the wonderful and very thoughtful things that she said about our
friend and colleague, Matt McHugh, as well.
Having followed him here to the House, I can say also without
hesitation or fear of conviction that he set, while he was here, a very
high standard indeed and he continues to set a high standard in his
continuing public service at the World Bank.
We in New York are very, very proud of this man and the service that
he has rendered to our State and to the country. It is with a great
deal of pride that I offer this measure to the other Members of the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) has introduced this resolution to name this post office.
During my time with Matt McHugh here in the House of Representatives, I
will also say that I found him to be fair, open-minded, warm,
bipartisan, and a very committed professional.
I am pleased that he is continuing with his work with the World Bank,
because he is helping those who are oppressed and those who need the
Bank's services in other countries.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to vote for H.R. 3030, to name the
post office the ``Matthew F. McHugh Post Office.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3030.
The question was taken.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

{time} 1315

SHARK FINNING PROHIBITION ACT

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3535) to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to eliminate the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice
of shark finning, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3535

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 ``Shark Finning Prohibition
Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to eliminate the wasteful and
unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning and to reduce the
high mortality levels associated with shark finning in waters
of the United States.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REMOVING SHARK FIN AND DISCARDING
SHARK CARCASS AT SEA.

Section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (N) by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (O) by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and

[[Page 9577]]

(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark (including
the tail) and discard the carcass of the shark at sea;
``(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any such
fin aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding
carcass; or
``(iii) to land any such fin without the corresponding
carcass;''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).

General Leave

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3535.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 3535, the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham). This legislation amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act to prohibit the removal of shark fins,
including the tail, and then discard the carcass into the sea; to
prohibit having the custody, control, or possession of any such fin
aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; and to
prohibit the landing of such fins without the corresponding carcass.
The practice of shark finning is wasteful and wrong. In addition, the
practice of shark finning is inconsistent with rules governing the
harvest of sharks on the East Coast, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in the
Caribbean. This legislation will make shark finning illegal in all U.S.
waters.
The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
reported H.R. 3535 by voice vote with one amendment on May 18, 2000.
The full Committee on Resources then reported the bill without
amendment by voice vote on May 24. This is a noncontroversial bill that
should be supported by all Members.
Members may remember that the House reported a nonbinding resolution
on this issue in October of last year which expresses the sense of
Congress that the practice of shark finning is a wasteful and
unsportsmanlike practice that could lead to overfishing of shark
resources.
The resolution further encouraged Federal and State fishery managers
to promptly and permanently end the practice of shark finning in all
Federal and State waters in the Pacific. Regrettably, this has not
occurred; and this legislation is, therefore, necessary.
I urge an aye vote on this important conservation legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the individuals
from the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Saxton), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie).
I read in a magazine where sharks had literally been caught, the fin
taken off, and then the sharks dumped back into the water still alive.
I am a sportsman. I love to hunt and fish. But I also like management
and preservation, and I do not like horrific practices when it comes to
animals.
The committee has seen fit to bring first a resolution and now this
bill, Mr. Speaker. This legislation before the House today will
establish scientifically environmentally sound and responsible
standards for all American fisheries in this particular issue.
The Shark Finning Prohibition Act has broad bipartisan support. It is
strongly supported by Ocean Wildlife Campaign, the coalition includes
Center for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, National
Coalition of Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. It is also
supported by the State of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs,
which had direct interest into this issue; the American Sportfishing
Association; Recreational Fishing Alliance; the Sports Fishing
Association of California; the Cousteau Society; Western Pacific
Fisheries Coalition.
I would like to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that, according to the
National Marine Fishery Service, in 1992, there was only 2,289 sharks
taken. In just a short time, one can see the growth of the shark
finning and the numbers that have actually been released. Over 78,000
sharks had been taken and only 982 were released.
H.R. 3535 will establish America as a worldwide leader in shark and
conservation efforts.
I would like to thank my colleagues. When I came to Congress, I did
not start off banning hunting and fishing and unsportsmanlike conduct
on certain issues. But since then, the tuna-dolphin bill, protecting
elephants, snow geese, the MSCP, which provides quarters for endangered
species and such, this is good scientific basis for this particular
bill. I would like to thank my colleagues for the support in a
bipartisan support for this particular bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters for the Record, as
follow:

Ocean Wildlife Campaign,

Washington, DC, September 22, 1999.
Hon. Randy Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Cunningham: We are writing to express
serious concern regarding the management and health of shark
populations in U.S. Pacific waters, specifically in areas
under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional
Fishery Management Council (WESPAC). Driven by the
international demand for shark fin soup, the practice of
shark finning--cutting of a shark's fins and discarding its
carcass back into the ocean--is a rapidly growing problem
that is directly responsible for huge increases in the number
of sharks killed annually and appalling waste of this
nation's living marine resources. The National Marine
Fisheries Service has prohibited shark finning in the U.S.
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. It is time to ban
finning in the Pacific.
Between 1991 and 1998, the number of sharks ``retained'' by
the Hawaii-based swordfish and tuna longline fleet jumped
from 2,289 and 60,857 annually. In 1998, over 98 percent of
these sharks were killed for their fins to meet the demand
for shark fin soup. Because shark fins typically comprise
only one to give percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95 to 99
percent of the shark is going to waste. Sharks are
particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their
``life history characteristics''--slow growth, late sexual
maturity, and the production of few young. Once depleted, a
population may take decades to recover.
The National Marine Fisheries Service, conservationists,
fishermen, scientists, and the public have pressured MESPAC
to end the practice of shark finning. Nevertheless, WESPAC
and the State of Hawaii recently failed to take action to end
or control finning.
This issue of shark finning is characterized by a dangerous
lack of management, rampant waste, and egregious
inconsistencies with U.S. domestic and international policy
stances. It is the most visible symptom of a larger problem:
a lack of comprehensive management for sharks in U.S. Pacific
waters. The history of poorly or unmanaged shark fisheries
around the world is unequivocal: rapid decline followed by
collapse. Sharks are not managed in U.S. Central and Western
Pacific waters, and with increased fishing pressure there may
be rapidly growing problems.
We urge your office to take whatever action is necessary to
immediately end the destructive practice of shark finning in
U.S. waters and encourage WESPAC to develop a comprehensive
fishery management plan for sharks that will, among other
things:
1. Immediately prohibit the finning of sharks;
2. Immediately reduce shark mortality levels by requiring
the live release of all bycatch or ``incidentally caught''
animals brought to the boat alive;
3. Immediately reduce the bycatch of sharks;
4. Prevent overfishing by quickly establishing
precautionary commercial and recreational quotas for sharks
until a final comprehensive management plan is adopted that
ensures the future health of the population. Given the
dramatic increase in the number of sharks killed in the
Hawaiian long line fishery, WESPAC should cap shark mortality
at 1994 levels as a minimum interim action, pending the
outcome of new population assessments.

[[Page 9578]]

Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
David Wilmont, Ph.D.,
Ocean Wildlife Campaign.
Carol Safina, Ph.D.,
National Audubon Society.
Lisa Speer,
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Tom Grasso,
World Wildlife Fund.
Sonja Fordham,
Center for Marine Conservation.
Ken Hinman,
National Coalition for Marine Conservation.
Ellen Pikitch, Ph.D.,
Wildlife Conservation Society.
____

State of Hawaii

Office of Hawaiian Affairs,

Honolulu, HI, February 3, 2000.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Cunningham: The purpose of this letter is
to strongly endorse H.R. 3535, which you recently introduced,
banning shark finning in areas where the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act has jurisdiction.
As you are no doubt aware, there has been considerable
outcry among the Native Hawaiian population, as well as the
population at large in Hawaii, about the practice of shark
finning. Currently there are five bills that have been
introduced in our legislature to address a ban of Shark
finning in waters in which the State has jurisdiction.
Because Hawaiian culture is integrally tied to the health,
abundance, and access to indigenous natural resources,
Hawaiians have always strived to play a stewardship role by
sound management and protection of the natural environment on
which the culture relies. Unfortunately, Hawaii is constantly
endangered by the imposition of Western beliefs, customs,
religions, and economic desires which do not necessarily hold
similar views about the importance of the natural
environment. Taking a small portion of a shark or any animal
and wasting the remainder clearly runs counter to the
Hawaiian stewardship views. Traditional use of sharks in
Hawaiian cultural meant utilization of the entire animal.
Equally as important to Hawaiians is the cultural and
spiritual significance of the shark itself. Many Hawaiian
families hold the shark in special esteem as the physical
manifestation (called kinolau) of their family guardian
(aumakua), who was also regarded as a family ancestor. There
are many other kinolau in Hawaiian culture, including the
owl, lizard, dog, rocks, and clouds. Imagine the uproar that
would arise if the Spotted Owl were to be taken, even as
``bycatch'' for its wings. The intensity of feeling about
shark finning among Hawaiians is magnified a hundred-fold
because of the special spiritual significance of the shark.
To hurt or destroy the shark wantonly and intentionally is
for many families equivalent to desecrating one's own
ancestors and heritage. In summary, as recently noted by
Hawaiian cultural practitioner Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell, the
practice of shark finning is ``very offensive'' to Hawaiians.
Our Mahalo for your interest in this matter. We hope that
the legislation will be reported out by the House Committee
on Resources, and approved by the full House and the Senate.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me or Jerry B. Norris, our Federal Desk Officer at
(808) 594-1758.
Sincerely,

Colette Y. Machado,

Chair, Committee on Legislative
and Government Affairs.
____

American Sportfishing Association,

Alexandria, VA, September 23, 1999.
Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Duke Cunningham: On behalf of the nearly 500 members
of the American Sportfishing Association, I wish to express
my strong support for your resolution to ban the wasteful
practice of shark finning. I commend your initiative in
tackling this important, yet easily dismissed issue.
For far too long, we have neglected to take action to stop
this most unsportsmanlike fishing activity. We now know that
the best shark is not a dead shark; that these oft maligned
fish play critical roles in preserving balance in the marine
ecosystem. Healthy shark populations help maintain robust
fisheries. Your effort to ban finning will not only benefit
depressed shark populations, but many other species of
commercially and recreationally important fish.
Thank you for your leadership in this area.
Sincerely,
Hon. Mike Hayden,
President/CEO.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3535, the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act that is authored by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham) who just spoke in the well.
Shark finning is currently one of the most visible and controversial
conservation issues in the waters of the Pacific Ocean. While the
practice of finning has already been banned in Federal waters in the
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean, as well as waters of 11
coastal States, it remains unregulated in the Pacific.
As a result, and because of the strong demand and the high price of
shark fins in Asia, the harvest of shark fins in the Pacific has
increased over the past 7 years by more than 2,000 percent. More than
60,000 sharks were caught and killed in 1998 alone, and 98 percent of
those sharks were killed simply for their fins, or less than 5 percent
of their body weight, and then the shark was dumped overboard to die.
This is wrong. It is culturally wrong. It is morally wrong. It is
certainly wrong in terms of the laws of conservation and maintaining
this species.
In addition, shark finning is inconsistent with U.S. policy, both
domestically and internationally. In the United States, it is contrary
to the Magnuson Act which requires fisherman to reduce bycatch and the
mortality of bycatch that cannot be avoided. Given that 85 percent of
the sharks caught are alive when they reach the boats, prohibiting the
finning of these sharks will reduce bycatch by significant amounts.
The Shark Finning Prohibition Act will not prevent U.S. fishermen
from harvesting sharks, bringing them to shore, and then using the fins
or any of the other parts of the shark. Instead, it would simply
prevent cutting off of the fins and disposal of carcass at sea, or the
transport or landing of fins harvested in this manner by another
fishing vessel.
This is good legislation. The House should support it. We should put
an end to these kinds of very narrow and greedy practices by some
nations that devastate, in this case, the shark species, but it is
rampant in other parts of the world with respect to other species. This
is a good legislation. The House should support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in strong support of H.R. 3535, the Shark
Finning Prohibition Act. I do want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing this measure, and I want to
thank the Committee on Resources for expeditiously approving the
legislation which we have found out is certainly needed.
H.R. 3535 would bring an end to the abhorrent wasteful and
unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning in American waters. The
legislation will ban both the act of shark finning and the possession
of shark fins without a shark carcass.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are unfamiliar with the practice, the
repugnant act of shark finning is a removal of a shark's fins and
subsequent dumping of the dying or dead shark back into the ocean. It
is a wasteful and environmentally harmful practice. The legislation to
ban shark finning is strongly supported by a coalition of environmental
and recreational organizations.
U.S. law currently prohibits shark finning in the Federal waters of
the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. However, we know that the demand
for shark fins from the Pacific Ocean is dramatically increasing.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, more than 60,000
Pacific sharks were killed in 1998. Almost 100,000 of these sharks were
killed solely for their fins.
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3535, I urge swift
passage of this legislation to immediately end repulsive shark finning.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3535, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act.
In the continental United States, there is obviously a strong feeling
that shark finning is a wasteful, abhorrent practice which has no place
in U.S. waters. It is seen as contrary to current effort to maintain
ecological balance in

[[Page 9579]]

our oceans, and wasteful in that less than 5% of a shark's mass is
comprised of its fins, with the rest of the carcass thrown back into
the water unused. Many feel that the trade-off between the loss of life
for the benefit of a good-tasting soup, much of which is consumed in
Asia, balanced against the amount of waste and the importance of the
fishery is tipped significantly in favor of the fishery.
I understand the economic incentives which drive this activity. A
small cup of shark fin soup costs $100 in parts of Asia and is
considered a delicacy just as much as chocolate-covered ants, snails,
and horse meat are in other cultures.
Most of the sharks caught and finned in Hawaii-area waters are a
bycatch from long-line fishing boats which are targeting tuna and
swordfish. But sharks are not the only bycatch or miscellaneous fish
caught and then discarded as waste because they do not have the same
market value as tuna or swordfish, and I do not find it particularly
reassuring that we are addressing the blue shark problem and ignoring a
problem of much greater magnitude with other miscellaneous fish. The
killing of these fish just because they are unwanted should be of no
less of concern to all of us. We should also be addressing that
problem, but are not because we do not have adequate stock assessments
of most stocks. Part of the blame for this lies with the National
Marine Fishery Service for not requesting additional funding to carry
out this research, but part of the problem lies with the Congress as
well, for not funding this important work.
Obviously the United States alone cannot adequately address the
problem of shark finning, as many other countries participate in this
fishery as well. The United States is responsible for only a very small
percentage of this industry, and I hope the Administration addresses
this subject through international treaty. In the Pacific, the
management commission being developed by the Multilateral High level
Conference would be appropriate.
As introduced, this legislation did not address the issue of
transshipment of shark fins through U.S. ports. The practice of shark
finning in international waters by foreign fishing vessels, and then
shipping the fins from U.S. ports to foreign countries, is significant.
To partially address this problem, I offered an amendment in
Subcommittee to prohibit this practice, and I want to thank the
majority for accepting that amendment. I hope that our next step will
be to address the issue of shark fins transshipped through U.S. ports
as bonded cargo. In response to a question I asked the Western Pacific
Regional Fishery Management Council earlier this year, the Council
reported that approximately 200 tons of dried shark fins are
transported through U.S. Pacific ports as bonded cargo.
There are groups in the Pacific that support a ban on shark finning;
however, the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, the entity
tasked by law with management of the fisheries in the U.S. Central and
Western Pacific Ocean, has repeatedly said that there is insufficient
data on which to make that decision. While I do not agree with the
Western Pacific Council on this one issue, I do wish to acknowledge the
Council's work in including pelagic sharks in its management of pelagic
fisheries dating as far back as 1987. To its credit, the Council has
also taken aggressive conservation action in many other areas since it
was established.
I want to thank Congressmen Cunningham, Chairman, Don Young and
Saxton, and Congressman George Miller for the active roles they have
taken in moving this legislation forward, and I look forward to seeing
the passage of the bill later today.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3535, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

CARLSBAD IRRIGATION PROJECT ACQUIRED LAND TRANSFER ACT

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 291) to convey certain real property within the
Carlsbad Project in New Mexico to the Carlsbad Irrigation District.
The Clerk read as follows:

S. 291

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 ``Carlsbad Irrigation Project
Acquired Land Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.

(a) Lands and Facilities.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), and
subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of the Interior (in
this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') may convey to the
Carlsbad Irrigation District (a quasi-municipal corporation
formed under the laws of the State of New Mexico and in this
Act referred to as the ``District''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the lands described
in subsection (b) (in this Act referred to as the ``acquired
lands'') and all interests the United States holds in the
irrigation and drainage system of the Carlsbad Project and
all related lands including ditch rider houses, maintenance
shop and buildings, and Pecos River Flume.
(2) Limitation.--
(A) Retained surface rights.--The Secretary shall retain
title to the surface estate (but not the mineral estate) of
such acquired lands which are located under the footprint of
Brantley and Avalon dams or any other project dam or
reservoir division structure.
(B) Storage and flow easement.--The Secretary shall retain
storage and flow easements for any tracts located under the
maximum spillway elevations of Avalon and Brantley
Reservoirs.
(b) Acquired Lands Described.--The lands referred to in
subsection (a) are those lands (including the surface and
mineral estate) in Eddy County, New Mexico, described as the
acquired lands and in section (7) of the ``Status of Lands
and Title Report: Carlsbad Project'' as reported by the
Bureau of Reclamation in 1978.
(c) Terms and Conditions of Conveyance.--Any conveyance of
the acquired lands under this Act shall be subject to the
following terms and conditions:
(1) Management and use, generally.--The conveyed lands
shall continue to be managed and used by the District for the
purposes for which the Carlsbad Project was authorized, based
on historic operations and consistent with the management of
other adjacent project lands.
(2) Assumed rights and obligations.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), the District shall assume all rights and
obligations of the United States under--
(A) the agreement dated July 28, 1994, between the United
States and the Director, New Mexico Department of Game and
Fish (Document No. 2-LM-40-00640), relating to management of
certain lands near Brantley Reservoir for fish and wildlife
purposes; and
(B) the agreement dated March 9, 1977, between the United
States and the New Mexico Department of Energy, Minerals, and
Natural Resources (Contract No. 7-07-57-X0888) for the
management and operation of Brantley Lake State Park.
(3) Exceptions.--In relation to agreements referred to in
paragraph (2)--
(A) the District shall not be obligated for any financial
support agreed to by the Secretary, or the Secretary's
designee, in either agreement; and
(B) the District shall not be entitled to any receipts for
revenues generated as a result of either agreement.
(d) Completion of Conveyance.--If the Secretary does not
complete the conveyance within 180 days from the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to
the Congress within 30 days after that period that includes a
detailed explanation of problems that have been encountered
in completing the conveyance, and specific steps that the
Secretary has taken or will take to complete the conveyance.

SEC. 3. LEASE MANAGEMENT AND PAST REVENUES COLLECTED FROM THE
ACQUIRED LANDS.

(a) Identification and Notification of Leaseholders.--
Within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) provide to the District a written identification of all
mineral and grazing leases in effect on the acquired lands on
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(2) notify all leaseholders of the conveyance authorized by
this Act.
(b) Management of Mineral and Grazing Leases, Licenses, and
Permits.--The District shall assume all rights and
obligations of the United States for all mineral and grazing
leases, licenses, and permits existing on the acquired lands
conveyed under section 2, and shall be entitled to any
receipts from such leases, licenses, and permits accruing
after the date of conveyance. All such receipts shall be used
for purposes for which the Project was authorized and for
financing the portion of operations, maintenance, and
replacement of the Summer Dam which, prior to conveyance, was
the responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation, with the
exception of major maintenance programs in progress prior to
conveyance which shall be funded through the cost share
formulas in place at the time of conveyance. The District

[[Page 9580]]

shall continue to adhere to the current Bureau of Reclamation
mineral leasing stipulations for the Carlsbad Project.
(c) Availability of Amounts Paid Into Reclamation Fund.--
(1) Existing receipts.--Receipts in the reclamation fund on
the date of enactment of this Act which exist as construction
credits to the Carlsbad Project under the terms of the
Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands (30 U.S.C. 351-359)
shall be deposited in the General Treasury and credited to
deficit reduction or retirement of the Federal debt.
(2) Receipts after enactment.--Of the receipts from mineral
and grazing leases, licenses, and permits on acquired lands
to be conveyed under section 2, that are received by the
United States after the date of enactment and before the date
of conveyance--
(A) not to exceed $200,000 shall be available to the
Secretary for the actual costs of implementing this Act with
any additional costs shared equally between the Secretary and
the District; and
(B) the remainder shall be deposited into the General
Treasury of the United States and credited to deficit
reduction or retirement of the Federal debt.

SEC. 4. VOLUNTARY WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the ability
of the District to voluntarily implement water conservation
practices.

SEC. 5. LIABILITY.

Effective on the date of conveyance of any lands and
facilities authorized by this Act, the United States shall
not be held liable by any court for damages of any kind
arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to
the conveyed property, except for damages caused by acts of
negligence committed by the United States or by its
employees, agents, or contractors, prior to conveyance.
Nothing in this section shall be considered to increase the
liability of the United States beyond that provided under
chapter 171 of title 28, United States Code, popularly known
as the Federal Tort Claims Act.

SEC. 6. FUTURE BENEFITS.

Effective upon transfer, the lands and facilities
transferred pursuant to this Act shall not be entitled to
receive any further Reclamation benefits pursuant to the
Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, and Acts supplementary
thereof or amendatory thereto attributable to their status as
part of a Reclamation Project.

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

General Leave

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on S. 291.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 291, the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land
Transfer Act, introduced by Senator Domenici of New Mexico, is the
companion bill to H.R. 1019, introduced by the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), my esteemed colleague, that was reported from the
Committee on Resources last year.
For the last 6 years, the Subcommittee on Water and Power has pursued
legislation to shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government
through the defederalization of Bureau of Reclamation assets.
S. 291 continues this defederalization process by authorizing the
Secretary of the Interior to convey to the Carlsbad Irrigation District
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
acquired lands and all interest the United States holds in the
irrigation and drainage system of the Carlsbad project and all related
land. The Carlsbad project is a paid-out, single purpose irrigation
project delivering stored water to approximately 25,000 acres of
farmland in southeastern New Mexico.
This bill is one of several working their way through the House and
Senate. It is the expectation of the committee that the Senate will
accelerate its work on the other transfer bills that currently await
action in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the author of the House version of the Carlsbad
transfer, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic and strong support of S. 291, the
Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired Land Transfer Act. S. 291 was
introduced by Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and
is the companion bill to H.R. 1019, legislation that I introduced,
which passed the Committee on Resources early last year. In fact, I
have introduced a version of H.R. 1019 each of the last three
Congresses only to run into some form of legislative or political brick
wall each time.
Ideally, I would have preferred to be debating H.R. 1019 right now in
lieu of S. 291, as I believe that H.R. 1019 is a stronger bill and will
serve the interests of Congress and the Carlsbad Irrigation District
best. However, discretion is the better part of valor, and I will be
pleased to finally send this bill to the President for his signature.
After all, Senate 291 does continue my long-held belief that the more
we can devolve the Federal rule and the local decision-making process
the better the management will be.
Now, for a history and justification. In 1905, the U.S. purchased
acquired lands from the Pecos Irrigation Company. The amount paid for
these lands or the methodology of repayment were contained within the
Carlsbad Irrigation District's repayment obligations to the United
States.

{time} 1330

The district has repaid all the project costs attributed to them,
which includes the acquired lands. Their obligations have been met in
full. As a single-purpose project, the district received no repayment
credits for flood control, recreation or other project beneficiaries.
The 1924 Fact Finders Act requires all revenues, except minerals
generated from the acquired lands, to be used by the district for the
project and the 1939 Minerals Leasing Act permits all mineral receipts
to be used by the district for district purposes. Both of these acts
apply whether the district is paid out or not.
In 1991, the district completed its repayment obligations. Almost
$2.5 million has accumulated in the Reclamation Fund on behalf of CID
and are currently available to offset new construction costs. Over 90
years of precedent and several Solicitor Generals reports clearly
recognize the District's right to all revenues from the acquired lands.
However, and as a sign of good will to mistaken opposition, the
district is waiving its justified right to the $2 million and allows it
to be credited towards the national deficit or debt reduction. That
ought to be interesting.
The district is also accepting the O&M costs of Sumner Dam, which is
currently the taxpayers' responsibility, and is accepting full
responsibility for the conveyed lands and facilities. In addition, the
district can only use revenues for maintenance and improvements of the
project.
The district is also waiving future eligibility for additional
reclamation benefits for the conveyed lands and facilities. And simply
put, the district is accepting the costs of the project and saving
taxpayer dollars in the process.
The responsible approach on behalf of taxpayers is absolution of the
taxpayers' future monetary obligations; and that is accomplished by
passage of this legislation, which requires the district's acceptance
of financial responsibility.
The State, the county, the city of Carlsbad have soundly endorsed the
legislation. The administration supports the legislation. And most
importantly, I support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the district manager, Tom Davis; board
chairman L.A. Johnson; Bill Ahrens; and the remainder of the board and
members of the district for their patience and faith in the process.
Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California
(Chairman Doolittle), the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and
the gentleman from California (Mr. George

[[Page 9581]]

Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). For without
each of their assistance, what has been a long road would have been
considerably longer.
In closing, I would be remiss to not mention the fine work of the
majority staff, Bob Faber and Josh Johnson, and minority staffer Steve
Lanich. We all know and appreciate the support the staff provides.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge passage of S. 291.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration and great respect and high
regard for my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen),
that I rise in support of the Carlsbad Irrigation Project Acquired
Lands Transfer Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Skeen) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 291.
The question was taken.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

WELLTON-MOHAWK TRANSFER ACT

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 356) 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.
The Clerk read as follows:

S. 356

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 referred to as the ``Wellton-Mohawk
Transfer Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER.

The Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') is authorized
to carry out the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement No. 8-
AA-34-WAO14 (``Agreement'') dated July 10, 1998 between the
Secretary and the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage
District (``District'') providing for the transfer of works,
facilities, and lands to the District, including conveyance
of Acquired Lands, Public Lands, and Withdrawn Lands, as
defined in the Agreement.

SEC. 3. WATER AND POWER CONTRACTS.

Notwithstanding the transfer, the Secretary and the
Secretary of Energy shall provide for and deliver Colorado
River water and Parker-Davis Project Priority Use Power to
the District in accordance with the terms of existing
contracts with the District, including any amendments or
supplements thereto or extensions thereof and as provided
under section 2 of the Agreement.

SEC. 4. SAVINGS.

Nothing in this Act shall affect any obligations under the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law 93-320,
43 U.S.C. 1571).

SEC. 5. REPORT.

If transfer of works, facilities, and lands pursuant to the
Agreement has not occurred by July 1, 2000, the Secretary
shall report on the status of the transfer as provided in
section 5 of the Agreement.

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.

General Leave

____________________

CLARIFYING CERTAIN BOUNDARIES OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4435) to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating to
Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 4435

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
MAP.

(a) In General.--The map described in subsection (b) is
replaced, in the maps depicting the Coastal Barrier Resources
System that

[[Page 9582]]

are referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)), by the map entitled ``Pine
Island Unit NC-01'' and dated May 1, 2000.
(b) Description of Replaced Map.--The map described in this
subsection is the map that--
(1) relates to Pine Island Unit NC-01 located in Currituck
and Dare Counties, North Carolina; and
(2) is included in a set of maps entitled ``Coastal Barrier
Resources System'', dated October 24, 1990, revised on
October 23, 1992, and referred to in section 4(a) of the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(a)).
(c) Availability.--The Secretary of the Interior shall keep
the replacement map referred to in subsection (a) on file and
available for inspection in accordance with section 4(b) of
the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3503(b)).

General Leave

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4435.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4435, introduced by our colleague, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), corrects a mistake that was made in
delineating the boundary of Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit NC01.
The Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of units located on
undeveloped coastal barriers and delineated on maps adapted by
Congress.
Land included in the system is not acquired by the Government, and
the act does not prevent or regulate development on private lands. The
act does prohibit the use of Federal developmental assistance,
including Federal flood insurance, on property included in the system.
Unit NC01 was originally created in 1990 to incorporate property
owned by the National Audubon Society and the surrounding associated
aquatic habitat. Unfortunately, a significant amount of privately and
publicly owned developed property was inadvertently, or incorrectly,
included within its boundary.
In 1992, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to redraw
the boundary to fix these problems. That new map again failed to
accurately portray the boundary of the Audubon Sanctuary, and the unit
continued to include privately owned development property.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4435 removes the incorrectly labeled private
property and adds associated aquatic habitat that was incorrectly left
out of the unit in 1992.
The Fish and Wildlife Service supports this change. I commend the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) for his efforts in correcting
this error and urge an aye vote on H.R. 4435.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to change the
boundaries of the Coastal Barrier Resource System Unit established
under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act known as NC01.
I believe that it is important that we contain the so-called
technical corrections bills that we have seen in our committee to
address those problems that are clear inaccuracies. I believe that this
legislation does that. And it is also incumbent that those of us on the
committee not use those technical corrections to go for unintended
changes and make sure that they are held at a minimum. I think that
this legislation does that.
We see a lot of efforts from time to time to use boundary changes to
do more than make these technical corrections, but this legislation
does not do that. I think that this is consistent with the original
intent of the Congress, and I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4435, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

DIRECTING A STUDY TO RESTORE KEALIA POND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE,
HAWAII

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3176) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study to determine ways of restoring the natural wetlands conditions in
the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3176

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STUDY OF KEALIA POND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE,
HAWAII.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service in consultation with the Director of the United
States Geological Survey, shall conduct a study to determine
ways of restoring the natural wetlands conditions in the
Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, Hawaii. The study shall
include examination of hydrology, manmade impacts on
wetlands, species succession, and imbalances in natural
habitat in the refuge.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after amounts are first
available to implement this section, the Secretary shall
complete the study under subsection (a) and report to the
Congress findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
study.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary $250,000 to carry out
this section.

General Leave

{time} 1345

This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to study the water
problems at the refuge and come up with a plan for addressing the
management needs within 1 year. H.R. 3176 is noncontroversial, and I
urge an aye vote.

[[Page 9583]]

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3176, to provide for
the study of the deterioration that has taken place on Kealia Pond
National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Maui.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has properly explained
the legislation. I want to commend and thank our colleague, the
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), for bringing the deterioration of
this refuge to the attention of the committee.
I think I and most members of the committee were very disappointed to
learn the extent to which this refuge, the largest freshwater pond in
the entire State of Hawaii, could have reached such a degraded
condition.
I think this legislation will be important in turning that around,
and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3176.
I want to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Mr. Miller of the
Resources Committee and Subcommittee Chairman Saxton and Ranking Member
Mr. Faleomavaega of the Fisheries Subcommittee for their efforts to
bring the bill to the floor today.
I introduced H.R. 3176 on October 28, 1999. The legislation requires
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine ways of
restoring the natural wetlands conditions in Kealia Pond National
Wildlife Refuge. The study would include an examination of hydrology,
manmade impacts on wetlands, species succession and imbalances in
natural habitat in the refuge. The legislation authorizes $250,000 to
conduct the study. The study would be reported to Congress not later
than one year after funds for the study are made available.
The Refuge is located on the island of Maui and is part of the Mai
Nui National Wildlife Refuge Complex. It was established in 1992 and
consists of 691 acres. The pond itself is the largest natural pond in
Hawaii, and covers between 400 and 500 acres at its greatest extent
during the wet season. The pond is home of two endangered native
Hawaiian birds, the Hawaiian stilt and the Hawaiian coot. The pond also
provides food and shelter for numerous migratory waterfowl and
shorebirds.
Human activity over the years has significantly changed the nature of
the pond. In the early 1900's the pond had a depth of between six and
eight feet. Over the years grazing and agricultural use of the land
above the pond increased the runoff of sedimentation. Between 1925 and
1930 the pond was used as a rubbish dump, further reducing the depth of
the pond. In 1970 twenty-five acres of land north of the pond were
converted to a commercial aquaculture operation. Dikes were built,
water impounded and a well dug.
All these activities have had a deleterious effect on the natural
habitat of the pond.
Now the pond has an average depth of only one foot. As the depth of
the pond decreased the pond increasingly lost the ability to carry off
sediments. Sand carried into the pond from adjacent dunes that
otherwise would have been flushed away now stays in the pond further
reducing the depth.
The shallow depth of the pond permits it to dry up quickly. The
natural trade winds of the area then cause great clouds of dust to
arise. The dust blows into the homes, eyes and lungs of nearby
residents. The dust causes burning eyes and residents worry that the
cause may be that the dust contains fertilizer and chemical residue
from agricultural runoff and unknown chemicals from materials deposited
during the period the pond was used as a dump.
The introduction of non-native species has also changed the ecology
of the pond. The spotted wing midge was first identified in Hawaii in
1945. The midge has found the pond to be an extremely attractive
habitat. A study by Ducks Unlimited estimated that on any given day
during the wet season there may be as many as 200 million adult and
near-adult midges During midge season the uninitiated visitor may think
the refuge is on fire at dawn or dusk, with smoldering fires throwing
up swirling clouds of smoke. But it is not smoke. It is clouds of
midges swarming.
The midge swarms invade surrounding residences. The midges are small
enough to go through screens and some residents have been reduced to
keeping their lights out in a vain effort to keep the invaders away.
Motorists report that their cars are covered with squashed midges when
driving in the area.
Kealia Pond is also home to non-native tilapia. These fish make up 90
percent of the fish population of the pond. They do more damage than
good for the wetlands. When the pond dries up there are massive fish
die offs. In 1996 Maui correctional inmates, working under the
direction of the pond's on-site manager, removed 14 tons of dead and
rotting fish from the refuge.
There have been studies of aspects of the ecology of the pond done
over the years, both in the public and private sector. However, the
studies have frequently concentrated on one aspect of the problem or
another. There has been no study directed at restoring Kealia Pond to
its natural state.
H.R. 3176 requires a study to identify ways of dealing with these
man-made plagues of dust, bugs and rotting fish. My constituents
recognize the value of the pond and its contribution to preserving
native Hawaiian endangered species. They want to see Kealia Pond
restored to its natural state with its native fauna.
Passage of H.R. 3176 will get the answers needed to restore Kealia
Pond.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3176.
The question was taken.
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair
declares the House in recess until 6 p.m.
Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 46 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess until 6 p.m.

____________________

{time} 1800

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ose) at 6 p.m.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will now put the question on the first four motions to suspend the
rules on which further proceedings were postponed earlier today in the
order in which those motions were entertained.
Votes will be taken in the following order: House Resolution 509, by
the yeas and nays; H.R. 4241, by the yeas and nays; H.R. 3030, by the
yeas and nays; and H.R. 3535, by the yeas and nays.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first such vote in this series.
The remaining four votes will be postponed until tomorrow.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN MUSIC

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, House Resolution
509, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 509, as amended, on
which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382,
nays 0, not voting 52, as follows:

[Roll No. 234]

YEAS--382

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass

[[Page 9584]]

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

NOT VOTING--52

Bliley
Brady (TX)
Campbell
Chambliss
Coburn
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Doyle
English
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hilleary
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Lofgren
Markey
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Neal
Norwood
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pitts
Price (NC)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanchez
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Udall (NM)
Vento
Vitter
Waxman
Wise

{time} 1822

Mr. STRICKLAND changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall
Vote 234. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Pursuant to the provisions of
clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by
electronic device may be taken on each additional motion to suspend the
rules on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

____________________

LES ASPIN POST OFFICE BUILDING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 4241.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 4241, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 378,
nays 6, not voting 50, as follows:

[Roll No. 235]

YEAS--378

[[Page 9585]]

Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--6

Chenoweth-Hage
Collins
Cunningham
Sanford
Scarborough
Walsh

NOT VOTING--50

Bliley
Burton
Chambliss
Coburn
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Doyle
English
Foley
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hilleary
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Markey
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Morella
Neal
Norwood
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pitts
Price (NC)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanchez
Sherwood
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Udall (NM)
Vento
Vitter
Waxman

{time} 1830

So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 235 had I been present, I
would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

MATTHEW F. McHUGH POST OFFICE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The pending business is the
question of suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 3030.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3030, on which the yeas and nays are
ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 385,
nays 2, not voting 47, as follows:

[Roll No. 236]

YEAS--385

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

NAYS--2

Chenoweth-Hage
Sanford

NOT VOTING--47

Bateman
Bliley
Chambliss
Coburn
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Doyle
English
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hilleary
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Markey
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Norwood
Nussle
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pitts
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanchez
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Udall (NM)
Vento
Vitter
Waxman

{time} 1838

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

____________________

SHARK FINNING PROHIBITION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the question of
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 3535, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3535, as

[[Page 9586]]

amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 390,
nays 1, not voting 43, as follows:

[Roll No. 237]

YEAS--390

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

NAYS--1

Paul

NOT VOTING--43

Bliley
Chambliss
Coburn
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Doyle
English
Ford
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hilleary
Hilliard
Houghton
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Leach
Markey
McCollum
McIntosh
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Norwood
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pitts
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salmon
Sanchez
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Udall (NM)
Vento
Vitter
Waxman

{time} 1845

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

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes Nos. 234, 235, 236,
and 237, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on all four votes.

____________________

REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 4006

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.

____________________

FREEDOM TO E-FILE ACT

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 777) to require the Department of
Agriculture to establish an electronic filing and retrieval system to
enable the public to file all required paperwork electronically with
the Department and to have access to public information on farm
programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports, and other
similar information, with a Senate amendment to the House amendments
thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendment to the House amendments, as
follows:

Senate amendment to House amendments:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the House
amendment to the text of the bill, insert:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Freedom to E-File Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC FILING AND RETRIEVAL.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, in accordance with subsection (c), the
Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in this Act as the
``Secretary'') shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
establish an Internet-based system that enables agricultural
producers to access all forms of the agencies of the
Department of Agriculture (referred to in this Act as the
``Department'') specified in subsection (b).
(b) Applicability.--The agencies referred to in subsection
(a) are the following:
(1) The Farm Service Agency.
(2) The Natural Resources Conservation Service.
(3) The rural development components of the Department
included in the Secretary's service center initiative
regarding State and field office collocation implemented
pursuant to section 215 of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6915).
(4) The agricultural producer programs component of the
Commodity Credit Corporation administered by the Farm Service
Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
(c) Implementation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall--
(1) provide a method by which agricultural producers may--
(A) download from the Internet the forms of the agencies
specified in subsection (b); and
(B) submit completed forms via electronic facsimile, mail,
or similar means;
(2) redesign the forms by incorporating into the forms
user-friendly formats and self-help guidance materials; and
(3) ensure that the agencies specified in subsection (b)--
(A) use computer hardware and software that is compatible
among the agencies and will operate in a common computing
environment; and
(B) develop common Internet user-interface locations and
applications to consolidate the agencies' news, information,
and program materials.

[[Page 9587]]

(d) Progress Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report that describes the progress made toward
implementing the Internet-based system required under this
section.

SEC. 3. ACCESSING INFORMATION AND FILING OVER THE INTERNET.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, in accordance with subsection (b), the
Secretary shall expand implementation of the Internet-based
system established under section 2 by enabling agricultural
producers to access and file all forms and, at the option of
the Secretary, selected records and information of the
agencies of the Department specified in section 2(b).
(b) Implementation.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary shall ensure that an agricultural producer is
able--
(1) to file electronically or in paper form, at the option
of the agricultural producer, all forms required by agencies
of the Department specified in section 2(b);
(2) to file electronically or in paper form, at the option
of the agricultural producer, all documentation required by
agencies of the Department specified in section 2(b) and
determined appropriate by the Secretary; and
(3) to access information of the Department concerning farm
programs, quarterly trade, economic, and production reports,
and other similar production agriculture information that is
readily available to the public in paper form.

SEC. 4. AVAILABILITY OF AGENCY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNDS.

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

SEC. 5. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION AND RISK
MANAGEMENT AGENCY.

(a) In General.--Not later than December 1, 2000, the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the Risk Management
Agency shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a plan, that is
consistent with this Act, to allow agricultural producers
to--
(1) obtain, over the Internet, from approved insurance
providers all forms and other information concerning the
program under the jurisdiction of the Corporation and Agency
in which the agricultural producer is a participant; and
(2) file electronically all paperwork required for
participation in the program.
(b) Administration.--The plan shall--
(1) conform to sections 2(c) and 3(b); and
(2) prescribe--
(A) the location and type of data to be made available to
agricultural producers;
(B) the location where agricultural producers can
electronically file their paperwork; and
(C) the responsibilities of the applicable parties,
including agricultural producers, the Risk Management Agency,
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, approved insurance
providers, crop insurance agents, and brokers.
(c) Implementation.--Not later than December 1, 2001, the
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and the Risk Management
Agency shall complete implementation of the plan submitted
under subsection (a).

SEC. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY.

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

Mr. LaHOOD (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendment to the House amendments be considered as read
and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the House in concurring
with the Senate amendment and passing S. 777, otherwise known as, the
Freedom to E-File bill.
I have long been a proponent of initiatives at USDA to provide better
service to farmers and ranchers through streamlining and the use of new
technologies, while at the same time saving taxpayer dollars.
Growing numbers of farmers and ranchers are using home computers.
This fact, coupled with budget demands, is putting enormous pressure on
USDA's field service employees. It is therefore imperative that USDA
take advantage of the internet for the efficiencies it can offer. Doing
so will benefit overworked field service staff, save taxpayer dollars,
and allow farmers and ranchers to spend more time on their operations
and less time visiting USDA offices.
For these reasons, I believe USDA must improve electronic access to
its programs and services. Consequently, I support S. 777, the Freedom
to E-File bill.
While I support the goals of this bill, I would prefer a more
comprehensive look at USDA reorganization and modernization.
Unfortunately, it appears that changes at USDA are only going to be
made on an incremental basis.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of
the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

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

____________________

AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT TO AWARD GOLD MEDAL ON BEHALF OF CONGRESS TO
CHARLES M. SCHULZ

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3642) to authorize the President to
award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Charles M. Schulz in
recognition of his lasting artistic contributions to the Nation and the
world, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate
amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:

Senate amendments:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Charles M. Schulz was born on November 26, 1922, in St.
Paul, Minnesota, the son of Carl and Dena Schulz.
(2) Charles M. Schulz served his country in World War II,
working his way up from infantryman to staff sergeant and
eventually leading a machine gun squad. He kept morale high
by decorating fellow soldiers' letters home with cartoons of
barracks life.
(3) After returning from the war, Charles M. Schulz
returned to his love for illustration, and took a job with
``Timeless Topix''. He also took a second job as an art
instructor. Eventually, his hard work paid off when the
Saturday Evening Post began purchasing a number of his single
comic panels.
(4) It was in his first weekly comic strip, ``L'il Folks'',
that Charlie Brown was born. That comic strip, which was
eventually renamed ``Peanuts'', became the sole focus of
Charles M. Schulz's career.
(5) Charles M. Schulz drew every frame of the ``Peanuts''
strip, which ran 7 days a week, since it was created in
October 1950. This is rare dedication in the field of comic
illustration.
(6) The ``Peanuts'' comic strip appeared in 2,600
newspapers around the world daily until January 3, 2000, and
on Sundays until February 13, 2000, and reached approximately
335,000,000 readers every day in 20 different languages,
making Charles M. Schulz the most successful comic
illustrator in the world.
(7) Charles M. Schulz's television special, ``A Charlie
Brown Christmas'', has run for 34 consecutive years. In all,
more than 60 animated specials have been created based on
``Peanuts'' characters. Four feature films, 1,400 books, and
a hit Broadway musical about the ``Peanuts'' characters have
also been produced.
(8) Charles M. Schulz was a leader in the field of comic
illustration and in his community. He paved the way for other
artists in this field over the last 50 years and continues to
be praised for his outstanding achievements.
(9) Charles M. Schulz gave back to his community in many
ways, including owning and operating Redwood Empire Ice Arena
in Santa Rosa, California. The arena has become a favorite
gathering spot for people of all ages. Charles M. Schulz also
financed a yearly ice show that drew crowds from all over the
San Francisco Bay Area.

[[Page 9588]]

(10) Charles M. Schulz gave the Nation a unique sense of
optimism, purpose, and pride. Whether through the Great
Pumpkin Patch, the Kite Eating Tree, Lucy's Psychiatric Help
Stand, or Snoopy's adventures with the Red Baron, ``Peanuts''
embodied human vulnerabilities, emotions, and potential.
(11) Charles M. Schulz's lifetime of work linked
generations of Americans and became a part of the fabric of
our national culture.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.

(a) Award Authorized.--The President is authorized to award
posthumously, on behalf of the Congress, a gold medal of
appropriate design to Charles M. Schulz in recognition of his
lasting artistic contributions to the Nation and the world.
(b) Design and Striking.--For the purpose of the award
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and
inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.

Under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, the
Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the
gold medal struck under section 2 at a price sufficient to
cover the costs of the medals, including labor, materials,
dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, and the cost of
the gold medal.

SEC. 4. NATIONAL MEDALS.

The medals struck under this Act are national medals for
purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. FUNDING AND PROCEEDS OF SALE.

(a) Authorization.--There is authorized to be charged
against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an
amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the
medals authorized by this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in
the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to authorize the
President to award posthumously a gold medal on behalf of the
Congress to Charles M. Schulz in recognition of his lasting
artistic contributions to the Nation and the world, and for
other purposes.''.

Mr. LEACH (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 3642.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Iowa?
There was no objection.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM STAFF ASSISTANT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Michelle Giannetta, Staff Assistant of the Honorable
George Radanovich, Member of Congress:
May 26, 2000.
Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives.
Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to notify you formally, pursuant
to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
that I have been served with a subpoena for testimony and
documents issued by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California.
Afer consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
will make the determinations required by Rule VIII.
Sincerely,
Michelle Giannetta,
Staff Assistant.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

____________________

DISTURBING TRENDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some
disturbing trends in the Middle East. I admire enormously the
commitment of Prime Minister Barak of Israel to try to find a peaceful
solution to many of the disputes that have troubled the region. I
believe historically the record is very clear that Israel sought it
first to live in peace with its neighbors. It was forced to resort to
armed conflict to defend itself.
Prime Minister Barak to his credit has been willing now after 50
years and more of conflict to take some risks for peace. That is not
always unanimously agreed upon within Israel. Israel is, as we know,
the only genuine democracy in this part of the world. The people of
Israel are contentious in some ways as befits people in a democracy
when important issues are at stake. And Prime Minister Barak to me is
an admirable example of an elected official who is trying to lead in
the direction that he thinks is important.
And in so doing, he has espoused some positions that he believes and
I believe will lead to a lasting peace if they meet with an appropriate
response from those with whom he seeks to negotiate. What is especially
troubling to me has been the negative responses his initiatives have
drawn.
His offer to withdraw from the Golan Heights is really by historical
standards an extraordinarily generous one. Very few nations which have
won this sort of strategic territory and battle have voluntarily given
it up, even in the face of the kind of hostility that Syria has evinced
towards Israel. But Prime Minister Barak, taking a request politically
based on his military judgment, which obviously everyone who knows him
respects, was willing to make a deal with the Syrians in which Israel
would have given up that very large strategic amount of territory with
some safeguards, and essentially, President Assad of Syria refused any
kind of reasonable deal.
Interestingly, had Assad agreed to the deal, it would have been
controversial within, as real as having given too much to Syria, but
Syria would not accept that. For years, people have been urging Israel
to withdraw from Lebanon. There is a U.N. resolution that says Israel
should withdraw from Lebanon. When the negotiations with Assad ended,
because I believe of Assad's unreasonable hostility, Prime Minister
Barak again courageously said, I will withdraw unilaterally from
Israel; and one of the most extraordinarily depressing reactions I have
seen people who had for years had been pressing Israel to withdraw then
began to attack Israel for withdrawing unilaterally, as if they needed
permission to do what people had been berating them for not doing.
And what happened when Israel withdrew was an outburst of hostility
and of inappropriate behavior in much of Lebanon which can only
strengthen the hands of those who believe within Israel that Prime
Minister Barak has been making a mistake. So in these two important
areas with regard to Syria and to Lebanon, you have an elected
official, a democratic leader of his country, taking some risks for
peace and being met with an extraordinarily hostile reaction; and then,
finally, we had a few weeks ago violence on the part of many in the
Palestinian areas, including gunfire between the Palestinian authority
in Israel.
Again, I want to stress Israel has in the past couple of decades
beginning with Prime Minister Begin in the Sinai, engaged in more
withdrawal from territory it had been forced to fight to conquer than
almost any nation I can think of. And I am talking now about turning it
over to the enemies, not with a period of demilitarization. It is not
like America, the allies keeping Germany in a very subordinate position
for a long time that was not being occupied. It was simply turned over
in many cases, and to see the negative reactions from Syria, from
people in the south of Lebanon, the more extremists there and within
the Palestinian community, is very troubling to me.

[[Page 9589]]

I admire the willingness of Prime Minister Barak to persevere. I
believe he does this because he understands what is truly in his
country's long-term interests. I hope the United States Government will
continue to be a strong supporter and partner of Israel and, in
particular, make it clear to the extent that Israel does withdraw from
some of these areas, potentially exposing itself to some of the
problems that might come up that the United States will continue to be
a reliable partner. But it has to be noted that the kind of negativism,
the kind of extreme hostility which Prime Minister Barak's openness has
called from on the part of many Arabs cannot be helpful.
I admire, as I said, Prime Minister Barak for not being deterred by
this. He is not allowing the extremists to undermine his efforts, but
they ought to understand and people elsewhere ought to understand that
there is a price to be paid for this. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as
Prime Minister Barak goes forward in partnership with the U.S., we will
begin to see responsible leaders in the Arab world exercise the kind of
reciprocal approach that the prime minister's courage deserves.

____________________

CONDEMNING A BOUNTY OFFERED FOR BORDER PATROL AGENTS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances,
I would not rise to the floor of the House to discuss as delicate an
issue as this if we had been briefed by law enforcement officials, the
Department of Justice or the Border Patrol, for the issue is so
troubling that I do not even think Americans would want this kind of
terrible proposal to be promoted.

{time} 1900

But the fact that article was in the Houston Chronicle today brings
me to the necessity of addressing this question publicly. ``Bounty
Offered for Killing Agent of Border Patrol,'' Houston Chronicle, today,
Tuesday, June 6, 2000.
The reason I come to the floor of the House is to condemn any such
attempt to put a bounty or to ask for an assassination of any of
America's law enforcement officers or, for that matter, anyone in the
United States who are lawfully performing their duties.
This request for a bounty on a Border Patrol agent has been asked for
by Mexican activist Carlos Ibarra Perez. Certainly, the border between
the State of Texas and the other border States and Mexico has had some
troubling times. Yes, there has been an infusion of illegal immigrants.
There have been acts that have been acted upon by citizens illegally
trying to protect their properties. But I think that it is important
for those of us who have responsibility and oversight over law
enforcement personnel throughout this Nation to condemn this heinous
request, to indicate that there is no reason that anyone should call
for a bounty and for an act to assassinate or kill another human being
and particularly in this instance.
This also calls for this Congress to act expeditiously to provide the
extra funding that will necessitate or provide for extra Border Patrol
along that border.
In addition, I will be asking the Department of Justice to provide
more FBI agents in that area to ensure that this may be what I believe
it is, an idle threat. But no life should be taken for granted. And
though we have much to do at the border to protect all the individuals
who are there, Border Patrol, those who see the necessity to come into
this country illegally, and that is wrong, but to protect the area and
the people who live there and the lives of people who are in the midst
of that, if you will, confusion.
But to be able to sit idly by while someone calls for the
assassination of a Border Patrol agent, any Border Patrol agent, is
intolerable and should not be accepted.
I am asking that we continue to monitor that area, that the
Department of Justice keeps a watchful eye, that more funds are
provided for Border Patrol agents, along with more training, and that
increased law enforcement is added to that area to ensure the
protection of the protectors.
There is no excuse that we should stand idly by, as I have indicated,
while these kinds of threats are made whether or not this is a citizen
of Mexico. And let me applaud the leadership of Mexico and the foreign
policy representatives of Mexico who have, likewise, condemned this
travesty.
But this kind of public display of disrespect for the law and
disrespect for human life is not to be tolerated; and I, for one, will
not tolerate this kind of bounty being set upon law enforcement
officers who are doing their job.
I am shamed that this has even happened. I ask for Carlos Ibarra
Perez to withdraw such a request. I ask for those who even may be
thinking of it to not even dare. And I ask the law enforcement of this
country to provide the necessary protection and support for these law
enforcement officers, the U.S. Border Patrol, who are doing simply
their job.

____________________

CLEAR ACT OF 2000

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Citizen Legislators
Caucus and on behalf of many of my colleagues in the Caucus, I am proud
to introduce today the Citizen Legislature Empowerment through Access
to Resources bill, or, more simply, the CLEAR Act of 2000.
The Citizen Legislators Caucus was established to enhance the
effectiveness of term-limited Members of Congress through a positive
and constructive agenda. One of the priorities of our Members is
working with other Members of Congress to advance legislation that
encourages citizen representation and citizen involvement in
Government.
Citizen legislators are the lifeblood of a representative democracy.
I am honored to serve with so many honorable men and women in this body
who have put aside successful careers in other areas of life to come
here for a short time to represent their districts and serve their
country. Doctors, lawyers, farmers, teachers, small businessmen, people
from all walks of life come here for a time to help secure the future
of our country and then return home to move on to other areas of
service.
I believe such an attitude of service and representation is in
keeping with the best examples of our Founding Fathers, as embodied
most profoundly in the life of George Washington. President Washington
held his positions of leadership in our country, including the
presidency, as something with which he was entrusted for a limited
time, not for a lifetime.
Our country is a democracy, and a well-informed citizenry is the most
important asset of any democracy. Over the past few years, we have
worked to put in place a number of important reforms that have changed
the way Congress works, giving greater information, access, and control
to the people. We have cut committee sizes, we have imposed term limits
on committee chairman, and made common sense decisions, such as
Congress abiding by the same laws as the rest of the country must live
under.
As we move into the 21st century, the Internet provides an incredible
opportunity for Congress to continue our reform agenda. We must open
the door to Congress for the citizens to see more of what we do and why
we do it. The CLEAR Act allows for the posting of reports and issue
briefs prepared by the Congressional Research Service for Members of
Congress on Member and committee Web sites. The American people,
students, teachers, small businessmen, farmers should be able to get
this information and facts on which we as Congress base our decisions.
As we work to secure the future of our country, it is important to
provide the people with the greatest information possible about their
Government. This is a common sense next step in reforming our
Government and returning decisions and freedom to the people.

[[Page 9590]]

This in no way changes the primary purpose of the Congressional
Research Service, which is to serve Congress; but it gives an
additional window to the citizens to understand the workings of their
Government and see some of the resources we have available.
There is an entire library of resources we could be making available
to citizens, information we have at our fingertips and often mail out
to our constituents on a regular basis; and yet these resources cannot
now be made available to American citizens in the same timely and
complete manner on the Web.
This legislation that I am introducing today moves such sharing of
information by Members to the public into the next century. I am
pleased that many of my colleagues are taking advantage of the Internet
with their committees and often Web pages to provide citizens with
hearing transcripts and testimonies and copies of the Congressional
Record.
As we move into the 21st century, I believe reports prepared by the
Congressional Research Service should be included, as well.
We live in an a democracy, a government of the people, by the people,
and for the people; and we must give a clear view of what is going on
in the Government to the people. That is why we are introducing the
CLEAR Act today.
I look forward to working with the Congressional Research Service,
the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), and the Committee on
House Administration and other interested Members of Congress to make
what we do a lot clearer to our voters and continue to reform our
Congress as we move into the new millennium.

____________________

REVISIONS TO ALLOCATION FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Sec. 314 of the Congressional
Budget Act, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record
revisions to the allocation for the House Committee on Appropriations
pursuant to House Report 106-623 totaling $1,271,000,000 in additional
new budget authority and $723,000,000 in additional outlays. This will
change the allocation to the House Committee on Appropriations to
$601,681,000,000 in budget authority and $625,915,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2001. Budgetary aggregates will increase to
$1,529,886,000,000 in budget authority and $1,495,136,000,000 in
outlays for fiscal year 2001.
As reported to the House, H.R. 4577, the bill making fiscal year 2001
appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies, includes $801,000,000 in budget
authority and $315,000,000 in outlays for emergencies; $450,000,000 in
budget authority and $396,000,000 in outlays for continuing disability
reviews; and, $20,000,000 in budget authority and $12,000,000 in
outlays for adoption incentive payments.
These adjustments shall apply while the legislation is under
consideration and shall take effect upon final enactment of the
legislation. Questions may be directed to Dan Kowalski or Jim Bates at
67270.

____________________

HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN TEXAS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for the 60 minutes,
we plan to address the House on health care for children in Texas. I
will be joined by several Members.
My colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, that this ad has a child that has
on boxing gloves. Our children should not have to fight to get health
care coverage that they truly deserve.
A child born in the year 2000 is far more likely to grow up healthy
and to reach adulthood than a child that was born in 1900. Over the
past 100 years, our Nation's scientific, technological, and financial
resources have built the most advanced health care system in the world.
But the doors of health care still remain shut to some.
Millions of children have inadequate medical care. Ensuring that
every child in our Nation receives the best possible health care, we
must have a top priority in this Nation. To a large extent, health
status is still determined by race, language, culture, geography, and
economics.
In general, children in low-income communities get sick more often
from preventable acute and infectious illnesses, such as measles,
conjunctivitis, and ear infections. Low-income children and teens are
also more likely to suffer from chronic medical conditions, such as
diabetes and asthma. These are the leading causes of school absences.
In fact, the sharpest increases in asthma rates are among the urban
youth. Very prevalent. Despite the tremendous advances in medical
technology and public health, millions of children have less of a
chance to grow up healthy and strong because of unequal access to
health care.
Texas is a perfect example. Children without health insurance or a
regular source of health care are more likely to seek care from
emergency rooms and clinics, which have long waits to see a provider,
limited follow-up, and little to no health education about preventive
strategies or ways to manage a chronic illness.
Compared with insured children, uninsured children are up to eight
times less likely to have a regular source of care, four times more
likely to delay seeking care, nearly three times less likely to have
seen a provider in the last past year, and five times more likely to
use emergency room as a regular place of care.
There is no question that insurance is key to maintaining health.
When Medicaid was initiated in 1965, infant mortality rates began to
decrease, and that continues today.
The health insurance status of children through age 18 in Texas
compared to that of the rest of the country. On this next chart,
imagine 100 children from Texas standing in front of us, 54 of these
children are insured through private employer-based policies; 24
percent are uninsured; 22 percent are covered through Medicaid. This
equals to about 1.4 million of the 6 million children in Texas without
health insurance.
On our next chart, just imagine 100 children from all over the
country standing in front of us. Sixty-four percent of these children
are insured through private employer-based programs; 21 are covered
through Medicare; 15 are uninsured.
Why is it that Texas's percentage of uninsured children is higher
than the Nation's average? The reason is due to a Texas Government that
chooses not to take advantage of the government funding that will allow
many children to be insured.
I just read a news clipping here talking about the millions of
dollars that is turned back or unused in the Federal Government simply
because we have not enrolled these children. It is unfortunate that we
have a Government so benign in Texas that will not enroll the children.

{time} 1915

As a matter of fact, Texas can expand its Medicaid coverage to the
age of 18 and cover those whose income is up to 300 percent of the
Federal poverty level. Presently, Texas only covers children up to age
18 and whose income is 100 percent of the Federal poverty level with
title XXI funds. There is something grossly inadequate about how we
take care of our children and their health care in Texas. Over half of
all States have expanded the coverage to 200 percent and beyond.
The next chart shows income eligibility levels for children 1 and
older in Medicaid and separate State programs. This chart shows that
most States have expanded health care coverage to children in title XXI
funds. This coverage is provided through Medicaid expansions and/or
separate insurance programs. Why, then, Texas? Ten States offer
Medicaid to those with incomes up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty
level. Texas falls within that category. Texas falls at the bottom. Our
children fall at the bottom.

[[Page 9591]]

There are several colleagues that I have here, Mr. Speaker, who will
also make comments on whether or not our children are being treated
fairly if they have to simply fight for the health care they deserve.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for the work that she is doing, and I agree with
her opening remarks that our children should not have to fight to get
the health care coverage that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce that for the first time, a
Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, is available in South
Texas. CHIP is low-cost health insurance provided under a State-
subsidized insurance program. Any Texas uninsured children, newborns
through age 18, are eligible. All costs are flexible and based on
family income. For example, a family of four qualifies if the household
income is $34,000 or less. If they make more than that, they can
qualify for greatly reduced insurance through another program, Texas
Healthy Kids.
The CHIP operates like a health maintenance organization, or HMO. It
is run by the TexCare Partnership which partners with all 254 Texas
counties to sponsor services through one of three different plans. One
is CHIP, two is Medicaid, and three is the Texas Healthy Kids. CHIP
provides services such as hospital care, surgery, x-rays, therapies,
prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment,
emergency services, eye tests and glasses, dental care and regular
health care checkups and vaccinations.
For Texas, CHIP is funded from the proceeds of our tobacco settlement
with the tobacco companies a couple of years ago. It is critically
important in our State because Texas has the highest rate of uninsured
in the country. Unfortunately, Texas has the Nation's second highest
number of uninsured children. The worst problem we have is that not
enough parents are using this great program.
South Texas, in particular, has carried the burden of uninsured
children for many years. About 1.4 million of Texas' 5.8 million
children lack health insurance, but 470,000 of them are now eligible
for coverage under CHIP. Almost one-fourth, or 109,000, of the newly-
eligible kids live on the Texas-Mexico border. When children do not
have the health insurance, they have to rely on costly medical
treatment at the last minute. This threatens the child's future well-
being. But now we have a true opportunity to change that. CHIP will
give a lot of children the opportunity to lead healthy lives without
the fear of getting sick.
Let me share a quote from a lady from my district who recently went
through the enrollment process. She said: ``My husband and I are
hardworking middle-income people who were disqualified from Medicaid
because I became employed. We have two incomes, and we can't afford
insurance. Now we are told by the TexCare Partnership we will have
insurance for our children with low premiums and low copayments that we
can afford. My children have health care when they need it.''
CHIP was first implemented in 1998 to address a national crisis,
almost 12 million children that were without insurance. In Texas, we
are now able to offer insurance to approximately half a million
children that otherwise would have none. While we can make this offer,
it is up to each parent or guardian to enroll or at least inquire about
getting their children in this program.
Believe it or not, the hardest part of the CHIP program is getting
parents to enroll their children. Most parents need to take advantage
of this genuinely great program. I want to stress that even if a parent
has never qualified for health insurance for their children before, now
they can. CHIP solves the cost problem for many Texas families. In
CHIP, many families will only pay an annual fee of $15 to cover all
their children in this plan. Some higher-income families will pay
monthly premiums of $15 or maybe $18 which covers all children in the
family. Most families will also have copayments for doctor/dental
visits, prescription drugs, and emergency care. And families must
reenroll their children once a year.
Mr. Speaker, children can only get this insurance if their parents
apply. I hope all parents listening will take the initiative and make
certain their children are enrolled. The application process is simple
and straightforward. Any Texan can call my office in McAllen or in
Beeville to get the number for the CHIP hotline. If parents want local
assistance or information in my congressional district, they can call
my office for that number or visit any public library in Hidalgo County
or in Bee County to pick up a bilingual brochure and application.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Could the gentleman tell me why
we are just beginning to talk about this information since this has
been available for a while?
Mr. HINOJOSA. It has been a fight to get the Texas leadership in the
legislature to move the decision-makers to get this enrollment process
going. I know that in my office we have been fighting on this for at
least 18 months. I can assure the gentlewoman that I am delighted to
see it finally get started, because it will stop the suffering of many
of the working families that I represent in the 15th District.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding. Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address this issue of children's health insurance. I
want to commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson)
for the work that she is doing in this regard, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Hinojosa), and the other Members that we are going to be hearing
from. As a government worker, I am guaranteed that my children will
have access to quality health care. This knowledge brings me some peace
of mind. As it stands, many parents in my home State of Texas do not
have this same peace of mind. In fact, many children who are eligible
for State or Federal programs are needlessly foregoing quality health
care or receiving care in expensive emergency situations only.
As a Member of Congress and as a father, I believe that every family
deserves to share the peace of mind that I have today. That is why I am
working to reform the current children's health care insurance system.
Medicaid and the new State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP,
are the two key publicly funded health insurance programs that offer
coverage for low-income adolescents in Texas today. Medicaid provides
health insurance coverage for more than 40 million individuals, mostly
women, children and adolescents, at an annual cost of about $154
billion in combined Federal and State funds.
In addition to these funds, S-CHIP made available approximately $48
billion in Federal funds over 10 years to help States expand health
insurance coverage to low-income children and youth. S-CHIP works to
subsidize families with income levels not covered by the Medicaid
program. Funded with Federal block grant dollars and State matching
dollars, S-CHIP is a health insurance program for children in families
who make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid but who cannot
afford other private insurance options.
Mr. Speaker, Texas gained a major victory during the 1999 legislative
session when it passed S-CHIP. This State program will help affordable
health insurance for families earning up to 200 percent of the Federal
poverty level. The Federal Government currently allows coverage to
children as high as 300 percent. Together, these programs provide many
uninsured children in Texas with quality health care.
While the combination of S-CHIP and Medicaid offers powerful
opportunities to reduce the percentage of uninsured children in the
United States, we can do more. Despite the recently passed S-CHIP
program, my home State still has the second highest rate of uninsured
children in the country. At the present time, there is a pressing and
undisputable need for eligibility reforms and aggressive outreach to
low-income families in Texas. Statistics show that Texas is ineffective
in retaining low-income kids on Medicaid.

[[Page 9592]]

Part of this failure can be attributed to the red tape that
unnecessarily burdens the neediest families in Texas. The bureaucratic
hurdles that must be overcome to receive Medicaid eligibility in Texas
include a face-to-face interview, an assets test, no continuous
eligibility, and no presumptive eligibility.
Fortunately, Texas has been given the opportunity to adopt less
restrictive methods for counting income and assets for family Medicaid.
Without these changes, enrollment will continue to be difficult and
complex for applicant families that are referred to Medicaid, many of
whom will have a child eligible for CHIP and another one eligible for
Medicaid.
Texas can make the system more navigable by implementing a few simple
changes. These changes include eliminating the assets test for
children's Medicaid, ending the requirement for face-to-face
application, adopting uniform statewide documentation and verification
options for Medicaid and Texas CHIP, and, finally, adopting 12-month
continuous eligibility for children's Medicaid.
At a time of unprecedented prosperity, it is untenable for children
to not have access to basic health care. Even more absurd is the fact
that many of these sick children are eligible for State and Federal
health insurance programs. The time to act is now. We cannot sit idly
by and watch our children suffer needlessly. The solution is in our
hands.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this has been
available now for at least 2 years. We have already talked about the
fact that when people have a language problem or they live a long ways
from where they might be able to get health care relief, it is usually
the lowest income which means usually the least well educated.
Has Texas taken on any leadership or responsibility to try to be sure
that we can spread the word to the persons who are eligible?
Mr. LAMPSON. We certainly should be. We need to spread that word,
because what it is doing it is encouraging people to go into the most
expensive areas to seek the care that they need. That may be a hospital
emergency room. A hospital in my hometown and other hospitals within my
district are grossly strapped right now because of the closing of so
many, just as an example, rural health care facilities that have lost
their ability to continue to offer services across this country.
As this group of people, the children about which we are speaking
right now, also find their way into these same facilities, we are
driving the cost of health care up to the point where it is causing
others not to have access. Where we can do something about it and help
fix this problem and make it easier for those to gain the access that
they so richly deserve and that we want them to have so that their
health does not have an adverse effect on the rest of us in society,
then certainly we ought to be taking the opportunity to do it.

{time} 1930

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, according to the New
York Times, on Sunday, May 21 of this year, Texas had not spent any of
the dollars allocated to take care of these children that are poor.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, that is
obviously very, very, very wrong. We have the opportunity to help
children, we have the opportunity to help people, and if we cannot
reach out and let them know, and make certain that they know about the
programs that can provide a better quality of life, then we make
serious mistakes. That is why I commend the gentlewoman for the work
that she is doing in trying to accomplish just that task.
We can make a difference in people's lives if the word can reach
them, if we can do the things that help make their task a little bit
easier in getting the quality of care that they need and deserve. I
thank the gentlewoman for doing that, and I thank her for sharing the
time this evening.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
this emphasis on a very important issue. To even begin to think of the
great need of children with respect to health care and not respond to
their need seems to be a travesty and a tragedy.
I could not help but listen to the dialogue that the gentlewoman had
with our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). It seems
certainly that there has been a problem with the leadership from the
executive of the State of Texas and particularly the Texas Department
of Health. Although there may be other issues that they have excelled
on, this is one that has seen a great vacuum in leadership.
I remember following the work of the State legislature, and many of
the legislators from the urban centers had to work very hard to ensure
that the funding for the CHIPs program included children beyond the age
of 12. The initial effort by the Texas Department of Health and the
governor's office was to only provide these CHIP monies for children up
to 12, and many of them with the encouragement of many of us in
Congress and the questioning of many of us in Congress, asked the
question: Do you mean a child does not get sick after age 13?
It seems to me an outrage. I want to applaud those legislators who
took the leadership and demanded that they address the question of the
needs of good health care, like Sylvester Turner and Rodney Ellis and
Garnett Coleman and I am sure that I am leaving out many others around
the State, who were actively involved in pressing the point that we
needed to have this kind of funding for children beyond the age of
children.
Mr. Speaker, it has already been said that Texas is at the bottom of
retaining low-income kids on Medicaid since welfare reform in 1996. It
also has been noted that Texas has the highest rate of uninsured in the
country, and Texas has the second highest rate of uninsured children in
the Nation. But what also needs to be noted is that right now in the
State of Texas, some 500,000 children qualify for CHIP, and that means,
that symbol that the gentlewoman has, the picture of that baby that
says, do our children have to really fight, or should our children have
to really fight to get good health care. With 500,000 children already
qualifying for CHIP, it seems that we are behind the times in moving
forward to ensure that this program works. It is well known that Texas
has been slow compared to other States in implementing CHIP.
This is not to say that we do not have some very committed health
professionals in our own local communities who have been begging for
the CHIP program to be implemented. Children enrolled in Texas CHIP can
get a comprehensive benefits package which include eye exams and
glasses, prescription drugs and limited dental checkups and therapy,
all of the items that provide for a healthy child.
Just last week in my district, Senator Paul Wellstone and myself held
hearings on mental health. I know we do not have mental health parity,
but to hear the parents of children come forward and cry out for needed
services in mental health for diagnostic services, for counseling
services, knowing full well that we need to keep working toward parity,
that is also health care that parents need.
So we can see that the CHIPS program is long overdue in our
community. To avoid a logistical nightmare for both the State and
parents, Texas should act as quickly as possible to implement changes
in children's Medicare eligibility. To reinforce what has been said, we
need to eliminate the access test for children's Medicaid. Texas now
makes parents of Medicaid-eligible children document not just income,
but also the value of savings, IRAs, automobiles, and valuables. There
is a lot better way to do it, and we can utilize the Federal law that
is used by the Federal Government in 40 States, plus the District of
Columbia.
It is important to drop the requirement for face-to-face
applications, recertification interviews, because we realize that
parents are very busy. We

[[Page 9593]]

should allow mail-in applications. This is not required by Federal law.
Thirty-eight States, plus the District of Columbia, allow mail-ins. So
it is important that as we deal with the elimination of assets which
are not required by the Federal Government, nor required by 40 States,
we can then make more easier, if you will, the ability for these
parents to apply and become eligible for CHIP.
The main point that I think we are trying to impress upon our State
and the focus of this Special Order that I think is so very important
is our children are voiceless. Their parents are fighting for them, but
they are the ones who every time a ballot is cast, a child cannot vote,
yet they are in need of the good health care that this CHIPS program
would allow.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the State of Texas would see the value
of responding to the needs of our children and quickly eliminate the
complicated process that keeps this CHIPS program from being
implemented. I think it is important that we get leadership from the
State, and I think it is most important that the Texas Department of
Health establish a focus that says in a certain period of time, we will
ensure that the CHIPS program is working throughout the entire State,
and that that needs to be done now.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time,
statistics tell us that more and more children are being absent from
school because of asthma, and yet, it has been determined that we have
one of the worst environments in the Nation, so bad that Oklahoma is
complaining that we are polluting parts of Oklahoma. If we have this
available and not making any effort to cover the children while we are
also providing an environment that is conducive to making them even
more unhealthy, what does this tell us? Is there any compassion in
Texas?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield,
it seems like we are lacking a great deal of compassion, and the
gentlewoman has hit the nail on the head. Healthy children make healthy
adults. Children are apt to get all manner of childhood diseases and
ailments. Asthma is one of the most devastating childhood diseases that
lead into adult asthma. We do have a problem in our respective
communities with air quality. We are fighting that problem well now. In
fact, as the gentlewoman well knows, she was one of the supporters, and
I continue to support, the Mickey Leland Toxic Center that is located
in the Texas Medical Center that deals with air quality standards and
does the research on respiratory diseases. We find that many children
have them.
I believe that there is no compassion in this State if we cannot get
the CHIPS program implemented to provide for the children of this State
when the program has been passed by this Congress under the Balanced
Budget Act since 1997. This is now the year 2000. Why does not the
State of Texas, 43rd, if you will, in the care of mental health and
some very low number, I know, in the care of health period having the
highest number of uninsured cannot provide the CHIPS program for their
children. I think that we need to show a great deal more compassion on
behalf of Texas children and the Nation's children and ensure that
these children do have insurance to make them healthy children and then
healthy adults.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of our nation's increased
investment in childcare in the form of insurance coverage. A serious
oversight has occurred when studies and statistics show a large portion
of children that are not covered by medical insurance.
Nationally, over 11 million of our nation's children--one in seven of
those children living in the United States are uninsured. Two-thirds of
these children live in families with income below 200 percent of the
poverty level ($33,400 for a family of four in 1999).
Many escape through the cracks simply because they do not fit the
description policy makers have in regards to poverty. Low-income
uninsured children typically live in two-parent, working households and
have little contact with the welfare system.
In the same instance, families who are below standard income have the
misfortune of being undereducated regarding the health benefits they
and their children have access to through their entitled aide. Forty-
one percent of parents of these eligible uninsured children postponed
seeking medical care for their offspring because they could not afford
it.
A much-needed solution for adolescents who need insurance comes in
the form of Medicaid and the new State Children's Health Insurance
Program (CHIP). These two key organizations are publicly funded health
insurance programs that offer coverage for low-income adolescents.
These programs enacted by Congress more than thirty years apart, both
augment and complement each other. While each has distinctly different
characteristics, together they offer a powerful opportunity to reduce
the percentage of uninsured adolescents in the United States and to
increase adolescents' access to health care.
I must ask that as my colleagues deliberate this week on the real and
necessary benefits of the defense appropriations to our nation's
security, that they also consider the benefit to domestic security,
which is created by their support of health care for all of our
nation's youth.
Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for more than 40 million
individuals--most are women, children, and adolescents--at an annual
cost of about $154 billion in combined federal and state funds.
Eligibility for Medicaid is determined by each state according to its
specific guidelines. However, the federal government specifies the
mandatory eligibility categories and the optional eligibility
categories.
Medicaid is significantly affected by several of the mandatory and
optional eligibility categories.
The State Children's Health Insurance Program made available
approximately $48 billion in federal funds over ten years to help
states expand health insurance coverage to low-income children and
youth.
Federal law permits states to use CHIP funds to expand coverage in
three ways: through Medicaid expansions; state-designed, non-Medicaid
programs; or a combination of these two approaches.
SCHIP, is funded with federal block grant dollars and state matching
dollars, as a health insurance program for children in families who
make too much money for Medicaid, but who cannot afford other private
insurance options.
SCHIP has extended coverage to an additional 2 million children who
do not qualify for Medicaid. Yet millions of children are believed to
be eligible for these programs, but remain uninsured.
Uninsured youth will benefit from Medicaid and CHIP only if the
states in which they live chose to extend eligibility and if states
then work to enroll them. This requires more than working with funding
for these programs. It entails communicating to the community that
needs the service that something is available.
SCHIP benefits depend heavily on program design and state discretion.
States currently cover children whose family incomes range generally
from below the Federal poverty level (FPL) to as high as 300 percent of
poverty.
Even when adolescents are enrolled in insurance programs that provide
comprehensive benefits, a number of other factors influenced whether
adolescents actually receive the services they need. These include
affordability, confidentiality, and availability of providers with
expertise and experience in caring for adolescents.
In Texas the rate of uninsured is higher than any other state in the
country. In particular Texas has the second highest rate of uninsured
children in the nation. In an attempt to combat this high rating the
state of Texas has combined the options available to states in order to
expand health insurance coverage. This combination includes expansion
of Medicaid and state-designed, non-Medicaid programs.
Texas covers children whose family incomes range from below the FPL
to 200 percent of poverty. The Federal government allows coverage to
children as high as 300 percent.

Texas--Statistics

Texas has the highest rate of uninsured in the country.
Texas has the second highest rate of uninsured children in the
nation.
There are 1.4 million uninsured children in Texas--600,000 are
eligible for, but not in Medicaid; nearly 500,000 qualify for CHIP.
Texas attempt to combats the number of uninsured children by
combining the options available to states in order to expand health
insurance coverage. Texas' combination includes the expansion of
Medicaid and state-designed, non-Medicaid programs.
At present time, there is a need for eligibility reforms and
aggressive outreach for low-income health programs in Texas.

[[Page 9594]]

Texas is at the bottom of retaining low-income kids on Medicaid since
welfare reform in 1996.
193,400 Texas children fell off the Medicaid rolls during the past
three years, a 14.2 percent decline.
Medicaid data collected finds an increase in the number of people
enrolled in Medicaid in June 1999 compared to June 1998, but the
magnitude of this success rate is dampened due to the decline of
Medicaid in nine states--one of them was Texas.
The status quo in Texas is that children (up to age 19) in families
with incomes at or under 100 percent of the federal poverty income
level (FPL, $14,140 for a family of 3) can qualify for Medicaid.
Drop the requirement for face-to-face application/re-certification
interviews for children's Medicaid. (Allow mail-in applications.) This
is not required by federal law, and 38 states plus the District of
Columbia allow mail-in application for children. Three states also
allow community-based enrollment outside the welfare office.
Adopt and publicize for children's Medicaid the same simple, flexible
documentation and verification options used for Texas CHIP. To make a
joint mail-in application feasible, children's Medicaid and CHIP must
accept the same documents for income and other required verifications.
Children's Medicaid documentation should be identical statewide, to
make a true joint CHIP-Medicaid mail-in application possible. Federal
law allows states to reduce income documentation for children's
Medicaid in any way, or even to eliminate it in favor of using third-
party verification. Seven states require no income documentation for
children's Medicaid.
To avoid a logistical nightmare for both the state and parents, Texas
should as quickly as possible implement changes in children's Medicaid
eligibility. Without these critical changes, enrollment will be
difficult and complex for the many applicant families that are referred
to Medicaid--many of whom will have one child eligible for CHIP, and
another eligible for Medicaid. States already implementing CHIP report
that large proportions of applicants end up in Medicaid. The changes
needed are as follows:
Eliminate the assets test for children's Medicaid. Texas now makes
parents of Medicaid-eligible children document not just income, but
also the value of savings, IRAs, automobiles, and valuables, etc. The
test is not required by federal law, and 40 states plus the District of
Columbia have already dropped in for children.
Recent federal law changes allow states to cover parents in families
with children up to any income limit the state chooses.
Texas has been given the choice to adopt less restrictive methods for
counting income and assets for family Medicaid; for example, states can
increase earned income disregards, and alter or eliminate asset tests.
Texas has been slow compared to other states in implementing CHIP.
Children enrolled in Texas CHIP will get a comprehensive benefits
package--includes eye exams and glasses, prescription drugs, and
limited dental check-ups, and therapy.
CHIP does not serve as an alternative to Medicaid for those families,
who based on their income, are eligible for Medicaid.
Adopt 12-month continuous eligibility for children's Medicaid.
Children enrolled in Texas CHIP stay enrolled for 12 months, regardless
of any changes in income during that period. In Texas Medicaid, parents
must report any income change within 10 days, and Medicaid is cut off
the next month if the new family income is too high for Medicaid.
Twelve-month eligibility for Children's Medicaid is a state option
Congress created when it passed CHIP. This was done in an effort to
allow for identical policies in Medicaid and CHIP, and promote
continuity of health care. Fifteen states have adopted continuous
eligibility for Children's Medicaid, and Ohio will begin the policy
July 2000.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman very much.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Let me first start out by commending the gentlewoman for having this
Special Order to talk about the CHIPs program and the need for greater
access to health care for children in this country. As the gentlewoman
knows, back in 1997, we were part of an effort to start the CHIPs
program, this was a Federal effort. I was pleased to be a member of the
House Committee on the Budget when the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, the
reconciliation bill, was crafted and ultimately passed and signed by
the President. I think there is a certain amount of credit that is due
the President as well for his steadfast support for this program.
It is correct that unfortunately, our State, and as a proud Texan I
have to say it is unfortunate that our State was a little late in
getting a CHIPs program up and running. The legislature, which meets
biennially, did not get a chance to take this up or did not choose to
take this up until 1999.
I think it is a little ironic when some of us were saying that the
legislature should move on this, that the governor perhaps should call
a special session to address this very popular bipartisan program, that
with fear that Texas might ultimately lose some funds, we now see that
the other body has decided to borrow from some of the funds that
Congress set aside back in 1997 from the tobacco tax for this. We do
know that Congresses have a way sometimes of borrowing and failing to
repay those funds. So I am a little nervous that Texas might lose out
as a result of that.
Mr. Speaker, I watched with great interest when our legislature had
the debate over whether to cover at 150 percent or 200 percent of the
poverty level. I think the legislature, under the leadership of Speaker
Pete Laney, did the right thing in going to 200 percent, and that will
begin to address what is really a health care crisis in Texas and a
health care crisis across the country with uninsured children.
When we were doing the 1997 act, we estimated that there were 10
million children across the country without insurance; about 3 million
of those are Medicaid-eligible children and the rest are children of
working families who make too much money to be in the Medicaid program
but do not get health insurance through the workforce or choose not to
take it but cannot afford to buy it on their own.
Now, with respect to that, as my colleague from Houston just talked
about, in terms of the Medicaid program, there is no question that we
could do a much better job of enrolling children in Medicaid. I have
offered, and I think the gentlewoman is a cosponsor, a bill, H.R. 1298,
that would give schools the ability to grant presumptive eligibility
for children who might be eligible, who are eligible for Medicaid, in
the same way that the 1997 act gave that to Federal health care
workers.
Our colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) has a bill
that would extend that same ability to grant presumptive eligibility to
what are called SCHIP workers, State Children'S Health Insurance
workers as well, so that we would have the ability of not only
enrolling children in the CHIPs program, but also enrolling those
children who are Medicaid eligible in the Medicaid program.
One of the unfortunate facts of our home State of Texas is that we
lead the Nation in the number of Medicaid-eligible children who are not
enrolled in the program, about 800,000 kids in Texas who should be in
the Medicaid program.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time,
there has been a whole legislative session that has come and gone since
these dollars have been available, and as of May 21 of this year, we
had not used any of the dollars allocated for Texas. Can the gentleman
think of any reason why we have denied these children the right to
health care when there is nothing standing in the way between them and
health care enrollment?
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield, we hear
from some that we should not be passing new laws, we ought to be
enforcing the laws that we have, but sometimes we find from some of the
people who say that they are not enforcing the laws that are on their
books, and this is one that ought to be enforced.
That gets to the point that I was making on Medicaid, why this is
important. I represent the largest medical center in the world, has the
largest children's hospital, Texas Children's Hospital, in my district.
They have an emergency room that was built I think for something along
the lines of 20,000 emergency room visits a year. They get about
60,000. Why do they get so many? They get so many because they have a

[[Page 9595]]

lot of children who do not have health insurance who are getting
ambulatory care, who are getting primary care in the emergency room.
What is wrong about that? Well, one, it overwhelms the system, but
the other problem is the cost structure. As the gentlewoman well knows
from her professional career before Congress, the cost structure is
much higher in the emergency room. A lot of these kids who could have
gotten more preventive care if they had been receiving regular primary
care, and from the Federal standpoint, and this is something that those
of us in the Congress, as stewards of the Federal taxpayer and the
budget, should be concerned about is the way that is funded are two
ways.
One, it is funded by the hospitals picking up the cost any way they
can, and the other is the Federal Government picks up 100 percent of
the tab through the disproportionate share program.

{time} 1945

This becomes a big problem, because the States share the Medicaid
program with the Federal government, as the gentlewoman knows, and at
least they could be picking up 40 percent of the tab for these 800,000
kids in Texas who ought to be in the program, rather than having the
Federal government pick up the entire tab.
As the gentlewoman knows, we reduced the Medicaid DSH program in the
1997 Act. We were able to hold the line in Texas because of the good
work she did and others in the delegation. But it only makes sense that
we ought to enroll these kids in the Medicaid program, we ought to get
full enrollment in the CHIP program. In the long run, it will be
cheaper than having to continue to fund huge dollars through the DSH
program.
Beyond the bottom line aspect, it is the right thing to do, because
we want to have healthy kids in Texas, we want to have healthy kids
across this country. It is the compassionate conservative thing to do,
but it is not enough to care. It is to care enough to do it.
The gentlewoman is on the right track with her special order. We have
much more work to do in this area. We need the leadership to get this
done, to get these kids enrolled, to make the changes in the Medicaid
law so that we can get more kids in there, and we will have a healthier
and a stronger society by it. I commend the gentlewoman for having this
special order.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green) could not be here, but he left a statement. I notice
in the statement, in his congressional district, which is also in the
Houston area, at least 70 percent of the children in the Aldine School
District rely on the school nurse for primary health care services, or
as their initial health care provider. That does not have to be, and it
should not have to be.
We have too many children who are not getting any kind of attention
in Texas. We cannot allow this to continue. It is ironic that we talk
about how great we are, this big, wonderful State, with the greatest
prosperity in the history of the State. We have all of these children
starting out, without the availability of health care, a full life
perhaps with chronic illnesses because they do not have access to the
care that they deserve, and they can have it. They would have it if we
had a Texas government that had enough compassion to enroll them in the
program.
Nobody wishes to be poor, no one wishes to be uneducated, no one
wishes to be a long ways from various health care outlets. But when
that happens, the entire State ought to have access to that care. They
need to be informed and they need to be enrolled. This is simply not
the time to turn our heads and pretend this is not going on. It is not
the time to simply say to poor kids, get back, be quiet, you might make
us look bad.
We have got to give attention to these poor kids who are kids of
working parents, low-income parents, who do not have access to health
care that taxpayers are willing to pay for. The money is available.
Texas has access to the money and refuses to use it. Is that
compassion, I ask the Members? Is this America? This is not what we
stand here and fight for, and what we fund each day.
We tried to be very sure that when welfare reform came, that our poor
kids would not fall through the cracks. We did our part at this level.
It is time for the State of Texas to look up and acknowledge that
though we have much wealth, we have the largest number of poor kids
being neglected. In a State where you can hardly breathe the air, we
have kids who are getting their lungs injured every day simply because
they do not have access to care that has been paid for. We simply
refuse to use it.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon all of my colleagues to join me in making a
plea to the State of Texas, my home State. I was born in the State and
I know the State. I served there in the House and in the Senate. This
callousness must not continue, and certainly we must not allow it to
spread in this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the statement of the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green).
The statement referred to is as follows:
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that, here in
the world's richest country, one in seven American children does not
have health insurance.
Yet, in the midst of our Nation's longest and strongest economic
expansion, the health of over 11 million of our children is being
jeopardized.
In the Houston region, over a quarter million children are uninsured.
In my Congressional district, at least 70% of children in the Aldine
Independent School District rely on the school nurse for primary
healthcare services or as their initial healthcare provider.
Our children deserve better.
Congress created Medicaid, and later the new Children's Health
Insurance Program (CHIP), to offer coverage for low-income children.
These two programs are an investment in good health--an investment
that pays dividends in the long term because prevention saves taxpayers
money.
They have reduced the percentage of uninsured children and parents in
the United States. And, they have increased access to quality health
care services.
Medicaid provides health insurance coverage for more than 40 million
individuals--mostly women, children, and adolescents--at an annual cost
of about $154 billion in combined federal and state funds.
Eligibility for Medicaid is determined by each state according to its
specific guidelines.
States have wide discrepancy in determining what optional benefits
will be given, who will be eligible for those benefits and the
procedure used to grant the benefits.
While Medicaid has benefited the poorest of the poor, it has not been
able to address a second group of uninsured--the working poor.
In 1997, Congress passed the Children's Health Insurance Program or
CHIP, which made available approximately $48 billion in federal funds
over ten years to help states expand health insurance coverage to low-
income children and youth.
Federal law permits states to use CHIP funds to expand coverage in
three ways: through Medicaid expansions; state-designed, non-Medicaid
programs; or a combination of these two approaches.
CHIP, funded with federal block grant dollars and state matching
dollars, is a health insurance program for children in families who
make too much money for Medicaid, but who cannot afford other private
insurance options.
CHIP has extended coverage to an additional 2 million children who do
not qualify for Medicaid. Yet millions of children are believed to be
eligible for these programs, but remain uninsured.
Uninsured children will benefit from Medicaid and CHIP only if the
states in which they live chose to extend eligibility and if states
then work to enroll them.
States currently cover children whose family incomes range generally
from below the Federal poverty level (FPL) to as high as 300% of
poverty.
While some states moved very quickly to insure low-income children,
Texas did not. In the first year in which funds were available, the
State of Texas expanded Medicaid coverage for children at or below 100
percent of the federal poverty line.
This resulted in 58,286 children ages 15-18 having insurance. More
than 102,000 remained uninsured, even though they were eligible for
coverage under the old federal Medicaid rules. This was a very slow
start.
However, thanks to the efforts of the Texas Legislature during the
76th Legislative Session, our state is making progress.

[[Page 9596]]

Because of the efforts of Senator John Whitmore and Representative
Kevin Bailey, Texas created a separate children's health insurance
program for children at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty
line.
This will provide health insurance for 500,124 Texas children through
age 18. In my region, this means 90,802 children will have health
insurance.
While this is a good development, we still have a long way to go.
Other states are further along in providing health coverage for
children. In the first year of the program, Texas expanded coverage for
58,286 children. By comparison, Alabama enrolled 38,980 children;
California enrolled 222,351 children; Florida enrolled 154,594
children; Georgia enrolled 47,581 children; Massachusetts enrolled
67,852 children; Missouri enrolled 49,529 children; New Jersey enrolled
75,652 children; New York 521,301 children; North Carolina enrolled
57,300 children; Ohio enrolled 83,688 children; and South Carolina
enrolled 45,737 children.
Of the states that chose to create a separate children's health
program, many are extending coverage to more children than is Texas,
including California at 250 percent; Connecticut at 300 percent; New
Jersey at 350 percent; Vermont at 300 percent; and Washington at 250
percent.
Texas can do more. And we should do more. We have the highest rate of
uninsured persons in the country.
And, Texas has the second highest rate of uninsured children in the
nation. Over 41% of parents of eligible uninsured children postponed
seeking medical care for their child because they could not afford it.
There are 1.4 million uninsured children in Texas--600,000 are
eligible for, but not in Medicaid; nearly 500,000 qualify for CHIP.
Texas covers children whose family incomes range from below the
federal poverty level to 200% of the federal poverty level. Yet the
Federal government allows coverage to children as high as 300%.
Texas, like the rest of the nation, could do more to conduct an
aggressive outreach to ensure that eligible children receive the
services they need.
New outreach is clearly needed--now, more than ever. Like many
states, after federal welfare reform was enacted in 1996, we saw a huge
drop in the number of persons applying for and participating in
Medicaid. 193,400 Texas children fell off the Medicaid rolls during the
past three years, a 14.2% decline.
Because these two programs are no longer linked, many lower-income
persons do not realize that they are eligible for health insurance.
Unfortunately, Texas is the worst state in the Nation in terms of
retaining low-income kids on Medicaid.
And, a recent New York Times article shows that Texas has used none
of the federal funds it is entitled to for outreach. We can do better.
Why are so many persons not receiving the Medicaid and CHIP services
they're entitled to?
Red tape burdens the neediest families in Texas.
Medicaid program eligibility requirements in Texas include:
A Face-to-face interview
An Asset test
No continuous eligibility--families must periodically re-enroll
No presumptive eligibility--even if families have proven that they
are eligible for another program with the same income guidelines, they
must go seven states (Texas included) expanded coverage to only 100
percent of the as quickly as possible implement changes in Children's
Medicaid eligibility.
Texas can take steps now to reduce it's state government bureaucracy.
For example, the state could:
Eliminate the assets test for children's Medicaid. Texas now makes
parents of Medicaid-eligible children document not just income, but
also the value of savings, IRAs, automobiles, and valuables.
The test is not required by federal law, and 40 states plus the
District to Columbia have already dropped it for children.
Texas could also drop the requirement for face-to-face application/
recertification interviews for children's Medicaid and allow mail-in
applications.
Thirty-eight states plus the District of Columbia allow mail-in
application for children. Three states also allow community-based
enrollment outside the welfare office.
Texas could adopt for children's Medicaid the same simple, flexible
documentation and verification options used for Texas CHIP. To make a
joint mail-in application feasible, children's Medicaid and CHIP must
accept the same documents for income and other required verifications.
Federal law allows states to reduce income documentation for
children's Medicaid in any way, or even to eliminate it in favor of
using third-party verification. Seven states require no income
documentation for children's Medicaid.
The state could adopt 12-month continuous eligibility for children's
Medicaid. Children enrolled in Texas CHIP stay enrolled for 12 months,
regardless of any changes in income during that period.
In Texas Medicaid, parents must report any income change within 10
days, and Medicaid is cut off the next month if the new family income
is too high for Medicaid.
Texas could also adopt twelve-month eligibility for Children's
Medicaid--this continuous eligibility is a state option Congress
created when it passed CHIP. Fifteen states have adopted continuous
eligibility for Children's Medicaid, and Ohio will begin the policy in
July 2000.
Hopefully, my colleagues in the state legislature will consider some
of these ideas as they continue their push to expand health care to the
uninsured.
Thanks to their efforts, Texas has done many good things in the past
year to reduce the number of uninsured children. We can certainly do
more. I am hopeful that successful state partnerships like Medicaid and
CHIP will be used by the state to their full potential.

____________________

EDUCATION IN AMERICA AND PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sherwood). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I intend to be joined here in a few
minutes by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and possibly some
other Members of the House as well.
Mr. Speaker, we had the occasion today of holding a field hearing in
St. Paul, Minnesota, and I want to talk a little bit about the content
of that hearing, and also some other issues that are critical with
respect to education in America in and public school reform in general.
Mr. Speaker, the hearing was held, as I mentioned, in St. Paul this
morning. It was conducted by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra). The subcommittee that conducted the hearing was the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, the committee that deals with most of the
investigations not only that we have conducted with respect to waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Department of Education, but also focusing on
research and investigation into different innovative activities in
public schools; finding out what works, for example, and what does not
work; finding out and learning more and witnessing firsthand some of
the innovative ideas that are taking place throughout the fifty States
under the leadership of Governors and State legislators and other more
local leaders.
Today we met with the Superintendent of Schools and some State
legislators and some others who are leading the way in education reform
and providing some great examples in the State of Minnesota. That just
adds, Mr. Speaker, to the collection of data and information that we
have been assembling from throughout the country. The subcommittee has
been now to 21 different States analyzing the various education reform
efforts that are taking place in those States.
One of the topics that was discussed at great length this morning at
the hearing was charter schools. Charter schools really got their start
in the State of Minnesota. The idea had been discussed and had been
bantered around in the halls of State legislatures throughout the
country from time to time prior to that. I think it was in 1991 that
Minnesota became the first State to pass charter school legislation.
Charter schools are public schools. They are still funded by the
government, run by the government. In fact, they are owned by the
government, but they are managed and operated often in different ways,
largely defined by a specific contract or a charter, as it is called;
hence the name ``charter schools.''
That contract is one that is usually proposed by a group of parents,
sometimes a group of teachers, sometimes

[[Page 9597]]

an organization of some sort. In many cases, charter schools are
established by existing public education institutions that find
particular difficulty with the policies, rules, regulations, or funding
mechanisms of the State they are in or the district that they fall
under. That usually constitutes the need or the origin of the charter.
What motivates these groups and these operations or individuals and
parents to venture off on their own and try a new way of educating,
trying to, for example, break the mold of education delivery in a
community, it is often motivated by test scores that are insufficient
to meet the needs of the parents that consider charter schools.
Sometimes it is a management-related issue. In many cases we have
heard, for example, there is a strong desire to treat teachers like
real professionals. Too often the union wage scale that is at play in
most States around the country prevents teachers from being treated
like real professionals. Consequently, most teachers are paid in a way
where the absolute best teacher in a district is compensated on the
same basis as the absolute worst teacher in a district.
So often we find education professionals and parents who believe that
their children learn best in a professional learning environment, where
teachers are treated like professionals rather than all treated the
same, as though there is no distinction between them.

{time} 2000

Charter schools are flourishing throughout the country. We are seeing
more and more of them. That is certainly the case in Minnesota, as
provided in the testimony to the committee today. I think they said
there are somewhere on the order of 60 or 70 charter schools, somewhere
in that neighborhood, I do not remember the number exactly, charter
schools that exist now in Minnesota. Some have closed, which is
something that we should actually focus on a little bit tonight.
These charters, these contracts, are usually for a limited duration
and period of time, at the end of which the contract ends or expires
and must be renewed between the charter applicant and the school
district. If the charter has met all of the objectives and the goals
that it outlined in the original application, then the charters
presumably will be continued. Sometimes there are political battles
that prevent that from occurring, but for all intents and purposes they
are generally approved if they met the objectives that they initially
set out to achieve.
But if a charter school fails to meet those objectives, they
frequently find themselves shut down, put out of business. Often it
does not even take that long for the renewal question to be raised.
Often it comes down to a matter of cash flow. If charter schools cannot
satisfy customers, in other words if they cannot satisfy the parents of
those children, who care about them the most, in a way that convinces
those parents that the education of their child is being accomplished,
well, then they simply go somewhere else and the cash flow dwindles and
the charter school cannot survive.
It is always unfortunate to see a school fail, but it is important
that it occur. And that competitive notion, that level of
accountability placed in the hands of parents, rather than the hands of
government workers, is what makes all the difference in this particular
venue of education reform; and it is why charter schools work well
generally throughout the country, and why almost every charter school
in America has a substantial waiting list of customers that would like
to be educated in those schools.
That is the case in Minnesota as well. When a charter school fails or
does not meet those objectives, the doors close. So the question ought
to be for all of us here, if we look at charter schools as these
microcosms of education research, of experimentation at some times
certainly, but as laboratories of sorts where different educational
methods are tested, we ought to also consider the customer-driven
impacts that charter schools are subject to and ask ourselves when will
we ever start applying the same kind of standards to the rest of
government-owned schools in general?
Mr. Speaker, what I mean by that is that when a regular government-
owned or public school fails to meet the needs of local parents and
raise the academic standards and the opportunity for children, those
are kind of handled administratively. But the children who are in those
schools are frequently trapped there, their parents having virtually no
opportunity or no choice to go somewhere else or leave. Consequently,
there really is no recourse for those parents; no consequence for a
school that is not meeting the needs of its community.
So we ought to ask ourselves why, if charter schools and the presence
of competition and parent-driven measurements of quality results in
about 4 percent of charter schools failing, why is there no equivalent
measurement with the regular government-owned schools? And that is
something we ought to explore and we ought to perhaps provide. Because
what really drives the agenda in regular community schools and
government-owned institutions and neighborhoods, regular public schools
as we know them, is the particular attributes that are assembled there:
the principal that was assigned there by the district and the teachers
that were hired there by a school district. Then the parents of the
children who happen to live in a particular neighborhood pick these
school for a variety of reasons.
The school curriculum, the way it is managed, the way it is
organized, and the way it is funded frequently have little to do with
why a family decided to live in a neighborhood, let alone be enrolled
in a particular education establishment and education institution.
So it was an interesting hearing because the message that was given
to members of the subcommittee was that Washington ought to go slow
when it comes to charter schools. Charter schools were created at the
State level. They were inspired by local initiative. They were a
response to the demands of customers and the responsiveness of State
legislators, primarily, in Minnesota, California, and Colorado and in
other States since then, those early days in the early 1990s.
Mr. Speaker, it is a response that is working and is providing a
remarkable education opportunity for many, many children across the
country.
``Keep your hands off of these schools for a while,'' is the way I
would summarize today's message on charter schools. There are efforts
here in Washington to try to address some of the problems that charter
schools are confronting, namely start-up costs and getting themselves
off the ground. Finding a way to organize an education institution from
scratch is a very difficult endeavor indeed. Finding a building to
house a charter school is a critical challenge as well.
So there is a temptation on behalf of those of us here in Washington
who want to see charter schools succeed to reach into the Federal
coffers and find ways to get funds from Washington, D.C., to help these
local problems; and that is a good problem to be concerned about. That
is a sentiment that I find gratifying; and I am encouraged by it, that
there are people here who want to help charter schools.
But the concern voiced today on behalf of those who actually run
those schools was one of appreciation for Federal concern, but a well-
placed fear of the mandates that typically follow the Federal funds
that come out of Washington.
I say a ``well-placed fear'' because that is the history, in fact, of
the Federal involvement in education. Every time something good happens
in education, people here in Washington want to celebrate it and then
become a part of it, and politicians just cannot resist the temptation
for claiming credit for it. The best way people have in Washington, it
seems, to show compassion and concern for something that works well is
by dishing out lots of cash. Ultimately, the cash gets attached to
Federal rules, Federal guidelines, Federal regulations and pretty soon
that enterprise that was a good idea, that started out as a remarkable
reform, perhaps a

[[Page 9598]]

transformation of education, becomes co-opted by the Federal
Government.
That was the concern voiced by some of the most forceful charter
school advocates that we heard from this morning in our hearing in
Minneapolis.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), my colleague,
has joined me on the floor. He has heard a little bit of the
discussion, and I yield the floor to him.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) for his leadership on education in the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. He is one of the bright,
shining stars in Congress on pushing for education reform. I just
wanted to come down and join him in this discussion about education.
Specifically, about the kinds of unfunded Federal mandates that we are
imposing on our local school districts.
This week, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be considering the Labor-HHS-
Education bill. That is the bill that funds all the Federal Government
education programs. Well, what I find is unique and interesting is that
for the last 30 years we have been doing this, and then some, is that
in 1975 Congress passed a law, a good law, the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act. Everybody calls this IDEA. Well, what that
law basically did was to say that all children with disabilities should
receive a quality education.
That is a very prudent measure, and a law that I think the gentleman
from Colorado and I both support. But what they did in that law was say
that the Federal Government would fund 40 percent of IDEA spending in
our local schools and that the State government would then fund the
remaining 60 percent. So a local school district would not have to pay
for the educational mandate being imposed on local school districts.
Mr. Speaker, that was 1975. That just is not the case today. Today,
in the First District of Wisconsin, Janesville, Beloit, Racine,
Kenosha, they are getting about 7 percent of the funding for IDEA. Now,
nationwide, the average is about 12 percent, because this Congress and
a couple before have doubled the commitment to IDEA under the new
majority in Congress. But that is just not enough.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a quick illustration of what this
unfunded mandate does to our local schools. Many of us, and I know the
gentleman from Colorado is a leader in this, are advocates for local
control. I, and many others, believe that the educational decisions
should best be left to those who know our children the best: teachers,
parents, administrators.
As a former Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett, once said:
``Education is the moral obligation and responsibility of the parent,
the ethical responsibility of the teacher, and the constitutional
responsibility of the State.''
But an education with respect to IDEA, it specifically is a Federal
mandate that forces our local schools to pay for this. But when the
local school districts come in and have to pay for this, where is
Washington? In my case, where is Madison, the State government? They
are nowhere to be found. Local school districts are being stuck with
the bill.
What this means is that local control is atrophying. Local control is
being sucked out of our schools because our local school boards or
property taxes are being driven toward chasing unfunded mandates from
Washington.
In a State like Wisconsin where we have a revenue cap on education
spending and our education budget, it is even felt more. So when we
have a revenue cap on what we can spend on education, on how high
property taxes can go, and then Washington comes along, as it is doing,
and imposes this mandate, a very costly one, a prudent one, but a very
costly one, and does not live up to its end of the bargain, what we do
is take every dollar out of those local education needs and put it
towards chasing an unfunded Federal mandate.
So every time Madison and Washington impose this mandate on our
schools on a year-to-year basis, every time a school board in
Janesville, Wisconsin, wants to come up with a new innovative program,
a new innovative idea to treat the unique needs and problems of our
schools in Janesville or Beloit or Kenosha or Colorado, every dollar we
send is a dollar taken out of local control, a dollar taken out of that
local resource decision-making.
By imposing these unfunded mandates, as we are doing in IDEA, on our
local school districts, we are taking money away from local decision-
making.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, that was the second point I wanted to get
into, because we also heard today at that subcommittee hearing in St.
Paul from State Representative Alice Seagren of the Minnesota House of
Representatives. Alice was a very articulate spokeswoman for not only
the charter school movement, but when it came to the discussion of
whether the Federal Government ought to provide additional funding for
school construction at the local level.
She said, ``That is a nice thought and we appreciate the sentiment,
but if you really want to help our schools, fully fund the mandate
under the IDEA.''
Going back to the 1970s, the gentleman is right. This is a mandate
that was really handed down by the Supreme Court. And for those of us
who are conservatives, and we are now joined by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), as the three of us here are, we believe that
the role of the U.S. Department of Education ought to be minimal when
it comes to managing our local schools. The IDEA program is probably
the one Federal program where we have an obligation to put the cash
forward for it, primarily because the Supreme Court has interpreted the
Constitution in a way that suggests we have to.
But the gentleman is right. What started out as a program where the
Federal Government promised to fund 40 percent of the total cost of
implementing the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, under the
Clinton and Gore administration that percentage was dropped all the way
down to 6 percent. We fought for the last 5 or 6 years here as a
Republican majority in the House and in the Senate to bump that up. We
have got it up to I think it was 12 last year. It is scheduled to go up
to about 15 this year. But it is still far short of the 40 percent.
Mr. Speaker, getting us up to 40 percent ought to be our top
priority, and I know we are all united in our agreement on that point.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman would yield, so when the
gentleman is saying that the President, the Clinton administration
dropped the commitment to the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Act, did general Federal education spending drop at the same time?
Mr. SCHAFFER. Not at all. General education funding has increased
dramatically. But the priority of this one mandate that the Supreme
Court has tasked this body with funding has gone in the opposite
direction and has actually been reduced in funding.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. What we have been seeing with this
administration, and the gentleman should correct me if I am wrong, is
the fact that they have lessened our commitment. They have gone away
from funding the unfunded mandate we are imposing on local schools, to
funding more Federal education programs that have even more strings
attached to them, which tie the hands of local education decision-
makers, and give us even more unfunded mandates in our schools?
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is precisely right. One of
the expert witnesses we heard from today, Dr. Karen Effrem, who is an
M.D., a pediatrician, put that figure at about 70 percent Federal
mandate percentage. She said, paraphrasing her words: essentially, what
Washington is doing to States is providing somewhere around 6 to 7
percent of the total funding that actually gets to a classroom, and in
exchange for that is attaching about 75 percent of all the rules,
regulations, and mandates that a local school has to deal with.

{time} 2015

So the effect of the Clinton-Gore administration in Washington on
education is just as the gentleman from

[[Page 9599]]

Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has described. It has been one to pump more cash
into the Department of Education, not to classrooms, but to the
Department, the bureaucracy, to spread that bureaucracy wider and to
more and more Federal programs, none of which work very well. I might
add that the end result at the end of the day is that the few important
legitimate programs that Washington ought to be concerned about,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act being primary, is diffused
in this morass of waste, fraud, and abuse of bureaucratic expenditures.
The taxpayers are getting very little for their education funding when
we talk about dollars that come to Washington.
Our goal is to try to shrink the size of the Federal government,
reduce its influence on managing the day-to-day activities in
classrooms, and give the resources to where the local leaders tell us
they need it most, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act being
paramount.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I see we have been joined by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), another education reformer. And
I would like to include the gentleman from Michigan in the
conversation, but I would like to inform my colleagues of an amendment
that I have pending in the Committee on Rules right now that recognizes
the fact that Washington has been creating new programs, growing new
programs, putting new strings on these programs, and diminishing the
commitment to IDEA. I have an amendment which seeks to try and put some
more money within the existing appropriations bill into Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act to try and help toward funding that
unfunded mandate.
What I found is if one looks at the 21st Century Learning Centers, it
is a new program that started in 1995. In tracking this program, it was
a program conceived of, authored by, and passed by a Republican
Congressman from Wisconsin where I come from, Steve Gunderson, who is
no longer serving in Congress.
He passed that program at that time to do this, to open up schools,
specifically high schools, to rural areas who do not have those kinds
of facilities from other means. Meaning if one is in rural western
Wisconsin, one does not have a YMCA, one does not have a library or
village hall, allow the community as a large to use the swimming pool
of a high school, the library of a high school, the computer lab of a
high school after schools, during summers. That program was funded with
$750,000 to basically keep the schools open for these purposes. Guess
what that is funded at now in this bill, $600 million. We have seen an
800 percent increase in the funding for the 21st Century Learning
Centers.
The other point is this, Congressman Gunderson, who actually offered
this, came to the committee fairly recently and said, This program does
not look anything like the program I wrote when I passed it into law.
This program has gone well beyond its scope and intent. This program
has nothing to do with its original intent. It is overfunded. Its
mandate is much, much larger. Now it is duplicating other Federal
programs we have in the Federal Government from the Department of
Education.
So we have another duplicative program from the Department of
Education. It has gone beyond its original mandate. It has grown 800
percent in the last 6 years when we are still sending this unfunded
mandate on our local school districts, and we still have kids with
disabilities who are being educated, and one is almost pitting those
kinds of kids against all other kids in schools when Washington
continues to send this unfunded mandate to our school districts.
What my amendment would do is take half of the money from this new
growing program that duplicates other programs and put it into
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and simply say that, if we
are going to be increasing programs from the Department of Education
which already duplicates other programs by 800 percent, why do not we
first take care of the unfunded mandates we have right now. Why do we
not first pay our bills and tell our local school districts, we want
you to at indicate the resources. We want you to make the decisions in
our schools, in our classrooms, in our school districts.
That is why I am hoping that this amendment will be made in order by
the Committee on Rules so we can have a demonstration of our commitment
on the floor of Congress for trying to get to this unfunded mandate,
for saying no to growing new programs, duplicative programs by the tune
of 800 percent, and getting to this unfunded mandate.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Will the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) yield?
Mr. SCHAFFER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I, along with three of our other
colleagues, had a great hearing in Minnesota today. It really builds on
what we have learned. I think today was the 21st State that we have
gone to, the 23rd field hearing that we have gone to people at the
local and at the State level. We have asked them what is working in
education and then really, and we should maybe do this in future
hearings, to give us a grade as to how Washington is either helping
them or assisting them in getting them and enabling them to get done
what they want to get done at the local level.
I think one of the witnesses that we had today, I do not remember
exactly which one it was, maybe the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Schaffer) does, who said when one takes a look at the system that we
have created here in Washington, of hundreds of different programs,
hundreds of different mandates, and the number that we have heard today
was, we get 6 percent of the money from Washington, we get 70 percent
of the rules and the regulations.
That is not outlandish. I mean, consistently when we go from one
State to the next, Ohio, they have documented it. They said we get 7
percent of our money from Washington, we get 50 percent of the
mandates, 50 percent of the paperwork. So that is consistent from all
the States that we have talked to.
But one of the people said, ``Only you in Washington could come up
with a system that looks like this. If you are actually focused on
kids, if you were focused on results, which is kids learning, you would
have a very different set of programs and requirements. Only a system
that is focused on process, you know, that this is what we want to have
happen and this funding stream and a system that measures process
rather than kids learning is what we have created here in Washington.''
Again, we heard it in Minnesota today. We have heard it at every
single State that we have gone to; that is, the formula for kids'
learning, parental involvement, number one. That is the key. A focus on
basic academics.
Again, we have got a charter school today talking, traditional public
schools talking about a focus on basic academics. You have to provide a
safe and a drug-free school. You cannot have learning go on where kids
are concerned about their safety or they are concerned about what their
colleagues or their peers are doing in the classroom or in the
hallways. You have to focus on getting dollars into the classroom. That
consistently is the formula.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is talking about we have got
this program, we have got that program, what have we learned? We
learned that, when one has got hundreds of education programs, one has
got streams of paperwork of bureaucracy; that every time Wisconsin,
Michigan, or Minnesota sends dollars to Washington for education they
have got to come back to us begging to get some of their money back.
We then give it to them. We give it to them with a whole string of
mandates so they end up spending it on things they do not necessarily
believe are their priorities. Instead of getting a dollar back for
every dollar that they send here, when one calculates all the
paperwork, all of the bureaucracy, all these types of things, we
believe that at most they get 60 cents back.
Maybe sometime later as we go through the process there are some
other things that we can talk about.

[[Page 9600]]

We can talk about exactly how effective the bureaucracy is here in
Washington.
This is a Department that now, for 2 years in a row, has failed its
audit, meaning that it cannot come back to Congress, it cannot come
back to the American people, the people that fund this agency, and say
we have been very careful in managing your money and we can tell you
exactly where it goes. We know for 2 years they failed their audit. We
know that for at least 3 more years, they will not be able to get a
clean audit.
We all know that, in that kind of environment, there have been a
number of opportunities for waste, fraud, and abuse. We can maybe
outline what some of those are later on as we go through this process.
Then we can also talk about what some of our priorities are for
addressing this issue.
My colleagues have already mentioned one, which is let us fully fund
and meet the commitments that we have made to local school districts by
increasing and meeting our commitment on IDEA.
We can talk about eliminating bureaucracy and red tape through the
Ed-Flex program, giving school districts more flexibility through the
State, the straight A's program where we give them the money and say
you decide whether you want to hire teachers, train teachers, reduce
class size, or whatever, and also we want to focus on getting 95 cents
of every Federal education dollar into the classroom. So there is a
whole series of things that we can talk about as we continue through
this hour.
I yield back to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) to either
build on some of these thoughts or on some other ideas that he may
have.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my
appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota (Chairman Hoekstra) for
holding that hearing in Minnesota. I, as a member of the subcommittee,
have benefited greatly just by having the chance to travel to many
communities throughout the country and hear the various ideas that have
been invented in States with respect to school reform, but to also have
the opportunity to hear the frequency and the consistency of the
message my colleagues just described.
It does not matter whether we are in Minnesota, in Florida, in
Colorado, or in California, the message never really changes with
respect to the Federal involvement in education; that is, we really
appreciate all you folks back there in Washington caring about schools,
but stop trying to run them from out there. You do not know the names
of our kids. You do not even know the names of the schools that we have
here much less know about the specific qualities of a neighborhood or
the needs of a specific community.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I think the best example today was we know
that most States or many States, I think it is over 30, 33, 35 States,
have embarked on a charter school initiative. We have gone around and
we have heard and we recognize each State is different. This week we
are going to embark here in Congress on a program to help charter
schools. Part of that is going to be a school construction program. The
State representative from Minnesota.
Mr. SCHAFFER. That was representative Alice Seagren was her name.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Ms. Seagren said, Before you go off on this
construction program, giving us construction money, let me tell you
what we are doing here in Minnesota. We do not build schools. We do
lease plans. So if you come up with a construction program for charter
schools in Washington, D.C., I am telling you right now that here is
one State where this only does not work, it flies directly in the face
of the strategy that we have put in place for charter schools in our
State. So what is going to happen is people from Minnesota are sending
money to Washington, and we are not going to be able to get any of it
back unless we let you in Washington change our strategy for funding
charter schools. We think we have got a pretty good system. We think it
makes sense. It is not perfect, but this works for us, and this is what
we want to do. Now, all of a sudden, to get our money back, we are
going to have to change our program. Well, up until today, we did not
even know that Minnesota had that kind of a strategy in place.
Mr. SCHAFFER. That is precisely right. I want to go back to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and his proposal because I assure
him, he is going to have lots of support here on the floor for an
amendment that moves to fully fund IDEA at the expense of lower
priorities that are funded or proposed to be funded in the education
budget.
I think there will be other proposals like that, because we are a
long, long way from being just up to the 40 percent. When we say full
funding, we are only talking about 40 percent of the total cost of the
program. This is expensive.
I do not think any of us deny that those who suffer from various,
whether it is behavioral disorder or learning disability of some other
case or so on, that those individuals, those students deserve an equal
opportunity and access to quality education. We think that is
important. That ought to be a national priority. The Supreme Court has
certainly established it as a national priority.
Our point, though, is if we really believe that, if we really are
sincere in our belief that all children deserve to learn, and no child
should be left behind, then we cannot just come up with the rules and
expect somebody else to pay. That is what is going on in America today.
So we just want to get up to our commitment to pay 40 percent of the
cost associated with these Federal mandates. We are not even close. We
are at about 15 percent today.
But the direction of the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) is really the ultimate local control, because the tremendous
cost associated with complying with the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act steals dollars from every other important priority that
might exist in the State of Wisconsin, the State of Michigan, my State
of Colorado, and all States. If we just focus on getting the dollars to
the one priority we know we have to deal with through the concept of
fungibility, that frees up funds for everything that is important.
So for those States, the gentleman mentioned the 21st Century
Learning Centers earlier, for those States that believe 21st Century
Learning Centers are what they want and important in that State, paying
for IDEA frees up the cash to buy 21st Century Learning Centers. But in
my State, it might be something else. It might be teacher pay in my
State which is a high priority for us.

{time} 2030

Funding IDEA is a way to provide better pay for teachers. And other
States they want to lower the property taxes to make it more business
friendly, and fully funding IDEA frees up funds to lower the property
taxes in other States.
So the key and the strength of the argument that I think the
gentleman has in his favor when he comes to the floor with that
amendment is that fully funding IDEA really is at the heart of local
control in Washington, and it ought to be. It seems counterintuitive to
some. Here we are as conservatives talking about pouring money into a
program. The reason it works and the reason it is a conservative idea
is because it does have a liberating effect on States. It focuses our
emphasis here on Washington more narrowly than what the Clinton/Gore
administration has tried to do by diffusing dollars to so many programs
that do not work, and it ultimately results in more dollars getting to
children, which is what we are for.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, If the gentleman will yield, the
gentleman has interpreted my amendment precisely correct. I have had
the opportunity as a freshman Member to have many, many, many meetings
with school board members, superintendents, teachers, administrators,
all the different school districts in the district I represent. I have
an educational advisory board with these types of people

[[Page 9601]]

on there, including parents and home schoolers, to talk about these
issues. I get the same thing over and over, let us do our job.
Just in the district I represent, they have vastly different needs,
vastly different problems. In one end, in Kenosha, you have different
problems; in the other end, in Janesville you have far different
problems, let alone the problems that may exist in Harlem or East L.A.
or Sante Fe, New Mexico. The point is we have a very vast and different
country.
We have a priority of educating our children, but the problems we are
experiencing in our school districts are so different. There are so
many different ideas out there, so many different solutions out there.
By funding IDEA, you free up that decision-making power. So when I
bring an amendment to the floor, which I am hoping the Committee on
Rules will allow me to do, by funding IDEA or getting closer to meeting
that mandate, you are not just voting against one program to put money
into another, you are voting for all those programs out there that
could be created, if school districts did not have to chase these
unfunded mandates.
You are voting for freeing up the hands of parents, teachers, and
administrators to get involved in their school districts, to tackle
problems, to address the needs that we have in our individual school
districts. As a Member of Congress, when you vote to fund IDEA, to free
up those local resources, reduce property taxes, find the problems and
address them. My school districts that I represent right now cannot do
that. They do not have the resources to do the things they think are
necessary. And you know why? It is because they are chasing unfunded
Federal mandates. That is really the crux of the matter.
I noticed that all of these new programs that are coming up here in
Washington through the administration and the Department of Education
look pretty good to a politician in Washington. You do not get a lot of
political kudos when you simply say let us put more money on unfunded
Federal mandates that has been around since 1975. You get more press,
you get more notoriety, you sound more proeducation, when you stand up
here and have a press conference saying I have this brand new program
or this new program or this new program. But what actually ends up
happening is each of these new programs takes on a life of their own.
They put new mandates on our local school districts; they tell the
administrators how to dot every I, how to cross every T. It is a
cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all mandate on all of our schools,
regardless of the uniqueness, regardless of the individual problems
they may have; and it comes at the expense of funding a mandate that
the Supreme Court said we have to fund, that current law says we have
to fund, a mandate that we should fund.
That is why I think it is important that as we look at our spending
priorities in any budget in Congress, you prioritize; and that is why I
am trying to pass an amendment to prioritize this unfunded mandate
before going down the road of creating new programs or expedientially
increasing new programs that are actually duplicative of other
programs. If we fund unfunded mandates like IDEA, you can have a safe
drug-free program in every district if you wanted. You could have 21st
century learning centers in every school district if you want it.
But guess what, the decision would not be made by politicians in
Washington who can take credit for it. It would be made by local
decision-makers, school board members, administrators, parents,
teachers. That is what the whole debate is about, whether we want
Washington to micromanage education or we want our local people, those
who know our kids the best, the names of our schools, to manage
education. That is what it is really all about.
I just want to say it is a pleasure to be here on the floor of
Congress with two of the leaders in education reform, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra). They have really set the trend, set the way for education
reform in America. They have wakened up the call for reform for
education in America, and they have really done this country a great
service by highlighting some of the waste, fraud, and abuse that is
occurring at our Department of Education. I just really applaud the
gentlemen for that.
Mr. SCHAFFER. I thank the gentleman for the nice comments. I
appreciate that. The theme of local control is really at the core of
our reform efforts that we are pushing here. I want to yield back to
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), and I am hoping I can
persuade him to reflect a little bit and share with the Members here
and those that are monitoring tonight's proceedings about the testimony
of John Scribante, who is the businessman who was at the hearing this
morning, who started out in his testimony, I know he referred to the
Minnesota State constitution which talks about the responsibility of
the State of Minnesota for educating all of the children in Minnesota
in order to preserve their liberty and by focusing on their
intelligence. He focused on that word and underscored the word
intelligence; and he said that is not skills, it is intelligence.
He spoke of the importance of the intellect and the training of the
young minds of Minnesota, how critical it is to maintain their liberty,
that is not an idea he thought of; but it is one that he saw fit to
reference from Minnesota's State constitution. And I was moved by his
patriotic compassion at one point in his testimony in which he spoke
about the devastating impact that the Federal Government is having in
preventing Minnesota from achieving its constitutional objectives.
I am wondering if the gentleman from Michigan can comment further on
that. Go ahead.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to build on the comments of
our colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) because he said some very nice
things about us in awakening the call for educational reform. I do not
think we have done that. What we have done is we have kind of provided
an echo chamber for what people at the local level are demanding. They
want their schools back. They know the names of their kids. They know
what is best for their kids. Governor Carlson today talked about going
back into his public school in the Bronx. We have been to the Bronx. We
have had hearings there.
I do not know if we went through the litany with the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) of the places where we have been; but it was
almost every place that he outlined, we have been there. I mean, we
have been in to Albuquerque. We have been into L.A. We have been to the
Bronx. We have been to Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis. We have been
all over the place.
The response we continually get is from local officials and local
parents, and they do not exactly say it this way; but what they do say
in so many words is Washington has gotten to the point where you want
to build our schools, you are going to give us 6 percent of what it
takes to build a school, but we will give you the regulations to tell
you exactly how to build the whole thing. You want to hire our
teachers. You want to train our teachers. You want to develop our
curriculum; you want to teach our kids history, set history standards;
you want to teach them about art. You want to have school health
clinics. You want to buy our technology. You want to feed our kids
breakfast. You want to feed our kids lunch. You want to do after-school
programs. You want to develop safe and drug free programs, and this is
just a small litany of the programs. But after you give us 6 percent of
each of the dollars required for each of these programs and you burden
on a whole set of rules and regulations, then you step back and say,
but other than that, it is your school.
I think, again, one of the witnesses today said that, and we were
talking about the school-to-work program, it is like we have received
$16 million from Washington to conduct our school-to-work program, but
receiving that $16 million has really driven about a half a billion
dollars of State spending, State

[[Page 9602]]

spending that came from the Minnesota taxpayers and went to the State
government. And I think this is what Mr. Scribante was talking about
saying, we love our kids. We want control of our schools, and we want
our schools to be focused on developing the skills of each and every
child in our community. And the quote that he had from Winston
Churchill, I think he is going to get us that so that we get it right,
but maybe my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) has it, but it is
really saying, this battle of who controls our schools is important
enough to fight and debate today, because now is when we can still have
an impact, where there really is still a lot of local control, but
where that has been eroding.
I will yield to my colleague from Minnesota, who maybe has the quote
right there. He is smiling. He must have it. I appreciate the gentleman
very much being a wonderful host today, helping us get an excellent set
of witnesses. I think we had 10 or 11 witnesses in Bloomington, I guess
we were at today, and just excellent testimony that I think really
helped us. I yield to my colleague.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Let me, first of all, say I thank the gentleman, and
second I do not have that quote; but I do have it in my office now, and
I will be sharing it from time to time. He quoted Winston Churchill,
though; and I think the point was well taken.
Let me give you a simplier quote from Winston Churchill, it is one
actually my wife needlepointed for me on my office wall, and it is
simple, it says, ``Success is never permanent. Failure is never fatal.
The only thing that really counts is courage.''
And what we saw today in Minnesota, and I cannot thank the gentleman
enough, I left that meeting so excited about the future of education,
not just in Minnesota, but around the country, because it renewed my
belief that Americans do care. They care about their kids, and they
want to make certain that every child, and this was what really came
through with virtually all of the testimony today, that every child,
whether they come from a family of privilege or a family of poverty,
every child deserves a first-rate education in this country today.
The truth of the matter is, and we all know this, people on all sides
of the political aisles of every spectrum philosophically, we all know
that too many kids today are being cheated by the system, and we in
Washington cannot completely change everything, but I think we can make
some reforms. And the gentleman is making reforms, and I want to thank
the gentleman for that and we see it happening.
I was so impressed, and I have worked for many years with Governor
Ernie Carlson, now former Governor Carlson; but his testimony today was
powerful. I think the only regret I have is that more Americans did not
get a chance to actually see and hear that testimony today because it
was from the heart. He grew up in a tough section of New York. He told
us about PS36. He told us about what it was like when he was growing
up, but the great thing was he told us what is happening today with the
right leadership, with the right flexibility, allowing that new
principal there to control his school, to motivate his teachers, to
motivate those students; and, guess what, the results are there.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will just yield, PS36 is
Public School 36.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Yes.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. For those who may be observing or watching this
discussion, not knowing what is PS36, it is a public school. It is
Public School 36 that Governor Carlson went to in the Bronx. When we
were there, we were not at Public School 36, but probably a very rough
neighborhood, probably low income; and he talked about some of the kids
who would come to school and the first thing they would get from their
principal each and every day was kind of talking about what happened at
night because a number of them may have had a rough night.
So it is a tough part of New York City, and this principal and this
public school has gone in and they have embraced these kids and are
really making a difference; and what the gentleman said, what the
gentleman saw today in Minnesota, I think that is what the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and I have had the opportunity to see
around the country, is that you get to the local level, these parents,
these administrators, these legislators, they have got a passion for
their kids.
They absolutely have a passion for their kids, and they are kind of,
you know, wanting us to get out of the way so that they can really do
and help for these kids, and Governor Carlson's public school 36 is
just one phenomenal example where they are having great success, not
because of what we are doing, but because they are going in and taking
the leadership.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. If the gentleman would yield back, and that was the
thing that really impressed me, virtually everybody who testified today
did not talk about preserving the status quo or protecting certain
vested interest. It was not about protecting, you know, these rights
and so forth. It really was all about what can we do to improve the
quality of education for kids. And it was not us versus them.
Unfortunately, what we hear so many times in the debate about
education, both here in Washington and around the country, sort of a
trench warfare mentality.
I want to congratulate Dr. Keith Dixon, who is a superintendent of
schools in Faribault in my district, and he came to us from Colorado,
and I was so impressed with him, because, you know, he did not get into
this debate about charter schools versus public schools versus private
schools. His concern was for the kids. He said to us that he really
considered himself the superintendent of all of the children in the
district, and it was his job to see that they got a chance. And for
some kids maybe it worked out better for them and their parents that
they got to charter schools.
He said some of them went to charter schools part of the day and part
of the day they went to the public schools, and some went to the public
schools part of the day and part of the day the private schools, but
they are working out arrangements; but it is all about what is best for
the kids.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, I thought he was a
wonderful breath of fresh air in how he viewed that job, in saying, I
am a superintendent for all the kids; and I recognize that, you know,
my traditional public school may not be the best for all of the kids in
this district each and every day, and so what I am doing is, in the
business world we call it mass customization.

{time} 2045

He says, I am using the resources that I have been given and I am
going to help parents put together a structured program that matches
the needs of every child. And so, if some of the parents believe that
home schooling, for whatever reason, is best for their kids, you know,
if they come through and they want to use the school for band, for some
extracurricular or advanced science classes, we are going to be there
and we are going to open the door and we are going to work that out for
the parents.
And it is the same for the charter and the parochial. It really was a
demonstration of what he said, a superintendent for all of the kids in
the district. And what I would guess they are doing in that district is
just building a phenomenal partnership and a phenomenal loyalty in that
community with all of these groups coming together, with the focal
point being the kids, not home schooling, not charter schools, not
public schools, not parochial schools, but they are developing a
trusting relationship between all of the providers of services to these
kids that says, let us keep the kids and learning at the center, let us
put aside our differences and let us come together and make sure that
we have a relationship that enables us to be creative to meet the
needs.
I thought it was awesome testimony.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, it absolutely was. I would bet long money
and short odds that all the kids in Faribault are going to benefit from
that kind of an attitude.

[[Page 9603]]

But the other thing I wanted to mention about Governor Carlson, he
said something really profound; and that is that, for too long in
public education and education in general, we have measured quality
education by inputs. And he sort of reversed. Maybe it is because he
came from PS-36. Maybe it is because he was State auditor. But when he
was governor, he said, we better start measuring outputs. Because we
have all labored under this Lake Woebegone mentality that all our
children were above average, and that is not necessarily true. And when
we began to actually test the students, we began to find out they were
not doing nearly as well in many of the areas as we thought they were
doing.
And so, we are starting to measure quality now in Minnesota not by
how much we put into the process, and we put an awful lot of money in
public education in the State of Minnesota, as my colleagues do in
Colorado and in Michigan, as well. But we want to find out how well the
students really are doing in terms of learning. And I think that if we
focus on the students, if we focus on the children, and if we focus on
outputs, what we are really getting out for the resources we put into
it, I think in the long run the real winners are going to be the
children.
So the testimony today was excellent. I cannot thank my colleagues
enough. I came away charged up reminded that the Forefathers were even
smarter than we thought they were when they created the system that we
have today where each State becomes the laboratory of democracy.
We are seeing this happening in places like Milwaukee and in
Minnesota and all around the country from governors, State legislators,
private nonprofit groups. We heard from a number of them. The Executive
Director of Partnership for Choice and Education spoke to us. Kids for
Scholarship Fund. They are offering 1,200 scholarships a year now in
the State of Minnesota to poor kids to go to the school of their
choice. And we heard from some parents excellent testimony of the
benefits of allowing students to have that kind of choice.
So I really came away with a renewed optimism that Americans do care
about education, they do care about the children, and, in places like
Minnesota, there are a lot of people doing the right things and,
ultimately, the kids will be the beneficiaries.
So I want to thank my colleagues for coming to Minnesota. I thought
the hearing was excellent. As I say, the only regret that I had was
that we did not get more people at that hearing so more people could
see what is really happening in places like Minnesota. We would love to
have our colleagues come back and perhaps bring some of those folks
into Washington to share with some of our colleagues what really is
happening in terms of educational reform in Minnesota.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, the constituents of my colleague were
perfect people to testify; and Minnesota turned out to be a perfect
place to hold the hearing that we did because their comments were
reflective, I think, of the same kind of comments that we have heard
throughout the country.
But one of the interesting perspectives that I think we probably
spend more time on in Minnesota than most other States is on the topic
of the School to Work Program, which passed in 1994 by Congress. It was
a program that was inspired by the Nation's desire to see
schoolchildren graduating with the skills necessary to help them become
more gainfully employed and ready to go to work.
And so, as classically happens here in Washington, there is a
legitimate need that is identified by the country; and we throw lots of
money at it in Washington. Now, this was before we took the majority.
This was when the Democrats ran the House, and we saw even more of that
then. But create a new program, throw hundreds of millions of dollars
into a program called School to Work; and these dollars were funneled
back to the States and once again the States were told, if you want
your money back, you have to spend it the way we tell you to.
The School to Work Program is something that is in full force today
in all 50 States. It is a mandatory program, there is no voluntary
quality about it, that even from the very young ages of kindergarten
starts orienting more and more students toward workplace skills. And
the concern we heard voiced today was that that focus on workplace
skills often comes at the expense of developing one's intellect in an
academic approach to learning.
This is a complaint we are hearing more and more about. The School to
Work Program, again, built around the right motives and identification
of a very legitimate problem that occurs, but the solution is one that
deemphasizes academic performance and academic progress in schools and
moves the focus to actually an objective that is outside even the
Department of Education, that includes the Department of Labor, where
this morning the Medicare program is involved in School to Work. And it
is kind of a comprehensive Government effort to try to change the way
we have educated our children for hundreds of years in America.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, and that is going on at the same time. I
still remember the first hearing or one of the first hearings that we
did. We did a run through California. And then as we were doing the
education at a crossroads hearing, we also did a hearing and we did it
in California and we met with a number of the college presidents or the
deans of various universities in California. And it was right after
this process had started and as we were gathering the data. In one of
these initial hearings, the deans came in and said, you know, one of
the programs that we need more funding for is for remedial education.
And we kind of get a startled look on our face, and these are from some
prestigious colleges telling us that they need more money for remedial
education. And we hear that from two or three of these experts from the
colleges and we finally say, excuse me, why does a prestigious
university with high academic standards and high entrance requirements,
what do they need money from us for for remedial education?
The answer is, well, 25 percent of the students that are coming to
college today are not ready for college requirements. And what does
that mean? It meant that they were not at an 8th or 10th grade level
for reading, writing, and math. And so, it is one of those key criteria
again for successful schools is, rather than overlaying a whole new
system on to our education, which is focusing on developing the skills
to work, the emphasis should be on teaching our kids and getting them
basic academics.
We have seen that on international standards, international
comparisons. We are not doing well enough on our kids learning the
basics. So before we go off and try to dilute this process any further,
let us focus on basic academics.
I do not know if the gentleman was in Arkansas when we went to
Arkansas in Little Rock when we were at Central High School.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I was not there.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Again, it was fascinating. The school in Arkansas that
gets some of the highest test scores, we asked them the question, Why
are you getting such high test scores? Because they were the lowest
funded school in the State? The answer was, We only have the time,
energy, and money to focus on basic academics.
Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra) for joining us in this special order. I see we are almost out
of time. I hope this topic of School to Work is one we will be able to
spend more time on and explore the impact that it has had in other
States. I suspect the testimony we heard in Minnesota is similar to the
impact to that which we would hear from other States. And it is one
example where, once again, Washington is diffusing the emphasis of
education on academic learning in a knowledge-based education.
We need to stop that, really, and we need to start allowing schools
to focus on what they believe to be important locally.

____________________

[[Page 9604]]

VARIOUS ISSUES OF THE DAY

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walden of Oregon). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I became aware that this
hour of time to speak before this House was available. I thought about
it for a moment. I am confident that my presence here will not
adversely affect the ratings of other cable television shows, many of
which are made in our area. And so I figured I would take this
opportunity even though I have not had the chance to prepare and my
remarks may not be quite as crisp as I would like.
I would like to address a number of different topics that I have been
thinking about, particularly over this last district work period. The
first is an odd attempt by those who claim to love Ronald Reagan to
rewrite the history of the fall of the Soviet Union.
We know what the real history was. The Soviet Union looked powerful.
We spent on our defense, fearful of Soviet aggression and expansion,
and Ronald Reagan led us in those efforts.
Our deficit grew. We tightened our belts domestically. We did so
because we were told that the Soviet Union could expand, that it was
powerful, that it could emerge as the most powerful nation on Earth.
In 1991, to the surprise of just about everyone both inside and
outside the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union began to collapse. That is
what really happened.
It is kind of disconcerting to think that all the experts in all the
capitals did not foresee such an enormously important event. And
experts are reluctant to admit that they cannot always see the future.
But what is worse is that those who have come to idolize Ronald Reagan
have started to rewrite history.
In their rewriting of history, Ronald Reagan foresaw as early as the
early 1980s that, within a decade, the Soviet Union could be pushed
into the dust bin of history, that Reagan knew that the Soviet Union
had begun to corrode from the inside and far from being a challenge to
the United States, in fact, it was a nation that could not survive.
These supposed supporters of Ronald Reagan ascribe to him an
omniscience and all-knowingness, that they think is complimentary.
In fact, what these supporters of Reagan are doing are besmirching
Ronald Reagan's character, attacking his honesty, and telling us that
our former President is a liar to the American people.
Time and again, President Reagan came before us in this hall, I was
not here, stood and delivered the State of the Union address and
rallied America to spend more and more on our defense.

{time} 2100

He never told us it was offense. He said it was necessary to prevent
Soviet expansion, not some secret plan to force the Soviet Union into
collapse. Ronald Reagan came before the American people and told us the
Soviet Union was a powerful threat and would remain so for quite some
time. He urged us to embark upon military expenditure projects, some of
which would last a decade or 2 decades because, he told us, the Soviet
Union was a threat. Now, those who claim to be Ronald Reagan's
ideological descendants, some who claim to be his friends, tell us it
was all a lie, that Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviet Union had
corroded from the inside, that he knew that these expenditures were not
necessary to defend us but rather were part of a secret plan to force
the Soviet Union to spend more and more on its defense in a dangerous
game in which the Soviet Union would be faced either with the prospect
of launching a nuclear strike or consenting to an arms race that it
could not win, an arms race launched against it by a Reagan
administration with a secret plan to drive it into destruction. Ronald
Reagan never told us that we were engaged in such an effort. Ronald
Reagan never told us that we were trying to push the Soviet Union to
destruction, that they would face a moment at which they would blame us
and would realize that either they would launch a military strike or go
into the dustbin of history.
He never told us this, because he never believed it; and the Soviet
Union in its dying hours did not believe it, either. The Soviets knew
that their system collapsed of its own weight. Only retroactive
American arrogance would say that the other superpower collapsed
because of something we did here in Washington, D.C.
The fact of the matter is Communism does not work, and in the last
decade or two, both Communist giants have ceased to embrace their
ideology; and without that ideology they have ceased to be exporters of
Communism, ceased to have confidence in Communism, and it has shaken
them to their roots. Are we going to say that Communism lost favor in
the Soviet Union because of American hostility and Communist ideology
lost favor in China because of American friendship? That either
friendship or hostility from America creates the same result? I think
not. Communism does not work. Russia and China realized it. This forced
a crisis of confidence in both places. The Soviet Union not being one
nation but rather an amalgam of nations held together by a failed
ideology collapsed, and China has moved from the ideology of Communism
to the ideology of nationalism overseen by a relatively small group of
oligarchs and local potentates that control the economy. To say that it
all happened according to a plan is to dangerously rewrite history.
While I talk about the Reagan administration and the collapse of the
Soviet Union, it leads naturally to a discussion of Star Wars, an issue
that is still before us. Just because the Soviet Union is no longer
intact does not mean that we are safe. In fact, the world is more
complicated and more dangerous. There are those who have come before
this House and suggested that the world does not have to be a dangerous
place if only we developed a missile defense system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us continue to research in this
area, and when our technology has advanced to the point where we can
provide some reasonable defense at reasonable cost, deployment is
certainly called for. But let us not fool the American people. Those
that cannot hit us with an ICBM, those who cannot hit us with an
intercontinental ballistic missile will be able to smuggle nuclear
weapons into our cities no matter how effective our missile shield. A
nuclear weapon is about the size of a person, some smaller than a
child. And anyone who has been in Southern California or probably just
about any major city in this country is aware that every year hundreds
of thousands, every day thousands of illegal immigrants are snuck
across our border not just from the southern border but the northern as
well; that illegal drugs are smuggled into America with relative ease,
and this is by people being paid a few hundred dollars to sneak a
person into the United States, marijuana importers or smugglers,
criminals bringing in bales of marijuana for a few thousand dollars in
compensation.
How difficult would it be to sneak a nuclear weapon into an American
city? A nuclear weapon smaller than a child does not need ventilation,
does not need to be fed. Children who are smuggled into America scream
and cry. Nuclear weapons would not. So imagine that we had a perfect
defense against Iranian or Iraqi or North Korean missiles. What would
those countries do? They would smuggle a weapon or two into an American
city, hire or kidnap an American scientist to come look at it, detain
that American scientist until it could be moved to another apartment or
another city, and inform our government that in some apartment, in some
city, in some State in this country, there was a nuclear weapon in the
custody of someone reporting to Baghdad or to Tehran.
I would like to see a defensive shield shielding us from
intercontinental ballistic missiles. But let us not fool the American
people. That is just one small element of our defense. And if we spend
a trillion dollars building a roof over a building that has no walls,
we will have been misallocating resources. I am not sure that we can
police our

[[Page 9605]]

borders well enough to prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled
here, but I do know that a missile defense shield is of only modest use
as long as our borders remain porous.
We need to focus our attention on the rogue states that are currently
developing nuclear weapons and might be willing to use them even if
they faced the threat of annihilation from our nuclear weapons. And we
need to cut off money, investment funds, from going to the regimes of
North Korea, Iran and Iraq, because all three of those countries are
trying to develop nuclear weapons.
North Korea has agreed to stop its program, and I leave them aside.
We can discuss them separately at a different time. But let us focus
for a while on the two great enemies or rivals that we face in
Southwest Asia. We do need to prevent the government in Baghdad and the
government in Tehran from getting their hands on money. When investment
capital flows into those two countries, when money is loaned to them,
money is given to them, export markets are given to them, when Iraq is
allowed to sell its oil and not spend the money on food for its people,
then money is in the hands of those who would wish to develop nuclear
weapons and whom as I have pointed out will face little difficulty in
smuggling them into the United States. Unfortunately, our efforts to
stem the flow of money to Tehran and Baghdad have been set back in
several different ways.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it was revealed that Iran, having suffered
hundreds of thousands of casualties in a war of aggression launched by
Iraq 2 decades ago, now is allowing Iraq to use its coastal waters to
evade the U.N. blockade, evade U.N. sanctions, sell a billion dollars
perhaps every year of oil, and this would not be money in the oil-for-
food program controlled by the United Nations. This is money directly
into the hands of the Iraqi military.
Mr. Speaker, we could spend a trillion dollars on a missile defense
system, but if we do not stop those oil tankers from leaving the Strait
of Hormuz, if we do not prevent that oil from being exported, we are
literally allowing Saddam Hussein to build nuclear weapons and then we
can worry about how to keep them out of the United States. What
concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that our policy toward Iran has been
ineffective. The ineffectiveness is shown today by Iran allowing that
Iraqi oil to be exported.
Now, we are told that the ships that come from Iran down into the
Persian Gulf pass a checkpoint controlled by the revolutionary guard.
We are told the revolutionary guard does not report to the President of
Iran, and so we should not get bent out of shape if they allow those
oil tankers into their coastal waters. The fact remains that in Iran,
the president is not the head of their government or military. The
supreme leader is. That leader controls those revolutionary guards, and
those guards have allowed those tankers to use Iranian coastal waters.
Iran has said, well, we need help in stopping these ships. All Iran
has to do is announce that those countries that are enforcing the U.N.
blockade are allowed into Iranian coastal waters, allowed within 12
miles of its coast, and we will be able to shut down these illegal
Iraqi oil exports. But instead, Iran lets the tankers go by the
checkpoint and claims they cannot do anything to stop it and will not
let United Nations ships or, rather, American and British ships
detailed to enforce the U.N. blockade, will not allow them in their
coastal waters.
Mr. Speaker, this is a dangerous situation; and it shows that our
policy toward Iran, especially in the last 2 months, has been mistaken.
Two months ago, the Secretary of State announced unilaterally, without
really much consultation with Congress at all, certainly without any
congressional encouragement or approval, the Secretary of State
announced that the United States would allow Iran to export to the
United States pistachios, carpets, caviar, dried fruit; and many people
joked, how important could that be.
Mr. Speaker, first it is symbolically important, because if America
will do business with Iran, business as usual, if America will open its
markets to these nonenergy exports of Iran, then how can we turn to
Europe and Japan and tell them not to do business as usual with Iran on
a bigger scale? How can we today turn to Japan and Germany and tell
them to stop buying Iranian oil because Iran is clearly complicit in
the illegal export of Iraqi oil? Certainly it weakens our position.

{time} 2115

These exports, these non-energy exports from Iran, are important to
Iran. They are its major non-energy exports. They pale into
insignificance in dollar amount compared to oil, but reflect on this:
Iran will always get the world price for its oil. Nothing we do is
going to change by one penny the amount of revenue Iran gets for every
barrel that it exports to a world thirsty for its oil.
In contrast, those other exports, the carpets, pistachios, et cetera,
those exports need every market they can find to try to push up the
price, and by opening up our markets we invigorate the world market for
those Iranian exports, exports as to which there is no fixed world
price, exports that are important to the Iranian economy. Some 5
million people, it is reported, work in the Iranian carpet industry.
That is just one of the four imports.
We would think that today the State Department would react, react to
these illegal shipments through Iranian waters and cut off Iran's
access to America's markets. My fear is that that will not happen.
Every time there is an opportunity to make a unilateral concession to
Iran, we seem to do it and do it quickly, unilateral concession after
unilateral concession.
The latest pat on the back that Iran has received is a $231 million
loan from the World Bank. The U.S. voted against that loan, but we
certainly did not tell our European allies that we would take their
votes in favor of that loan as a reason to perhaps reexamine other
aspects of our foreign policy. We were good losers. We accepted the
defeat. This calls into question how we provide foreign aid.
Mr. Speaker, I have come to this floor in the past to support
American foreign aid. I think we should do what we can to help the
Third World develop, to help the poorest people on this planet survive.
But the recent action by the World Bank threatens America's support for
foreign aid. That support is not all that deep to begin with, but how
do we go back to our districts and explain that America participates in
the World Bank, its capital was provided in significant part by the
American taxpayer, and the World Bank disbursed $231 million of loans
to Iran; money that is fungible, money that allows the Iranians to
spend their oil resources and oil revenues on their military programs?
This is going to be a hard sell.
Mr. Speaker, sometime this month we will be dealing with the foreign
ops appropriations bill. At that point, we will be asked to appropriate
hundreds of millions of dollars to the IDA program administered by the
World Bank. We have to be aware that money of the United States
disbursed to that program could be lent on a concessionary basis, could
be lent at very low interest rates, pay-us-when-you-feel-like-it terms,
to such countries as North Korea or Sudan, or any other country that
claims to have a good project and is very poor.
North Korea and Sudan are very poor because of the evil of their
governments, not because of a lack of world aid. How are we going to go
back to our constituents and say, these hundreds of millions of dollars
were turned over to an international organization free to make loans to
some of the most evil nations or evil governments, I want to stress
evil governments, on this planet?
Better we appropriate these same funds, and I do not want to see a
reduction, I want to see, if anything, an increase in our foreign aid,
and provide these same funds to entities under the control of the
United States government or entities where we at least have a veto
power, so these funds are loaned or given only for projects in
countries that have some minimal respect for human rights?

[[Page 9606]]

I look forward to working with Members of the relevant subcommittee
and of the Committee on Appropriations to see what we can do to make
sure that when we go back to our districts and defend foreign aid, we
can say that all U.S. tax dollars are going for projects in countries
that we can support.
Mr. Speaker, this is an additional reason why the loan to Iran was
not only a poor decision but one that was ill-timed, as well. Not only
does Iran today, a few days after the loan, decide to facilitate Iraqi
evasion of U.N. sanctions, not only does Iran sponsor terrorism and is
on the State Department terrorism list, not only is Iran, along with
Iraq, one of the two greatest threats for possible destruction of
American cities at such time as they develop nuclear weapons, but Iran
a year and a half ago decided to continue its oppression of its small
Jewish community, just as it oppresses those of the Baha'i faith.
The Iranian government since its revolution has executed on trumped
up charges 17 members of its small Jewish community. Well over half of
that community has fled, and now 13 Jews are on trial in the city of
Shiraz on the most trumped up charges in trials that would have made
Josef Stalin ashamed, trials where the only evidence is the apparently
tortured or coerced confessions of the defendants in which the
defendants confessed to crimes they could not possibly have committed.
Mr. Speaker, here in the United States we live in a multi-ethnic,
multicultural society in which people of any ethnic or religious group
may be found in our national security agencies, and yes, may be found
among those few who commit espionage.
Mr. Speaker, we have had British-American spies, we have had Jewish-
American spies, we have allegedly had Chinese-American spies. Anybody
of any ethnic group could find themselves in a position where they are
the custodians of our national secrets. Iran is just the opposite. No
one of the Jewish faith is allowed near anything of any military or
national security significance whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, these 13 are accused of spying for the CIA, and I put
forward that we could not be the world's only superpower, we could not
have emerged in this powerful position, if our CIA went to Iran looking
for spies and decided to hire people from the small ethnic group that
are prohibited from getting anywhere near any of the information our
CIA might be interested in.
These charges are absurd. The World Bank loan to Iran, as this trial
continues, was the kind of mistake that imperils American support for
foreign aid and American support for the World Bank, and imperils a
relationship that has recently been celebrated by the President in his
farewell tour, farewell as President tour of Europe, involving ties
that are certainly disrupted when European nations say, we will ignore
the trial of the 13 Jews in Shiraz, we will ignore Iran's other
problems, and when they will force the World Bank to take American
capital and money borrowed on the strength of American capital and
hijack that money to Tehran.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to shift my focus to a bill that will
come before this House I believe on Friday, and that is a bill to
repeal the estate tax.
At the outset, let me stress that 98 percent of all Americans, when
their wills become operative, do not pay a penny of estate tax. This is
a tax paid by only 1\1/2\ percent of all the families in America. Yet,
to read some of the letters, to listen to some of the rhetoric on this
floor, we would think that the estate tax was the most burdensome tax
on American working families.
Estates of under $2 million will, after the current law becomes
hopefully effective, pay absolutely nothing, as long as some law and
estate planning documents are drafted in advance. Mr. Speaker, I
introduced a bill that made this law I think less burdensome on upper
middle class American families, and said that $2 million could be left
by a man and wife or a husband and wife, to their children with no
estate tax, even if they did not prepare a bunch of estate planning
documents in advance.
This bill was designed to liberate widows and widowers from these
bypassed trusts, complicated legal documents, almost required of them
by our current estate tax law. But that bill did not get a hearing
because there is an effort here not to liberate upper middle class
families, and of course, those of lesser means are already exempt, but
not to liberate upper middle class families from the estate tax and
from the burdens of doing estate planning. The plan here is to abolish
this estate tax altogether.
The estate tax is a painful tax. It is a bad tax. I hate the tax. I
hate all taxes. Every single one of them is painful. There is no way
for the Federal government to get money that does not have a bad effect
on those who are required to pay.
The question is not whether the estate tax is a bad tax, but whether
it is our worst tax. I ask Members, is a tax that 98\1/2\ percent of
all Americans are exempt from, is that our worst tax? Or is it an
income tax and a FICA tax that falls so heavily on the working poor?
Must we first eliminate a tax that falls chiefly on those with estates
over $10 million, or must we first eliminate taxes on those who are
making $10 an hour or less? Should it be $10 million and more, or $10
an hour or less? Where should we focus our generosity? Where should we
focus our tax cuts?
Mr. Speaker, there is an earned income tax credit, but it is not
available to many of the working poor, and is not available to any that
do not have children in their homes. So we have a situation where we
are told that the estate tax diminishes the incentive to work because
somebody working at age 40 or age 50 or age 60 is thinking ahead to the
point when their estate plan would become effective, in their eighties
or nineties, thinking ahead to what the estate tax law might be at that
point, knocking off work early and going to the golf course.
Maybe it is happening, maybe it is not. But let us talk also about
the effect that our current taxes have on the working poor, people who
are called upon to work the second job to support a family, people who
are called upon to get off of welfare and to enter the work force, and
we tell them, we are going to take a chunk of your money, of your
paycheck, to support the social security system, and I support the
social security system. We are going to impose an income tax. We are
not going to give you a tax credit for the social security tax you pay,
and we will give you no tax credit for the State sales tax that you
pay.
People who make less than $10 an hour are paying a lot of tax. What
about them? Are they affected by incentives? Are we to say that the
ability to leave the second $10 million to your kids 20 or 30 years
from now is what is uppermost on the minds of somebody building a
business, but that the size of today's paycheck is irrelevant to a
person who is working two jobs? I do not think so.
Yes, all taxes have an adverse impact on incentive, the incentive to
work, the incentive to participate in the economy. But I venture that
there is a far worse effect on our economy from taxing those who make
less than $10 an hour than taxing those who have more than $10 million.

{time} 2130

I would also point out that before we cut the estate tax, before we
eliminate the estate tax, we ought to make sure that we are not
endangering Social Security, that we are not putting ourselves in a
position when we will not be able to provide any pharmaceuticals to
those who are on Medicare, some who need $1,000, $5,000, $10,000 a year
of pharmaceuticals to survive.
Mr. Speaker, they retired believing they had Social Security and now
find that they are insecure, find that they do not have the wherewithal
to pay for the pharmaceuticals that they need to survive.
Mr. Speaker, what will come before this House on Friday is a bill to
repeal the estate tax before we have made Social Security secure,
before we have made Medicare recipients secure. Every Medicare
recipient today knows that tomorrow they could be diagnosed with a
disease requiring $5,000 or $10,000

[[Page 9607]]

a year of pharmaceuticals for which they will get no Federal aid; and
we are told that the most important thing we can do with the available
Federal funds is to deal with a tax that falls most significantly on
those with more than $10 million.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we need to explore a number of avenues.
Now, I do not want to ignore the adverse effects of the estate tax. It
does make it more difficult to leave a business or a family farm to the
next generation. And we hear statistics about how businesses are not
always left intact to the next generation and we are told that it is
the estate tax.
It is not always the estate tax. The son or daughter of a farmer does
not necessarily want to farm. The owner who builds a business from
nothing to a $50 million business may find that his sons and daughters
feel themselves unqualified or just disinterested in continuing to own
that business. There is no proof that family businesses will stay in
families if only we reduce taxes on those with assets of over $10
million.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, one little secret about the estate tax. No one
will tell it to us. That is that at every major hospital complex,
nonprofit hospital, at every major university in this country, if we
abolish the estate tax, the buildings will not have names. I am not
saying that we will not be able to find our way around campus. That is
not the problem. The problem is that gifts, major gifts to our
universities and hospitals will slow to a trickle.
If we go to any campus today, we see this building is named after the
Smith family and that building is named after the Cohen family and we
wonder why. The answer is simple. The families involved made huge gifts
to the university, huge gifts to the hospital, motivated in part by the
fact that those gifts will not be subject to the estate tax.
Charitable giving at the low end, the $5 and $10 put in the
collection plate, would not be affected by a repeal of the estate tax.
But at the high end, when people are bequeathing millions of dollars to
universities that in their graciousness choose to name buildings after
the donors, at the high end where people make gifts that are income tax
deductible in their 80s, knowing that not only do they get an income
tax deduction today but perhaps if they die in their 90s they get
estate tax relief as well, those gifts are motivated by the fact that
60 or 70 percent of the gift's value is represented by a tax deduction.
That $5 million Smith building cost the Smith family only 30 percent of
$5 million.
What is going to happen when we repeal the estate tax? The
universities and hospitals will be here saying: now, Congress, you have
to appropriate some special money for us. But how will we do that? We
will cut our own revenues by $17 billion a year. The colleges, the
universities, the hospitals will not come here and tell us about this
because essentially they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Speaking of the hand that feeds them, I have had a lot of town halls
in my district. I have heard hundreds of questions, hundreds of
complaints. I am out in the community almost every day that I am in
California. Mr. Speaker, at these public gatherings, I cannot remember
a single occasion when someone has come up and said: let us abolish the
estate tax.
Mr. Speaker, I hate to admit it, but it is a sin of which virtually
everyone in this House suffers or is guilty. I also spend time raising
money for my campaign and for the campaigns of my colleagues. Not a day
goes by, or not even a couple hours go by. If a couple of hours are
spent talking to those who might make major contributions, the estate
tax comes up every time. Not with every person, but certainly in every
hour or two.
The reason for that is that this tax does fall upon those who can
most afford to come to fundraisers. I think that we in this House need
to pass campaign finance reform for a lot of reasons, but one of them
is that we spend too much time at fundraisers, and we hear too often
too repeatedly from that 1\1/2\ percent of Americans who pay the estate
tax, who happen to be the same 1\1/2\ percent of Americans who donate
the most money for political campaigns.
Mr. Speaker, if we do not stop and think about it, if we do not
filter it out, we are going to come to the conclusion if one serves in
this House that the whole country is concerned about the estate tax,
because in the average month we hear about it five, 10, 20 times. We
have to remember that every one of those times was not out at the
community Little League, was not at a visitation to a senior center,
was not at a widely publicized town hall, but in nine out of 10 cases,
or maybe 10 out of 10 cases, it was through a friend that is a
supporter of either us or our colleagues here.
Yes, if we serve in this House, we need to keep in touch with people,
and sometimes that is thrown askew when the fundraising burdens and the
time commitments of that are imposed upon us.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment just briefly on Governor Bush's
Social Security plan and some of the rhetoric surrounding that plan.
Governor Bush has turned to young people and said that they only get a
1 or 2 percent return for the money they put in Social Security. What
he has not said is that the first two generations to participate in
Social Security did incredibly well. Social Security brought us out of
the Depression as much as any program. And the first two generations to
participate in that program contributed for only a portion of their
working lives and received the benefits, benefits that many are still
receiving today in their 80s and 90s.
So what does this mean? It means that today's Social Security tax is
paying for our grandparents' retirement. This was never a pension
system where our money is saved exclusively for us. Rather, our money
is being used to fund the retirement of those who went before, just as
their money went to fund the retirement of those who went before, and
we can trace it back to the Depression generation.
Now, we are told that the new generation does not have to contribute
to pay for the previous generation's retirement. We are going to have
their money diverted into separate individual accounts and that
anything else would be unfair. Mr. Speaker, we cannot simultaneously
take all the funds that are coming into Social Security and say that is
the money of the people who put the money in and continue to fund the
Social Security payments to those who are receiving checks today,
people whose tax dollars, FICA contributions were used to pay the prior
generation's benefits.
The proposal that the governor has put forward is to take one-sixth
of the money, virtually, that is now going into the regular Social
Security Trust Fund and divert it into special assets owned by those
who contribute the funds. I wish we could promise that. I wish we could
do that. But before we start bestowing multitrillion dollar benefits,
new benefits, why do we not make sure that the program can continue to
pay the existing benefits?
Another huge benefit promised by the governor of Texas is that if one
were to die before reaching 65, their family gets a huge check from
Social Security. Or if they were to die at age 68 or 69 or 70, before
they have received their actuarial expected benefit, the family
receives a giant benefit.
That is a wonderful promise. I wish I could make that promise. I
would be a lot more popular if I made that promise. But what do we do
to those who live to 90 or 100? Do we say that those who live less than
their average life span get their money back and those that live longer
than the average life span stop receiving benefits? There is no
solution offered by the governor of Texas. Two huge benefits promised;
no source of revenue to pay for them. A sixth roughly of the money
diverted. Let us make Social Security secure, and then we can focus on
whether we can do better.
Mr. Speaker, I have talked about a number of topics. Topics that are
complex topics that I do not get enough time to study about, read
about; and it leaves me longing for a greater level of intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, there are

[[Page 9608]]

those working on greater levels of intelligence today. There are those
engaged in silicon chip engineering who are creating more intelligent
machines all the time. And there will come a time when the silicon
chip-driven machines rival humans in intelligence.
There are genetic engineers mapping the human genome and within a few
decades they may be in a position to create a more intelligent human
being, perhaps one that could have dealt with all of the topics
confronting this Congress with greater wisdom than I have been able to
muster.
There are those dealing with nanotechnology, technology where things
are manipulated at the atomic and molecular levels, technologies that
offer a chance to engineer either from biological materials or from
electronic materials or from a combination of the two a level of
intelligence way beyond today's computers, way beyond today's animals,
and perhaps way beyond today's humans.
Speaking of intelligent humans, on August 7, 1939, Albert Einstein
wrote to President Roosevelt and brought to his attention clearly and
crisply the importance that nuclear technology might have for the
future of the world. In just a few years, that nuclear technology
literally exploded. What was the high and unusual science of 1939
became the public policy issue of 1945 and beyond.
We today are still wrestling with the political, the international,
and the ethical issues of nuclear power and, of course, nuclear
weapons.
Would it not have been great if we had gotten a bit more of a head
start? Would it not have been good for humankind if the scientists had
come to us 20 or 30 years before the nuclear weapons were created and
told the world's political leaders that the genie will soon be leaving
the bottle and it is time to develop a code of ethics and central
understandings that will fit the new technology?

{time} 2145

Now, some more than 50 years after nuclear weapons, we are still
struggling with the ethical issues that they create. Well, I do not
know how many years we have before what I refer to as remembered
intelligence poses even more severe ethical issues for us than nuclear
weapons do.
Let me bring a few of them to our attention. I know this may sound
like science fiction today, but I do not think anyone familiar with
science would say that these are not real possibilities. I am not
saying this decade, maybe not next decade, maybe not in the lifetime of
those of us who have lost our hair, but certainly within the lifetime
of some of the younger folks in the back of the room.
First, we will see genetic engineering that will either create or
offer to create our slaves or our masters. Today dogs are a man's and
woman's best friend. They are great pets, and a few of them are engaged
in work, shepherding sheep, for example. Today's dogs have been bred,
not genetically engineered, just bred to be friendly, docile, and
obedient.
There are a few who think it raises ethical issues, but most of us
view a dog's intelligence as below that of self-awareness and
consciousness and are quite happy to have dogs that are obedient,
docile.
But what happens when the genetic engineers start developing more
intelligent canines? What happens when we start having dogs as
intelligent or more intelligence than apes? Fortunately, I do not think
we are going to face this issue in the next decade. But we are going to
face it this century, and we are probably going to face it before we
figure out what to do with it.
At what point must we recognize other life forms as being protected
by our Constitution? How intelligent must a genetically engineered
animal be to be worthy of our protection and respect? I do not know.
Likewise, we have seen many science fiction shows where scientists
start with human DNA and deliberately try to create a being that is
less intelligent or simply more docile than the average human form, and
we are told to imagine a race invented for slavery. I think all of us
recoil at the ethics of that.
But will we recoil with the same level of revulsion if the nearly as
intelligent as human or perhaps as intelligent as human docile race is
engineered from canine DNA or simian DNA, perhaps someday if we are not
careful, human DNA? But not only may there be genetic engineering that
invents those entities which some would wish to enslave, genetic
engineering, whether it starts with simian DNA or human DNA, could very
well invent a level of intelligence well beyond that of any of us here,
perhaps even beyond that of the Albert Einstein I quoted earlier. Then
how should human kind react?
That which can be done with genetic engineering may also be done with
silicon chip engineering. A book I have not had a chance to read bears
the interesting title the Age of Spiritual Machines. How many decades
is it before the computer screen lights up with the question, am I
alive? Why am I here? Should there be any ethical limitations on
creating computers with intelligence, not just to balance our
checkbooks or to figure the trajectory of the rocket, but computers
intelligent enough to ask the spiritual questions? I do not know. I do
know that it will take a panel of Einsteins to give us some guidance as
to what our laws should be. This is going to be a tough issue.
I am going to propose probably next Congress, if I am fortunate
enough to be here, if there is interest by some of my colleagues,
perhaps we could work on it this month or next month, that we create a
national commission on the ethics of engineered intelligence to try to
give some guidance to those lawmakers that will come after us in
dealing with the issues of silicon or carbon-based intelligence that
approach or exceed that of today's human being.
I do not know how to deal with these issues. It is a tradition in
this town that, when one does not know what to do, one creates a
commission. There is also a tradition in this town to wait till the
last minute, to wait till some development is going to impair jobs in
our own districts before we get serious about the issue. I would say
that these are issues, and there are others as well that we ought to
try to tackle at least at the thinking stage at the earliest possible
time.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4576,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-652) on the resolution (H. Res. 514)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4576) making
appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4577,
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BILL, 2001

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-653) on the resolution (H. Res. 515)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4577) making
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

[[Page 9609]]

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3605, SAN
RAFAEL LEGACY DISTRICT AND NATIONAL CONSERVATION ACT

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-654) on the resolution (H. Res. 516)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3605) to
establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District in the State of Utah,
and for other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and
ordered to be printed.

____________________

ILLEGAL NARCOTICS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor as we return from the
Memorial Day work recess and am again pleased to appear before the
House and my colleagues to talk about what I consider the most
important subject facing this country and this Congress and that is the
problem of illegal narcotics.
During this recess, as chair of the oversight and investigation
Subcommittee on Criminal, Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources of
the House of Representatives, I had the opportunity to continue our
series of hearings, both here in the Congress the day before we left
and adjourned and then during this holiday recess to conduct three
national field hearings.
One of those was in New Orleans at the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), also a member of the Subcommittee on Criminal,
Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, to look at a drug testing
program that had been instituted in some of the private schools and is
being expanded to the public schools in New Orleans. That hearing was
conducted during the recess.
Then we moved our field hearings to Orlando, my own backyard, the
area immediately south of me where we conducted a field hearing on the
subject of club drugs and designer drugs and their impact now in
central Florida, the State of Florida, and across the Nation.
Then we conducted a third hearing in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
area, actually in the city of Mesquite outside of Dallas at the request
of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). We looked at an area that
had been hard hit by narcotics, illegal narcotics, primarily heroin,
looked at the trend in illegal narcotic trafficking, particularly some
of the designer drugs, methamphetamine, and focused our attention on
what that community had done in successful treatment and prevention
education, community-based programs to deal with the problem of illegal
narcotics and drug abuse.
So we have had a full schedule, and tonight I want to update my
colleagues and the American people on where we stand in our efforts to
combat illegal narcotics.
Now, today is the 6th of June, and we come back from Memorial Day, a
time when we remembered those who fought and died in service to this
country to our great Nation. We remember today of course D-Day, such a
memorable day in the history of the country, the beginning of the end
of World War II when thousands of Americans died on the beaches of
Normandy in attempting to bring the Second World War to an end.
As we remember each of those fallen heroes on Memorial Day and
remember this day, we must realize that these individuals gave up their
lives for service to this country and respect their great sacrifice and
always honor that great sacrifice.
Tonight our country does not face the threat of a Cold War, of
nuclear bombs possibly being rained from a Soviet Union. We still have
many external threats. But today we face probably the most serious
domestic threat since the very founding of this Nation. The toll
continues to mount.
I asked my staff to research the number of American dead in some of
the wars. In World War I, 117,000, nearly 117,000 Americans lost their
lives. In World War II, over 408,000 Americans lost their lives. In the
Korean War, some 52,246 Americans died in service of their country. The
Vietnam War, some 58,219. In the Persian Gulf conflict in the past
decade, 363 Americans gave their life in those battles.
It is incredible to note the loss of life directly and indirectly to
illegal narcotics. Our Drug Czar, head of the National Office of Drug
Control Policy, Barry McCaffrey, testified before our Subcommittee on
Criminal, Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources in the neighborhood
of 52,000 Americans lost their lives the last year as a result of
direct and indirect deaths.
As a result of direct deaths, the last statistic that we have is
1998, and that figure was 15,973 Americans lost their lives. It is only
to be compared to the external conflicts in which we have lost so many
Americans.
So it is fitting that in the light of Memorial Day that we remember
those who lost their lives in service to this great Nation, but it is
sad to come back and face the reality of tens of thousands of Americans
dying at the hands and at the call and at the destruction of illegal
narcotics across our land.

{time} 2200

The toll in dead and destroyed families goes on and on. We have
conducted field hearings across the Nation in the past year and a half
since I have assumed the chairmanship and this responsibility. I am
concerned that this situation may be getting even worse, rather than
better.
Tonight I want to talk about where we are, some of the things we
learned in our field hearings, where we can go from here, what we have
done in the past that was correct, and what we have done most recently
that has been incorrect, and what path we need to follow to get this
situation under control. But, again, we have a very, very serious
situation. It was brought to light in the hearing that was conducted in
my own backyard in central Florida.
The last hearing we held focused on the last year and a half. That
hearing focused on the number of deaths from heroin overdoses, which
unfortunately continues to rise and even the number of admissions from
overdoses of heroin continues to rise dramatically. The only reason we
have not had more deaths, I am told by medical and law enforcement
experts, is that they have developed better techniques to save our
young people. And those who suffer from overdoses, they do not fall
victim; but, nonetheless, we have even greater numbers of deaths from
heroin.
We have taken a measure to create a high intensity drug traffic area,
which is just getting underway the last year and a half in central
Florida, and that may well be expanded up until Jacksonville and go
through Orlando to Tampa, combined with the Miami HIDTA and Puerto
Rican HIDTA, high intensity drug traffic area, Federal designation by
Federal law that allows every possible Federal asset to be combined
with State, local, other law enforcement efforts, to go after
traffickers, certainly, a Federal responsibility. But even with those
efforts underway, the incidents of death by heroin are still
dramatically high.
Now we have learned about and we focused our hearing on club drugs,
designer drugs and particularly Ecstasy. The cover of this week's Time
magazine features Ecstasy, and it was ironic that we would have this
national publication come out at the same time that we had this hearing
in Orlando.
We had planned the hearing in advance of this publication, but
certainly the problem that we heard in Orlando with Ecstasy and
designer drugs, unfortunately, in this article, for those of us who
will read it, will disclose, in fact, that Ecstasy and designer drugs
are now rampant across the United States.
Club drugs, those drugs that are in dance and rave clubs in central
Florida and around the country now, where sometimes parents think that
their children are going to a dance or a music concert or activity
where there is security, where there is no alcohol, these places that
seem and sound secure have now turned, according to testimony we have
had, into major sources of illegal designer drugs for our young people.
In Florida, the head of our State office of drug control policy, Jim
McDonough, testified that we lost 200 individuals in Florida in the
last several years to designer and club drugs and overdoses of these
new fancy narcotics.
I do not think I have ever seen a more insidious threat to this
country

[[Page 9610]]

than what we face probably in the next year, not only from external
heroin and cocaine coming in to the United States in unprecedented
quantities and waves. And I will talk about how we got ourselves into
that situation. Now we find the threat of these designer drugs,
Ecstasy, coming in also through every conceivable means, huge
quantities coming in from the Netherlands, which has had lax laws
relating to narcotics distribution and consumption; huge quantities
coming in from Mexico, our neighbor to the south, which we have given
free and open trade access to the United States and to our markets.
Also the problem of methamphetamine, which really was not on the
charts some 6 years ago or 7 years ago, and now we see an epidemic of
methamphetamine from the West Coast, to the East Coast, from the North
to the South, methamphetamine with consequences on individuals, that
puts crack to shame. The crack epidemic that we had in the 1980s was
brought under control by the Reagan administration. And this crack that
caused people to do such bizarre actions, commit such bizarre crimes is
nothing compared to what we are seeing around this country with
methamphetamine.
It is hitting the rural areas. We are going out to Iowa to conduct a
hearing at the request of the representative from Iowa (Mr. Latham),
the heartland and core of America. Minnesota, another area filled full
of family and tradition is now also ravaged by methamphetamine.
We conducted a hearing several weeks ago and had for the first time
the Federal Sentencing Commission in, and the Sentencing Commission
provided us with some charts, which I would like to put up and have my
colleagues and the speaker pay attention to for a minute, this problem
has gotten entirely out of control since 1992. We look at the crack
problem that we had, and I mentioned in the 1980s that was brought
under control and rather limited.
If we look at this chart in two areas, in 1992, at the end of the
Bush administration, Bush and Reagan had done an incredible job in
bringing that situation under control. Methamphetamine in 1992, and
again, I did not produce this chart, this was given by the Federal
Sentencing Commission to our subcommittee, there is almost no meth on
the chart in 1992.
If we go to 1993, we see the spread of crack, the appearance of
methamphetamine. In 1994, you have to remember some of the situations
which we developed; this is the end of the Bush and Reagan
administration. This is the beginning of the Clinton/Gore just say
maybe to drugs. Here is just say no era. Here is the just say maybe.
Here is the appointment of a chief health officer of the United States,
Jocelyn Elders, who said to our children, if it feels good, do it, the
just say maybe generation.
Here we see the beginning of the meth epidemic, the cocaine, the
crack reappearance. Again, these charts are just absolutely dramatic
and revealing. 1994, in 1993, they began the closedown of the war on
drugs.
During the break, I was home and heard one of our local councilmen,
who is also an active Democrat, say that well, in fact, the problem is
the war on drugs is a failure, and we just have not put enough money
into treatment.
Let me just, if I may, show how much money we have put in treatment.
Here is 1991, 1992, even in the Bush administration in these eras, we
had put money into treatment. In almost every succeeding year and from
this point on here, we have almost doubled the amount of money in
treatment.
At the same time, this administration began the employment of an
unprecedented number of people, and even the White House Executive
Office of the President with such recent drug use histories that they
could not pass security checks, the situation was so bad that, in fact,
the Secret Service required a drug testing program be instituted before
they would grant additional clearances to these individuals.
We ended up with an administration that began the dismantling of the
war on drugs, cutting, with a Democrat-controlled House of
Representatives, the entire executive branch, the presidency, the House
and the Senate, the other body, by huge majorities, from 1993 to 1995
controlled this whole process. They began the dismantling of the war on
drugs.
The money that had previously been used, the funds that had been
previously used for stopping drugs at their source called international
programs or funds were cut in half, gutted by, again, a White House and
a Democrat-controlled Congress bent on just going for treatment,
ignoring a war on drugs, closing down on a war on drugs.
The drug czar's office was slashed from 120 positions to some 30
positions in 1993. The use of the military for interdiction to stop
drugs most cost effectively from their source before they got into the
country, and our military people must understand, do not become
involved in drug enforcement, they provide surveillance information;
that information is given to source countries, and the source countries
go after the drug traffickers. That is the pattern, and that is what
can work, worked so effectively in the Bush and Reagan administration,
no question about it.
They chose another path. This is, again, the result, another chart
showing what took place from almost, again, if we went back to 1992, we
had no methamphetamine on this chart and two spots of crack showing up.
1996, this is the result of that policy. 1997, almost the entire
country now engulfed, finishing the job in 1998 and 1999.
These are some of the most dramatic charts, again, ever supplied, I
think, to Congress showing the failure of a policy of this Congress,
and the damage that was done in a 2-year, 3-year period by this
administration.
I can only say to those that think the war on drugs is a failure to,
again, please look at this chart.
And no matter how I stand, if I got up on top of this and looked
down, if I look at it from the side, or if I get underneath, these are
the facts. The source is the University of Michigan. In the Reagan
administration, we see the long-term prevalence of drug use taking a
decline; in the Bush administration, a dramatic decline.
I have not doctored these. I have not touched these. These were
presented to our subcommittee. For any illicit drug, this is probably
the best barometer that is produced on this. You look at the Clinton
administration, you look at the emphasis of putting all of the money
into treatment, closing down the enforcement or closing down the
interdiction, closing down the source country, failing to stop drugs at
their source, closing down the drug czar's operation, as we knew it,
and these are the results.
So this, my friends, is not failure. This is success. This is a
reduction. This is failure. It is incredible to see that where the
Republicans took over, and even with the thwarting of this
administration blocking the new majority's efforts to stop drugs at
their source, to regain the cooperation and use of the military for
surveillance purposes, and going after tough prosecution on some of the
things that we have done, have we even begun to stabilize this in the
last several years.

{time} 2215

But now I submit that the situation is again getting out of hand, and
for several specific reasons.
First, during the holidays, the headline is very telling in The
Washington Post. It says, ``Antidrug Efforts Stalls in Colombia.'' And
it is ironic that on the same page they have ``U.S. Calls Peruvian
Election Invalid.''
This shows two great failures of this administration. First, we
begged, we pleaded with this President since 1994, when they started
first of all closing down the sharing of information with Peru and
Colombia and other countries that were sources of hard narcotics, we
pleaded with them to continue allowing that surveillance information to
be given.
Liberals from this administration and others who went into these
various agencies, including the Department of Defense, came up with a
cockamamie, and I am not sure, for the benefit of the Speaker and the
stenographer, how

[[Page 9611]]

``cockamamie'' is spelled, but a cockamamie opinion was drafted by
these liberals that we could no longer share that information and they
closed down the surveillance, they closed down stopping us providing
that information and, basically, shut down the shoot-down policies that
these countries had adopted.
When we would provide these countries information on drugs leaving
their source, they would, in fact, send their pilot out after warning
and shoot down drug traffickers. It worked. It worked in the Bush
administration. It worked in the Reagan administration. And we saw this
decline.
I always ask, how many people have HD TVs? Not many people have HD
TVs. That is because there is not a big supply of HD TVs, there is a
very small supply available and the price is very high.
With the policy of closing down the war on drugs, you would not have
your planes shot down, if the surveillance is prohibited, which it was
by this administration, and that mistake was made back in 1994 and 1995
and only corrected after a bipartisan effort, everyone in the House who
dealt with this issue knew the great mistake that was made, the damage
that was made, and we changed the law and allowed that information to
be shared.
And then in the last 2 or 3 years, we see the same pattern over and
over again. This administration has failed to provide the interdiction
effort. The Department of Defense does not have the will. And I just
thought of this the other day. Have my colleagues ever heard the
President of the United States mention the war on drugs? Have we ever
heard Bill Clinton, the Chief Executive Officer, from this podium, in a
joint session of Congress or in any public forum? I cannot recall.
At one time I know that a search was done on one of these Nexus
searches to see how many times he had mentioned illegal narcotics or an
effort to deal with the drug problem; and, in fact, it is almost the
lowest recorded of any President. That is why we see the lack of
leadership from the White House and not only the lack of leadership and
the message that is sent to our young people and our population, but
also the policy and the policy is an antidrug effort stalled in
Colombia.
Why did it stall? This administration never brought up until the last
minute, almost to the week of the presentation of the budget, their
proposal for dealing with this problem in Colombia.
Now, when the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) chaired the
subcommittee responsible for trying to deal with that narcotics
problem, he actually was the chair of the subcommittee that had this
responsibility in the last Congress, he began restoration in several
countries and was able to get in Peru and Bolivia efforts started. They
have eliminated between 55 and 60 percent of the cocaine production in
both of those countries, successful programs.
That is why I thought this was ironic that the U.S. calls the
Peruvian election invalid. I think they backed off today. But here,
this administration, instead of praising President Fujimori, is
condemning President Fujimori. Why in the world would we take a
president who has stabilized the country, and I can tell my colleagues
firsthand because I flew into Lima, Peru in 1990, the end of 1993, with
the airport sandbagged, with people sleeping in the streets, with
chaos, with thousands of displaced Indian population, hungry people, I
will never forget going to a village outside of Lima and meeting a
peasant woman and she had five children and the interpreter told me
what she was saying, and she said that her difficulty, her problem, was
she only had enough food for four of those children so she had to
choose which child not to feed that would die.
This is the situation that President Fujimori inherited, complete
chaos, 60, 70 percent of the cocaine coming into the United States
produced in that country. Here is someone who brought law and order,
who calmed a country that was in total disruption, and here is this
administration condemning him for a candidate who called not to have a
runoff election and would not commit to a date certain.
Could you imagine the Republicans saying, we will not have a runoff
election or the Democrats in this country saying we will not have a
runoff election or do not have a runoff election, and we will figure
out at some time when the election will be? This is a slap in the face
to President Fujimori who has done an incredible job of first
stabilizing that country.
I remember going down when I took over chairmanship of this
responsibility on our drug policy and trying to put these programs back
together both with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and myself
when I assumed this chair and met with President Fujimori, I was
stunned at Lima, I was stunned at the countryside, at the order, the
ability of people to conduct their daily business, of glass everywhere,
which everything had been boarded, people sleeping in the alleyways,
bombs going off at night, gunfire. And that was a situation he
inherited, brought the cocaine trafficking under control, brought down
the terrorism that disrupted so many lives, and stabilized the economy
so a mother would not have to make a decision whether she fed four
children and let one die.
This is the type of foreign policy. Even the President of the United
States's representative in Peru wrote this administration and said,
your policy for, and this is the policy of a second time, they made the
mistake in 1994 and 1993 by stopping the surveillance information, they
stopped it again, and the President's representative, the ambassador of
the United States of America, appointed by the President of the United
States, said, this is a mistake in a report that was given to me in
December by GAO, the General Accounting Office. I asked for a report
from an impartial panel to see what was going on.
So mistake after mistake, error after error, has been made.
Now, again, in the 1980s, we had most of the cocaine coming in from
South America and from Peru and Bolivia. About 95 percent of it really
was coming in from those two countries. We were able to stem that. We
were able to bring down the prevalence of drug use. This is the new
picture; and we have almost all of the cocaine, probably 80 to 90
percent of the cocaine, now being produced in Colombia.
Now, in 6 or 7 years, we managed to turn Colombia from a transit and
trafficking country into a producing country. Fortunately, the policies
of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the new Republican
majority were instituted at very low cost, $20 million, $30 million,
$40 million in those source countries to stop incredible volumes of
cocaine coming into the United States. But what happened is the Clinton
administration blocked aid, blocked helicopters, blocked equipment
again because the liberals in the administration said, oh, we cannot
harm the hair on the back of any leftist, Marxist guerilla. It does not
matter if they, in fact, were trafficking and supporting their guerilla
activities through the sale of illegal narcotics that were coming into
the United States.
So now we have really, protected by the Clinton-Gore administration,
Colombia with no resources. It is almost farcical what has happened.
And until the first couple of months of this year were we able to get
to the National Police three Blackhawk helicopters, which we have been
pleading and begging for 4 or 5 years to get down to Colombia.
We knew what was going to happen, and it happened. This
administration ignored it. They sent the military assets to Haiti.
Ironically, Haiti is now one of the biggest traffickers in the
Caribbean, lawless killing. We have one corrupted administration
replacing another one. After billions of American taxpayer dollars,
this is now one of the main routes. And Colombia is another disaster.
The two foreign policy disasters unparalleled in the history of this
hemisphere. Billions spent there, nothing spent there, creating a
market, creating a source for drug trafficking.
There was almost no heroin produced in 1993 in January when this
President took office, President Clinton; and this is now the source of
some 75 percent of

[[Page 9612]]

the heroin killing kids in Orlando and Plano, Texas and California;
Chicago; and New York. And now it is transiting through the country,
where we spent $3 billion in nation building, in establishing a
judicial system and electoral processes that have been, in fact, a
farce.
It is the bad leading, the bad destroying American business activity
there, forcing the whole island, at least this half, which is Haiti, of
Dominica, the island nation of Haiti into a welfare state supported by
U.S. taxpayers, one of the saddest chapters in failed policy of this
administration.
And then what was not diverted here, the Defense Department will tell
you was diverted to Kosovo, to Bosnia, to the other many deployments of
this administration.
What are the results of these policies? For the first time again, we
are seeing with the blocking of aid to Colombia, and I must say that at
this point the Republicans must take some heat in the United States
Senate, the other body, and some blame and responsibility for blocking
the aid. The House did act and had a package ready to go to aid
Colombia to get additional resources. The other body did not act with
the speed they should have. But again, there is some justification
because the President dragged his heels in getting this request to the
Congress.

{time} 2230

This is what is happening now. We are seeing a resurgence of cocaine.
The chart that I showed just a few minutes ago showed the crack coming
in. Crack is part of the cocaine trafficking. This was presented to us
by the Customs Service. These are boats mostly coming through Haiti
with literally tons of cocaine which is smuggled in through the hulls
of these vessels. This is 706 pounds of cocaine seized. This is just
what they are seizing, January 31, 2000. This is another vessel, 1,083
pounds of cocaine coming in at the beginning of February. Another one,
February 5, 539 pounds of cocaine. Another one, February 10, 226 pounds
of cocaine, most of it coming into the United States through Haiti,
some of it being transshipped through Puerto Rico, the Bahamas and into
Florida. We are seeing an unprecedented amount of cocaine again for the
first time coming in.
We are seeing an unprecedented amount of methamphetamine labs. Most
of the meth we hear about is tied to Mexican gangs, Mexican drug
dealers and chemical dealers who are selling the precursors or
organizing the lab efforts. We have had testimony that their operations
from Mexico extend, of course, through Texas, through Oklahoma. We
heard testimony that from 60 labs in the Oklahoma area that the FBI
controls Oklahoma and Texas, there is now over 1,000 labs that have
been busted. In Iowa, the heartland again of America. On the West Coast
in Sacramento, up in the north central area, incredible amounts of
methamphetamine all the way down to the base of California with
methamphetamine. Methamphetamine we have done hearings on.
I want to digress for a minute and talk about methamphetamine.
Because I do not think we have ever seen a more damaging substance than
methamphetamine. These are some charts provided to us by the National
Drug Institute. Dr. Leschner presented these before our subcommittee,
showing the normal brain with dopamine which helps with the brain
function which is shown in the bright yellow. This is the normal brain.
The second is a brain that has had a small amount of methamphetamine.
The third is someone addicted to methamphetamine. The last one is
someone who has Parkinson's Disease in a serious stage.
This drug, methamphetamine, does incredible things to human beings.
It causes the most bizarre actions. This is what chemically happens to
the brain and destroys the brain function. It is not something that can
be regenerated. This is permanent damage. This is damage so severe that
mothers and fathers abandon their children not to reclaim them, as we
found in testimony in California, where in a small county some 600
addicted to methamphetamine, only a handful were even capable or could
take back or would take back their children. This is what happens to
the brain. Meth is absolutely a destructive substance and again causes
people to commit the most bizarre actions. The worst case we heard was
a mother and father that tortured their child and then boiled the child
to finally kill the child. Again, just incredibly bizarre acts that are
committed on this drug.
Mr. Speaker, we are facing a very, very difficult situation. When you
have in one small locale 1,000 meth labs and this methamphetamine being
produced by recipes provided over the Internet, by people experimenting
and getting substances from their drug stores, chemicals, and then the
larger problem, the Mexican meth dealers and getting the precursor
chemicals from predominantly Mexico, China, and the Netherlands
according to testimony we have had.
We are facing an incredible challenge with these narcotics coming
into the United States. I am convinced, too, given the ability to
produce these drugs domestically, such as methamphetamine, and we can
do our best, we have a responsibility to do our best to control the
precursor chemicals and find them before they come into the country and
then as they come into the country and are used for these illicit
purposes; but we must do an even better job of education and
prevention.
Treatment is fine, but treatment assumes that someone is already
addicted and a victim. If we fought World War II and we only treated
victims, we did not invent the equipment that we did, the bomb that we
did to go after the source, we did not stop the production of the
German rockets, if we did not stop their war machine, we never would
have brought the war under control. The war on drugs, it does not take
a rocket scientist to figure out, you stop the drugs at their source.
This also, though, as I have said, is a much more insidious threat than
anything we have seen, again with Ecstasy, again with methamphetamine,
again with GHB, and I believe it is GHB, I really do not know that much
other than what I have heard at the last hearings about this new drug.
This is another drug that has an incredible consequence in its use.
People are using it, mixing it with alcohol and dropping dead. The
difference with GHB is that there is almost no trace left in the blood
stream. There is almost no trace left in the body to detect. So it is a
much more insidious drug; it is a deadly drug, and people are dying
from it; and we do not even know they are dying. We had expert
testimony that tells us because it dissipates from the body that what
happens is the only way that you can really detect it is by doing a
dissection of the brain and an autopsy after death and finding minute
traces of this substance.
But we are facing with these designer drugs an incredible challenge
to this Nation, to our young people, to parents. Parents have no idea
about these drugs that are out there and again available in these clubs
that sound like they would be something that you could securely send
your children to with no alcohol, with security posted, with other
limits. Yet these clubs, and we now have the term club drugs and we
have this wide variety of small tablets and pills. Some of them we saw
at the hearing that were presented in the Orlando hearing by this drug
enforcement and Customs agency that had been seized that are small
pills with designer emblems, designer emblems of Nike, of other
trademarks that are imposed, and the drugs have such an attractive
appearance and seem almost harmless that now our young people are being
victimized by even the appearance of these drugs. Again, the dramatic
rise in death in Florida has been recounted, and the deaths that we
cannot count because of, again, drugs like GHB that are almost
impossible to detect.
Again, I think it is important that we look at what is happening. Our
hearing focused on that in Orlando.
This chart talks about a comparison of designer drugs and other drug
overdoses and shows in 1999, this would be other drugs and this is
designer drugs in the year 2000 so far to date, we see we are well on
our way to breaking the records of 1999, and we are only

[[Page 9613]]

partially through the year. What is interesting is we conducted this
hearing in Orlando; we moved to New Orleans. I heard the same scenario
being laid out by the district attorney there, Harry Connick, and
others who testified, local sheriffs, the same problem is being
repeated. Then we went on to Dallas and we hear the Dallas-Fort Worth
area also being victimized by designer drugs and incredible increases
in activity.
One of the problems that we have had in this administration, not only
a failure in closing down some of the war on drugs, again, source
country interdiction, the drug czar's office, getting that back up and
running full speed, which I might say Barry McCaffrey is doing his
best. General McCaffrey inherited a disaster from Lee Brown who should
have been run out of office, who dismantled the drug czar's office, did
the most damage of any public official probably in the history of the
United States, just an incredible disaster. Barry McCaffrey and others
like myself are now stuck with trying to bring us out of this morass.
One of the additional policy failures we have had, I talked about
Haiti, the nation-building effort and now a disaster, one of the major
sources of drug transit operations. This administration knew that
Panama was going to cease our military operations in Panama. Panama was
key to the war on drugs because all of the forward operating locations
were centered from Panama. This little yellow dot here represents and
is right over Panama. We had Howard Air Force Base, part of the $10.5
billion in assets that we turned over to the Panamanians last year. May
1 of last year was an important date, about a year ago. The U.S. knew
this was going to happen, but this administration failed to negotiate
with Panama not for continued military use but for continued use of
drug surveillance flights, because this was such a key area, and it
covered this whole area very cost effectively. We had also built the
infrastructure, billions of dollars for those bases, and we could have
in fact even leased them for a small amount of money. Instead, the
talks collapsed. Instead, the administration was left in the cold and
they quickly scurried to the Department of Defense and Department of
State to find other locations. Now, that is a responsible thing to do.
It was irresponsible in the fashion it was done because it was delayed.
We called them before our committee even before I was chair of this
subcommittee; said, are things getting in place, are you ready, are you
negotiating with the Panamanians, could we not just keep the drug
operations out of there, this forward operation going and do it cost
effectively with cutting a deal with the Panamanians?
In fact, what happened is it all fell apart. We were totally asked to
leave, kicked out of Panama. Even Barry McCaffrey told me that corrupt
tenders by the Panamanians allowed the Chinese to take control of the
two port activities and the U.S. was excluded from any flights as of
May 1.
So as of May 1 last year, we have had a wide-open field day for drug
traffickers because the United States, the Department of Defense and
the State Department, have been handicapped in getting these forward-
operating locations, drug surveillance operations back in place.

{time} 2245

When we do not have that information, we have this huge supply.
Remember what I said about HDTVs? Not too many people have them because
there is not a big supply. Well, on every street in this country we can
find cocaine in unprecedented quantities today. On every street in this
country we can find heroin in unprecedented quantities today, because
we have an incredible supply.
Just doing treatment, as this administration put its eggs all in the
treatment basket, it just does not cut it. We have to stop some of this
supply from its source. We know it is coming from Colombia.
The American taxpayers are now stuck with the bill in trying to put
together this operation in a piecemeal fashion with a base in Ecuador,
a base in Curacao and Aruba, and possibly a base in El Salvador.
Unfortunately, the price tag will probably be $100 million.
Ecuador, in a recent hearing we conducted, and we will be talking
about this again in a hearing on Friday with the Department of Defense
and Department of State, it will not be until 2002 that this runway,
which is incapable of supporting some of the aircraft that we need to
do this surveillance work, it will not be until 2002 until that is in
place, so that is one reason we have tons of this stuff coming in
unchecked.
In Aruba, we do have some flights going out of Aruba. Unfortunately,
they take off from a commercial field, and our staff has said that
sometimes these flights are even delayed.
Now we have a problem with Venezuela, who has thumbed its nose at the
President of the United States, at the United States' efforts to
conduct surveillance flights in Venezuelan airspace or pursue
traffickers, even when we provide them with information.
In the final area, we have two 10-year contracts here. We will be
investing that money for 10 years, and again, not up until 2002. The
last location that they have suggested and recently signed an
agreement, but I believe it has not been approved by the El Salvador
parliament, is a location in El Salvador. So we have three that will
not be in place for a long time. More drugs will be coming into the
country. It is another disaster at our doorstep.
Let me again look at, if we can, the money that was spent for
interdiction and also international programs, which is source country
programs. These are the figures in 1991, 1992, and 1993. This would be
the end of the Bush administration, the beginning of the Clinton
administration.
Members will see the dramatic drop, the dramatic drop here. In fact,
we are barely at, and with the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Hastert), who was able to fund additional money when he had
responsibility for chairing drug policy, we are barely back at the
levels at the end of the Bush-Reagan administration when these programs
were gutted.
As we gut these programs, it is interesting, and we turn to
treatment, and we saw the graphs on treatment, we see again in the
Reagan-Bush era that this is a lifetime annual and 30-day drug use, and
we see it declining in the Bush and Reagan administration. We see it on
a steep incline, and again, this is the policy of success of this
administration.
We only see here where we began, again, the Republican and new
majority takeover, some slight change. But I will tell the Members that
this chart, if we continue and not stop drugs coming in from Colombia,
not stop drugs coming in from their source, not interdicting drugs, not
stopping the precursor chemicals that allow the production of deeper
drugs and methamphetamine, Mr. Speaker, we are about to have this again
go off the charts. The damage to our 12th graders and others will be
unbelievable.
This is long-term trend of prevalence of heroin use, and also
produced by the University of Michigan. We see in the Reagan
administration pretty much a flat line, some downturn, another downturn
in the Bush administration. In the Clinton administration, it is off
the charts. I did not make these charts. We enlarged them. This
obviously is a story of failure. This is success.
Now, any administration like the Clinton administration that can get
us long-term trends on prevalence of heroin use going up like that,
that is a success. That means that the war on drugs was a failure, but
this is a success. Again, we see the first bleep there, again after
some of the policies of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the
new Republican administration of the Congress took over, not of the
executive branch.
Again, we see in the Reagan era, this is long-term prevalence use of
cocaine, and in the Bush era a dramatic success. This is the beginning
of the Andean strategy, stopping the cocaine at its source. This was
the Vice President's task force that Vice President Bush led. This is
blue lightning and other initiatives to go after this stuff.
This did not work, Mr. Speaker. These are imaginary downturn lines,

[[Page 9614]]

but then we see the Clinton administration, and I would be afraid to
rechart this given what we now know about the Clinton administration
diverting assets, with Vice President Gore sending AWACs to Alaska to
look for oil spills, the President of the United States in his many
deployments in Haiti diverting resources from this anti-narcotics
effort to nationbuilding while our people are falling like flies,
particularly our young people.
If Members do not believe those charts, there is a 1999 GAO report
that I requested that shows in fact that in 1992-1993, the beginning of
the Clinton administration, dramatic drops occurred in this.
First is the total use of DOD assets in the war on drugs. This is,
again, not produced by me but the General Accounting Office; overall
assets down dramatically.
This next line in red, the DOD, down dramatically. The Coast Guard
was up slightly, but also leveled off here.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue next week on more information relating
to our efforts to stem illegal narcotics and drug abuse in this
country.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. McNulty (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
personal reasons.
Ms. Sanchez (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
official business.
Mr. Pastor (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account of
illness in the family.
Mr. Vento (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today and the balance
of the month on account of illness.
Mr. Jefferson (at the request of Mr. Gephardt) for today on account
of official business.
Mr. English (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on account of a
death in the family.
Mr. Greenwood (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today and June 7 on
account of personal reasons.
Mr. Hilleary (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today on account of
personal reasons.
Mr. Smith of Michigan (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today and the
balance of the week on account of emergency eye surgery.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Lampson) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. DeMint) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Paul, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Vitter, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeMint, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today, June 7 and 13.
Mr. Metcalf, for 5 minutes, June 7, 8, and 9.
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Kasich, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

Mr. THOMAS, from the Committee on House Administration, reported that
that committee did on this day present to the President, for his
approval, bills of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 4489. To amend section 110 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, and for
other purposes.
H.R. 3293. To amend the law that authorized the Vietnam
Veterans Memorial to authorize the placement within the site
of the memorial of a plaque to honor those Vietnam veterans
who died after their service in the Vietnam war, but as a
direct result of that service.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 54 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 7, 2000, at
10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

7875. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Fenhexamid; Pesticide
Tolerances [OPP-300991; FRL-6553-7] (RIN: 2070-AB78) received
April 7, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
7876. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting requests for Fiscal Year 2001 budget
amendments for the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Health
and Human Services, and State; International Assistance
Programs; the Corporation for National and Community Service;
the Merit Systems Protection Board; the National Archives and
Records Administration; and, the National Capital Planning
Commission; (H. Doc. No. 106--251); to the Committee on
Appropriations and ordered to be printed.
7877. A letter from the Principal Deputy Under the
Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Department of Defense,
transmitting a report of a violation of the Antideficiency
Act by the Department of the Air Force; to the Committee on
Appropriations.
7878. A letter from the Director, Defense Finance and
Accounting Service, Department of Defense, transmitting
notification that the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
is initiating an A-76 cost comparison study of the Security
Assistance Accounting function, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2461;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
7879. A letter from the Acting Secretary, Department of the
Navy, transmitting the Secretary's determination and findings
that it is in the public interest to use other than
competitive procedures for a specific procurement, pursuant
to 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(7); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7880. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition and
Technology, Department of Defense, transmitting a report on
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers Estimated
FY 2001 Staff-years of Technical Effort (STE), pursuant to 10
U.S.C. 2367nt.; to the Committee on Armed Services.
7881. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Health
Affairs, Department of Defense, transmitting a report
entitled, ``Dental Care For Active Duty Military Family
Members 18 Years of Age and Under''; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
7882. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Health
Affairs, Department of Defense, transmitting a report
describing the scope of preventive health care benefits to
all eligible TRICARE beneficiaries; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
7883. A letter from the Under Secretary, Department of
Defense, transmitting a report entitled, ``Distribution of
DoD Depot Maintenance Workloads Fiscal Years 2000 Through
2004''; to the Committee on Armed Services.
7884. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition and
Technology, Department of Defense, transmitting a interim
response to the Department of Defense missions and functions
review report under OMB Circular A-76; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
7885. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Manufacturing Technology Program
[DFARS Case 99-D302] received April 13, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7886. A letter from the Acting Director, Defense
Procurement, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Defense Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement; Caribbean Basin Countries [DFARS Case
2000-D006] received April 13, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7887. A letter from the Directors of Congressional Budget
Office and Office of Management and Budget, transmitting a
joint report on the National Defense Function (050) outlays
for Fiscal Year 2001, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 226(a); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
7888. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting
the approved retirement and advancement to the grade of
Lieutenant General Phillip J. Ford, United States Air Force;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
7889. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation,
transmitting the annual report of the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on Armed
Services.

[[Page 9615]]

7890. A letter from the Senior Banking Counsel, Office of
General Counsel, Department of the Treasury, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Bank Holding Companies and Change in
Bank Control (RIN: 1505-AA78) received March 29, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
7891. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Single Family
Mortage Insurance; Appraiser Roster Removal Procedures
[Docket No. FR-4429-F-03] (RIN: 2502-AH29) received April 5,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
7892. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export-
Import Bank of the United States, transmitting a report
involving U.S. exports to Malaysia, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
635(b)(3)(i); to the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services.
7893. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting
the Corporation's final rule--Asset and Liability Backup
Program (RIN: 3064-AC23) received April 5, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
7894. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting
the Corporation's final rule--Activities and Investments of
Insured State Banks (RIN: 3064-AC38) received April 3, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
7895. A letter from the Managing Director, Federal Housing
Finance Board, transmitting the Board's final rule--Amendment
of Membership Regulation and Advances Regulation [No. 2000-
10] (RIN: 3069-AA94) received March 22, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
7896. A letter from the Managing Director, Federal Housing
Finance Board, transmitting the Board's final rule--
Devolution of Corporate Governance Responsibilities [No.
2000-09] (RIN: 3069-AA-96) received March 22, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services.
7897. A letter from the Managing Director, Federal Housing
Finance Board, transmitting the Board's final rule--
Determination of Appropriate Present-Value Factors Associated
With Payments Made by the Federal Home Loan Banks to the
Resolution Funding Corporation [No. 2000-15] (RIN: 3069-AA92)
received April 24, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
7898. A letter from the Secretary, BCP, Division of
Financial Practices, Federal Trade Commission, transmitting
the Commission's final rule--Advisory Opinion Regarding the
Fair Debt Collection Practives Act--received April 24, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services.
7899. A letter from the Chairman, National Credit Union
Administration, transmitting the 1999 Annual Report of the
National Credit Union Administration, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
1752a(d); to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
7900. A letter from the Chairman, National Credit Union
Administration, transmitting the 1999 annual report regarding
activities related to credit practices, pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
1752a(d); to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
7901. A letter from the Director, Office of Thrift
Supervision, transmitting the Preservation of Minority
Savings Institutions Annual Report to Congress for 1999; to
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
7902. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting the OMB Cost Estimate For Pay-As-You-Go
Calculations; to the Committee on the Budget.
7903. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting
the Department's annual report to Congress on the FY 1998
program operations of the Office of Workers' Compensation
Programs (OWCP), the administration of the Black Lung
Benefits Act (BLBA), the Longshore and Harbor Workers'
Compensation Act (LHWCA), and the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act for the period October 1, 1997, through
September 30, 1998, pursuant to 30 U.S.C. 936(b); to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
7904. A letter from the Acting Assistant General Counsel
for Regulations, Office of Postsecondary Education,
Department of Education, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program--received
April 6, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
7905. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education, Department of Education,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grants Program--received April 10, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
7906. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Department of
Education, transmitting the Department's final rule--Projects
With Industry (RIN: 1820-AB45) received April 10, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
7907. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Department of Education, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Federal Perkins Loan Program--
received April 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
7908. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulations, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services, Department of Education, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Projects With Industry (RIN: 1820-
AB45) received April 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
7909. A letter from the Chairman, National Council on the
Humanities, transmitting the Federal Council on the Arts and
the Humanities' twenty-fourth annual report on the Arts and
Artifacts Indemnity Program for Fiscal Year 1999, pursuant to
20 U.S.C. 959(c); to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
7910. A letter from the Administrator, Energy Information
Administration, transmitting the Energy Information
Administration's ``International Energy Outlook 2000,''
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 790f(a)(2); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7911. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the 1999 annual report on the
Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 2541--1(i); to the Committee on Commerce.
7912. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Law, Western Area Power Administration, Department
of Energy, transmitting the Department's final rule--Energy
Planning and Management Program; Integrated Resource Planning
Approval Criteria (RIN: 1901-AA84) received April 3, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7913. A letter from the National Committee on Vital and
Health Statistics, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting the Third Annual Report to Congress on the
Implementation of the Adminstrative Simplification Provisions
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
pursuant to Public Law 104--191, section 263 (110 Stat.
2033); to the Committee on Commerce.
7914. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, FDA, Department of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the Department's final rule--Removal
of Designated Journals; Confirmation of Effective Dates
[Docket No. 99N-4957] received April 6, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7915. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Indiana [IN99-1a; FRL-
6573-7] received April 13, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7916. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Protection of
Stratospheric Ozone [FRL-6575-7] received April 7, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7917. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Revisions to the
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), the
State 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage
1DBPR), and Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to
Implement the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments [FRL-
6575-9] (RIN: 2040-AD43) received April 7, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7918. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Managment and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP);
Delegation of Authority to the States of Iowa; Kansas;
Missouri; Nebraska; Lincoln-Lancaster County, Nebraska; and
City of Omaha, Nebraska [FRL-6577-1] received April 10, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7919. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans For Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Connecticut; Plan for Controlling MWC Emissions
From Existing MWC Plants [Docket No. CT-055-7214A; FRL-6577-
3] received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7920. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Delaware; Control of Emissions
from Existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators
[DE040-1023a; FRL-6577-7] received April 10, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.

[[Page 9616]]

7921. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants: Mississippi [MS23-200015a; FRL-6574-3] received
April 5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
7922. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Implementation Plans, California--South
Coast [CA-237-0221; FRL-6570-7] received April 5, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7923. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for Designated
Facilities and Pollutants; Allegheny County, Pennsylvania;
Control of Emissions from Existing Hospital/Medical/
Infectious Waste Incinerators [PA152-4099a; FRL-6571-5]
received April 5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Commerce.
7924. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State
Implementation Plan Revision, Antelope Valley Air Pollution
Control District and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management
District [CA231-0227a; FRL-6570-9] received April 5, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7925. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans Georgia: Approval of
Revisions to the Georgia State Implementation Plan:
Transportation Conformity Interagency Memorandum of Agreement
[GA-48-200010(a); FRL-6573-5] received April 5, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7926. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Transportation
Conformity Amendment: Deletion of Grace Period [FRL-6574-7]
(RIN: 2060-AI76) received April 5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7927. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Interim Final
Determination that State has Corrected the Plan Deficiency
and Stay of Sanctions; Phoenix PM-10 Nonattainment Area,
Arizona [AZ092-002; FRL-6575-2] received April 5, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Commerce.
7928. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Approval and
Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Revised VOC Rules [MA063-01-7200a; A-1-FRL-
6574-7A] received April 5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
29. A letter from the Deputy Chief, Industry Analysis Division, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule--
Local Competition and Boardband Reporting [CC Docket No. 99-301]
received April 6, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Commerce.
7930. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Voluntary Submission of Performance
Indicator Data [NRC Regulatory Issue Summary 2000-08]
received April 6, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Commerce.
7931. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional
Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule--Use of Risk-Informed Decisionmaking
in License Amendment Reviews [NRC Regulatory Issue Summary
2000-07] received April 6, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Commerce.
7932. A letter from the Chairman, Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, transmitting the Board's report entitled
``Report to the U.S. Congress and the Secretary of Energy--
1999 Findings and Recommendations,'' pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
10268; to the Committee on Commerce.
7933. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USA, Director,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting
notification concerning the Department of the Air Force's
Proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to Israel
for defense articles and services (Transmittal No. 00-43),
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to the Committee on
International Relations.
7934. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USA, Director,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting
notification concerning the Department of the Air Force's
proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to the
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the
United States for defense articles and services (Transmittal
No. 00-41), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to the Committee
on International Relations.
7935. A letter from the Lieutenant General, USA, Director,
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, transmitting
notification concerning the Department of the Air Force's
proposed Letter(s) of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to the
Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the
United States for defense articles and services (Transmittal
No. 00-42), pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2776(b); to the Committee
on International Relations.
7936. A letter from the Under Secretary, Acquisition and
Technology, Department of Defense, transmitting a copy of
Transmittal No. 14-99 which constitutes a Request for Final
Approval for the Memorandum of Agreement with Canada and the
United Kingdom concerning Chemical, Biological and
Radiological (CBR) Defense Material, pursuant to 22 U.S.C.
2767(f); to the Committee on International Relations.
7937. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a report on
chemical and biological weapons proliferation control efforts
for the period of February 1, 1999 to January 31, 2000,
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 5606; to the Committee on International
Relations.
7938. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b(a); to the
Committee on International Relations.
7939. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the President's
Determination No. 2000-16, regarding certification of the 26
major illicit drug producing and transit countries; to the
Committee on International Relations.
7940. A letter from the Chairman, Occupational Safety and
Health Review Commission, transmitting the 1999 annual
reports on activities of the Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 675; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
7941. A letter from the Comptroller General, General
Accounting Office, transmitting List of all reports issued or
released by the GAO in March 2000, pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
719(h); to the Committee on Government Reform.
7942. A letter from the Federal Co-Chairman, Appalachian
Regional Commission, transmitting the FY 2001 Performance
Plan and the Annual Performance Report for FY 1999; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
7943. A letter from the Chairman, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, transmitting a copy of the Broadcasting Board of
Governors' 1999 Annual Report, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 6204; to
the Committee on Government Reform.
7944. A letter from the Executive Director, Committee For
Purchase From People Who Are Blind Or Severely Disabled,
transmitting the Committee's final rule--Procurement List:
Additions and Deletions--received April 5, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Government Reform.
7945. A letter from the Chairman, Defense Nuclear
Facilities Board, transmitting the Annual Program Performance
Report for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
7946. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Civil Works,
Department of the Army, transmitting the Annual Financial
Report for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
7947. A letter from the Chief Financial Officer, Department
of Energy, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999 Accountability
Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7948. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental
Protection Agency, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual
Performance Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7949. A letter from the Acting Director of Communications
and Legislative Affairs, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2000 Annual Performance
Plan; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7950. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, transmitting the 1999 Program Performance
Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7951. A letter from the Director, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, transmitting the Fiscal Year 2001 Annual
Performance Plan; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7952. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Labor Relations
Authority, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Program
Performance Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7953. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime
Commission, transmitting the Annual Program Performance
Report for FY 1999; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7954. A letter from the Director, Holocaust Memorial
Museum, transmitting the Annual

[[Page 9617]]

Performance Report for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
7955. A letter from the Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7956. A letter from the Archivist of the United States,
National Archives and Records Administration, transmitting
the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Report; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
7957. A letter from the Chairman, National Capital Planning
Commission, transmitting the Commission's annual report
fulfilling the reporting requirements of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (IG Act), as amended, and the Federal
Manager's Financial Integrity Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app.
(Insp. Gen. Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Government
Reform.
7958. A letter from the Executive Director, National
Council on Disability, transmitting the Annual Performance
Report Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
7959. A letter from the Chairman, National Credit Union
Administration, transmitting the 1999 Performance Plan and
the Annual Plan for 2000; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
7960. A letter from the Director, National Gallery of Art,
transmitting the Annual Program Performance Report for FY
1999; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7961. A letter from the Chairman and General Counsel,
National Labor Relations Board, transmitting the Performance
Program Report for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
7962. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual
Performance Report; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7963. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's final rule--Prevailing
Rate Systems; Abolishment of the King, WA, Nonappropriated
Fund Wage Area (RIN: 3206-AI75) received April 4, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
7964. A letter from the The Special Counsel, Office of
Special Counsel, transmitting the Annual Performance Report
for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7965. A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury,
transmitting the FY 1999 Annual Performance Report; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
7966. A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury,
transmitting the Financial Report of the United States
Government for the Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
7967. A letter from the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, transmitting the Government National Mortgage
Association's (GNMA) management report, pursuant to 31 U.S.C.
9106; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7968. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting
the Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Report on Performance and
Accountablity; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7969. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation,
transmitting the Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan combined
with the Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
7970. A letter from the Director, U.S. Trade and
Development Agency, transmitting the Annual Performance
Report for FY 1999; to the Committee on Government Reform.
7971. A letter from the Secretary of Commerce, transmitting
the 1999 Biennial report with respect to the Striped Bass
Research Study, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1851; to the Committee
on Resources.
7972. A letter from the Deputy Associate Director for
Royalty Management, Minerals Management Service, Department
of the Interior, transmitting notification of proposed
refunds of offshore lease revenues where a refund or
recoupment is appropriate, pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 1339(b); to
the Committee on Resources.
7973. A letter from the Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the
Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel (RIN: 1018-AE84) received
April 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Resources.
7974. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka Mackeral in the Central
Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
[Docket No. 000211040-0040-01; I.D. 040300A] received April
10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Resources.
7975. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Sea Grant Minority Serving
Institutions Partnership Program: Request for Proposals for
FY 2000 [Docket No. 000218045-0045-01] (RIN: 0648-ZA80)
received March 21, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Resources.
7976. A letter from the Director, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in the West Yakutat
District in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No. 000211039-0039-01;
I.D. 033100A] received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
7977. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock Within the Shelikof Strait Conservation Area in the
Gulf of Alaska [Docket No. 000211039-0039-01; I.D. 032300A]
received April 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Resources.
7978. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf
of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Coastal Migratory Pelagic
Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Amendment
9 [Docket No. 991008273-0070-02; I.D. 062399B] (RIN: 0648-
AK89) received April 3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Resources.
7979. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Fisheries off West Coast States
and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic
Fisheries; Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline Fishery Line Clipper
and Dipnet Requirement; Guidelines for Handling of Sea
Turtles Brought Aboard Hawaii-based Pelagic Longline Vessels
[Docket No. 000214041-0081-02; I.D. 012100C] (RIN: 0648-AN50)
received April 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Resources.
7980. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Fisheries of the Northeastern
United States; Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan [Docket
No. 990713189-9335-02; I.D. 060899B] (RIN: 0648-AK79)
received April 4, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Resources.
7981. A letter from the Attorney General, transmitting the
FY 1999 Annual Accountability Report; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
7982. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General, Office
of Legislative Affairs, Department of Justice, transmitting a
report on Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program, Phase
4 for Fiscal Year 1999; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7983. A letter from the Chief Financial Officer, Paralyzed
Veterans of America, transmitting a copy of the annual audit
report of the Paralyzed Veterans of America for the fiscal
years ended September 30, 1998 and 1999, pursuant to 36
U.S.C. 1166; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7984. A letter from the Director, The Federal Judicial
Center, transmitting the Federal Judicial Center's Annual
Report for 1999, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 623(b); to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
7985. A letter from the Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration, transmitting the fourth annual report of
actions the Federal Aviation Administration has taken in
response to Section 304 of the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 40101nt.; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7986. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Establishment of Jet Routes; AK [Airspace Docket No. 98-AAL-
13] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7987. A letter from the Regulations Officer, FHA,
Department of Transportation, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations;
Definition of the Commercial Motor Vehicle [FHWA Docket No.
FHWA 97-2858] (RIN: 2125-AE22) received April 10, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7988. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Modification of the Dimensions of the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area and Flight Free Zones [Docket
No. FAA-99-5926 NM 3-27-00; Amendment No. 93-80 NM 3-28-00]
(RIN: 2120-AG74) received April 11, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7989. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Commercial Air Tour Limitation in the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area [Docket No. FAA-99-5927; Amdt.
No. 93-81; NM-3-28-00] (RIN: 2120-AG73) received

[[Page 9618]]

April 11, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7990. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Establishment of Colored Federal Airways; AK [Airspace Docket
No. 98-AAL-15] (RIN: 2120-AA66) received April 10, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7991. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Modification of Class E Airspace; Delaware, OH [Airspace
Docket No. 98-AGL-37] received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7992. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29977; Amdt. No. 1985] received April
10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7993. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 29976; Amdt. No. 1984] received April
10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7994. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; The New Piper Aircraft, Inc. J-2
Series Airplanes That Are Eqipped With Wings Lift Struts
[Docket No. 99-CE-13-AD; Amendment 39-11479; AD 99-26-19]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7995. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F27 Mark 050 Series
Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-317-AD; Amendment 39-11459; AD
99-25-16] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
7996. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757 Series Airplanes
Equipped With Rolls Royce Engines [Docket No. 99-NM-125-AD;
Amendment 39-11431; AD 99-24-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7997. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney PW 4000 Series
Turbofan Engines [Docket No. 97-ANE-55-AD; Amendment 39-
11220; AD 99-15-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
7998. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Fairchild Aircraft, Inc. Models
SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-AT, and SA226-TC Airplanes [Docket
No. 99-CE-15-AD; Amendment 39-11348; AD 99-21-05] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7999. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica,
S.A. (EMBRAER), Model EMB-145 Series Airplanes [Docket No.
99-NM-203-AD; Amendment 39-11655; AD 2000-07-01] (RIN: 2120-
AA64) received April 10, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8000. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-200, -200C, -300,
and -400 Series Airplanes [Docket No. 99-NM-84-AD; Amendment
39-11654; AD 2000-06-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8001. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model MD-11
Series Airplanes [Docket No. 2000-NM-86-AD; Amendment 39-
11656; AD 2000-07-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8002. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9, DC-9-
80, and C-9 (Military) Series Airplanes; and Model MD-90
Airplanes [Docket No. 98-NM-147-AD; Amendment 39-11208; AD
99-13-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10, 2000, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
8003. A letter from the Program Analyst, FAA, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule--
Airworthiness Directives; Robinson Helicopter Company Model
R44 Helicopters [Docket No. 99-SW-08-AD; Amendment 39-11657;
AD 2000-07-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received April 10, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8004. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Guidance for Developing
TMDLs in California EPA Region 9--received April 13, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8005. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--Withdrawl of Certain
Federal Human Health and Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria
Applicable to Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of
Columbia, Kansas and Idaho [FRL-6576-2] received April 7,
2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
8006. A letter from the Director, Office of Regulatory
Management and Information, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting the Agency's final rule--EPA Review and Approval
of State and Tribal Water Quality Standards [FRL-6571-7]
(RIN: 2040-AD33) received April 5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8007. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime
Commission, transmitting the 38th Annual Report of the
Federal Maritime Commission for fiscal year 1999, pursuant to
46 U.S.C. app. 1118; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
8008. A letter from the Chairman, Bureau of Consumer
Complaints and Licensing, Federal Maritime Commission,
transmitting the Commission's final rule--In the Matter of a
Single Individual Contemporaneously Acting as the Qualifying
Individual for Both an Ocean Freight Forwarder and a Non-
vessel-operating Common Carrier [Docket No. 99-23] received
March 21, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8009. A letter from the Deputy Administrator, General
Services Administration, transmitting informational copy of a
lease prospectus for FY 2001, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 606(a);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8010. A letter from the Administrator, General Services
Administration, transmitting an informational copy of the the
lease prospectus for the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Cleveland, OH, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 606(a); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8011. A letter from the Secretary of Transportation,
transmitting a report on the Coast Guard's regulations
concerning oils, including animal fats and vegetable oils,
carry out the intent of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act
(P.L. 104-324) Section 1130 of the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-324) directs the Secretary of
Transportation to submit these annual reports; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
8012. A letter from the Secretary of Labor, transmitting a
report entitled, ``Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERA) Annual Report to
Congress For Fiscal Year 1999''; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
8013. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting notification of his determination that
continuation of the waiver currently in effect for Vietnam
will substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of
the Trade Act of 1974, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2432(c) and (d);
(H. Doc. No. 106--252); to the Committee on Ways and Means
and ordered to be printed.
8014. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting notification of his determination that a
continuation of a waiver currently in efect for the People's
Republic of China will substantially promote the objectives
of section 402, of the Trade Act of 1974, pursuant to 19
U.S.C. 2432(c) and (d); (H. Doc. No. 106--253); to the
Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed.
8015. A communication from the President of the United
States, transmitting notification of his determination that a
continuation of a waiver currently in effect for the Republic
of Belarus will substantially promote the objectives of
section 402, of the Trade Act of 1974, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
2432(c) and (d); (H. Doc. No. 106--254); to the Committee on
Ways and Means and ordered to be printed.
8016. A letter from the Regulatory Policy Officer, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, transmitting the Bureau's
final rule--Floor Stocks Tax for Cigarettes (99R-259P) [T.D.
ATF-423] (RIN: 1512-AB95) received April 5, 2000, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8017. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and

[[Page 9619]]

Firearms, transmitting the Bureau's final rule--Yountville
Viticultural Area (98R-28P) [TD ATF-410; RE: Notice No. 864]
(RIN: 1512-AA07) received April 5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8018. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, transmitting the Bureau's
final rule--Chiles Valley Viticultural Area (96F-111) [TD
ATF-408; Re: Notice No. 858] (RIN: 1512-AA07) received April
5, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
8019. A letter from the Regulatory Policy Officer, Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Increase in Tax on
Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes [99R-88P]
[T.D. ATF-420] (RIN: 1512-AB88) received April 5, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
8020. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders [Docket No.
990521142-9252-02] (RIN: 0625-AA54) received April 6, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
8021. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Charitable Split-Dollar Insurance Reporting Requirements
[Notice 2000-24] received April 6, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8022. A letter from the Chief, Regulations Unit, Internal
Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's final rule--
Department Stores Indexes [Rev. Rul. 2000-21] received April
3, 2000, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
8023. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the 1999 Report on the Analysis of the
Impact on Welfare Recidivism of PRWORA Child Support Arrears
Distribution Policy Changes; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
8024. A letter from the Regulations Officer, Social
Security Administration, transmitting the Administration's
final rule--Federal Old-Age, Survivors and Disability
Insurance and Supplemental Security Income for the Aged,
Blind, and Disabled; Determining Disability and Blindness;
Classification of ``Age'' as a Vocational Factor [Regulations
Nos. 4 and 16] (RIN: 0960-AE 96) received April 3, 2000,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
8025. A letter from the Secretary of Defense, transmitting
a notification of the designation of operations in East Timor
are expected to exceed $50 million; jointly to the Committees
on Armed Services and International Relations.
8026. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Presidential
Determination 2000-19, the President has exercised the
authority provided to him and has issued the required
determination to waive certain restrictions on the
maintenance of a Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
Office and on expenditure of PLO funds for a period of six
months; jointly to the Committees on International Relations
and Appropriations.
8027. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a Memorandum of
Justification: Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (First
Submission for FY 00); jointly to the Committees on
International Relations and Appropriations.
8028. A letter from the President, U.S. Institute of Peace,
transmitting the audit of the Institute's accounts for the
fiscal year 1999 conducted by certified accountants from the
firm of Ernst & Young, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 4611; jointly to
the Committees on International Relations and Education and
the Workforce.
8029. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting
a listing of one property covered by the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990; jointly to the Committees on
Resources and Banking and Financial Services.
8030. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior,
transmitting a legislative proposal entitled, ``Coalfields
Security Act of 2000''; jointly to the Committees on
Resources and Ways and Means.
8031. A letter from the the Commissioners, the National
Commission on Terrorism, transmitting a report entitled,
``Countering The Changing Threat Of International
Terrorism,'' pursuant to Public Law 105--277; (H. Doc. No.
106--250); jointly to the Committees on the Judiciary and
International Relations, and ordered to be printed.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

[Pursuant to the order of the House on May 25, 2000 the following
reports were filed on June 1, 2000]

Mr. LEWIS of California: Committee on Appropriations. H.R.
4576. A bill making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and
for other purposes (Rept. 106-644). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. PORTER: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 4577. A bill
making appropriations for the Department of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes
(Rept. 106-645). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. REGULA: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 4578. A bill
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2001, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-646). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

discharge of committee

[The following action occurred on May 26, 2000]

Pursuant to clause 5 of rule X the Committee on Ways and Means
discharged. H.R. 1070 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union.

[Submitted June 6, 2000]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 3605. A
bill to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy District in
the State of Utah, and for other purposes; with an amendment
(Rept. 106-647). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 4435. A
bill to clarify certain boundaries on the map relating to
Unit NC01 of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (Rept. 106-
648). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 3176. A
bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
study to determine ways of restoring the natural wetlands
conditions in the Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge,
Hawaii (Rept. 106-649). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Resources. H.R. 3535. A
bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to eliminate the wasteful and unsportsmanlike
practice of shark finning; with an amendment (Rept. 106-650).
Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union.
Mr. ARCHER: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 8. A bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phaseout the
estate and gift taxes over a 10-year period; with an
amendment (Rept. 106-651). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mrs. MYRICK: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 514.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4576) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes (Rept. 106-652). Referred to the House Calendar.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio: Committee on Rules. House Resolution
515. Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4577) making appropriations for the Department of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and related
agencies for fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes (Rept. 106-653). Referred to the House
Calendar.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 516. Resolution providing for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3605) to establish the San Rafael Western Legacy
District in the State of Utah, and for other purposes (Rept.
106-654). Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL

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

[The following action occurred on May 26, 2000}

H.R. 984. Referral to the Committees on International
Relations, Banking and Financial Services, the Judiciary, and
Armed Services extended for a period ending not later than
June 7, 2000.
H.R. 1656. Referral to the Committees on Commerce and
Education and the Workforce extended for a period ending not
later than June 7, 2000.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. HANSEN:
H.R. 4579. A bill to provide for the exchange of certain
lands within the State of Utah; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. Wu):
H.R. 4580. A bill to provide further protections for the
watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run
Watershed

[[Page 9620]]

Management Unit, Oregon, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on
Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mrs. CHRISTENSEN (for herself, Mrs. Jones of Ohio,
Mr. Hilliard, Ms. Carson, Mrs. Clayton, Ms. Brown of
Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Clyburn, Mr. Payne, Ms. Lee, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Clay, Mr. Owens, Mr.
Cummings, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Towns, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Ms. Waters, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Scott, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Ford, Ms. McKinney, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Fattah, Mrs. Meek of Florida,
and Mr. Watt of North Carolina):
H.R. 4581. A bill to authorize the Homeward Bound
Foundation to establish the Middle Passage National Monument;
to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. Canady of Florida, Mrs.
Chenoweth-Hage, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr.
Metcalf, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Tancredo, and
Mr. Toomey):
H.R. 4582. A bill to provide Internet access to
congressional documents, including certain Congressional
Research Service publications, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. HANSEN:
H.R. 4583. A bill to extend the authorization for the Air
Force Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the
District of Columbia or its environs; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. LaFALCE:
H.R. 4584. A bill to require insured depository
institutions to make affordable transaction accounts
available to their customers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
By Mr. LEACH:
H.R. 4585. A bill to strengthen consumers' control over the
use and disclosure of their health information by financial
institutions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking and Financial Services, and in addition to the
Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Luther, and
Mr. Evans):
H.R. 4586. A bill to amend the Consumer Product Safety Act
and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act regarding repair,
replacement, or refund actions, civil penalties, and criminal
penalties under those Acts; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Ms. McKINNEY:
H.R. 4587. 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; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 4588. A bill to amend the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act to include workers who were employed on
Amchitka Island, Alaska, in the construction and maintenance
of deep shafts for underground nuclear testing and various
other military purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 4589. A bill to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to establish an eleventh
region of the Environmental Protection Agency, comprised
solely of the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. GUTIERREZ (for himself, Mr. Baca, Mr. Gonzalez,
Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Reyes,
Mr. Rodriguez, and Ms. Roybal-Allard):
H.R. 4590. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to establish special procedures for the filing and
consideration of asylum applications by alien children who
are unaccompanied by a parent or guardian and for the
detention of any alien children unaccompained by a parent or
guardian; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROHRABACHER:
H.J. Res. 99. A joint resolution disapproving the extension
of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the
Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ROEMER:
H. Con. Res. 344. Concurrent resolution permitting the use
of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to present the
Congressional Gold Medal to Father Theodore Hesburgh; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. ROGAN:
H. Con. Res. 345. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of the Congress regarding the need for cataloging and
maintaining public memorials commemorating military conflicts
of the United States and the service of individuals in the
Armed Forces; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. WYNN:
H. Con. Res. 346. Concurrent resolution concerning the
establishment of a permanent United Nations security force;
to the Committee on International Relations.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:

317. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of
the State of Kansas, relative to House Concurrent Resolution
No. 5050 urging Congress to pass legislation allowing state-
inspected meat and meat products to be shipped interstate and
to pass legislation increasing the number of poultry to be
slaughtered at home and offered for sale to the consumer; to
the Committee on Agriculture.
318. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Wisconsin, relative to 1999 Senate Joint Resolution 13
memorializing Congress to amend the Federal Meat Inspection
Act to allow for the interstate shipment of state-inspected
meat; to the Committee on Agriculture.
319. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, relative to Senate Joint Resolution
No. 125 memorializing Congress to restore quality health care
to active duty and retired military personnel and their
families; to the Committee on Armed Services.
320. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Iowa,
relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 107 memorializing the
United States Department of Defense, the United States Army,
and the United States Congress to place production work at
the Rock Island Arsenal, and to consider increased
utilization of the Arsenal's facilities, so that the
capabilities of the Rock Island Arsenal, and economic
vitality of the surrounding region, may be utilized to the
fullest extent possible; to the Committee on Armed Services.
321. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, relative to Senate Joint Resolution
No. 92 memorializing the United States Congress and the
United States Department of the Army to select Fort Belvoir
as the site of the United States Army Museum; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
322. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, relative to Senate Joint Resolution
No. 222 memorializing the United States Congress to increase
funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs) and financial aid for middle income students; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
323. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of
Missouri, relative to Senate Resolution No. 1034
memorializing the President and the Congress of the United
States to provide the full forty-percent federal share of
funding for special education programs so that Missouri and
other states participating in these critical programs will
not be required to take funding from other vital state and
local programs in order to fund this underfunded federal
mandate; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
324. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Utah, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 10 memorializing
the President and the Congress to authorize humanitarian
assistance to the people of Taiwan and urging the President
to seek public renunciation from China of any potential use
of force by China against Taiwan; and affirming that Taiwan's
future should be resolved peacefully; to the Committee on
International Relations.
325. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Arizona, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1001
proposing amendments to the Constitution of Arizona; amending
article X, sections 1 through 4, 7 and 10, Constitution of
Arizona; amending article X, Constitution of Arizona, by
adding sections 12, 13 and 14; Relating to State Lands; to
the Committee on Resources.
326. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Arizona, relative to House Concurrent Memorial 2003
memorializing the President, the Secretary of the Interior
and the Congress of the United States to take action to
prevent the designation of any additional National Monuments
or Forest Service roadless areas in this state without full
public participation and an express act of Congress; to the
Committee on Resources.
327. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Arizona, relative to House Joint Resolution 2001 denouncing
the establishment of new national monuments in the State of
Arizona without full public participation, consent and
approval of local governments, the Arizona Legislature, the
Governor and Congress; to the Committee on Resources.
328. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 108 urging the
President of the United States and the Congress of the United
States to enact federal legislation to provide full
deductibility from federal income taxes of health insurance
premiums for individuals, the self-employed and small groups;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
329. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia,

[[Page 9621]]

relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 98 memorializing the
Congress of the United States to amend that portion of the
Trade Act of 1974 establishing the North American Free Trade
Agreement Transitional Adjustment Assistance Program to
extend the maximum time period for receipt of benefits from
52 weeks to 78 weeks; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
330. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Utah, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 3
memorializing the United States Congress to immediately
increase the tax-exempt private activity volume cap and the
allocation of low-income housing tax credits available to
Utah to levels that would fully restore the tax-exempt
private activity bond volume cap purchasing power of the
states to levels that would offset the diluted effects of
inflation since 1987, and to index increases for these
resources to inflation in future years; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
331. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, relative to Senate Joint Resolution
No. 35 memorializing the Congress of the United States to
enact ``The Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees
Act''; jointly to the Committees on Armed Services and
Government Reform.
332. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, relative to Senate Joint Resolution
No. 255 memorializing Congress to protect Virginia's dairy
industry by approving the Southern Dairy Compact and ensuring
that the federal Clean Water Act is implemented in a way that
does not place an undue burden on farmers; jointly to the
Committees on the Judiciary and Transportation and
Infrastructure.
333. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Washington, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 8017
memorializing the President of the United States and the
Congress to provide federal assistance in ensuring pipeline
safety; jointly to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Commerce.
334. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 109
memorializing the President of the United States and the
Congress of the United States to enact federal legislation to
increase Medicare reimbursements to levels allowing providers
to fully recover the actual costs of providing necessary
health care services to Medicare eligible patients; jointly
to the Committees on Ways and Means and Commerce.
335. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Hampshire, relative to Senate Resolution No. 14 memorializing
the Congress of the United States to repeal the new 25
percent Weatherization Program match requirement scheduled to
go into effect in 2001, which would place states like New
Hampshire at potential risk of loss of all federal funding
for this valuable program and to support increased funding
for much-needed federal programs, so that states can best
assist residents and businesses to decrease their fuel
consumption and afford essential heating costs; jointly to
the Committees on Commerce, International Relations, and
Education and the Workforce.

____________________

PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,

Mr. FORD introduced a bill (H.R. 4591) to provide for the
reliquidation of certain entries of steel wire rods; which
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 8: Mr. Traficant, Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, and Mr.
Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 49: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Meehan.
H.R. 207: Mr. Hoyer.
H.R. 220: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.
H.R. 229: Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 460: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Owens, Mr. Cardin, and Ms.
Kilpatrick.
H.R. 483: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 488: Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 531: Mr. Gutknecht and Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 534: Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Horn, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 583: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 632: Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr.
Sawyer, and Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 742: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 860: Ms. Brown of Florida.
H.R. 1020: Mr. Mascara, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Wamp, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1053: Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Sabo, and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1080: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 1179: Mr. Norwood.
H.R. 1216: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1227: Mr. Hilliard.
H.R. 1248: Mr. Coyne.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Ose, Mr. Condit, Mr. Coble,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Leach, Ms. Danner, and Mr. John.
H.R. 1382: Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 1396: Mr. Crowley, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi.
H.R. 1494: Mr. Riley and Mr. Thornberry.
H.R. 1532: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 1623: Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
H.R. 1634: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 1640: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1732: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 1795: Mr. LaHood, Mr. Barcia, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Gutknecht, and Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 1871: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1914: Mr. Nethercutt.
H.R. 1926: Mrs. Roukema.
H.R. 2129: Mr. Wamp, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Rush, Mr. Cook, and
Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 2298: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 2341: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Moakley, Mrs.
Christensen, Ms. Norton, Mr. Neal of Masssachusetts, Mr.
Meehan, and Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 2355: Mr. Borski.
H.R. 2451: Mr. John.
H.R. 2485: Mr. Schaffer.
H.R. 2499: Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 2512: Mr. Larson.
H.R. 2528: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 2586: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 2631: Mr. Engel, Mr. Goode, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 2697: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 2733: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 2739: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 2741: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Lantos, and Ms. Lofgren.
H.R. 2790: Mr. Andrews, Ms. Lee, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Reynolds, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Wamp, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2807: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 2883: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 2892: Mr. Coyne and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 2909: Mr. Castle and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 2919: Mr. Kingston.
H.R. 2966: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 3006: Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 3083: Ms. Kilpatrick.
H.R. 3102: Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Rush.
H.R. 3142: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Hilliard.
H.R. 3144: Mr. John.
H.R. 3161: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 3235: Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 3294: Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 3301: Mr. Coyne, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr.
Blumenauer, and Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 3315: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Strickland, and Mr. Underwood.
H.R. 3433: Mr. Stark, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Crowley,
Mr. Kuykendall, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Gejdenson, and Mr. Weygand.
H.R. 3485: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Maloney of
Connecticut, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Frost, and Mr.
Chabot.
H.R. 3540: Mr. Weller.
H.R. 3546: Mr. Pickett, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Isakson, Mr.
Romero-Barcelo, Ms. Norton.
H.R. 3576: Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Royce, and Mr. Combest.
H.R. 3580: Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Ramstad, Mrs. Mink
of Hawaii, Ms. Carson, Mr. Scarborough, Mr. Pascrell, Mr.
Visclosky, Mr. Berry, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Davis of
Florida, Mr. Dickey, and Mr. Bereuter.
H.R. 3590: Mr. Lewis of California.
H.R. 3609: Mr. Aderholt.
H.R. 3634: Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Holt, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 3663: Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Hoyer.
H.R. 3677: Mr. Sanford and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 3688: Mr. Horn, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Forbes,
and Mr. Ganske.
H.R. 3694: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 3766: Mr. Nadler and Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 3817: Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 3825: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 3826: Mr. Capuano, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Pastor, Mr.
Filner, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Baca, and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 3836: Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 3896: Ms. Stabenow and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 3918: Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Deal of Georgia,
and Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 4042: Mr. Cook and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 4118: Mr. Menendez.
H.R. 4149: Mr. Engel and Mr. Markey.
H.R. 4176: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. McGovern, and Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 4196: Mr. Hastings of Washington.
H.R. 4206: Mr. Capuano, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Sandlin.
H.R. 4209: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 4214: Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Wynn, and Mr.
Saxton.
H.R. 4219: Mr. Goodling, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Visclosky, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 4239: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Ford,
Mr. Rush, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Delahunt,
Mr. Becerra, Mr. Olver, Mr. Owens, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Matsui,
Mr. Bishop, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Dicks, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 4245: Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Wynn, and Mr.
Saxton.
H.R. 4246: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 4257: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Combest.
H.R. 4259: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Baird, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. McGovern.

[[Page 9622]]

H.R. 4271: Mr. Salmon, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 4272: Mr. Salmon, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 4273: Mr. Salmon, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 4274: Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 4277: Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Rahall, and Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 4298: Mr. Pombo.
H.R. 4301: Mr. Gordon, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Ewing, and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 4320: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Dicks, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 4328: Mr. Frost, Mr. Filner, Mr. Snyder, and Mr.
Gilchrest.
H.R. 4329: Mr. Foley and Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 4334: Mr. Wynn and Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 4357: Mr. George Miller of California, Ms. Lee, Mr.
Nadler, Mr. Hall of Ohio, Ms. Norton, and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 4361: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Klink, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Petri, and Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 4384: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Gekas, Mr.
McIntosh, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Doolittle, Mr.
Jones of North Carolina, Ms. Danner, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Shows, Mr.
Evans, Mr. Spratt, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Waxman, Mrs. Napolitano,
Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Brown of Florida,
Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Frost, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Payne, Mr. Reynolds,
Mr. Fletcher, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Stupak, Mrs. Biggert, Mr.
Upton, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Ortiz, Mr.
Thompson of California, Mr. Fossella, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Dooley
of California, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Barrett of
Wisconsin, and Ms. Millender-McDonald.
H.R. 4393: Mr. Bilirakis and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 4395: Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr.
Doyle.
H.R. 4442: Mr. Gilchrest and Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
H.R. 4453: Ms. Norton, Mr. Nadler, Ms. McKinney, and Mr.
Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 4467: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Istook, Mr. Barr of
Georgia, Ms. Carson, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Barrett of
Nebraska, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Edwards.
H.R. 4470: Mr. Matsui, Mr. Shaw, and Mr. Foley.
H.R. 4471: Mr. Salmon, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Roemer, Mr. John, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Ramstad,
Mr. Kind, and Mr. Ford.
H.R. 4483: Ms. Millender-McDonald and Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 4492: Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Shimkus,
Mr. LaHood, Mrs. Kelly, Mr. Smith of Washington, Mr. Owens,
Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Mr. Sweeney, Mrs. Mink of Hawaii, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Shows, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Saxton, Mr.
Gejdenson, Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 4537: Mr. Tiahrt.
H.R. 4539: Mr. Franks of New Jersey and Mr. Rogan.
H.R. 4542: Mr. Hoyer.
H.R. 4547: Mr. Hobson.
H.R. 4549: Mr. Hilliard.
H.R. 4560: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota and Mr. Radanovich.
H.R. 4567: Mr. Wynn, Mr. Larson, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Owens,
and Ms. DeLauro.
H.J. Res. 56: Mr. Ackerman.
H. Con. Res. 238: Ms. Hooley of Oregon.
H. Con. Res. 285: Mr. Foley and Mr. Andrews.
H. Con. Res. 306: Mrs. Thurman, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Barrett
of Wisconsin, Mr. Boucher, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Nadler, Ms.
DeLauro, Mr. LaTourette, and Mr. Lucas of Kentucky.
H. Con. Res. 308: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H. Con. Res. 332: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Holt, Mr. Meehan, and Mrs. Maloney of
New York.
H. Con. Res. 343: Mr. Filner, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Hilliard, and Mr. Engel.
H. Res. 37: Mr. Baca.
H. Res. 238: Mr. Wynn.
H. Res. 398: Mr. Larson, Ms. Norton, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Kuykendall, Mr. Lazio, Mr.
English, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Cox, Mr. Campbell,
Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Deutsch, and Mr. Shays.
H. Res. 461: Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Rush, Ms. Norton, Mr. Nadler,
and Ms. McKinney.

____________________

DELETIONS OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

H.R. 4006: Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania.

____________________

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:

86. The SPEAKER presented a petition of City of Cordova,
relative to Resolution No. 04-00-17 supporting the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 H.R. 701 and S.
2123; jointly to the Committees on Agriculture, Resources,
and the Budget.
87. Also, a petition of Kodiak Island Borough, relative to
Resolution No. 2000-13 supporting the Conservation and
Reinvestment Act of 1999 H.R. 701 and S. 2123; jointly to the
Committees on Resources, Agriculture, and the Budget.
88. Also, a petition of Downers Grove Board of Park
Commissioners, relative to Resolution No. 00-3 urging
Congress to pass HR 701/ S 2123 the Conservation Reinvestment
Act (CARA) during its session in 2000; jointly to the
Committees on Resources, Agriculture, and the Budget.

____________________

AMENDMENTS

Under clause 8 of rule XVIII, proposed amendments were submitted as
follows:

H.R. 3605

Offered By: Mr. Hinchey

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill, add the following
new title:
TITLE III--WILDERNESS

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``San Rafael Swell Region
Wilderness Act of 2000''.

SEC. 302. DESIGNATION.

(a) In General.--In furtherance of the purposes of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), certain public lands
in Utah, comprising approximately 1,054,800 acres as
generally depicted on a map entitled ``Proposed Wilderness
within San Rafael Swell Region'' and dated March, 2000, and
as specified in subsection (b) of this section, are hereby
designated as wilderness and therefore as components of the
National Wilderness Preservation System.
(b) Wilderness Areas.--The areas designated as wilderness
by subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) The lands identified as ``Sids Mountain'' and ``Eagle
Canyon'' on the map referred to in subsection (a), comprising
approximately 112,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Sids
Mountain-Eagle Canyon Wilderness''.
(2) The lands identified as ``Mexican Mountain'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
99,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Mexican Mountain
Wilderness''.
(3) The lands identified as ``Muddy Creek'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
235,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Muddy Creek
Wilderness''.
(4) The lands identified as ``Wild Horse Mesa'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
91,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Wild Horse Mesa
Wilderness''.
(5) The lands identified as ``Factory Butte'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
25,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Factory Butte
Wilderness''.
(6) The lands identified as ``Red Desert'' and ``Capital
Reef Adjacent Units'' on the map referred to in subsection
(a), comprising approximately 40,000 acres, which shall be
known as ``Red Desert Wilderness''.
(7) The lands identified as ``Price River-Humbug'' on the
map referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
99,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Price River-Humbug
Wilderness''.
(8) The lands identified as ``Lost Spring Wash'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
35,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Lost Spring Wash
Wilderness''.
(9) The lands identified as ``Mussentuchit Badlands'' on
the map referred to in subsection (a), comprising
approximately 25,000 acres, which shall be known as the
``Mussentuchit Badlands Wilderness''.
(10) The lands identified as ``Rock Canyon'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
17,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Rock Canyon
Wilderness''.
(11) The lands identified as ``Molen Reef'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
33,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Molen Reef
Wilderness''.
(12) The lands identified as ``Limestone Cliffs'' on the
map referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
24,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Limestone Cliffs
Wilderness''.
(13) The lands identified as ``Jones Bench'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately 2,800
acres, which shall be known as ``Jones Bench Wilderness''.
(14) The lands identified as ``Hondu Country'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
20,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Hondu Country
Wilderness''.
(15) The lands identified as ``Devil's Canyon'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
23,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Devil's Canyon
Wilderness''.
(16) The lands identified as ``Upper Muddy Creek'' on the
map referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
19,000 acres,

[[Page 9623]]

which shall be known as ``Upper Muddy Creek Wilderness''.
(17) The lands identified as ``Cedar Mountain'' on the map
referred to in subsection (a), comprising approximately
15,000 acres, which shall be known as ``Cedar Mountain
Wilderness''.
(18) The lands identified as ``San Rafael Swell Reef'' on
the map referred to in subsection (a), comprising
approximately 105,000 acres, which shall be known as ``San
Rafael Swell Reef Wilderness''.

SEC. 303. MAP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

As soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of
this Act, a map and a legal description for each of the
Wilderness Areas shall be filed by the Secretary with the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
Each such map and legal description shall have the same force
and effect as if included in this Act, except that the
Secretary, as appropriate, may correct clerical and
typographical errors in such legal description and map. Such
map and legal description for each such Wilderness Area shall
be on file and available for public inspection in the offices
of the Director and Utah State Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior.

SEC. 304. ADMINISTRATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS.

(a) In General.--Subject to valid existing rights and to
subsection (b), the Wilderness Areas shall be administered by
the Secretary in accordance with the provisions of the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except that--
(1) any reference in such provisions to the effective date
of the Wilderness Act is deemed to be a reference to the
effective date of this Act; and
(2) any reference in such provisions to the Secretary of
Agriculture is deemed to be a reference to the Secretary of
the Interior.
(b) Further Acquisitions.--Any lands within the boundaries
of any of the Wilderness Areas that are acquired by the
United States after the date of the enactment of this Act
shall become part of the relevant Wilderness Area and shall
be managed in accordance with all the provisions of this Act
and other laws applicable to such a Wilderness Area.

SEC. 305. NO BUFFER ZONES.

The Congress does not intend for the designation of the
Wilderness Areas by this Act to lead to the creation of
protective perimeters or buffer zones around any Wilderness
Area. The fact that nonwilderness activities or uses can be
seen or heard from areas within a Wilderness Area shall not,
of itself, preclude such activities or uses up to the
boundary of the Wilderness Area.

SEC. 306. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this title:
(1) Public lands.--The term ``public lands'' has the same
meaning as that term has in section 103(e) of the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Wilderness area.--The term ``Wilderness Area'' or
``Wilderness Areas'' means one or more of the areas specified
in section 302(b).

H.R. 3605

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 2: Strike section 202(b) and insert the
following:
(b) Uses.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses
of the Conservation Area as the Secretary finds will further
the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established.
(2) Motorized vehicles.--Except where needed for
administrative purposes or to respond to an emergency--
(A) no motorized vehicles shall be permitted in any
wilderness study area or other roadless area within the
Conservation Area; and
(B) use of motorized vehicles on other lands within the
Conservation Area shall be permitted only on roads and trails
designated for use of motorized vehicles as part of the
management plan prepared pursuant to subsection (f).

H.R. 3605

Offered By: Mr. Udall of Colorado

Amendment No. 3: In the last subsection of section 202
(relating to wilderness Acts), strike the final period and
insert the following: ``, and in order to maintain the
options of Congress with regard to possible future
designation of lands as wilderness, the public lands in the
San Rafael area, comprising approximately 1,054,800 acres as
generally depicted on a map entitled `Wilderness Study Lands
Within San Rafael Swell Region' and dated April, 2000, shall
be administered by the Secretary in accordance with section
603(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for
preservation of wilderness until Congress determines
otherwise.''.

H.R. 4461

Offered By: Mr. Andrews

Amendment No. 23: At the end of title VII of the bill, add
the following new section:
Sec. 753. Section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42
U.S.C. 1472(h)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(13) Guarantees for refinancing loans.--Upon the request
of the borrower, the Secretary shall, to the extent provided
in appropriation Acts, guarantee a loan that is made to
refinance an existing loan that is made under this section or
guaranteed under this subsection, and that the Secretary
determines complies with the following requirements:
``(A) Interest rate.--The refinancing loan shall have a
rate of interest that is fixed over the term of the loan and
does not exceed the interest rate of the loan being
refinanced.
``(B) Security.--The refinancing loan shall be secured by
the same single-family residence as was the loan being
refinanced, which shall be owned by the borrower and occupied
by the borrower as the principal residence of the borrower.
``(C) Amount.--The principal obligation under the
refinancing loan shall not exceed an amount equal to the sum
of the balance of the loan being refinanced and such closing
costs as may be authorized by the Secretary, which shall
include a discount not exceeding 2 basis points and an
origination fee not exceeding such amount as the Secretary
shall prescribe.

The provisions of the last sentence of paragraph (1) and
paragraphs (2), (5), (6)(A), (7), and (9) shall apply to
loans guaranteed under this subsection, and no other
provisions of paragraphs (1) through (12) shall apply to such
loans.''.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 15, insert ``(increased by
$1,500,000)'' after the dollar amount.
Page 3, line 3, insert ``(increased by $197,500,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 3, line 15, insert ``(increased by $1,500,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Page 4, line 3, insert ``(increased by $45,000,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Page 8, line 22, insert ``(increased by $168,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 9, line 4, insert ``(increased by $68,000,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Page 9, line 14, insert ``(increased by $414,400,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 10, line 2, insert ``(increased by $34,100,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 28, line 15, insert ``(reduced by $930,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 2: Page 28, line 15, insert ``(reduced by
$930,000,000)'' after the dollar amount.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill, insert after the
last section (preceding the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with an entity that has
submitted information to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant
to the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the entity has,
on a total of three or more occasions after the date of the
enactment of this Act, either been convicted of, or had a
civil judgment rendered against it for--
(1) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a
Federal, State, or local contract or subcontract;
(2) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes
relating to the submission of offers for contracts; or
(3) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving stolen property.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill, insert after the
last section (preceding the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with an entity for which a
total of 3 or more convictions or civil judgments are
rendered (as determined using information available to the
Secretary of Defense pursuant to the Federal Acquisition
Regulation) after the date of the enactment of this Act for--
(1) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a
Federal, State, or local contract or subcontract;
(2) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes
relating to the submission of offers for contracts;
(3) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving stolen property; or
(4) commission of any other offense indicating a lack of
business integrity or business honesty that seriously or
directly affects the present responsibility of a Government
contractor or subcontractor.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. DeFazio

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill, insert after the
last section (preceding the short title) the following new
section:

[[Page 9624]]

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with an entity for which a
conviction or civil judgment is rendered (as determined using
information available to the Secretary of Defense pursuant to
the Federal Acquisition Regulation) for--
(1) commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a
Federal, State, or local contract or subcontract;
(2) violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes
relating to the submission of offers for contracts;
(3) commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery,
falsification or destruction of records, making false
statements, or receiving stolen property; or
(4) commission of any other offense indicating a lack of
business integrity or business honesty that seriously or
directly affects the present responsibility of a Government
contractor or subcontractor.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. Dicks

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill, insert after the
last section (preceding the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. __. Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) from amounts made available for Research, Development,
Test and Evaluation, Air Force in this Act and the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-79), an
aggregate amount of $99,700,000 (less any proportional
general reduction required by law and any reduction required
for the Small Business Innovative Research program) shall be
available only for the
B-2 Link 16/Center Instrument Display/In-Flight Replanner
program;
(2) the Secretary of the Air Force hereafter shall not be
required to obligate funds for potential termination
liability in connection with the B-2 Link 16/Center
Instrument Display/In-Flight Replanner program; and
(3) if any Act hereafter appropriates an amount for the B-2
Link 16/Center Instrument Display/In-Flight Replanner program
for fiscal year 2001 or fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of
Defense shall make such amount available for obligation not
later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of such
Act.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. Hostettler

Amendment No. 7: At the end of title VIII (page 116, after
line 22) insert the following new section:
Sec. __. (a) Prohibition Against Use of Funds For Certain
Preference.--None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to give or withhold a preference to a marketer or
vendor of firearms or ammunition based on whether the
manufacturer or vendor is a party to a covered agreement.
(b) Covered Agreement Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``covered agreement'' means any agreement
requiring a person engaged in a business licensed under
chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to abide by a
designated code of conduct, operating practice, or product
design respecting importing, manufacturing, or dealing in
firearms or ammunition.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. Kucinich

Amendment No. 8: Page 33, line 5, insert ``(reduced by
$174,024,000)'' after the dollar amount.
Page 35, lines 10 and 11, insert ``(increased by
$174,024,000)'' after the dollar amount.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. Kucinich

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. 8119. Of the amount provided in title IV for
``Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-
Wide'', not more than 1,566,214,000 shall be available for
the National Missile Defense program.
(b) The amount provided in title IV for ``Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' is hereby
reduced by $174,024,000.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. Markey

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short
title), insert the following:
Sec. 8119. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in title III of this Act may be obligated or
expended for procurement for the National Missile Defense
program.
(b) The amount provided in title III for ``Procurement,
Defense-Wide'' is hereby reduced by $74,530,000.

H.R. 4576

Offered By: Mr. Sanders

Amendment No. 11: At the end of title VIII (page 116, after
line 22) insert the following new section:

SEC. __. GRANT TO SUPPORT RESEARCH ON EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS
AGENTS AND MATERIALS BY MILITARY PERSONNEL WHO
SERVED IN THE PERSIAN GULF WAR.

(a) Grant To Support Establishment of Research Facility To
Study Low-Level Chemical Sensitivities.--Of the amounts made
available in this Act for research, development, test, and
evaluation, the Secretary of Defense shall make a grant in
the amount of $1,650,000 to a medical research institution
for the purpose of initial construction and equipping of a
specialized environmental medical facility at that
institution for the conduct of research into the possible
health effect of exposure to low levels of hazardous
chemicals, including chemical warfare agents and other
substances and the individual susceptibility of humans to
such exposure under environmentally controlled conditions,
and for the conduct of such research, especially among
persons who served on active duty in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. The grant
shall be made in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The
institution to which the grant is to be made shall be
selected through established acquisition procedures.
(b) Selection Criteria.--To be eligible to be selected for
a grant under subsection (a), an institution must meet each
of the following requirements:
(1) Be an academic medical center and be affiliated with,
and in close proximity to, a Department of Defense medical
and a Department of Veterans Affairs medical center.
(2) Enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Defense
to ensure that research personnel of those affiliated medical
facilities and other relevant Federal personnel may have
access to the facility to carry out research.
(3) Have demonstrated potential or ability to ensure the
participation of scientific personnel with expertise in
research on possible chemical sensitivities to low-level
exposure to hazardous chemicals and other substances.
(4) Have immediate access to sophisticated physiological
imaging (including functional brain imaging) and other
innovative research technology that could better define the
possible health effects of low-level exposure to hazardous
chemicals and other substances and lead to new therapies.
(c) Participation by the Department of Defense.--The
Secretary of Defense shall ensure that each element of the
Department of Defense provides to the medical research
institution that is awarded the grant under subsection (a)
any information possessed by that element on hazardous agents
and materials to which members of the Armed Forces may have
been exposed as a result of service in Southwest Asia during
the Persian Gulf War and on the effects upon humans of such
exposure. To the extent available, the information provided
shall include unit designations, locations, and times for
those instances in which such exposure is alleged to have
occurred.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than October 1, 2002,
and annually thereafter for the period that research
described in subsection (a) is being carried out at the
facility constructed with the grant made under this section,
the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the results during the year preceding
the report of the research and studies carried out under the
grant.

H.R. 4577

Offered By: Mr. Andrews

Amendment No. 1: Page 84, after line 21, insert the
following:
Sec. 518. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by title III of this Act may be used to prohibit a
State vocational rehabilitation agency, for purposes of
reimbursement for the agency under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, from counting a blind or visually-impaired person as
successfully rehabilitated under such Act if the person is
placed in a noncompetitive or nonintegrated employment
setting at the Federal minimum wage or higher.

H.R. 4577

Offered By: Mr. Gary Miller of California

Amendment No. 2: Page 64, after line 6, insert the
following:
Sec. 306. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are
revised by decreasing the amount made available under the
heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--education reform'' for
ready to learn television, and by increasing the amount made
available under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--
special education'' for grants to States, by $16,000,000.

H.R. 4577

Offered By: Mr. Paul

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill, insert after the
last section (preceding the short title) the following new
section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate or adopt any final standard under
section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d-
2(b)).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

June 6, 2000

[[Page 9625]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

IN RECOGNITION OF MR. JOSEPH BALCHUNAS

______

HON. PETER DEUTSCH

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Joseph
Balchunas, a fourth-grade teacher at Fairway Elementary School in
Miramar, Florida. On May 18, 2000, the Florida Department of Education
and the Burdines Corporation acknowledged his innovative teaching style
by naming him Florida Teacher of the Year. I would like to congratulate
Joseph on this tremendous honor, and thank him for serving as a
positive role model for the students of Fairway Elementary.
With over 130,000 public school teachers statewide, only one person
is recognized as Florida's Teacher of the Year. To select the one
educator that epitomizes the ability to teach and communicate with
students, the Florida Department of Education appoints a selection
committee of teachers, principals, parents, and businessmen. This year
the selection committee recognized Joseph for his innovative teaching
philosophy, for his exemplary school and community service, and most
importantly for his ability to inspire a love of learning in students
of diverse backgrounds and abilities.
Joseph has been teaching for only five years, making him, at age 28,
a neophyte in the long list of educators who have previously been
acknowledged as Teacher of the Year. A native of New York City, Joseph
attended Nova Southeastern University and began teaching at Dwight D.
Eisenhower Elementary in Davie before moving to his current position at
Miramar's Fairway Elementary School. Throughout his short term of
service in Broward County, Joseph has proven himself to be a hero in
the eyes of his students, speaking to them on a level they can
understand. Indeed, he has found a balance between teacher, authority
figure, and friend--a balance that makes active learning fun for
everyone involved.
Educators statewide will benefit from this amazing South Florida
teacher as Joseph serves as an ambassador for the Florida Department of
Education throughout the next year. In this role, Joseph will tour the
state and share his methodology with others. This award also qualifies
him to be considered for the honor of National Teacher of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my Florida colleagues will join me in praising
Mr. Joseph Balchunas for all of the wonderful things he is doing to
help the youth of South Florida. I would like to congratulate Joseph,
along with the students and parents of his fourth-grade class, on this
amazing accomplishment. Indeed, Fairway Elementary School and the
Broward County School Board should be very proud of Joseph for the good
work he is doing. In summary, I wish Joseph all the best in his future
endeavors, and I thank him for his extraordinary work of positively
influencing the youth of South Florida.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO RABBI DR. EUGENE MARKOVITZ

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of a remarkable person, Rabbi Dr. Eugene Markovitz of Clifton,
New Jersey, who will be recognized on Sunday, June 11, 2000 because of
his 50 years of service as the spiritual leader of the Clifton Jewish
Center. It is only fitting that he be honored, for he has a long
history of caring, generosity and commitment to others.
Rabbi Markovitz was recognized for his many years of leadership in
Clifton, which I have been honored to represent in Congress since 1997,
and so it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the
annals of this greatest of all freely elected bodies.
The 50-year relationship between Rabbi Eugene Markovitz and his
congregation has added much to the rich history of the State of New
Jersey. In addition, it has provided many years of friendship and
leadership to the Clifton and Passaic Jewish communities and the
community at-large.
Born in Romania, Rabbi Markovitz moved to America when he was 15
years old. His father, already living in the United States, brought him
to this country along with his mother and five siblings. His father was
a rabbi in Lexington, Massachusetts. Later in 1938, the family moved to
New York. During these early years he worked at Wilson's meat packers.
He spent most of his youth in Coney Island.
At Yeshiva University in New York, Rabbi Markovitz received both his
bachelors and doctorate degrees. After he was ordained he worked as a
student rabbi in Dover, New Hampshire. It was the small steps in the
beginning of his career that taught him the fundamentals that would
make him a role model to the people that he now serves.
In 1950, the Rabbi moved to Clifton with his wife Klara. The two
lived in Middle Village. Working together with 60 to 75 other families
he helped create a new Jewish congregation in Clifton. The Clifton
Jewish Center's popularity grew throughout the years. Often attracting
50 to 100 new members a year. People came from Passaic, Paterson,
Newark and New York.
Services for the Jewish Center used to be held in the Grand Union on
Clifton Avenue and junior congregation services were in the Clifton
Theater. In the 1950s the Hebrew School increased in size dramatically,
so the building was expanded in 1958. The Jewish Center reached its
peak in the late 1960s and early 1970s with 350 children attending
Hebrew School each year.
The congregation under the leadership of Rabbi Markovitz has had many
significant achievements. First, the Hebrew School helped to produce
six rabbis. In addition, the annual silent Kol Nidre appeal is a
wonderful accomplishment.
Noted for his civic involvement, the Rabbi is active throughout the
City of Clifton. He is noted as the spiritual leader of the Clifton
Jewish Center and as a good friend of the Clifton/Passaic community.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Rabbi Markovitz's
family and friends, the Clifton Jewish Center, Passaic County, the
State of New Jersey and me in recognizing the outstanding and
invaluable service to the community of Rabbi Dr. Eugene Markovitz.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF SMALL BUSINESS AND PAYING TRIBUTE TO THIS
YEAR'S SMALL BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE

______

HON. CHARLES F. BASS

of new hampshire

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
recognize several small businesses and small business leaders from my
home state of New Hampshire. As we all know, small businesses in the
United States serve as the backbone of our economy, accounting for more
than ninety-nine percent of America's employers and employing fifty-
three percent of America's workforce. The role of small businesses,
especially in New Hampshire, is essential in strengthening our economy,
expanding opportunities for employers and employees, and providing
goods and services that are second to none.
This year, several individuals and businesses from New Hampshire have
been recognized by the U.S. Small Business Administration for their
exemplary contributions to the state. At the annual ``New Hampshire's
Salute to Small Business'' dinner and awards ceremony, the following
individuals and businesses will be honored for their overall promotion
of small business and for their individual successes during the past
year:
Joseph C. Leddy, CEO of Work Opportunities Unlimited, Inc., in
Stratham, will be presented with the New Hampshire Small Business
Person of the Year Award;
Carolyn Martin, of the Keene Sentinel, will be presented with the New
Hampshire Small Business Journalist of the Year Award;

[[Page 9626]]

The Belknap County Economic Development Council, in Laconia, will be
presented with the New Hampshire Small Business Financial Services
Advocate of the Year Award;
Eileen Kennedy, of the Telegraph, in Nashua, will be presented with
the New Hampshire Small Business Women in Business Advocate of the Year
Award; and
Secure Care Products, Inc., in Concord, will be presented with the
New Hampshire Small Business Exporter of the Year Award.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that Joseph, Carolyn, the Belknap
County Economic Development Council, Eileen, and Secure Care Products
have been recognized for their contributions to small business in New
Hampshire. As a small business owner myself, I clearly understand how
necessary small business is to our economy, our community, and, most
important, to our way of life. New Hampshire is indeed fortunate to
have individuals and businesses of this exceptional caliber as members
of the small business community. I hope that the House will join me in
extending our congratulations to this year's small business award
recipients.

____________________

NATIONAL TASTE OF PIZZA MONTH

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost pleasure and privilege
that I rise today to salute the contributions of the Tony Modica Pizza
Dance Foundation and One World-One Heart, Inc., organizations which
exemplifies our nation's direction of unity and cultural exchange
through inter-generational activities and programs.
One World-One Heart, Inc., a non-profit organization, serves to
provide access to educational, recreational, cultural and
intergenerational programs for participants from all ethnic, religious,
economic and cultural backgrounds. The founders, Catherine Laport and
Steven Kaplansky have over 30 years of experience of providing non-
profit, social and recreational services to communities at large.
Tony Modica came to this country as an immigrant and became
successful in the pizza industry. This foundation is a means for him to
give back to the community through a program that benefits the elderly
and the youth. Modica uses pizza as an international symbol of unity.
Pizza is a favorite food of both young and old and its incorporation
into a program which features song and dance makes for an enjoyable
experience for all involved. The foundation has created programs that
promote unity; and encourage children to stay in school and improve
their grades. After his lectures, the students and seniors socialize
and are treated to pizza. The Tony Modica Pizza Dance Foundation and
One World-One Heart join together every year in June and sponsor a
month-long celebration of unity and to raise awareness of the joys of
life through free public activities for all ages which include
lectures, song, dance and pizza.
The concept behind the pizza campaign is a simple but powerful one.
They are not merely celebrating the worldwide love of the delicacy, but
also the theory that the pizza with its varied toppings on a round of
bread is symbolic of the many cultures in our society. Our culture,
like the toppings on the pizza is very different, yet the toppings
taste great on one foundation of bread. We as a global society have
more in common than we sometimes can imagine, and our differences can
be greatly appreciated. It is this commonality which is embedded in the
joy of life, and respect for one another that is celebrated in the
month long pizza campaign in June. The events celebrate unity and
cultural diversity in a fun, spirited way. The campaign brings together
corporate, non-profit, religious and elected officials who come
together to support a month of unity; understanding and appreciation of
cultural diversity. The Tony Modica Foundation and One World-One Heart,
Inc. are positive examples of how private citizens and non-profit
organizations can make a difference in the community with the support
of business and government.
It is for these reasons that I implore my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle to join me in recognizing The Tony Modica Pizza
Foundation, One World-One Heart and ``the Pizza'' in proclaiming June,
``The National Taste of Pizza Month.''

____________________

HONORING THE WESTCHESTER LARIATS

______

HON. STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
Westchester Lariats, a non-profit educational folk dance troupe for
young boys and girls in grades 5 through 12. The organization will soon
celebrate 50 years of community involvement.
The Westchester Lariats was founded in 1950 by Dr. J. Tillman Hall as
an after school dance club for local youth. The club has evolved over
the years into an important community program for young adults.
It is also a valuable cultural experience for the members of the
dance troupe. They have traveled extensively throughout the country
performing at various venues. The Lariats have also performed in
Mexico, Canada, Europe and Australia.
Performing American swing and square dances, in addition to Hawaiian,
European, and Middle Eastern dances, the dance troupe has entertained
the local community for the last fifty years.
I congratulate the Westchester Lariats on achieving this milestone.
You have provided joy and entertainment to many throughout the
Westchester community. I wish you continued success.

____________________

SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO CARL AND MARTHA CLOSE ON THE OCCASION OF THEIR 40TH
WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pride to rise
today to pay special tribute to an outstanding couple from Virginia's
Eleventh Congressional District, Carl and Martha Close. I extend my
best wishes to Carl and Martha, who marked their 40th wedding
anniversary on Thursday, May 18. The wedding anniversary was celebrated
by the congregation at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Bailey's
Crossroads, Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I join together today with the extended family of St.
Paul's Episcopal Church to commend Carl and Martha on this joyous
occasion and to share the warm wishes of the citizens of Virginia's
11th Congressional District.
Carl was born in Oregon and grew up in Colorado, while Martha is a
native of Alabama. He is a Harvard graduate and was the Assistant
Director of Eastern Field Operations for the Department of Interior's
Office of Surface Mining. Martha attended Radcliff and is a graduate of
American University. She completed her Masters of Science Degree at
Catholic University in Library and Information Science. Together, they
have lived in the Washington Metropolitan area for more than thirty
years. The Closes are the proud parents of two children, Carol and
Stewart.
True to their marriage vows, they have dedicated their lives to each
other and shared in the joys and challenges of marriage. As we honor
their fortieth anniversary, let us reflect on their lives, their love
for one another, and wish them a happy and healthy marriage in the
years to come.
Mr. Speaker, as Carl and Martha Close celebrate this very special
occasion, I wish them, their children, and all of their family many
years of love and happiness. I am grateful to be reminded of such a
couple and to have the opportunity to recognize such a momentous day in
their lives. I hope that their anniversary was spent celebrating the
memories of their most cherished memories together. Carl and Martha are
to be commended for their commitment to one another, and for the
wonderful example they set for their many friends and family. I wish
them many more happy and healthy days together.

____________________

TELEPHONE EXCISE TAX REPEAL ACT

______

speech of

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, May 25, 2000

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, as one of two Members of Congress to oppose
H.R. 3916, the telephone excise tax bill, I believe there is a need to
explain the reasons for my vote. I

[[Page 9627]]

opposed H.R. 3916 because this is just another fiscally irresponsible
way for the Republicans to reduce federal revenues for the vital
programs that the working families of this country rely on. The
leadership of the 106th Congress doesn't care if it squanders $20
billion in tax revenues by repealing the telephone excise tax because
it doesn't care if we have enough money to save Social Security and
Medicare for future generations. But I do care and did not vote to
repeal the excise tax.
I never heard from one constituent asking me to repeal the federal
excise tax on their phone service because it was a hardship. I did,
however, hear from Bell Atlantic who will soon raise its phone rates
and from big companies asking me to lower their phone bill. This bill
will save the average family $34 per year--no wonder there wasn't a
clamor from constituents demanding the repeal. I do hear from working
families who want a better education for their children, and from
seniors who want a Medicare prescription drug benefit. I also hear from
families who don't have any health insurance for their children or who
want a cleaner environment.
EPA estimates it will cost billions of dollars over the next twenty
years for municipal wastewater treatment programs. This funding assists
local governments in the construction of projects to manage municipal
wastewater. Untreated wastewater ends up in public drinking supplies,
lakes and rivers. This untreated water is a major source of pollution
for lakes and rivers and we need to address this problem now.
Eleven million children are without health insurance. Children are
the least expensive segment of our population to insure. Even though we
all recognize this fact, Congress insists on giving another freebie to
corporate America when we should be enacting my MediKids Health
Insurance Act.
The GOP does not have the interest of working families in mind with
their legislative agenda. I refuse to contribute to their continual
cause of promoting corporate interests. The U.S. taxpayers have told us
their priorities, and eliminating the telephone excise tax was not one
of them. We need these revenues for America's priorities. This bill
recklessly cuts $20 billion in taxes that could be used for meaningful
legislation; therefore I oppose H.R. 3916.

____________________

FORMER SENATOR BOB DOLE SPEAKS FOR WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL IN WASHINGTON,
D.C.

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this morning the Subcommittee on National
Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the
Committee on Government Reform held a hearing under the very able
leadership of my dear friend and our distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), which examined the status of
the World War II Memorial to be built here in our nation's capital.
The lead witness at this morning's hearing, Mr. Speaker, was the
distinguished former Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the
former Senator from Kansas Bob Dole. Senator Dole is a veteran of World
War II and the Chair of the National World War II Memorial Campaign.
Mr. Speaker, Senator Dole has selflessly served our nation for over
half a century. He was seriously wounded in Italy during the final
weeks of World War II. After four hard years of determined effort, he
was able to return to a useful and productive life in his native Kansas
where he served as county attorney after completing law school. In 1960
he was elected a member of Congress, and eight years later, he was
elected a United States Senator from Kansas. Between 1985 and 1996,
Senator Dole served as Republican leader of the Senate, both as
majority leader and as minority leader. His over 11 years of service as
Republican leader was the longest of any individual in the history of
the United States Senate. As my colleagues know, Senator Dole was the
Republican candidate for President of the United States in the 1996
election.
As one of our nation's outstanding veterans of World War II, Mr.
Speaker, I can think of no individual better qualified than Bob Dole to
serve as Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign.
In addition to the excellent testimony which Senator Dole provided at
this morning's hearing, he wrote an excellent piece on the World War II
Memorial which was published in today's Washington Post. Mr. Speaker, I
submit Senator Dole's article to be placed in the Record and I urge my
colleagues to read it carefully. I also urge my colleagues to support
the construction and completion of the World War II Memorial honoring
those who participated in that great conflict for the preservation of
America's freedom.

[From the Washington Post, June 6, 2000]

One Final Salute

(By Bob Dole)

Fifty-six years ago today, American and allied forces
launched the invasion that turned the tide of World War II.
What better time than this anniversary of D-Day to remember
that the peace we enjoy today was secured at a precious
price--and to recommit ourselves to honor the sacrifices of
the veterans of World War II with a memorial on the National
Mall in Washington?
It is testament to the overwhelming success of the World
War II generation that we can barely imagine a conflict in
which nearly 300 young servicemen and women died each day--
year after year after year. Unfortunately, the veterans of
that war are now passing away in even greater numbers. Before
the World War II generation is gone, we owe them one last
salute, and the peace of mind that their service will be
remembered.
Our country has endured three great challenges and has
emerged from each stronger and more united. The American
Revolution demonstrated our determination to be free, and the
Civil War tested our will to extend that freedom to all. The
third great moment of trial, confrontation and resolution
occurred nearly 60 years ago. The struggle of free men and
women against totalitarianism peaked during World War II and
lingered through the Cold War. Freedom's victory over tyranny
is now so complete that it is easy to forget the issue was
ever in doubt.
Throughout World War II, my generation was inspired by the
legacy of past defenders of freedom. Thousands of servicemen
absorbed the words of the Founders etched in stone on the
great monuments of our nation's capital. From the memorials
to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, young GIs drew deep
reserves of faith, courage and fortitude. These solid and
silent monuments did not sit idly as war raged; they passed
on America's noble purpose from one generation to the next.
No doubt future generations will be asked to mount their
own defense of American freedoms. We must act now to build a
National World War II Memorial to honor the achievements of
the last generation and to inspire future generations. We
must complete the unfinished business of World War II before
the last veterans of that great conflict are gone.
Our task is nearly complete. On Veterans Day 1995, a
deserved site on the Mall between the Washington Monument and
the Lincoln Memorial was dedicated. The Capital Campaign for
the National World War II Memorial is closing in on the $100
million goal with contributions from corporations,
foundations, veterans' groups and private citizens in every
state of the Union.
I will be accepting today a contribution of more than $14
million for the memorial--money collected from individual
Americans in Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores across the
country. This generous spirit is being replicated in
communities throughout America.
The memorial is the right statement in the right place. Its
design creates a special place to commemorate the sacrifice
and celebrate the victory of World War II, yet remains
respectful and sensitive to the vistas and park-like setting
of its historic surroundings. This summer we will seek final
approval of the design from the Commission of Fine Arts and
the National Capital Planning Commission so that we can break
ground for the memorial on Veterans Day weekend in November.
Meanwhile, another 1,000 veterans of World War II pass away
every day--so quickly that in a few years there will be only
a handful left. The youngest participants in World War II are
today in their mid-seventies--enjoying the closing chapters
of their lives.
These veterans deserve a memorial to preserve the memory of
their actions against the tide of time. It is up to us, and
the time is now.

____________________

HONORING HARLAND AND RUTH JACOB

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I now wish
to take this moment to honor two individuals that I am proud to call
friends, Harland and Ruth Jacob. On June 4, 2000, Harland and Ruth will
celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary. As family and friends gather
to celebrate this wonderful occasion, I too would like to pay tribute
to the 50 year union of these great Americans. Harland and Ruth Jacob
were married on June 4, 1950 in Bloomfield, Nebraska.
Harland had been attending the University of Nebraska in the months
prior, but was

[[Page 9628]]

forced to return to Bloomfield to run the family farm when his father
fell ill. While the illness was deeply unfortunate, it appears that Mr.
Jacob's illness had something to do with a larger plan. You see, Mr.
Speaker, had Harland not returned to Bloomfield because of his father's
illness, he never would have met his bride-to-be Ruth at a town
barbecue in the fall of 1949. As fate would have it, Ruth and her three
sisters would all later marry young men that they met for the first
time at this fateful barbecue.
Clearly smitten by Ruth, Harland didn't waste any time before seeking
Ruth's hand in marriage--Harland asked Ruth to be his wife that
Christmas. Six months later, they would start their new life together
as husband and wife.
After farming for about 3 years in Nebraska, Harland took a job with
J.C. Penney's, where he would work for the next 20 years. Together, the
Jacob family moved from town to town--J.C. Penney to J.C. Penney--all
over the midwest, eventually settling in the great town of Grand
Junction, Colorado. After retiring from Penney's many years later,
Harland, with the support and able assistance of Ruth, started up his
own carpet store in Grand Junction. Surviving a cycle of boom and busts
that claimed the life of many a business in the Grand Valley, the
Jacob's store is set to celebrate its 17th year in business. The
business, and the years of hard work put into it by Ruth and Harland,
is rightfully a source of great pride for the Jacob's and their many
friends and family. In so many ways, Harland and Ruth Jacob's
dedication to keeping their furniture store afloat--through good times
and bad--embodies the entrepreneurial spirit that makes America so
great.
While the success of their carpet business speaks volumes about Ruth
and Harland, their enduring legacy rests in their beautiful family.
Harland and Ruth are the proud parents of four--Kathy, Mike, Jean, and
Todd--the grandparents of 14--Kelly Paxton, Rachel Jacob, Jake
Zambrano, Amanda Hamblin, Elissa Zambrano, Joey Pepper, Josh Zambrano,
Megan Lawson, Greg Jacob, Matt Pepper, David Pepper, Manon Jacob, Luke
Jacob, and Amelia Jacob--and the great-grandparents of six more--Alexia
Zambrano, Jerika Hamblin, Alex Zambrano, Arianna Zambrano, Sydney
Hamblin, and Josh Zambrano.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Jacob family has been very blessed
over the course of the last 50 years. As my friends Harland and Ruth
celebrate this wonderful occasion, I want to wish them congratulations
and continued happiness on behalf of their many friends, family, and
neighbors. Ruth and Harland, we are all very proud of you!

____________________

HALT PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBYING TO PHYSICIANS TO INCREASE R&D

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record several examples of
unsolicited drug company ``freebies'' a Florida physician received in
just one week. Over the years, I have received numerous examples of
doctors being given free meals, cocktails, travel subsidies and
recreational events--all financed by pharmaceutical companies. Drug
companies spend billions a year promoting their products to physicians
through these very questionable tactics instead of using this money for
life-saving research and development.
Last January, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
found that more than $11 billion is spent each year by drug companies
promoting and marketing their products--with about $8,000 to $13,000
spent per year on each physician. JAMA concluded that present
physician-industry interactions adversely affects prescribing and
professional behavior.
Additionally, a March USA Today article described a growing trend
among pharmaceutically-financed advertising and marketing firms to
sponsor physician continuing medical education (CME) courses that
doctors in 34 states need to keep their licenses. These marketing firms
are paid by drug companies that often hire faculty to teach these
courses to push their sponsors' products.
Such evidence of pharmaceutical waste, the adverse impact of drug
company gifts on prescribing practices and the need for increased
pharmaceutical R&D led me to introduce H.R. 4089, the Save Money for
Prescription Drug Research Act of 2000. My bill would deny tax
deductions to drug companies for certain gifts and benefits provided to
physicians (other than product samples) and instead encourage drug
companies to use those funds for a much more important use--
pharmaceutical research and development.
Research and development is much more important than drug company
promotions. Our nation has reaped great rewards as a result of
pharmaceutical research. Pharmaceutical and biotech research have led
to the discovery of lifesaving cures and treatments for ailments that
would have cut lives short in earlier years. But drug companies can do
more. Think of all the additional lives that could be saved if the
pharmaceutical industry dedicated the resources now spent on physician
promotions to R&D.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to put an end to this
pharmaceutical ``giftgiving'' and to encourage research and development
of life-saving drugs. The drug industry's lobbying of physicians, which
clearly leads to distorted, inappropriate, overprescribing of drugs,
must be brought to an end.

____________________

HONORING MRS. HAZEL PAHLER

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask that we all pause for a
moment to remember a woman who we have lost, Hazel Pahler. Though she
is gone, she will live on in the hearts of all who knew her.
Mrs. Pahler was a first lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps. She was
laid to rest with full military honors, in Grand Junction, Colorado
after her battle with cancer. Mrs. Pahler was a nurse who witnessed the
horrors of war. She was dedicated to her profession and was able to
endure all the hardships of war while remaining focused on the welfare
of the soldiers.
As a result of her untiring efforts, Mrs. Pahler earned many awards.
She has been honored with the European, African and Middle Eastern
medals, the American Defense Medal, the Red Cross Service Pin, the
World War II Victory Medal and three Overseas Service Bars. She is a
remarkable person that devoted her life to the service of others.
Hazel Pahler is someone who will be missed by many. Her friends and
family will miss the woman that they all enjoyed spending time with.
The rest of us will miss this woman who exemplified the selflessness
that so few truly possess. But, when we lose a woman such as Mrs.
Pahler, being missed is certainly no precursor to being forgotten. And
everyone who ever knew her will walk through life a bit differently for
it.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE CONSUMER LEAGUE OF NEW JERSEY

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of a remarkable organization, the Consumers League of New Jersey
(CLNJ), which was recognized on Tuesday, May 16, 2000 because of its
many years of service and leadership at a dinner celebration in West
Orange, New Jersey. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the group,
so it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the annals
of this greatest of all freely elected bodies.
Since 1900, the Consumers League has fought for the rights of
consumers. Congress used ideas from CLNJ testimony in the U.S. Home
Equity Loan Consumer Protection Act, to prohibit ``rate rise
surprise.'' Congress also adopted a CLNJ measure to help save homes
from foreclosure, by giving homeowners a chance to pay their mortgages
through bankruptcy payment plans. The league helps people shop for
credit with a pamphlet on low-cost credit cards. Consumers League also
helps low income consumers with its ``rent to own'' campaign.
Consumers League of New Jersey is nonpartisan. CLNJ does not make
endorsements nor does it contribute money to candidates. They give
people an honest opinion, and try to persuade elected officials to help
consumers.
In the early 1900s children worked in factories, and many of the
protections of modern life which we take for granted were nonexistent.
Consumers League struggled for 35 years before its original agenda of
safe food, safe working conditions, prohibitions on child labor,
promotion of minimum wages laws and union protections, was enacted into
law as the New Deal.
CLNJ has always been ahead of the country in its vision of justice.
It was not until the New

[[Page 9629]]

Deal that many of the reforms championed by CLNJ became law. CLNJ was a
founding member of the National Consumers League (NCL), and worked with
NCL and unions to bring about change. CLNJ also took up the cause of
the ``watch-dial'' radium poisoning of female workers in Essex County,
New Jersey.
In the 1960s and 1970s, CLNJ leaders spoke out for consumer
protection laws, credit laws, usury limits, and enforcement of minimum
wage and child labor laws. They looked into supermarket prices. They
also went to the fields to support migrant farm-workers. Rutgers
University of New Jersey has considerable archives about the early and
middle years of CLNJ history.
From 1985 onward CLNJ has fought for consumer rights and basic
justice. For fifteen years they promoted lower interest rates by
publicizing lower interest credit cards. They gave away tens of
thousands of credit card pamphlets. CLNJ also lamented bank mergers,
which resulted in fewer choices, higher prices for consumers and
interest rates that never went down. In addition, CLNJ supported the
Fair Lending Coalition. They also helped enact New Jersey's Basic
Banking law.
From 1986-89, CLNJ's President was a member of the Federal Reserve
Board's Consumer Advisory Council. The president opposed ``checkhold''
delays. The common ground discovered between CL and bankers proved to
be the formula which Congress enacted into law: the Federal Reserve
must process checks quicker, and banks must end the long holds. In
addition, the president supported Truth in Savings, which was also
enacted.
CLNJ fought against weakening New Jersey's Secondary Mortgage Loan
Act. When the Legislature legalized abuses, less than one year later,
CLNJ testified before the United States Senate in 1987 about home
equity loans, or as CLNJ put it ``charge a blouse, put a lien on your
house.'' Congress banned what New Jersey had approved: the ``rate rise
surprise'' (the power to change a home equity contract after you
borrowed significant funds).
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the United States of
America, the State of New Jersey and me in recognizing the outstanding
and invaluable service to the community of the Consumers League of New
Jersey.

____________________

HONORING MICHAEL L. PESCE

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Brooklyn's
finest residents, Michael L. Pesce, who was recognized last night at
the First Tri Block Association's June meeting.
Michael L. Pesce was born in the small coastal town of Mola di Bari,
Italy. He and his family immigrated to America when he was 12 years of
age and settled in the Carroll Gardens section of Brooklyn. He attended
local public schools and graduated from City College with a Bachelor's
degree in Economics. Justice Pesce received his J.D. Degree from
Detroit College of Law in 1969 and was admitted to the bar in 1970. He
began his career working for the Legal Aid Society in their Hunts
Point, Bronx office, handling a wide range of civil matters.
In 1972, he was elected to the New York State Assembly, representing
the 52nd Assembly District. Over the next eight years, he served on
many committees, including Labor, Governmental Operations, and Higher
Education, and served as Chair of the Special Assembly Committee on
Ports and Terminals. During this period, he was also a partner in the
firm of Pesce & Levine.
Justice Pesce was elected to the Civil Court in 1980, and was
assigned to the Criminal Court, where he served for three years. He was
designated an Acting Justice of the Supreme Court in 1984 and was
elected to a full term in 1989 from Kings and Richmond Counties. In
1996, he was designated Administrative Judge for the 2nd Judicial
District.
He has long been actively involved in Carroll Gardens and in the
wider Italian-American community. Justice Pesce serves on the Board of
Directors of Amico, Inc., and is a member of the Board of Directors of
the Visiting Nurse Association of Brooklyn. In 1986, the Italian
government granted Justice Pesce the title of ``Cavaliere'' (Order of
Merit). Please join me in honoring Justice Michael L. Pesce, one of
Brooklyn's finest.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE MILFORD HIGH ``WE THE PEOPLE'' TEAM

______

HON. CHARLES F. BASS

of new hampshire

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the ``We the People'' team from
Milford High School in Milford, New Hampshire. These outstanding young
students recently won an award at the ``We the People'' national finals
held in Washington, D.C. As you may know, the ``We the People'' mock
hearings test student knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. The Milford
students were recognized for their expertise on the following subject:
How Did the Values and Principles Embodied in the Constitution Shape
American Institutions and Practices? The dozen Sophomores, Juniors, and
Seniors competed against 50 other classes from throughout the nation.
The team demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the fundamental
ideals and values of American constitutional government.
I had the privilege to serve as a judge for this year's state
competition to come to Washington for the national competition. It was
apparent to me then that the Milford High School students had the
knowledge, team-work, and enthusiasm necessary to successfully compete
against 50 other classes from throughout the nation. These students can
be proud of their award winning performance.
I was honored to have the team visit me here on Capitol Hill during
their trip to Washington for the national competition. I would like to
take this opportunity to congratulate the following students for their
performance at the national ``We the People'' competition: Adam Berger,
Jon Butt, Jenn Catherine, Vanessa Chretien, Mike Gott, Keith Holt, Pam
Murphy, David Norway, Mike Parisi, Abby Parker, Pete Phillips, and
Ashley Standbridge.

____________________

HONORING MR. RYAN PATTERSON

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize
the accomplishments of an outstanding student, Ryan Patterson. His
innovative mind has won him a parade of awards, most recently he has
won top prize in the Colorado Science Fair. He also represented
Colorado at the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, in
which he won almost $10,000.
His outstanding invention rightfully called ``Sleuthbot'' is a
computerized device schools can use to seek out bombs or suspicious
individuals without getting put into harms way during a crisis. Mr.
Patterson traveled to Detroit with 1,200 other students from 40
countries to compete in the Intel International Science and Engineering
Fair. His accolades from the competition are extensive, but most
admirable is the $250 and a paid internship he received from Axonne
Corp. Mr. Patterson is a model for all students to follow and one that
will be sure to achieve great things for the good of mankind. He has
proven to be an asset to his school and community.
It is with this, Mr. Speaker, that I say congratulations to Ryan
Patterson on a truly exceptional accomplishment. Due to his dedicated
service and ingenuity, it is clear that Colorado is a better place.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2559, AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT OF
2000

______

speech of

HON. EVA M. CLAYTON

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, May 25, 2000

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Agriculture Risk Protection Act (H.R. 2559) conference report. I
commend Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for their efforts
to craft comprehensive legislation which will help restore the safety
net for agriculture producers.
Risk management tools such as crop or revenue insurance provide
protection from yield or price declines within a growing and marketing
season. Indeed statistics for North Carolina show that over the last
ten years the number of acres insured has increased from 581,764 in
1988 to 2,844,524 in 1999. Participation is very high, with 82 percent
of acres covered for tobacco, 83% of acres covered for peanuts, and 89%
covered for cotton.
In 1999, $131 million in liability was paid to North Carolina
producers who suffered crop damages, first from drought and then from

[[Page 9630]]

three hurricanes and subsequent historic flooding in eastern North
Carolina. Even with these payments North Carolina producers will
benefit greatly from their portion of the additional emergency
assistance monies, which nationwide total $7.1 million over two fiscal
years (2000 & 2001), provided by this legislation. This includes $340
million for tobacco farmers to compensate for economic losses along
with $47 million in economic assistance for peanut producers, which
equates to $30.50 per ton for quota peanuts and $16 for additional
peanuts. I am especially thankful that we have included provisions
which address conditions created when producers suffer multiple years
disasters.
Additional emergence assistance provisions include:
$40 million for USDA to provide soil, water and natural conservation
assistance for farmers in the form of cost share or incentive payments;
$10 million for USDA's Farmland Protection Program
$34 million FY 2000 and $76 million in FY 2001 for USDA to purchase
additional food commodities for distribution to schools participating
in the school lunch program
$32 million in FY 2001 available for a variety of agricultural
research programs including those related to soil, science, forest
health and management, tobacco research for medicinal purposes and
reducing and managing waste in livestock and poultry operations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support and vote for the
conference report.

____________________

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2559, AGRICULTURAL RISK PROTECTION ACT

______

speech of

HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Thursday, May 25, 2000

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide a more
detailed explanation--including a section-by-section analysis--of the
Biomass Research and Development (R&D) Act of 2000 included as Title
III of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Reduction Act.
The Biomass R&D Act of 2000 combines features of three separate bills
that were referred to the Committee on Science: Title I of S. 935 and
H.R. 2827, the National Sustainable Fuels and Chemicals Act of 1999;
and H.R. 2819, the Biomass Research and Development Act of 1999. This
important piece of legislation would help fund the research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) necessary to bring to market
affordable biobased industrial products, including fuels, chemicals,
building materials, or electric power or heat produced from biomass.
I want to express my appreciation to many Members of the House and
Senate for all of their hard work in crafting the Biomass R&D Act of
2000. This includes: the Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Hall of Texas)
and Mr. Udall of Colorado of the House Committee on Science; the
Chairman (Mr. Combest) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Stenholm) of
the House Committee on Agriculture; the Chairman (Mr. Ewing) and
Ranking Minority Member (Mr. Condit) of the House Committee on
Agriculture's Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research and Specialty
Crops; the Chairman (Mr. Lugar) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr.
Harkin) of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry;
and the Chairman (Mr. Murkowski) and Ranking Minority Member (Mr.
Bingaman) of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Section-by-Section Analysis--Biomass Research and Development (R&D) Act
of 2000--(Title IV of H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Reduction Act)

Section 401. Short Title.

Section 401 cites Title III as the ``Biomass Research and
Development Act of 2000'' (hereafter, ``Act'').

Section 402. Findings.

Section 2 lists 13 findings.

Section 403. Definitions.

Section 403 defines ten terms: (1) ``Advisory Committee,''
(2) ``Biobased Industrial Product,'' (3) ``Biomass,'' (4)
``Board,'' (5) ``Initiative,'' (6) ``Institution of Higher
Education,'' (7) ``National Laboratory,'' (8) ``Point of
Contact,'' (9) ``Processing,'' and (10) ``Research and
Development.''
The term ``biomass'' means ``any organic matter that is
available on a renewable or recurring basis, including
agricultural crops and trees, wood and wood wastes and
residues, plants (including aquatic plants), grasses,
residues, fibers, and animal wastes, municipal wastes, and
other waste materials.'' The conferees gave specific
consideration to a proposal to exclude old-growth timber and
unsegregated municipal solid waste (garbage) from the
definition of biomass, and rejected the proposal as being
scientifically unsound.
Also, the term ``research and development'' means
``research, development, and demonstration.'' Department of
Energy (DOE) activities conducted under this Act are subject
to the cost-sharing provisions of section 3002 of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-486).

Section 404. Cooperation and Coordination in Biomass Research and
Development

Section 404 mandates cooperation and coordination between
the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy with
respect to policies and procedures that promote R&D leading
to the production of biobased industrial products. In order
to facilitate this cooperation and coordination, a senior
official in each of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and DOE is to be designated as a ``point of contact.'' The
points of contact are to assist in arranging interlaboratory
and site-specific supplemental agreements for research,
development, and demonstration projects relating to biobased
industrial products; serve as cochairpersons of the Board;
administer the Initiative; and respond in writing to each
recommendation of the Advisory Committee.

Section 405. Biomass Research and Development Board.

Section 405 requires the Secretaries of Energy and
Agriculture to jointly establish the Biomass Research and
Development Board to coordinate programs within and among
departments and agencies of the Federal Government for the
purpose of promoting the use of biobased industrial products.
This Board is to supercede the Interagency Council on
Biobased Products and Bioenergy established by Executive
Order 13134. This section also specifies the Board's: (b)
membership, (c) duties, (d) funding, and (e) frequency of
meetings.

Section 406. Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory
Committee.

Section 406 establishes the Biomass Research and
Development Technical Advisory Committee, which is to
supercede the Advisory Committee on Biobased Products and
Bioenergy established by Executive Order 13134. This section
also specifies: (b) the Advisory Committee's membership and
appointment process; (c) duties; (d) coordination; (e)
frequency of meetings; and (f) terms. With respect to terms,
section 406(f) specifies that members of the Advisory
Committee shall be appointed for a term of 3 years, except
that--(1) \1/3\ of the members initially appointed shall be
appointed for a term of 1 year; and (2) \1/3\ of the members
initially appointed shall be appointed for a term of 2 years.

Section 407. Biomass Research and Development Initiative.

Section 407(a) requires the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Secretary of Energy, acting through their respective
points of contact and in consultation with the Biomass
Research and Development Board, to establish and carry out a
Biomass Research and Development Initiative under which
competitively awarded grants, contracts, and other financial
assistance are provided to, or entered into with, eligible
entities to carry out research, development, and
demonstration on biobased industrial products.
Other provisions of Section 407 address: (b) the purposes
of grants, contracts, and other financial assistance under
this section; (c) eligible entities; (d) uses of grants,
contract, and assistance; (e) technology and information
transfer to agricultural users; and (f) authorization of
appropriations.
Section 407(c)(2)(D) requires that preference be given to
applications for grants, contract, and assistance under this
section that: (i) involve a consortia of experts from
multiple institutions; and (ii) encourage the integration of
disciplines and application of the best technical resources.
However, this ``preference'' is not meant to negate the
requirements of Section 407(c)(2)(D) requiring that ``grants,
contracts, and assistance under this section be awarded
competitively, on the basis of merit, after the establishment
of procedures that provide for scientific peer review by an
independent panel of scientific and technical peers''.
Section 407(f) provides that in addition to funds
appropriated for biomass R&D under the general authority of
the Secretary of Energy (which may also be used to carry out
this Act), there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Agriculture to carry out this Act $49.0 million
for each of fiscal years 2000 through 2005.

Section 408. Administrative Support and Funds.

To the extent administrative support and funds are not
provided by other agencies under section 408(b), section
408(a) authorizes the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary
of Agriculture to provide such administrative support and
funds of DOE and USDA to the Board and the Advisory Committee
as are necessary to enable the Board and the Advisory
Committee to carry out this Act. Section 408(c) provides that
not more than 4 percent of the amount appropriated for each
fiscal year under section 407(f) may be used to

[[Page 9631]]

pay the administrative costs of carrying out this Act.

Section 409. Reports.

Section 409 specifies the Act's reporting requirements,
which include: (a) an initial report and (b) annual reports.

Section 410. Termination of Authority.

Section 410 terminates the authority under this Act on
December 31, 2005.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SAUL ZAENTZ

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of the acclaimed film producer, Saul Zaentz of Passaic, New
Jersey, who was feted on Friday, May 19, 2000. It is only fitting that
the Second Ward Educational and Charitable Foundation, Inc. in
cooperation with the Passaic Board of Education celebrate the
dedication of the auditorium at the William B. Cruise Memorial School
Number 11 as the Saul Zaentz Auditorium because of his remarkable
talents and contributions to the entertainment industry and society as
a whole. He is honored for his professional successes and never
forgetting his roots.
Saul Zaentz was born on February 28, 1921 in Passaic. He has produced
only eight movies since 1975, yet three have won the best picture
Oscar. These are The English Patient (1996), Amadeus (1984), and One
Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975). In addition, his film The
Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988) was nominated for multiple Oscars.
He has a three-film version of the J.R.R. Tolkien epic Lord of the
Rings trilogy in production. The first of the three, The Fellowship of
the Ring, is due out in December of 2000. In 1978, he produced an
animated film version of the book.
The 76-year-old's effort, The English Patient, won nine Oscars. The
making of The English Patient is a story in itself. Saul entered a
partnership with 20th Century Fox for the film, but the studio insisted
on big-name casting. Unwilling to compromise, he found another backer
in Miramax. Because of the size of the budget, the producer also
persuaded the entire cast and crew to defer half their salaries until
the film recouped its costs.
In addition to winning an Oscar for The English Patient, Saul
garnered the honorary award, the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award from
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This only adds to a
lifetime of achievement. The special award goes to, ``creative
producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of
motion picture production,'' according to Academy rules.
The audience at the 1997 Academy Awards, the night of his triumph,
was filled with actors and other film professionals who have worked
with Saul. They all gave him a standing ovation.
In 1937, Darryl F. Zanuck, Jr. won the first Thalberg Award and Saul
was the 33rd winner. The previous time the Academy conferred the award,
in 1995, it went to Clint Eastwood.
This native of Passaic, who struggled for years to bring The English
Patient to the screen, was given the Producers Guild's Darryl F. Zanuck
Award as producer of the year. He also received its Eastman Kodak
Vision Award for his ``special cinematic vision'' and took home a
Golden Laurel marking his movie as the best drama of the year. Although
it is only eight years old, the guild's awards have a near perfect
record for predicting the best-picture Oscar.
As a producer Saul's filmography includes many notable productions.
In addition to his Oscar winning ventures, he has produced At Play in
the Fields of the Lord (1991), The Mosquito Coast (1986) and Three
Warriors (1977). He served as Executive Producer for Payday (1972). In
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, he took an uncredited turn as an
actor, playing the captain on the shore when the boat returns.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Saul's family and
friends, the Second Ward Educational and Charitable Foundation, Inc.,
the Passaic Board of Education, the City of Passaic, the State of New
Jersey and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable
achievements of Saul Zaentz.

____________________

HONORING A TRUE AMERICAN HERO, ALFRED RASCON

______

HON. STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American
hero, Medal of Honor recipient Alfred Rascon. Rascon risked his own
life suffering serious injury to save the men of his battalion during
the Vietnam War.
Alfred Rascon, a soft-spoken Army medic, exhibited the type of
heroism that few encounter in a lifetime. On March 16, 1966, Rascon and
his unit, a reconnaissance platoon for the 173rd Airborne Brigade's 1st
Battalion, 503rd Regiment, was advancing through the jungle in Long
Khanh Province to assist another battalion that had come under fire.
However, Rascon's unit was ambushed before they reached the besieged
battalion. Through heavy gunfire and grenade blasts, Rascon risked his
life during the intense battle tending to his fallen comrades.
Twice Rascon jumped on wounded soldiers to shield them from grenades,
taking the shrapnel himself. He was also shot while shielding another
member of his platoon. Despite these wounds, he was still able to
retrieve a machine gun and ammunition that helped keep the enemy at
bay, saving his platoon. Rascon served his country with the utmost
diligence, and saved the lives of many. The wounds he suffered that day
were so serious that he was given last rites.
Alfred Rascon did survive, and despite many years and the red tape of
bureaucracy, he was awarded the Medal of Honor this past February. I
commend his remarkable display of bravery. His loyalty to his battalion
is an inspiration to all.
I congratulate Alfred Rascon on receiving the much-deserved Medal of
Honor. His heroic actions that day in March saved the lives of his
battalion. He is a great American. He went beyond the call of duty to
serve his country. For that, the nation expresses its gratitude.

____________________

A SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO REINHART ``ART'' AND MARIE SCHMIDT ON THE OCCASION
OF THEIR 70TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
rise today to pay tribute to Art and Marie Schmidt, two notable members
of the Northern Virginia community. On Wednesday, May 17, 2000, the
Schmidt's marked their 70th wedding anniversary. The wedding
anniversary was celebrated by the congregation at St. Paul's Episcopal
Church in Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I join together today with the extended family of St.
Paul's Episcopal Church to commend Art and Marie on this joyous
occasion and to share the warm wishes of the citizens of Virginia's
11th Congressional District. Anytime our community honors the 70th
anniversary of any accomplishment, it is a moment to cherish. When we
then celebrate a marriage of 70 years, a marriage of dedication,
patience, love, and understanding, we are struck by the power and
beauty of this human commitment. Grand occasions such as this magnify
the many blessings that have been bestowed upon this wonderful couple.
The Schmidts have given generously of their personal time and
resources to their family and to our community. Throughout their lives
together, they have worked hard, appreciating the opportunities that
life has offered them. Art and Marie are fifty-five year residents of
the Bailey's Crossroads area of Northern Virginia. They have witnessed
the transformation of Fairfax County from a sleepy suburb of our
Nation's Capital into a cultural and commercial destination in its own
right. The loving couple are the proud parents of three children;
Robert, Marilyn, and Doug.
After living in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago, the Schmidts
moved to the Washington D.C. metro area where Art was in charge of the
weather bureau at National Airport in Arlington, Virginia. At that
time, the weather bureau was part of the U.S. Department of Commerce
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration had not been
created. Marie was a telephone operator for Bell Atlantic. Their
commitment to public service, our Nation, and their neighbors are the
hallmark of their careers.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me, their neighbors, family
and friends in wishing Art and Marie Schmidt a happy 70th wedding
anniversary. I am grateful to be reminded of such a loving couple and
to have the opportunity to recognize such a momentous day in their
lives. Art and Marie are to be commended for their commitment to one
another, and for the wonderful example they set for their many friends
and family. I wish them many more happy and healthy days together.

____________________

[[Page 9632]]

TRIBUTE TO CHERYL DOUGHERTY--FULBRIGHT SCHOLAR

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to
congratulate Cheryl Dougherty for receiving the U.S. Department of
Education's 2000 Fulbright-Hays Scholarship. She is one of 30 American
teachers to receive this prestigious award out of an applicant pool of
over 10,000. The scholarship will engage Cheryl in a six-week program
that will allow her to travel to Poland and Hungary.
Ms. Dougherty is no stranger to international travel and education.
Some of her academic travels have taken her to such destinations as
Hawaii and Japan. She is a former participant of the Fulbright Memorial
Scholarship program where she was given the opportunity to travel and
teach in Japan. Cheryl was even given the opportunity to address
Japanese students in their native language, a commendable experience.
She believes it is crucial to educate our youth on different cultures
and customs. She is constantly encouraging her student base to interact
and become aware of these differences. It is not uncommon for her
students to exchange letters or videos with students from different
countries.
It is encouraging to honor teachers of Cheryl's caliber. With more
teachers like her, we can continue to dissolve cultural barriers and
promote international prosperity. I am confident she will continue to
strive for academic excellence and further the knowledge of our youth.

____________________

HONORING OPHELIA YOUNG PERRY

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ophelia Young Perry.
Though a native of Buckingham County, Virginia, she presently resides
with her mother, Thelma Jones and husband, William Frank Perry Jr. in
the Bushwick section of Brooklyn, New York. They have one son, William
Frank Perry III.
She is an assistant to Brooklyn Borough President Howard Golden, and
serves as a liaison to the Brooklyn Christian community. She has been
an active member of the Berean Missionary Baptist Church in Brooklyn
for 49 years. Ophelia has a passion for her community and civic
affairs. She is currently the president of ChurchWomen United in
Brooklyn, an ecumenical movement of Christian women. Under Mrs. Perry's
leadership, the membership has increased to include over 700 Christian
women. It is the largest unit of CWU in the country.
CWU sponsors many other activities to raise funds for contributions
to others in need, such as it's Prison Ministry and holiday sharing
program where 2,000 bedside bags are annually prepared and distributed
to hospitals, nursing homes and to those who are incarcerated. The
group also contributed to world wide church activities. In addition to
supporting the Bedford-Stuyvesant Ambulance Service, recently CWU
really supported the flood victims in North Carolina.
In response to shrewd spiritual insight, Ophelia conceived the idea
for an observance centered on ``The Seven Last Words of Christ''. For
16 years, the ecumenical worship service has begun at 7:00 am on Good
Friday and the attendance continues to grow. These services have been
held in various community churches and have continued to draw over
3,000 worshipers. Participants travel throughout the metropolitan area
and from many other parts of the United States to attend this annual
worship celebration.
Ophelia Perry serves as the chairperson of the Development Committee
of the Brooklyn Division of the Council of Churches. She is a lifetime
member of the National Council of Negro Women, Brooklyn section. She is
also a member of the Society for the Preservation of Weeksville.
Ophelia has been honored and recognized for her civic work and
achievements. Her many awards include: ``Woman of the Year''--The
National Conference of Christians and Jews; Salute to Brooklyn Women
Leadership Humanitarian Award--The Brooklyn Urban League; The Caribbean
American Award--Chamber of Commerce: Outstanding Service Award--The
Council of Churches--City of New York; ``Woman of Influence''--Brooklyn
YWCA; Thomas R. Fortune Community Service Award--Unity Democratic Club;
Valiant Women Award--Church Women United; The Sandy F. Ray Award; and
The Christian Service award.
I wish to recognize the lifelong efforts of Ophelia Young Perry, and
wish her continued success in her future endeavors.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF WIRELESS SAFETY WEEK, MISS AMY SPARKS, AND GN NETCOM

______

HON. CHARLES F. BASS

of new hampshire

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
recognize Wireless Safety Week 2000, which is held the week leading
into Memorial Day Weekend (May 22-28, 2000). Wireless carriers and
hardware manufacturers have sponsored this initiative every year since
1990 to focus attention on the benefits of responsible cell phone use.
During Wireless Safety Week 2000, the wireless industry reminds
customers and consumers that safety is the most important call they
will ever make.
More than 90 million people in the United States today take advantage
of the convenience, value and safety of wireless phones. One of these
90 million is Ms. Amy Sparks, of Bethlehem, New Hampshire.
Ms. Sparks used her wireless phone twice in one week to call for
emergency assistance. While on her way from school, she witnessed a car
accident and immediately called emergency services and offered road-
side assistance to those involved. Two days later, Amy again witnessed
an accident. Once more she called emergency assistance and stayed with
the drivers until help arrived on the scene. That Amy is a Good
Samaritan and heroine is evident.
GN Netcom has been an integral part of the Nashua, New Hampshire
community since 1995, and employs over 250 highly-skilled employees.
This company has grown over the last 13 years to become the world
leader in cordless/wireless headset solutions. P. Michael Fairweather,
President and CEO of GN Netcom, has long been active in helping to
educate consumers on their need to use their wireless phones safely and
responsibly. The entire wireless industry deserves credit for its
strong effort to educate the American public of the responsibility each
of us has when using a wireless phone while driving.
In closing, I wish to commend Amy Sparks for her quick and admirable
actions, and all GN Netcom employees for their efforts to save lives,
stop crime, summon assistance, and make their communities a better
place to live.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE 65TH INFANTRY REGIMENT FROM PUERTO RICO/BORINQUENEERS

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention to
the deeds of the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico, which was
recognized on Friday, May 26, 2000 because of its many years of service
and leadership. The regiment, honored by the Puerto Rican Parade of
Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000, is celebrating a
century of service to the nation and the 50th anniversary of its
participation in the Korean Conflict.
The 65th Infantry Regiment was organized on March 2, 1899; one year
after United States Military Forces occupied Puerto Rico during the
Spanish-American War. The group began as a volunteer force charged with
defending the island. Even though it was an active Army Regiment,
Puerto Ricans that enlisted or were appointed as officers in the 65th
could expect to spend their entire military careers in Puerto Rico.
In 1917, one year after Puerto Ricans were granted American
citizenship, the 65th was reorganized as the Puerto Rican Regiment of
Infantry. In 1920 it became the 65th Infantry Regiment.
During World War I, the 65th Infantry protected the Panama Canal Zone
against Germany and other opposing nations. After the war, they
returned to garrison duty in Puerto Rico.
During World War II, the 65th moved first to Panama in January of
1943, then to France in September 1944. The 65th fought in several
European battlefields, including, the decisive skirmish near the River
Arno, the Ardennes and other key engagements along the French and
Italian borders. The unit also carried out

[[Page 9633]]

civil actions and security duties such as guarding high-ranking Nazi
officials during the Nuremberg trials.
The 65th became a highly decorated unit during the second World War,
with members earning the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Stars,
90 Purple Hearts, 22 Bronze Stars and 1,367 Combat Infantry Badges,
After the war, the group returned to garrison duty in Puerto Rico.
On September 23, 1950, the 65th Infantry Regiment entered the Korean
Conflict. This unit, the only segregated Hispanic unit in the Army's
history was composed mostly of native Puerto Ricans. In Korea the group
participated in nine major campaigns, saw intense action and
distinguished itself with gallant combat performances. It became one of
the most highly decorated army units in history. These honors include a
United States Presidential Unit Citation, a Meritorious Unit
Commendation, two Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citations and the
Greek Gold Medal for Bravery.
The men of the 65th Infantry, the ``Borinqueneers'' as they came to
be known, were awarded four distinguished Service Crosses, 155 Silver
Stars, 562 Bronze Stars and 1,014 Purple Hearts among other awards.
Borinqueneers is a word indigenous to Puerto Rico meaning, ``native
islander.''
The United States Army dissolved the 65th Infantry Regiment in 1956.
On February 15, 1959 the 65th Infantry became a regiment in the Puerto
Rico Army National Guard.
Today the 65th Infantry continues its proud tradition of service as
part of the 92nd Infantry Brigade.
In 1992, the National Guard honored the unit with a Heritage
painting. The scene depicts the regiment conducting a bayonet charge
against a Chinese division in Korea on February 2, 1951. More than
61,000 Puerto Ricans served in the Korean Conflict. More than 6,000
served in the 65th. In addition, more than 732 Puerto Ricans lost their
lives in Korea.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Puerto Rican Parade
of Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000, Puerto Rico, the
United States and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable
contributions of the 65th Infantry Regiment from Puerto Rico.
Throughout its 100 years of service, the 65th has always lived up to
its motto, ``Honor and Fidelity.''

____________________

S. 1402, VETERANS AND DEPENDENTS MILLENNIUM EDUCATION ACT

______

HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of the House
version of this measure, I commend the House and the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee for bringing this long-awaited increase in education
resources for veterans to quick passage. I urge the Senate to accept
the House version and send this bill to the President.
In this legislation, we boost Montgomery GI bill funding
significantly. The increase is fully offset and will go directly to
veterans to help pay for their education. The bill would primarily
increase the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit from $536 to $600 per
month on October 1, 2000, and to $720 per month on October 1, 2002, for
full-time students, with proportionate increases for part-time
students. I am disappointed that we cannot offer a benefit which is
tied to the real escalating costs of higher education, and plans that
recognize the actual growing costs of tuition should be given their
day.
As a college professor who taught and advised students who were
eligible for Montgomery GI bill benefits, I know first hand the
tremendous help that this program has conferred upon those who have
served their nation.
I am pleased with the additional provisions of S. 1402. As amended,
these include:
1. Furnishing individuals still on active duty who either turned down
a previous opportunity to convert to the MGIB or had a zero balance in
their Vietnam-era Veterans' Education Assistance Program (VEAP)
account, the option to pay $2,700 to convert to MGIB eligibility.
2. Increasing survivors' and dependents' educational assistance
benefits for full-time students from $485 to $600 per month effective
October 1, 2000, and $720 per month effective October 1, 2002, with
proportionate increases for part-time students; also authorizes an
annual cost of living adjustment.
4. Permiting the award of Survivors' and Dependents' Educational
Assistance payments to be retroactive to the date of the entitling
event, that is, service-connected death or award of 100 percent
disability rating.
5. Allowing monthly educational assistance benefits to be paid
between term, quarter, or semester intervals of up to 8 weeks.
6. Allowing use of MGIB benefits to pay the fee for a veteran's
civilian occupational licensing or certification examination.
The added flexibility this bill would provide is crucial as more and
more veterans seek higher education after their service. While this
does not satisfy all the problems that may be out there or emerge in
the future, it goes a long way in boosting the finest educational
program for those who have served, the Montgomery GI bill.
I regret missing the vote on this important bill, where I would have
voted aye on passage, as I was in the district attending my daughter's
high school graduation.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO NORBERT L. KANE, AN OUTSTANDING EDUCATOR AND CHICAGO CITIZEN

______

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to a
dedicated educator who has spent the last 44 years serving the Chicago
Public School (CPS) system and the Southwest side of Chicago. This
year, Norbert L. Kane, an Assistant Principal at Hubbard High School,
will be retiring after 35 years of hard work for local students.
Norbert Kane represents all that Chicago citizens can ask for in an
educator. He is a devoted family man, married to Delores Kane and a
father of six children. Professionally, Norbert excelled in the program
of management for Hubbard High School--Region 5. With his many
organizational talents, Norbert earned the respect of his many
colleagues and students.
In addition, Norbert has been honored for his many self-less
contributions to the 3rd Congressional District and Southwest Chicago.
For several years, Mr. Kane administered the Combined Charities
Campaign, as well as numerous blood drives. He has also served as
American Legion District Commander--1st Division, while being
constantly committed to the beautification of Hubbard High School.
Mr. Speaker, Hubbard High School is regrettably going to lose an
outstanding Assistant Principal and public servant. It gives me great
pleasure to share Mr. Kane's accomplishments with my colleagues today.
Again, I thank Norbert L. Kane for his many years of service, and I
wish him equal success in his retirement.

____________________

THE RESURRECTION PROJECT CELEBRATES ITS 10TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to pay
tribute to the Resurrection Project (TRP) for its invaluable work
creating healthy communities on the occasion of its 10th anniversary.
Founded on May 22, 1990 by a coalition of Pilsen churches, The
Resurrection Project is an institution-based neighborhood organization
whose mission is to build relationships and challenge people to act on
their faith and values to create healthy communities through
organizing, education and community development.
The Resurrection Project provides assistance through community
organizing, family programs, housing services, real estate development,
asset management and workforce and business development.
The Resurrection Project builds institutional power and develops new
leadership by organizing through its member institutions and block club
network. TRP prepares leaders to actively participate in the issues
affecting their community. TRP's Family and Community Programs respond
to the developmental needs of children, adults and families by building
upon their values and culture. Each program works to build skills and
create opportunities that promote stronger families. TRP programs
include Esperanza Familiar (Family Hope), Supportive Housing Programs
and the Centro Familiar Guadalupano (Guadalupano Family Center). The
Housing Services division educates families on property ownership
issues and facilitates investment by residents and financial
institutions into the community.

[[Page 9634]]

TRP staff provides home owner education, client counseling and
oversees the marketing and sales for its New Homes program. The
Resurrection Project also develops and renovates community-owned real
estate in a sustainable, affordable manner. TRP undertakes the property
acquisition, financial packaging and construction management for its
rental housing and commercial developments. TRP also oversees the
physical, financial and tenant management of all its properties,
ensuring the long term sustainability of the organization's real estate
projects. TRP is developing the economic capacity of community
residents through an innovative approach to workforce and business
development. The Resurrection Construction Cooperative provides
entrepreneurial assistance to new and emerging construction related
businesses. The Resurrection Loan Fund provides working capital loans
up to one-hundred thousand dollars to these businesses. The
Resurrection Employment program offers comprehensive support to
individuals seeking better employment. Staff provides support on an
individual basis, assessing skills and guiding participants through the
job-seeking process.
Resurrection Project's exceptional work for our community has been
recognized with awards such as the LaSalle Bank's Tom Gobby Community
Leadership Award, BP Amoco Foundation's BP Amoco Leader Award for job
creation, Bank of America's Community Impact Award and Fannie Mae
Foundation's Maxwell Award of Excellence for the Production of Low
Income Housing.
Some of TRPs accomplishments include building 112 new homes for low
and moderate income families, developing a new daycare and after school
care center for 208 children, assisting 32 local contractors to begin,
develop and expand their own construction businesses, creating a
bilingual second stage housing program for homeless single mothers and
generating more than twenty-five million dollars in community
investment.
I have witnessed the many positive accomplishments of the
Resurrection Project throughout my community. The organization's hard
work, commitment and dedication is invaluable to the people I serve. I
commend the Resurrection Project for ten years of building affordable
new homes and rental housing, helping businesses grow, challenging
community residents to become leaders and strengthening families
through the development of new child care centers.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO FERNANDO LUIS GARCIA, EURIPIDES RUBIO, JR., CARLOS JAMES
LOZADA AND HECTOR COLON SANTIAGO

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call your attention to the
deeds of four distinguished servicemen, who were honored on Friday, May
26, 2000 by the Puerto Rican Parade of Paterson 2000/Desfile
Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000 in coordination with Memorial Day. It is only
fitting since these soldiers, Fernando Luis Garcia, Euripides Rubio,
Jr., Carlos James Lozada and Hector Colon Santiago are among the 3,400
plus brave men that have merited the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor
is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force that
can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the
United States. The Medal is generally presented to its recipient by the
President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it
is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor. The world lost four
truly remarkable people when these four brave men perished while in the
line of duty.
Fernando Luis Garcia served as a Private First Class in the United
States Marine Corps, Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine
Division. He entered the service in San Juan Puerto Rico. He was born
on August 14, 1929 in Utuado, Puerto Rico.
The stellar life of Fernando Luis Garcia was cut short when he was
killed in Korea on September 5, 1952. An excerpt from his citation
notes, ``He was intrepid in his service as a member of Company I, in
action against enemy aggressor forces. PFC Garcia unhesitatingly chose
to sacrifice himself for the life of another Marine. His great personal
valor and cool decision in the face of almost certain death, sustain
and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Services.
He gallantly gave his life for his country.''
Euripides Rubio, Jr. attained the rank of Captain in the United
States Army in Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion,
28th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division, RVN. He entered the service at
Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico. He was born on March 1, 1938 in Ponce,
Puerto Rico.
The military exploits of Euripides Rubio were marked with bravery and
valor. He started his tour of duty on July 10, 1966 and lost his life
on November 8, 1966 in Tay Ninh Province, Republic of Vietnam. He was
28 years old. His citation shows he was feted for, ``Braving withering
fire, aiding the wounded, unhesitatingly assuming command and
selflessly exposing himself to enemy fire. Captain Rubio's singularly
heroic act turned the tide of battle, and his extraordinary leadership
and valor were a magnificent inspiration to his men.'' His name can be
found on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC on the wall
panel 12E, row 44.
Carlos James Lozada served his country at the rank of Private First
Class in the United States Army, 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry, 173rd
Airborne Brigade. He entered the service in New York City, New York. He
was born on September 6, 1946 in Caguas, Puerto Rico.
The venerable Carlos James Lozada began his tour of duty on June 11,
1967. He was struck down, while missing, at the age of 21. He died on
November 20, 1967 in Dak To, Republic of Vietnam. Part of his citation
reads, ``PFC Lozada apparently realized that if he abandoned his
position, there would be nothing to hold back the surging North
Vietnamese solders and that the entire Company withdrawal would be
jeopardized. He made this decision realizing that the enemy was
converging on three sides. His heroic deed served as an inspiration to
his comrades throughout the ensuing four-day battle.'' His name is
inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial wall panel 30E, row 45.
Hector Colon Santiago's rank was Specialist Fourth Class. He served
in the United States Army, Company B, 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry
Division. He entered the service in New York City, New York. He was
born on December 20, 1942 in Salinas, Puerto Rico.
A remarkable individual, Hector Colon Santiago began his tour of duty
on October 23, 1967. He died at the age of 25 on June 28, 1968 in Quang
Tri Province, Republic of Vietnam. A portion of his citation states,
``Specialist Fourth Class Santiago-Colon distinguished himself at the
cost of his life while serving as a gunner in the mortar platoon of
Company B. He heroically sacrificed himself to save the lives of those
who occupied the foxhole with him, and provided them with the
inspiration to continue fighting until they had forced the enemy to
retreat from the perimeter.'' His name is etched in the wall of the
Vietnam Veterans Memorial on panel 54W, Row, 13.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, the Puerto Rican
Parade of Paterson 2000/Desfile Puertorriqueno, Inc. 2000, Puerto Rico,
the United States and me in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable
achievements and sacrifices of Fernando Luis Garcia, Euripides Rubio,
Jr., Carlos James Lozada and Hector Colon Santiago. Each of these men
was cited for, ``Conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of
his life above and beyond the call of duty.''

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MARY KORTE--PRESIDENTIAL AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to
congratulate Mary Korte for receiving the 1999 Presidential Award for
Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. She is one of 200
teachers to receive this prestigious award nationally and one of four
to receive this award from Colorado. She will also receive a $7,500
grant in the name of Grand Junction High School in conjunction with the
award. Her dedication and enthusiasm are unsurpassed in the field of
math and science.
Mary's real passion lies in educating her students about the
environment. A class entitled ``River Dynamics'' is one included in her
curriculum. This class allows students to rigorously investigate rivers
using many different academic skills. She encourages students to be
``hands on'' and enjoys seeing them actively participate in their
environmental communities.
It is encouraging to see teachers of Mary's stature receive awards
for excellence in their prescribed academic rigor. Mary has also
received the Radio Shack National Teachers Award among her many
accomplishments. I am confident she will continue to strive for
academic excellence and continue to encourage our future generations to
pursue an active role in the health of their environment.

____________________

[[Page 9635]]

THE ADMISSION OF ISRAEL TO THE ``WEOG'' GROUP AT THE UNITED NATIONS IS
A CRITICAL STEP FORWARD

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago the leaders of Western
Europe took an immensely important step by inviting the State of Israel
to join the ``Western Europe and Other Group'' (WEOG) at the United
Nations. Membership in a regional grouping is significant at the United
Nations because seats on the UN Security Council and other similar
rotating positions are made through regional caucuses.
Israel has been a member of the United Nations since 1949--the year
after the State of Israel was officially proclaimed--but during that
half century, until it was invited to join the WEOG group last week, it
was never a member of a regional group. As a result, Israel is the only
country in the UN never to hold one of the rotating Security Council
seats.
Mr. Speaker, this welcome decision is one that many of our colleagues
in the Congress have fought to achieve through letters, resolutions and
similar actions. Several months ago, at my suggestion, the ambassadors
in Washington of the countries who are members of the WEOG group were
invited to a meeting with members of the Committee on International
Relations, where we pressed for the inclusion of Israel in that
regional grouping. This important meeting made clear to our friends in
Western Europe the importance that we in the Congress have given to
this issue, and I think it was essential in helping to overcome the
ill-founded resistance to Israel's participation in WEOG.
As I said to that large group of ambassadors attending the meeting,
geographical proximity is not a consideration since WEOG includes,
Turkey, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in
addition to the countries of Western Europe. Israel's strong links with
Europe and North America as well as its advanced economy make its
interests and policies very consistent with those of the other
participants in the WEOG. Israel's exclusion from the Asia Group and
the Middle East subgroup is a case of blatant discrimination and a
deliberate effort to de-legitimize the State of Israel.
Some of the countries who are members of WEOG were particularly
supportive of Israel's participation, and I want to thank in particular
the United Kingdom, as well as the northern countries of Denmark,
Norway, Sweden and Finland for their enlightened efforts on this
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute to many of those who
have worked to bring Israel into more complete participation in the
United Nations.
The United States representative to the UN, Ambassador Richard
Holbrooke, has been an important voice for resolving this issue. He
appropriately called this decision to admit Israel to WEOG ``the
rectification of a long-standing and wholly inexcusable exclusion of
one country--and one country only--from any of the regional groups of
the United Nations.''
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also has personally been involved in
the effort to resolve this important issue. When Israel was invited to
join the WEOG the Secretary General said ``this step rectifies a long-
standing anomaly'' which ``should pave the way for Israel to
participate on an equal footing with other nations in the main organs
of the United Nations, and it upholds the principle, enshrined in the
Charter, of equality among all member states.''
Mr. Speaker, this temporary membership for Israel in WEOG is not the
final step for Israel's full participation in the United Nations, and I
am disappointed that the United Nations is still treating Israel
differently than other nations. Although Israel will be a member of
WEOG, it has been asked to forgo the opportunity to take its turn
holding the most influential seats, such as the Security Council, for
the foreseeable future. Also, the invitation does not include the right
to participate in European caucuses at United Nations regional offices
in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi. The failure to include Israel in Geneva
caucuses is significant because the UN Human Rights Commission is
headquartered in Geneva, and this organization has frequently taken a
hostile attitude toward Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the decision of the WEOG to invite Israel to
participate, but I emphasize that this is only a first step.
Unfortunately, this first step does not fully rectify the half-century
of discrimination at the United Nations to which the State of Israel
has been subjected. I look forward to Israel's full participation, and
I invite my colleagues to join me as we continue our efforts in this
regard.

____________________

AUTHORIZING EXTENSION OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT (NORMAL TRADE
RELATIONS TREATMENT) TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

______

speech of

HON. TIM ROEMER

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday May 24, 2000

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering an incredibly
important piece of legislation, legislation that will affect the way
our Nation and our world move into the next millennium. However, I
would like to outline three simple points that should show why
supporting Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China is the right
thing to do, both for the benefit of the United States and the people
of China. Those three points are the economic benefits to American
workers and business, the human rights benefits for the people of
China, and the necessity to move forward into a more productive and
challenging relationship with the government of China.
First, and most important to our communities and constituents, is the
way in which PNTR for China will help Americans economically.
Many people become understandably confused over the complexities of
trade policy. However, the necessity of PNTR can be easily explained.
China will soon be joining the WTO, and that is not a matter to be
decided in Congress. However, as part of the terms of their accession
to the WTO, China has been required to negotiate a bilateral trade
agreement with the United States. We won those negotiations.
The agreement that was reached requires China to throw open their
doors to American business and agriculture. They will reduce tariffs on
American-made products from automobiles and aircraft landing systems,
to soybeans and pork products. They will dramatically reduce existing
quotas on American made products. They will increase the access to
their domestic economy by opening up distribution and marketing
channels. All of these changes mean that American businesses will be
able to sell more of their products to more Chinese people. At the same
time, the United States gives up nothing to the Chinese--not one single
thing. There is absolutely nothing in this agreement that would
encourage an American company to move to China. In fact the agreement
actually gives American companies more incentive to stay in the United
States. More exports to China means more jobs for Americans at better
wages. Passing PNTR will change the status quo, and allow us to export
American products, not American jobs.
However, if this body fails to pass this measure today, the United
States will not be able to take advantage of that deal. The current
status quo will remain, and American companies will find it
increasingly difficult to sell their wares to a booming Chinese market.
In fact, due to the fact that the European Union, and other countries
in Asia and around the world have similar agreements with China,
American companies will actually be worse off than they are now! The
other WTO members will be able to market their products to China more
efficiently than we can, effectively shutting the United States out of
the China market.
The choice is simple: Economic stagnation and regression, or
commercial growth and prosperity. We need to respond to the new global
economy, driven by a technological revolution, with a new fair trade
policy.
The choice is just as clear on the issue of human rights.
It may be easy for people in Washington, D.C. to speculate what
policies might be best for the Chinese people. However, when it comes
to improving the human rights and political freedoms of people in
China, I tend to place more weight on what the people in China,
fighting those fights every day, think is best for themselves.
The following human rights advocates strongly endorse this new
policy:
Martin Lee--chairman of the Democratic Party of Hong Kong which
struggles daily to maintain the freedoms that are unique to that
region;
Xie Wanjun--chief director of the China Democracy Party, most of
whose members are now in detention in China;
Nie Minzhi--a member of the China Democracy party who is under house
arrest as we stand in this Chamber today;
Zhou Yang--a veteran of the 1979 Democracy Wall movement;
Bao Tong--a persecuted dissident and human rights activist;

[[Page 9636]]

Dai Quing--an environmentalist and writer who served time in prison
after Tiananmen Square;
Zhou Litai--a pioneering Chinese labor lawyer who represents injured
workers in legal battles against Chinese companies;
Even the Dalai Lama himself, probably the most famous Chinese
dissident in the world, supports WTO accession.
All of these people have been fighting for democracy and freedom in
China on the ground, day-to-day. They all say the same thing: Support
PNTR for China. They say this because they have seen how the annual
renewal of NTR for China has become a bargaining chip for an oppressive
government. They have seen firsthand how engagement with the United
States has made China a more open society. They don't want to become
isolated from the world. They want to join us in freedom and democracy.
Working to ensure human rights in China is the right thing to do.
However voting against PNTR is not the way to do it. We need to listen
to the brave people fighting the good fight on the ground in China, and
we need to pass PNTR. Very prominent Americans, such as Gen. Colin
Powell, Rev. Billy Graham, and President Jimmy Carter agree with this
approach.
Finally, I want to stress the need for a change in our relationship
with China. While we have come to see some improvement in China since
the late 1970's, the Chinese government has still remained insular,
resistant to change, and unwilling to allow sweeping reforms. The
relationship between our two countries has warmed, but it has not
completely thawed.
Voting against PNTR is telling China and the rest of the world that
you like things the way they are today; that you prefer the status quo.
As a an elected representative to Congress however, I cannot in good
conscience say that keeping the status quo with China is best way for
our country to proceed in this new millennium.
Isolation and recriminations in the face of repression get us
nowhere. One only has to look next door to China to North Korea. We cut
that country off from the world fifty years ago, and look what happened
to them. North Korea is easily one of the most unstable, irrational,
and hostile nations on this planet. Human rights and political freedoms
are non-existent, and on top of it all, their people are slowly
starving to death in a massive famine. Is that what we want China to
become? Do we want to shut China off from the world? Will we refuse to
challenge and engage the Chinese government?
I say that pursuing a policy of thoughtless isolationism is not only
economical suicide for the American worker, it is also callously
dismissive of those brave souls in China who are trying to create
change and fight for human rights.
We must vote for PNTR today. We must actively work to make our world
a better place for our children. We must reach out to the Chinese and
attempt to lead them down the right path to embrace our values of
democracy, open markets, and human rights. We must help them become a
modern nation. The United States will probably be the main beneficiary
of this evolution in China, but it will help the Chinese people some
day join our fellowship of democratic nations with a respect for
universal human rights.

____________________

CONDEMNING THE ACTIONS OF IRAN REGARDING 13 JEWISH CITIZENS

______

HON. MICHAEL P. FORBES

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage about the
ongoing activities in the City of Shiraz, Iran. Thirteen Jewish
citizens of Iran were arrested on Passover eve in 1999 for allegedly
spying for Israel and the United States, despite adamant denials from
both countries regarding these trumped-up allegations. These
individuals, including rabbis, religious teachers, and community
activists, have committed no crime other than openly practicing the
Jewish religion. In Iran, members of the Jewish faith are prohibited
from holding any positions that would grant them access to state
secrets or sensitive materials; thus, there is no possibility that
Israel or the United States would employ 13 Jewish individuals to be
spies--particularly those living hundreds of miles from the capital
city of Tehran. According to the Los Angeles-based Council of Iranian
American Jewish Organizations, Iranian officials have even admitted
that the charges of espionage were false. ``They have never claimed
there 13 people were spies. . . . They were very forthright and up
front about the fact that this is part of a game, and to show that Iran
will not be bullied and that they have ultimate control over their
citizens.''
The Iranian government's false accusations of spying and arrests of
innocent individuals on these sham charges are wholly unacceptable. If
these ludicrous charges are allowed to stand, these innocent
individuals may be found guilty and executed. The government of Iran
must know that the world community is watching and will not stand by
idly and accept this treatment of our contemporaries!
Since the arrests over one year ago, the Iranian government has
treated these Jewish citizens in a deplorable manner and denied them
any due process. Primarily, the government detained these innocent
individuals for over one year without being charged. During that time,
they were barely allowed any visitors. Moreover, no attorney was
allowed to visit or meet with the 13 Jewish citizens. Finally, the
three youngest citizens were released on bail, but the other ten Jewish
citizens are still being wrongly detained. Inherently unfair, the
``judge'' is also the investigator, chief interrogator behind bars,
prosecutor, and jury in this sham trial. These trials are devoid of
public attendance; there is virtually no information or evidence
provided, only hollow conclusionary and coerced confessions without any
details.
Recent actions have brought further concerns. Just before the
``trial'' began in early May, a leading Iranian cleric delivered a
sermon over state radio declaring, ``These people are spies . . . they
are Jews and are . . . by nature enemies of Muslims.'' Most
disconcerting, since the beginning of May, these Jewish citizens are
beginning to ``confess'' to crimes that they did not commit. Now the
Iranian government is showing these alleged confessions on television.
This vicious propaganda is impacting Jews negatively throughout Iran.
Jews throughout the country--even Jewish children--are experiencing
harassment on the street, at work, and in school. There are reports of
anti-Jewish graffiti and fears of an economic boycott of Jewish-owned
shops. This anti-Semitism and persecution of Jews must stop, and it
must stop immediately.
The oldest Jewish Diaspora community and the biggest in the Middle
East after Israel, Jews lived in peace in Iran for more than 2700
years. In 1979, there were 80,000 Jews living comfortably in Iran.
Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, however, the Iranian government
has consistently articulated anti-Israel and anti-Semitic propaganda.
In the last twenty years, seventeen Jews have been executed on charges
of spying, and Jewish property has been confiscated. Many of these
executions occurred without any trials of the accused. Now, there are
only 25,000-30,000 Jewish citizens, and the entire Jewish community is
threatened by further state sponsored religious persecution.
In May, we in Congress took steps to emphasize how seriously this
sham trial will affect Iran's status in the world community. We wrote
to the World Bank and contacted nations on the bank's loan approval
board to urge postponement of pending loans for development projects
for Iran. Unfortunately, loans to Iran were approved for hundreds of
millions of dollars. Our government--President Clinton and Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, rightfully indicated that the World Bank
should not have made these loans to Iran at the very time that its
government was conducting these sham trials. Nonetheless, Members of
Congress or other world leaders will not overlook the outcome of this
``trial.''
In addition, I am a proud co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 307, a critical
resolution introduced by my New York colleague, Mr. Benjamin Gilman.
This important measure expresses the sense of Congress that the Clinton
Administration should condemn the arrest and prosecution of these 13
Jewish individuals, demand that the fabricated charges be dropped and
the individuals released immediately, and ensure that Iran's treatment
of this case is a benchmark for determining the nature of current and
future relations between the United States and Iran. We must work
quickly and diligently to pass this important resolution.
I stand here to urge the government of Iran to release all 13 wrongly
imprisoned citizens and drop all charges against these innocent
individuals immediately. I also urge our government to continue to
apply pressure to the government of Iran until this anti-Semitic
behavior is terminated. We must be vigilant and work tirelessly until
the government of Iran has restored freedom and respect to all its
people.

____________________

[[Page 9637]]

TRIBUTE TO ROBERT FOSTER, CLIFTON OPTIMIST YEAR 2000 FRIEND OF YOUTH
AWARD

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of a remarkable person from my district, Robert Foster of
Clifton, New Jersey, who was recognized on Friday, May 12, 2000 at the
Optimist Dinner because of his many years of service and leadership.
The Clifton Optimist Year 2000 Friend of Youth Award was conferred upon
him at a dinner held at the Clifton Boys and Girls Club. It is only
fitting that he is honored, for he has a long history of caring,
generosity and commitment to others.
Robert was recognized for his many years of leadership in Clifton,
which I have been honored to represent in Congress since 1997, and so
it is only fitting that these words are immortalized in the annals of
this greatest of all freely elected bodies.
Each year the Clifton Optimist Club recognizes a special person for
his work with youth. This year the award is bestowed upon Robert,
Director of the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton. He is an excellent
choice for this honor because he embodies the theme ``Friend of Youth''
with his dedicated service and affiliations involving the children of
the City of Clifton.
Robert is a graduate of Springfield College in Springfield,
Massachusetts. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Recreation
and Leisure Services from the school in 1980.
From the time of his graduation, twenty years ago, until the present
day, Robert has worked at the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton, Inc.
improving the lives of young people. He began his career as the Teens/
Social Recreation Director of the club. In January of 1986 he became
the program director for the organization. This change brought him a
greater range of responsibility. The time spent working as the Teen/
Social Recreation Director instilled in Robert the attributes necessary
for him to become a stellar force in the community. It was the small
steps in the beginning of his career that taught him the fundamentals
that would make him a role model to the youths that he now serves.
Known for a questioning mind and an ability to get things done,
Robert was promoted to his current position of Director of Operations
in September of 1991. He is responsible for the daily operations of the
Boys and Girls Club of Clifton. The club currently serves 2,200 youths
from the ages of two and a half to seventeen.
Robert continually touches the lives of the people around him. This
is exemplified by his club affiliations. He is a member of the Clifton
Optimist Club and is a Clifton Stallions Soccer Club Trustee. In
addition, he is a member of the Clifton Board of Recreation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Robert's family and
friends, the Boys and Girls Club of Clifton, the City of Clifton and me
in recognizing the outstanding and invaluable service to the community
of Robert Foster.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO GEORGE STRAFACE--FORMER DISTRICT 51 SUPERINTENDENT

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to thank
George Straface for the time he spent as Superintendent of District 51
in western Colorado. George Straface truly had a passion for education
and it was evident in the effort he put forth. George dedicated nearly
20 years of his life to District 51, six of them acting as
Superintendent. His presence will surely be missed.
George brought to the District an ability to balance all of the
difficult tasks that are required of a superintendent. He did his job
to the best of his ability and influenced all of the educators around
him. His abilities to listen to and motivate people distinguished him
in his leadership role. Not only was George able to accommodate the
many needs of parents, teachers, and students, but also George's strong
vision helped make the District a reputable model for others around the
state.
Mr. Straface will continue his pursuit of furthering education as he
has agreed to take the position of Head of Schools in Westminster,
Colorado. I am sure that he will continue to put education as the first
priority on his agenda and continue to encourage educators to assist
students in furthering their learning endeavors. I wish him the best of
luck and thank him for his dedicated effort.

____________________

REMARKS OF RABBI IRVING GREENBERG AT THE DAYS OF REMEMBRANCE
COMMEMORATION

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 4, Members of Congress
joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, executive and
judicial branch officials and hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their
families to commemorate the Days of Remembrance in the Great Rotunda of
the United States Capitol. The theme of this year's commemoration was
``The Holocaust and the New Century: The Imperative to Remember.''
Even after more than half a century, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative
that we continue to commemorate the horrors of the Holocaust in order
to honor the memory of those victims of Hitler's twisted tyranny. We
must also mark this catastrophe because mankind still has not learned
the lessons of this horror, as evidenced most recently by the mass
killings in Kosovo.
Mr. Speaker, Rabbi Irving Greenberg, the newly designated Chairman of
the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, delivered a moving
address at this year's Day of Remembrance ceremony. Rabbi Greenberg was
appointed Chair of the Holocaust Council on February 15 of this year.
He previously served as a member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Council's founding board from 1980 to 1988 and again as a member of the
board since 1997. He is a pioneer of Holocaust remembrance and
education in the United States and in the Jewish-Christian dialogue
that has sought to revise theology in light of the Holocaust. He
received his Ph.D. from Harvard University, he is the President of the
Jewish Life Network in New York, and from 1974 to 1997 he served as the
founding President of the National Jewish Center for Learning and
Leadership. He also was executive director of President Jimmy Carter's
Commission on the Holocaust. He and his wife, Blu Grenauer Greenberg,
have five children.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that Rabbi Greenberg's excellent remarks at the
Days of Remembrance ceremony in the Capitol be placed in the Record,
and I urge my colleagues to give them thoughtful consideration.

Rabbi Irving Greenberg's Remarks: Days of Remembrance--May 4, 2000

``Behold I place before your today [for your choice] life
and good, death and evil'' (Deuteronomy 30:15)
And again: ``I call heaven and earth to witness to you:
[the choice of] life and death I have placed before you, the
blessing and the curse; choose life so that you and your
children may live.'' (Deuteronomy 30:19)
These biblical words are more than sacred scripture. They
are the wisdom of living.
Every moment of living is a moment of choice. From the time
we are born, we start to die. Unless we choose to live,
unless we choose to love, to create children, to build
society, then death will win out finally. No action is
neutral. The next food we choose to eat is a choice of health
and life or it is harmful and a choice of death. The next
word we speak is a word of love, of healing, of encouragement
and hope, or it is a word of stereotyping and degradation, of
dismissal and death of the soul. The next act we do builds
society and repairs the world; or, it is an act of vandalism,
of environmental degradation, of breaking down the world and
death.
As it is with individuals so it is with societies and
nations. There are forces that can be deployed for human
dignity and freedom and life or these same forces can be
deployed to degrade and enslave, that is in the service of
death.
Sixty to seventy years ago, in a tragic process we now call
the Holocaust, nations and individuals made a series of
decisions that in sum added up to the choice of death for
millions and millions.
Panicked by economic depression and fear of social
instability, millions of German voters chose to undermine
democracy. They voted for a politician promising to restore
them by removing the conflicts and risky choices of modern
society, by concentrating power and by excluding foreigners
and strangers and Jews. Thereby they unleashed a force of
death. Fearful of making hard choices and of confronting an
extremist, political leaders chose to make a pact with the
devil and brought Adolf Hitler to power. Then legislators
elected to go along with concentrating that power. Then the
Nazis chose to suppress democracy, to crush the unions and
the socialists and to exclude and isolate the Jews. Then
jurists opted to go along with perverted justice and
bureaucrats decided to classify and discriminate. These were
all choices that brought death to power. These were the
choices of death.

[[Page 9638]]

Two thousand years earlier, a great world religion had
chosen to pursue its own encounter with God and salvation and
its message of love. But those great people chose to express
their spiritual liberation in the form of a religious
monopoly and asserted that Christianity had superceded the
mother religion, Judaism. This claim was followed by
stereotyping and devaluation of the carriers of the ancestral
religion, the Jews. Thereby Christians set the Jews up in
isolation, as targets of hatred and stereotyping. In the 20th
century, in the hands of new pagans, new secular racists,
even anti-Christians, these attitudes were turned into lethal
decisions to rain death and destruction on the Jews.
In the Holocaust, whole societies chose death. Generals in
the German Army chose to set up killing squads. Businesses
competed to build gas chambers and crematoria and supply
poison gas. Corporations elected to use slave labor and work
people to death.
Democracies chose to close their doors to refugees and to
remain indifferent and inactive in the face of the anguished
cries for help of the victims. Hundreds of thousands of
professionals and workers exercised their career choices to
seek out and deliver Jews to their cruel fate. Millions of
neighbors chose to remain silent or to look the other way or
even to actively cooperate with despoliation and death.
Unchecked by counter choices, the forces of death and
degradation always spread their focus. The Nazis set up a
machinery of oppression so millions of Poles were enslaved
and persecuted and whole cadres were seized and killed. Roma/
Gypsies were rounded up and tens of thousands were killed.
Millions of Russian POW's were starved and brutalized and
executed.
Worldwide, Jewish leadership failed to grasp the enormity
of the catastrophe and to risk all their standing to goad or
dragoon the world into acting to save lives.
These were all choices of death. In a cascade of such
choices, humanity abandoned millions of humans. Death reigned
supreme and the forces of hatred killed and degraded
millions.
After the war, banks chose to deny the survivors the return
of their own bank accounts, and insurance companies rejected
paying for life insurance policies they had issued. Others
opted to reject responsibility for this catastrophe or for
healing its survivors. Others choose to this day to deny that
this tragedy even happened.
Thus in the 20th century, a realm of death was created. A
decision to kill a whole people--every last person--was made
by a government and six million Jews died in the Shoah. When
humanity looked into the abyss and realized that it now had
the power of technology and human nature had the capacity for
evil to the point of unlimited murder and the death of life
itself.
It would appear that the world failed to stop the triumph
of death. But death and evil did not have the final word.
Then the survivors arose. They chose not to revenge, not to
hate, not to give up in despair and go silently to the grave.
They chose life. They chose to love, to marry, to have
children, to make new lives in new places. The Jewish people
arose and rebuilt its life; it created the State of Israel
where 250,000 survivors and millions of refugees created
themselves anew. Jewry took power to protect itself.
Throughout the world, millions, then hundreds of millions
learned the lesson: NEVER AGAIN should people of any
religion, of any race or color, be vulnerable and dependent
for their dignity on the arbitrary power of others. National
liberation and the demand for self-determination spread
worldwide. Then outsiders, and second-class citizens, and
second-class genders and sexual orientations learned the
lessons of the Holocaust and determined to be free and equal
by right. They chose to work for a world where human dignity
would be universal and human life supported by political/
cultural/legal structures by right. And traditional groups
shifted from passive acceptance to activity to insure that
their values be heard and their dignity upheld.
For decades now, more and more people have awakened to the
need to learn the lessons of this catastrophe. Out of love of
life, they determined to preserve the memory of the victims,
of their lives, of their dignity and courage in their
struggle for existence, of their worlds that were destroyed.
Thus they chose to reaffirm the value of life. More and more
religions chose to confront the tragic flaws which
facilitated this catastrophe and moved to purify themselves.
More and more Christians worldwide have studied the lessons,
confessed the sins and determined to correct the teachings.
Thereby Christianity chose life and love again and reasserted
its own vitality as a gospel of love bringing healing to the
world.
This process led the United States Government to establish
a United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on the national
mall, and to establish Days of Remembrance in the very week
of Yom Hashoah when the survivors and the victims' families
devote their days to remembering. Millions of Americans--the
vast majority not Jewish, not Poles or Gypsies or gays or any
of the Nazis' victims whose story is told in the Museum--come
there to confront the painful truth. Through this encounter,
they learn how democracies fail, when governments turn
indifferent, and by what process bureaucracy, technology, and
obedience were turned into servants of death. Inwardly they
pledge to work that this democracy shall not fail; that never
again will this people stand by indifferently as millions of
others are degraded or destroyed.
Each of these steps represents the choice of life.
Everywhere, people are coming to understand that the evil
we have witnessed, this model of death and degradation cannot
be ignored or even bypassed. Rather there must be an active
response--nothing less than a mighty outburst of freedom, a
choice to universalize human dignity for life. Worldwide,
there is a frenzy of attempts to restore the human image of
God that was defaced and destroyed. There are urgent efforts
to clear up stereotypes in religion or culture that degrade
others or may lead to indifference to their fate. There is a
powerful thrust to develop pluralism in culture, in religion,
in political process, in economic power--to prevent any
concentration of power that could lead to a future choice of
destruction or suppression of others.
Everywhere worldwide, these forces turn to the study of the
Holocaust. Millions seek out encounter with its story and
people because the encounter evokes the forces of love,
compassion, human responsibility, the forces of life.
Wherever people seek life, they draw strength from the
bedrock of memory. Everywhere, humanity is driven by the goad
to conscience which is intrinsic in Holocaust education.
Of course the forces of death are not quiescent. Out of
fear of a changing world and the transformation of culture,
intolerance reasserts itself. Forms of fundamentalism which
deny others their freedom of religion appear. Anti-Semitism
and denial of the rights of foreigners and other outsiders
surge again. Forces of neo-Nazism and terrorism strengthen.
Not surprisingly, such forces often deny the reality of the
Holocaust or belittle its dimensions.
We are asked. Will there be an imperative to remember the
Holocaust in the 21st century? The answer is: As long as
humanity chooses life, then more and more people will
remember and learn the lessons of the Holocaust. Then
governments will more likely intervene to stop genocide, more
likely create open, pluralist multi cultural societies, more
likely deny dictators the claim that no one dare interfere in
their internal affairs.
The true question is not whether humanity will honor the
imperative to remember the Holocaust. The true question and
challenge is: will humans rise to greatness in the choice of
life.
Can our conscience seared by the fires of Auschwitz, become
an irresistible political force so nations will not tolerate,
nay, will intervene to stop genocide? Can the model of the
survivors and the righteous gentiles, inspire us to a new
human solidarity that will enable all peoples to live in
freedom and peace?
The memory of the victims and the voices of the survivors,
the actions of the righteous and the rescuers call out to us:
Choose life that you and your children may live.

____________________

POPE JOHN PAUL II CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL ACT

______

speech of

HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, May 23, 2000

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3544 which
would award the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II. As he
celebrates his 80th birthday this Thursday, May 25, the spiritual
leader of more than one billion Catholics around the world and millions
of Catholics in the United States deserves our nation's highest
Congressional honor.
In the recent past, we have honored Mother Teresa and South African
President Nelson Mandela. The Pope clearly serves in such company as a
global figure who continues to make an impact on spiritual and moral
leadership and the struggle for equal rights and protection for all
people.
There is no doubt that historians of the future will single out Pope
John Paul II as one of the most influential leaders of his time. He
used all the modern tools in transportation and communications to
personally deliver his message of love and compassion to the far
reaches of the globe. He not only made dialogue, but also influenced
world movements such as the fall of Communism and the beginning of the
third millennium of Christianity on earth.
We are fortunate to have lived in such changing times and to have had
such leaders as the Pontiff who recognized the ever-changing facets of
life around him and took steps to utilize necessary tools to effect
change for the better. As he travels the world, he leads by

[[Page 9639]]

example as a symbol of tolerance, peace and fairness not only for
Catholics, but for people of different faiths, ethnicity and economic
status. I commend the House for bringing this legislation to the floor
and urge the enactment of this bill as expeditiously as possible.

____________________

COMMENDING ISRAEL'S REDEPLOYMENT FROM SOUTHERN LEBANON

______

speech of

HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to vote to commend Israel for
its courageous decision to withdraw from southern Lebanon.
Israel stands as a reminder of the courage and strength of the human
spirit--and what it can accomplish. Against all odds and enemies, the
people of Israel have united to build a strong nation. It has not been
an easy journey, but it has been a triumphant one. Now, more than ever,
as Israel strives to build a stable and peaceful region, it is vital
that we unite behind its efforts.
This critical step must be followed by equal efforts by Israel's
neighbors. It is vital that all foreign forces withdraw from Lebanese
territory, that all acts of terrorism against the people of Israel
cease, and that southern Lebanon be given a real chance of rebuilding
and reintegrating. Southern Lebanon must never become the home base for
attacks against Israel again.
Congratulations again to Israel for taking this brave step and for
continuing to stand as an example of courage, vigilance, and dedication
to peace.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE HONORABLE AMOS C. SAUNDERS

______

HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention the
deeds of a man whom I and countless others consider to epitomize
justice and fairness, the Honorable Amos C. Saunders of Totowa, New
Jersey. Judge Saunders was recognized on Monday, May 15, 2000 at the
Brownstone House in Paterson, New Jersey, because of his many years of
service and leadership in the courtrooms of Passaic County, New Jersey.
He marked the end of his stellar career when he retired on March 1,
2000. It is only fitting that Judge Saunders be honored in the annals
of this great body for his unwavering efforts in the name of the law.
For the past 23 years Judge Amos Saunders has become one of the most
well respected Superior Court Judges in the State of New Jersey. Judge
Saunders has presided over criminal, civil and family courts and was
the judge in Passaic County with the most judicial experience. Judge
Saunders last sat in the Chancery Division, in which he served for the
last 10 years. In doing his job, Judge Saunders' motto was, ``Use your
common sense, be practical, read all the papers and listen.'' It is by
these words that he served as judge, but anyone who knows Judge
Saunders knows that these words simply understate his jurisprudential
excellence. As a leader in the judicial community, Judge Saunders'
rulings have often served as both a precedent and a resource for other
judges.
As a judge in the Chancery Division, Judge Saunders had the
opportunity to handle probate, estate cases and injunctions. Over the
years, however, Judge Saunders perhaps became best known as a
nationally respected expert on the legal aspects of the sport of
boxing. He handled many high profile boxing cases in his court
including those of the prominent boxing promoters Lou and the late Dan
Duva and Don King. In 1997, the International Boxing Digest magazine
listed Judge Saunders as number 16 in the list of boxing's 50 most
influential people.
Born in Paterson on March 9, 1934 and raised in Paterson and Fair
Lawn, New Jersey, Judge Saunders has spent his years in dedicated
service to the community. Judge Saunders received his Bachelor of Arts
degree from Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia. Upon graduation he
enrolled in Columbia Law school in New York where he received his law
degree in 1958. During the first 18 years of his career, Judge Saunders
worked as a private civil attorney from 1959 until 1977.
In 1977, Judge Saunders was appointed to the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Passaic County by then Governor Brendan T. Byrne, and took the
bench on December 7, 1978. In addition to his work in the courtroom,
Judge Saunders has served as a lecturer for the National Judicial
College. He is also the founding president of the Justice Robert L.
Clifford American Inn of Court. In addition, Judge Saunders served as
Administrative Judge to the Bi-State Waterfront Commission of New York
Harbor.
In his retirement Judge Saunders has expressed interest in focusing
on a new career, his family, his golf game, fishing and travel. In
March of 2000 he began work at Carlet, Garrison and Klein, LLP in
Clifton, New Jersey as Counsel to the Firm in Mediation and
Arbitration. He currently resides in Totowa with his wife Janet, his
high school sweetheart. The couple, who married in 1955, has three
children and three grandchildren.
As a Congressman and former mayor of Paterson, New Jersey, Mr.
Speaker, I can say that Judge Amos Saunders has one of the finest
judicial minds in the State of New Jersey. Furthermore, one of my sons,
David, had the honor of serving as Judge Saunders' judicial clerk in
1995 and 1996. I know that Judge Saunders has had a profound effect on
his life.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, Judge Saunders'
family and friends, the County of Passaic, the State of New Jersey and
me in recognizing the extraordinary dedication, commitment and
enthusiasm of Judge Amos C. Saunders in his service to the judiciary
and to the people.

____________________

HENRY CLARKE, DISTINGUISHED UNION ORGANIZER AND LEADER

______

HON. GEORGE MILLER

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, after more than 38
years of distinguished service to the independent union movement and to
public employees, Henry L. Clarke will be retiring from Public
Employees Union, Local One, and I rise to honor Henry and to celebrate
his lifetime commitment to unionism.
In the early years of Henry's career, he was hired by the American
Federation of Teachers to help organize the teachers in New York City.
Henry was a part of a small team of progressive labor activists who
organized the entire teacher work force, the largest single group of
teachers in the United States at that time. He continued to work for
the AFT until 1962 when he was hired by the Board of Directors of the
Contra Costa County Employees Association as the General Manager. Under
Henry's skifful organizing efforts, membership in the Association grew
from 634 members to 2,100 members in 4 years, and the local agencies
represented expanded to include school classified employees, city and
special district employees in addition to the employees of Contra Costa
County.
In 1969, the Contra Costa County Employees Association voted to
disafffliate from the AFL-CIO and under Henry's leadership formed
Public Employees Union, Local One. The membership has grown over the
years from fewer than 1,000 members to over 12,000 members. The success
of this growth is based upon the basic principles instituted in the
formation of the union--the members have a voice in how their union is
run; the union organization is founded upon democratic principles; the
members have open access to the General Manager and the staff, and
members freely participate through broad representation on the union
Board of Directors.
Mr. Speaker, Henry Clarke has been an inspiration and mentor to other
``independent'' labor organizations throughout the State of California,
and he was instrumental in developing and insuring support for a
statewide legislative council. Henry has earned a reputation for being
a formidable political force and also a respected and beloved advocate
on behalf of his members.
Henry Clarke has built Local One on a foundation of honesty and
integrity and forged professional relationships and friendships with
elected officials, administrators and members. His powerful
representation of his members has always reflected his compassion for
working men and women as well as his insight into the needs of the
community and the public served by Local One members.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that my esteemed colleagues join
me in saluting Henry L. Clarke, an example of honesty, integrity, and
outspoken, effective advocacy on behalf of the working men and women he
has so ably represented for nearly 40 years.

____________________

[[Page 9640]]

TRIBUTE TO THE MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION ON ITS 20TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay special tribute to the Make-A-
Wish Foundation, which is celebrating the 20th anniversary of its
founding. A non-profit organization that has 82 chapters nationwide,
the Foundation is the oldest, largest and most-respected wish-granting
organization in the world. Since its founding, it has fulfilled the
wishes of 60,000 children between the ages of 2 and 18 who suffer from
life-threatening illnesses.
The Mid-Atlantic chapter was established in 1983 by concerned
Maryland citizens who had heard about how the Foundation began with the
granting of a wish of a 7-year-old boy with leukemia in Arizona. Since
then, the Mid-Atlantic chapter has fulfilled the wishes of more than
3,000 children from Maryland, Delaware, Northern Virginia and
Washington, D.C. Now one of the four largest chapters based on the
number of wishes granted, the Mid-Atlantic chapter has grown from
granting only three wishes its first year, to more than 300 in the
fiscal year 1998.
Deeply committed to granting the wishes of each approved child, the
Foundation depends on not only the service of more than 13,000
volunteers, but also the support of individual and group donations,
corporate and small business contributions, foundation grants,
community events, and Wish Friends Inc., a non-profit organization that
produces events and other developmental programs to benefit the
Foundation.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting the Make-A-Wish
Foundation for its efforts and success on the behalf of children over
the past 20 years, and congratulating Ralph A. Nappi, Jr., President of
the Mid-Atlantic chapter of the Foundation, and the entire chapter for
their tireless work in ensuring the fulfillment of each child's wish.

____________________

SALUTE TO COMMANDER AL BERNARD

______

HON. SONNY CALLAHAN

of alabama

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleagues to join
me in honoring a man of outstanding accomplishment, Commander Al
Bernard.
Commander Bernard is retiring from the United States Coast Guard this
week, and I would like to call attention to his extraordinary and
meritorious service to his country.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Coast Guard is an invaluable branch of
the United States military. The men and women of our Coast Guard keep
our waters free of narcotics and illegal aliens, perform almost all of
the search and rescue missions for the United States and provide
security and safety in our waterways.
This is just a small sampling of the duties performed by the Coast
Guard. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the services they
provide.
For 24 years, Commander Bernard has faithfully performed these and
other duties in service to our great country. Prior to donning the
Coast Guard uniform, Commander Bernard was also a proud U.S. Marine,
where he served as an infantryman in Southeast Asia. He has spent more
than half of his life in service to this nation and today, we are a
grateful nation for his sacrifice.
From his humble beginnings operating small boats as a coxswain to his
assignment as liaison officer to the House of Representatives in
Washington, Commander Bernard has performed each and every job as a
true patriot.
He quickly rose through the ranks of the Coast Guard and in 1979, he
was accepted to Officer Candidate School. After receiving his
commission, Al's first assignment was as a security officer at Training
Center New York, Governors Island. Just a year later, he was promoted
to First Lieutenant and deck watch officer on the USCGC Courageous, in
Cape Canaveral, Florida. He was then chosen to be executive officer of
the USCGC Shearwater in Key West, Florida. In addition, he was made the
senior controller at the Pacific Area/Twelfth USCG District Rescue
Coordination Center.
From there, Al Bernard's military career skyrocketed. He received
command of his first ship, the USCGC Nantucket, in Roosevelt Roads,
Puerto Rico. It should be noted that Al is the first American of Puerto
Rican descent to command his own ship.
Due to his exceptional abilities, Commander Bernard was relocated to
Washington to serve his country at USCG Headquarters. He later received
command of another cutter, the USCGC Citrus, which was homeported in
Coos Bay, OR. After finishing another productive tour, he was made
chief, Cutter Management Branch, Coast Guard Pacific Area in Alameda,
California.
While on duty in California, he was selected to attend the U.S. Naval
War College, where he graduated with distinction, earning a Master of
Arts Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies.
Upon graduation, Commander Bernard was given his third command, the
USCGC Decisive in St. Petersburg, Florida; he later crossdecked to the
USCGC Resolute.
Most recently, he was selected in 1998 to become the liaison officer
to the House of Representatives in Washington, where I can personally
attest he has served every man and woman who wears the Coast Guard
uniform with great distinction.
Over the course of his 24 years of service to the United States,
Commander Bernard has demonstrated his versatility by serving
brilliantly in both the military and legislative arenas. Al Bernard has
been recognized for his achievements with numerous awards, such as the
Bronze Star with ``V'' device for valor, the Purple Heart, and
Meritorious Service Medal with an ``O'' device. He has also received
seven Coast Guard Commendation Medals with ``O'' device, the Coast
Guard Achievement Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon and various other
awards.
He was also selected as the 1989 recipient of the U.S. Navy League's
Captain David Jarvis award for professional competence and
inspirational leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in congratulating Commander
Al Bernard on an illustrious military career. Likewise, we salute his
wonderful wife, Ann, and their two children, Jason and Bernadette, who
made the many sacrifices military families make in supporting their
husband and father all these years. We wish Al the best of luck in all
his future endeavors, for he is truly a fine example for all Americans.

____________________

56TH ANNIVERSAY OF D-DAY

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take this opportunity to bring to
the attention of our colleagues that today, June 6th , marks the 56th
anniversary of the D-Day invasion, known as Operation Overlord.
It was 56 years ago today that a miracle of liberation began. On that
morning, democracy's forces landed to end the enslavement of Europe.
This miracle took place on the shores of Normandy, as 150,000 troops
engaged in the largest amphibious invasion in history. Some historians
have gone so far as to acclaim the liberation effort as the greatest
military invasion in the history of mankind. Regardless of the label
placed on the invasion, the D-Day invasion unarguably 2 represents a
noble effort to uphold democracy and free mankind from the evils of
oppression and tyranny.
Operation Overlord did not represent the selfish interests of one
nation. Rather, it was a humanitarian effort that required the
unification of soldiers from many nations. American, British, French,
and Canadian soldiers united in a fight for freedom and liberation of
not only a nation but of a multicultural, diverse continent. Rallied by
this universal goal, General Dwight D. Eisenhower told his troops: ``We
will accept nothing less that full victory.'' Victory for Eisenhower
and the allied troops was not just to win, it was to uphold and give
back the unalienable rights that Nazi tyranny stole from the people.
The attainment of such a goal did not come without sacrifice. 6,600
Americans were killed and many more wounded.
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that all Americans should join in
honoring the lives that were sacrificed in that noble battle to
facilitate an environment in which oppression and tyranny do not
prevail.
Accordingly, I urge all of our colleagues to join in paying tribute
to this red letter day in history.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CATHERINE G. ANTON

______

HON. RICHARD E. NEAL

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special
tribute to Cathy

[[Page 9641]]

Anton, the Executive Director of the Safety Council of Western
Massachusetts, who is leaving the Pioneer Valley to accept a new
position in Florida. For over 25 years, in both the human resources and
safety fields, she has consistently worked to improve the quality of
life of others. As she begins the next chapter of her life, I ask my
colleagues to join me in wishing her, her husband Dennis, and son
Geoffrey continued success.
The mission of the Safety Council is to educate and train people in
business and the community in the prevention of accident and related
losses, and to influence the formulation and application of safety and
health policies and procedures in the region. Under the dedicated
leadership of Cathy Anton, the Safety Council has done that and more.
It has become the region's leading voice on health and safety issues in
the workplace.
Preventing unintentional injuries on the job should be a top priority
for all Americans. Safety and health are serious issues that effect
every person who goes to work each day. In both the public and private
sector, we have a unique responsibility to raise awareness about the
importance of safety protection. With millions of workers being injured
or killed each year, the need for increased education and training
cannot be minimized.
Mr. Speaker, during her tenure with the Safety Council, Cathy Anton
lead the effort to make western Massachusetts a safer place to live and
work. She has made a real difference on behalf of working men and women
in Springfield and its surrounding communities. As she prepares for her
next professional challenge, I would like to express my personal
gratitude for all her efforts.

____________________

REMARKS OF SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER GORAN PERSSON AT THE DAYS OF
REMEMBRANCE COMMEMORATION

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 4, Members of Congress
joined with representatives of the diplomatic corps, executive and
judicial branch officials and hundreds of Holocaust survivors and their
families to commemorate the Days of Remembrance in the Great Rotunda of
the United States Capitol. The theme of this year's commemoration was
``The Holocaust and the New Century: The Imperative to Remember.''
After more than half a century, Mr. Speaker, we must still
commemorate the horrors of the Holocaust in order to honor the memory
of those victims of Hitler's twisted tyranny. At the same time, we must
mark this catastrophe because mankind still has not learned the lessons
of this horror, as evidenced most recently by the mass killings in
Kosovo.
Mr. Speaker, the keynote speaker at this impressive event was His
Excellency Goran Persson, Prime Minister of Sweden. The selection of
Prime Minister Persson was particularly appropriate since he has led
Sweden in its commitment to furthering Holocaust education and
remembrance, both in Sweden and internationally. Under his leadership,
Sweden hosted the 44-nation International Forum on the Holocaust in
Stockholm last January. In his address at the closing session of the
Stockholm Forum the Prime Minister issued a very appropriate call to
remembrance: ``It is the end of the silence, and the beginning of a new
millennium . . . Although we have left the century in which the
Holocaust occurred, we must continue to study it in all its dimensions,
at all times. We must add more pieces to the puzzle, foster greater
awareness of the causes, acquire more knowledge about the
consequences.''
Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Persson has had a distinguished political
career in Sweden. Since 1996, he has served as Prime Minister and
Chairman of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. He previously served
as Minister of Finance, Minister at the Ministry of Education, a Member
of the Riksdag (Parliament), and a local government official in
Katrineholm. He is married to Annika Persson, and he has two daughters.
Prime Minister Persson's remarks at this year's Day of Remembrance
ceremony were moving and particularly meaningful. I ask that Prime
Minister Persson's remarks be placed in the Record, and I urge my
colleagues to give them thoughtful consideration.

Day of Remembrance Observance, Capitol Rotunda, Washington, May 4, 2000

Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Meed, Excellencies of the Diplomatic
Corps, Honourable Members of the U.S. Congress, Holocaust
Survivors. Dear Friends: Today, we meet in the Capitol
Roumda, in the very heart of the American democracy.
Here we meet to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust
and to honour survivors and liberators.
We meet to demonstrate our strong commitment to make the
lessons of the past a living exhortation for the future.
Let me begin by telling you a story handed down to
posterity by a teacher in the ghetto of Lodz.
A little boy, whose entire family had been deported, was
dawdling in the street, talking loudly to himself. In one
fist he clutched a handful of small stones.
First he dropped three small stones. They hit the ground
with a faint sound, then two more, followed by another three.
Then the little boy quickly closed his fist. In his lively
eyes the shiny black pupils stopped racing for a moment. He
said:
``Nine brothers like these stones we were once, all close
together. Then came the first deportation and three of the
brothers didn't return, two were shot at the barbed wire
fence and three died of hunger. Can you guess how many
brother-stones are still left in my hand?''
As all children do, this boy played games to help him
understand the world around him. Only his world was a world
of incomprehensible evil. Only his was the world of the
Holocaust.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Holocaust was no accident of
history. The systematic murder of the Jews did not happen by
chance. Nor did the genocide of the Roma, the mass murder of
disabled persons or the persecution and murder of
homosexuals, dissidents and Jehovah's Witnesses.
It occurred because people willed it, planned it and
carried it through. It occurred because people made choices
which allowed it to happen. It occurred, not least, because
people remained silent. As the 21st century dawns we must ask
ourselves: Can we be sure that the societies we build on
today do not house the very same mechanisms that made the
Holocaust possible?
Dear friends, the answer is no. We cannot be sure. We have
good reason to be fearful. Look around you. Today, well-
organized Nazi groups form international networks where they
help each other to recruit and train new members and learn
how to exploit the weaknesses of democracies, how to use
terror and frighten witnesses.
Nazis and revisionists make full and effective use of the
new information technology to spread their lies, to sell
white power music and to reach potential new members among
young people in all parts of the world. Even today, Nazis
march in our streets, persecute, assault and murder people
because of their ethnic affiliation, sexual preferences or
beliefs. The risk we face, is that anti-democratic forces
continue to gain support. The danger lies in our failure to
learn from history, in our failure to see the connections.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me use the words of a survivor, a
well-known Swede, the late Professor Jerzy Eihnorn, who
passed away less than a week ago. At the Stockholm Forum on
the Holocaust in January he said: ``To remember the Holocaust
is a fragile defence but still the best one against the
development of Nazism in our countries--a reminder of
Nazism's ruthless cruelty, a reminder that we must never
lower our guard, never accept Nazism as a necessary evil
within a democracy.''
This was his message--a message for all of us. He wanted us
to take it with us. Because then, he said: ``our suffering
has not been entirely in vain. Then we and all those that did
not survive, will have contributed to a better world for
coming generations.'' We have to take this message.
We must fight Nazism, racism, antisemitism and xenophobia
wherever and whenever they rear their ugly heads. We must
fight them with the lessons of our past, but also with our
visions for tomorrow. It will not be easy. But we have no
other choice.
The future is not sealed by fate, no more than the bitter
history of the past. It is our actions today--the ones we
take and the ones we fail to take--that will shape the
future. It is you and I, all of us, united in determination
to remember, that are the only guarantees we have against the
recurrence of an evil past.
Ladies and Gentlemen, there is good reason to be fearful,
but surely also to feel hope. People want to know, people
want to discuss values and ideas, people want to take
responsibility and learn from history.
This is the encouraging conclusion we draw from the
national project initiated by the Swedish Government in
1997--Living History. The idea was to spread knowledge about
the Holocaust to young people in Sweden, but also to generate
an active dialogue between generations on values in general.
To support parents, teachers and students in this task we
launched a number of projects. One of these was a book
entitled Tell ye your children. The response to the project
in general and the book in particular exceeded anything we
could have dreamed of. In every second Swedish home with
schoolchildren you will find a copy of the book. It was not
just sent there. It was ordered by the families who waned to
have a base for the important discussion on democratic and
humanistic values. I became convinced that

[[Page 9642]]

this positive experience was not unique to Sweden.
In January 1998, I wrote to President Clinton and Prime
Minister Blair suggesting international cooperation in this
field. Little did I then know that only one year later, nine
countries--in a network known as the Task Force--would
cooperate with such countries as the Czech Republic, Latvia,
Lithuania, Argentina and several others in liaison projects
designed to remembrance, education and research about the
Holocaust.
As the new millennium dawned, and the very first
international high-level conference was held, it didn't deal
with economics. Nor did it deal with security and stability.
It dealt with fundamental values, with democracy and human
dignity, with how to confront the better memories of a
horrifying past in order to help shape better policies for
tomorrow's world. It was the end of silence and the beginning
of a new millennium.
Next year we will meet in Stockholm again. In response to
an initiative of the Nobel Laureate Eli Weisel, the Swedish
Government will host an annual international conference--a
Stockholm Forum on Conscience and Humanity.
We have to conduct ourselves to the question of Elie
Wiesel: ``Will our past become our children's future?''
We have to learn from the words of another man who has
devoted his life to teach about the Holocaust in order to
prevent future genocides--professor Yehuda Bauer from Israel
and the Yad Vashem Institute. He said:
``I come from a people who gave the ten commandments to the
world. Time has come to strengthen them by three additional
ones, which we ought to adopt and commit ourselves to: thou
shall not be a perpetrator; thou shall not be a victim; and
thou shall never, but never, be a bystander.''
Ladies and Gentlemen, today we are gathered to remember.
Remember, because to forget would be to betray those
irreplaceable people who died and those who survived. It
would be to betray the deeds or Raoul Wallenberg and all the
others who stood up for human dignity and risked their own
lives to save the lives of others.
Remember, because to forget would be to betray every single
child who comes into this world.
Let us therefore remember a little boy in the ghetto of
Lodz, and through him all the others who were forced to
endure the unthinkable.
Let us pick up the brother-stones, clasp them firmly in our
hands, and realise how much we will need them on our journey
through a new century.
Let us carry them with us as a constant reminder and a
challenge to never again allow forces to grow that are
capable of such evil.
Thank you.

____________________

COCOA BEACH 75TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. DAVE WELDON

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, seventy-five years ago this month
a very special place in American history was founded. That special
place is the town of Cocoa Beach, Florida.
We all know that America was created out of the spirit of
frontierism. Bold men and women shook off the shackles of oppression
and set forth to a new world of opportunity and adventure. Today we all
know about Plymouth Rock and its significance in our nation's history.
America is still the land of frontier explorers and furthering the
promise of freedom and adventure. I am proud to represent a town that
has been the Plymouth Rock to the stars, Cocoa Beach.
Founded 75 years ago, what started out as a small, agrarian town
enjoyed a pleasant, but sleepy existence. That solitude and quiet was
interrupted with the introduction of the U.S. military's ballistic
missile program after World War II.
Suddenly, Cocoa Beach became home for many rocket engineers,
scientists and their families who came to Florida to help the United
States win the Cold War. That work was only a small taste of the
exciting future which was to come.
Soon the United States found that it was in our nation's military and
economic national interests to have the capability to put people and
objects into orbit. NASA was created and soon Cape Canaveral was
selected to be the prime location for NASA's space launch activities.
This resulted in Cocoa Beach's coming of age as a modern, thriving town
on the cusp of a new age in human history.
Through Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and
International Space Station, Cocoa Beach has been there through it all.
Its dynamic people striving to lead the next age of exploration into
the new frontier.
Many feel that without frontiers and boundaries to push against,
America stops being what America is all about. As long as we have
cities like Cocoa Beach leading the charge into space, America's
promise of freedom will continue into the stars.

____________________

JIM COLLINS: A HALF CENTURY OF JOURNALISM

______

HON. STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Jim
Collins and his 50 years in journalism.
While Jim has been a journalist for a half century, his interest and
employment in newspapers actually dates back to 1941, when he began his
career as a News-Herald delivery boy. Jim wasn't even a teenager yet,
and the paper cost 6 cents for twice-weekly delivery. Jim went on to
graduate from Willoughby Union High School and Kent State University,
and returned to the News-Herald after receiving his degree in June
1950. By then, Jim had shed the title of delivery boy and begun his
career as a cub reporter.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't wish to draw undue attention to Jim's
age, but I think it is worth noting other important milestones of 1950
so folks have some perspective about how long Jim has been a working
journalist. The same year Jim became a reporter, Peanuts debuted, Alger
Hiss was convicted, the first telephone answering machine was invented,
Diner's Club became the first credit card, CBS began broadcasting in
color, the first leak-proof ballpoint pen was introduced by PaperMate,
Paul Harvey began broadcasting nationally on radio, and Silly Putty was
introduced. Back then, it cost 3 cents to mail a letter, gas was 20
cents a gallon, and the average income was about $3,200 a year. My
guess is Jim made less than this, however, as journalists certainly
don't enter the field for generous paychecks.
Jim stayed at the News-Herald until 1952, when he was drafted for a
two-year tour of duty in the U.S. Army. After serving his country with
honor, Jim returned to the field of journalism and eventually made it
back to his home, the News-Herald. Jim has worked tirelessly since then
and quickly ascended to the brass ring of newspaper management. He has
been editor of the News-Herald since 1967, and has overseen its
tremendous growth and development.
Over the last 50 years, Jim has received many prestigious awards for
his writing, and his weekly column is a must-read for anyone who cares
about what's happening in the news. He also is about the most prolific
commentary writer you're likely to find, and has made his mark by
offering common-sense solutions to state, local and national problems.
As great as Jim's accomplishments are in journalism, however, they pale
in comparison to what he has done for our local communities. As editor
of the News-Herald, Jim has had a constant presence in the communities
the paper covers, and has always been actively involved in civic and
philanthropic activities. He is respected by all who know him.
Mr. Speaker, I feel honored to have known Jim Collins all the years
I've been a public servant, and even a few before then. He is one of
the most kind, fair, humble and caring men I've ever met. He is an
exceptional journalist and an even better man. His word is his honor.
On behalf of the 19th Congressional District of Ohio, I congratulate
Jim Collins on his 50 years in journalism, and wish him well as he
continues to devote his life to the profession he loves so dearly.

____________________

AIR FORCE MEMORIAL EXTENSION ACT

______

HON. JAMES V. HANSEN

of utah

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Air Force
Memorial Extension Act. In December of 1993 the President signed into
law authorization for the Air Force Memorial Foundation to establish an
Air Force Memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor
the men and women who have served in the United States Air Force. This
memorial was to comply with the provisions of the Commemorative Works
Act.
Among other things, the Commemorative Works Act provides that the
legislative authority for the commemorative work will expire at the end
of the seven-year period beginning on

[[Page 9643]]

the date of the enactment of such authority, unless a construction
permit has been issued. To date, no construction permit has been
issued. Due to unforeseen lawsuits, all work, including the fund
raising for the memorial was put on hold for approximately 3 years. The
lawsuits have been settled and work is ready to re-commence regarding
the memorial. However, due to the delay and the 7-year requirement of
the Commemorative Works Act, time is about to run out. In fact, the
authority will expire on December 2 of this year unless Congress passes
a time extension.
With considerable work already accomplished and the lawsuits settled
the memorial needs to be completed. Thus, this bill would extend
authority to the Air Force Memorial Foundation to complete the well-
deserved memorial. The authority would extend until 2005 giving the
Foundation the time to fulfill the final construction and dedication of
the Air Force Memorial.

____________________

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2000

______

HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Consumer
Product Safety Commission Enhanced Enforcement Act of 2000'', a bill
intended to improve consumer safety by increasing compliance with
existing requirements to report hazards when they are known. The
legislation would increase the civil and criminal penalties that the
CPSC can impose upon firms that do not inform the Commission when they
have sold a product that could pose a substantial hazard to consumers.
The legislation would also help make some product recalls more
effective.
The CPSC is the government agency that makes sure cribs, toys, and
other products in your home are safe, and recalls them when they're
not. The CPSC oversees the safety of 15,000 different kinds of consumer
products. Each year there are more than 29 million injuries and about
22,000 deaths related to consumer products.
Current law provides that if companies have information that one of
their products could have a serious safety defect, they are required to
report that to the government. Unfortunately, some compames are not
obeying the law. The CPSC estimates that in half of the most serious
cases they deal with, the company has failed to report injuries.
Instead, the information comes to the attention of the agency from its
own investigators, from consumers, or tragically, from hospital
emergency room reports or death certificates.
When companies don't report, dangerous products that could have been
recalled or modified remain on store shelves. They continue to be sold
and they stay in consumers' homes where they can cause serious injury.
Some consumers pay a very high price for a company's failure to
report.
For example, a 3-year-old girl died while playing on her swing. Her
grandfather was cutting weeds in the yard using a weed trimmer with a
replacement head that was made with a metal chain. The end link broke
off the chain and it flew through the air as if it were a piece of
deadly shrapnel--travelling 240 miles an hour. It hit his granddaughter
in the temple, penetrated her skull and killed her.
The company didn't tell the CPSC about this death, nor did they tell
the CPSC about the 40 other serious injuries from chains breaking. The
CPSC was forced to do its own investigation and recalled the product
nationwide in May.
Such failures to report result in tragic losses of life and limb that
are avoidable and preventable if compliance with reporting were higher.
Under current law, the CPSC can fine companies for violating the law,
but the amount of the fine is limited by statute to a level that does
not sufficiently deter violations. Under current law, companies can
face criminal penalties for violating consumer product safety laws, but
they are only misdemeanors. Under current law, in any recall, companies
provide a repair, replacement or refund for defective products. In most
cases, the CPSC can find a good solution to the problem for consumers.
But in rare cases where the product is older and has been on the market
for many years, the company sometimes elects a refund that is much too
small to even catch consumers' attention, so the dangerous product
stays on the market.
To remedy these deficiencies, the legislation would: Eliminate the
cap on civil penalties for violations of product safety laws.
Under current law, the CPSC cannot assess more than $1,650,000 for a
related series of violations against a company that knowingly violates
consumer product safety laws. The legislation would eliminate this
maximum civil penalty. Many of the cases in which the Commission seeks
civil penalties involve very large corporations that can easily absorb
a $1.65 million fine. More substantial civil penalties would provide a
needed incentive for those companies to notify CPSC of defective
products so that the agency can take timely action to protect
consumers. Other agencies have civil penalty authority with no ``cap''
on the amount of the penalty for a related series of violations,
including the Federal Trade Commission.
Increase the penalty for a ``knowing and willful'' criminal violation
of product safety laws from a misdemeanor to a felony and eliminate the
requirement that the agency give notice to the company that is
criminally violating the law.
The legislation would increase the potential criminal penalties for a
``knowing and willful'' violation of consumer product safety laws from
a misdemeanor (up to one year in prison) to a felony (up to three years
in prison). It would also increase the maximum monetary criminal
penalty in accordance with existing criminal laws. These heightened
penalties are commensurate with the seriousness of product safety
violations, which can result in death or serious injury to children and
families. Other agencies have authority to seek substantial (felony)
criminal penalties for knowing and willful violations of safety
requirements, including the Food and Drug Administration for
prescription drug marketing violations and the Department of
Transportation for the transportation of hazardous materials.
The legislation would also eliminate the requirement that the
Commission give notice of noncompliance before seeking a criminal
penalty for a violation of the Consumer Product Safety Act. The notice
requirement makes it all but impossible to pursue a criminal penalty
for violations of the Act, even in the most serious cases. The threat
of a criminal felony prosecution would create an additional strong
incentive for companies to report product defects to the Commission.
Give CPSC the authorily to overrule the remedy chosen by a
manufacturer for fixing a defective product in a product recall when
the Commission determines that an alternative would be in the public
interest.
Under current law, a company with a defective product that is being
recalled has the right to select the remedy to be offered to the
public. The company can choose repair, replacement, or refund ``less a
reasonable allowance for use.''
The legislation would continue to permit the company to select the
remedy in a product recall. However, the legislation would allow the
Commission to determine (after an opportunity for a hearing) that the
remedy selected by the company is not in the public interest. The
Commission may then order the company to carry out an alternative
program that is in the public interest.
Sometimes companies choose a remedy in a recall that does not further
public safety. For example, if a manufacturer chooses to refund ``less
a reasonable allowance for use'' the purchase price of a product that
has been on the market for a long time, the amount due consumers may be
so small that there is no incentive for the consumer to take advantage
of the recall. This is especially true where the hazardous product is
still useful to the consumer and the cost of replacement is
substantial. Companies may choose an insubstantial refund even though
people have been at risk for a number of years, thousands of products
are still in use, and injuries are continuing to occur. In this
example, a refund would do little, if anything, to stop consumers from
using the dangerous product and the public interest would not be
served.

____________________

HONORING THE LATE ERNESTO ANTONIO PUENTE, JR.

______

HON. CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO

of puerto rico

in the house of representatives

Tuesday June 6, 2000

Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I express our
sadness over the death of Ernesto Antonio Puente, Jr., June 2, 2000,
the man everyone around the world knew as Tito Puente, the King of
Mambo. His achievements in pursuit of a higher musical ground and his
legendary flamboyant style have left an indelible mark on our nation's
musical heritage.
To his fellow Puerto Rican-Americans, Tito Puente was more than a
legend, more than just the Mambo King. He was a trailblazer in the
world of music, fusing Afro-Caribbean

[[Page 9644]]

rhythms with jazz, mambo, salsa. He created an explosion of inspiration
for entire generations of aspiring musicians and for generations of
youths who learned by watching that it was possible to make something
of yourself if you worked hard.
In commemorating the late ``timbalero,'' Tito Puente, I would also
like to honor the countless other Puerto Ricans who have enriched our
nation's diverse musical culture and those Puerto Ricans who continue
to rise on the world stage.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MAKE-A-WISH FOUNDATION

______

HON. FRANK R. WOLF

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to honor the 20th anniversary
of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, a non-profit organization that fulfills
the wishes of children fighting life-threatening illnesses.
In 1980, a 7-year-old boy named Chris, from Arizona, who was fighting
leukemia wished to be a police officer. Friends of Chris's family
worked to fulfill his wish and in April that year, Chris spent a day
learning about being a police officer and was even sworn in as the
first-ever and only Honorary State Trooper in Arizona history.
Shortly after Chris's wish, the Make-A-Wish Foundation was created to
help bring happiness to more children. From this humble start, the
Make-A-Wish Foundation has grown and now has 80 chapters in the United
States and 20 international affiliates. More than 80,000 children
fighting life-threatening illnesses worldwide have had their wishes
fulfilled. Popular wishes include visiting Walt Disney theme parks,
getting home computer systems, taking family vacations, and meeting
celebrities.
Two months ago, one of my constituents had his wish fulfilled by
Make-A-Wish Foundation of the Mid-Atlantic, Inc. Last year, 7-year-old
Ryan Davidson of Ashburn, VA, was diagnosed with a life-threatening
illness. It was devastating to him and his family.
When the Make-A-Wish Foundation asked Ryan what his greatest wish
was, it didn't surprise anyone that he wanted to meet NASCAR driver
Bobby Labonte. Ryan learned about auto racing while playing video games
and became an instant fan. Of all the drivers, Labonte is his favorite.
On April 26, Ryan, his father Kirby, his mother Amy and his sister
Mallory traveled to California where they visited a NASCAR racetrack,
watched the action close up and met Labonte. Ryan came home with loads
of memories and souvenirs, including his favorite--an autographed
collector's edition of Labonte's car. Ryan's wish was a great success.
``This is the best day of my life,'' he told his parents after meeting
Labonte.
The Make-A-Wish Foundation gives children fighting life-threatening
illnesses a positive break from a world of doctors, hospitals and
medicine. I salute the Make-A-Wish Foundation's volunteers and
supporters who work to make wishes come true not only in Virginia's
10th Congressional District, but literally all over the world. I invite
those interested in leavning more about the Foundation to contact them
at 1-800-722-9474 or on the Internet at www.wish.org.

____________________

BETTI LIDSKY CELEBRATES 50 YEARS

______

HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Betti
Lidsky on her fiftieth birthday celebration.
Betti Lidsky is an exemplary woman who personifies love and self
sacrifice. As the mother of three children who suffer from Retinitis
Pigmentosa, an eye degenerative disease which may lead to blindness,
she battles valiantly everyday to seek ways in which to increase
funding for finding a cure and save the eyesight of her children and
others like them. A true heroine, she selflessly devotes her time and
energy to her family, to the national Foundation Fighting Blindness
where she serves as a board member, and to the South Florida community
where she is highly admired and respected.
Betti Lidsky is an advocate whose services and kind spirit have
touched the lives of many, and on this very special occasion, I ask
that my colleagues join me in wishing Betti Lidsky a very happy
fiftieth birthday.

____________________

OLDER PEOPLE DO NOT NEED CHAPERONES

______

HON. BARNEY FRANK

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in the May issue of
SeniorScope, the newspaper published by the city of New Bedford dealing
with issues of particular importance to older people, editor Rona Zable
has an excellent column. Ms. Zable effectively refutes those who would
interfere with the rights of older people to make their own decisions,
specifically in this case with regard to their choice to gamble if they
wish in legal establishments. I have been struck by the degree to which
people who usually respect the rights of others to make their own
choices make an exception for gambling, and for some reason, people
seem often ready to use a caricature of older people as an excuse for
this. Indeed, some who believe that we should make a radical change in
the Social Security system and have people be dependent on their stock
picks for retiring income draw an inexplicable line against letting
them go to a casino every so often with some of that retirement income.
As Rona Zable trenchantly asks, ``are older people perceived to be so
witless, so gullible, that we need to be protected from ourselves lest
we buy too many lottery tickets or play bingo too often? . . . If
Congress is really concerned about senior citizens, they ought to do
something about the sky high cost of prescription drugs. Because,
chances are, we're more apt to blow the family inheritance at the
drugstore counter than we are at the casinos!''
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Zable is exactly right and I submit her very
thoughtful essay here.

Do You Need a Chaperone at the Casino?

There are folks out there who are quite concerned about
you. They worry that one of these days, you might gamble away
your kid's inheritance.
``Are Casinos Preying On Our Elders?'' was the headline of
a recent story in the AARP Bulletin. Noting the popularity of
bingo halls, lotteries and casinos, the article asked, ``Is
it harmless entertainment? Or are older Americans being
targeted deliberately by advertising and marketing efforts
designed to ensure that they keep pumping large sums of money
into the gambling industry.''
The focus of the article was a study published in the Law
Journal of the University of Illinois College of Law. The
author stated that older people are at greater risk than
others for problem gambling because of circumstances that
make them vulnerable . . . namely, loss of a spouse
loneliness and boredom. The study concluded that ``the casino
industry targets its marketing to older people because they
are reliable spenders with leisure time to visit casinos
often.''
Well, duh! Like--we didn't know that?
Apparently, our legislators also believe that seniors are
more at risk than other age groups for problem gambling.
Timothy A. Kelly, executive director of a commission
appointed by Congress to examine the economic impact of
gambling, believes state and federal lawmakers should
consider halting the expansion of gambling around the nation
pending further research. Kelly, whose National Gambling
Impact Study Commission spent two years examining the issues,
says, ``We heard a lot of stories about elderly parents
gambling away the family inheritance.''
Aw, come on, guys. Seriously--does any SeniorScope reader
know of any elderly parent who gambled away the family
inheritance? (Maybe some younger folks have done that, but
not the old folks).
To me, this is one more instance of the Dumbing Down of
Senior Citizens. Are older people perceived to be so witless,
so gullible, that we need to be protected from ourselves lest
we buy too many lottery tickets or play Bingo too often? Do
we need Big Brother to watch over us at the blackjack tables
and slot machines?
If this sounds like I am some kind of a big-time casino
player, rest assured I am not. In fact, I have never set foot
in Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun. But I defend the right of anyone
over age 21 to spend their money where they please--be it a
casino, bingo hall, sports arena, vacation resort, ect. It so
happens I am a ``shopping mall'' person . . . and just as
some people enjoy the socialization and buffets at Foxwoods,
I enjoy the clearance sales and food court at the Galleria
Mall.
Nor would I like it one bit if the Senate appointed a
Commission to limit the expansion of malls to curtail
shopping by senior citizens. Or, for that matter, to limit
the expansion of restaurants because older Americans are
eating out too much and putting on weight.
If Congress is really concerned about senior citizens, they
ought to do something about the sky high cost of prescription
drugs. Because, chances are, we're more apt to blow the
family inheritance at the drugstore counter than we are at
the casinos!

____________________

[[Page 9645]]

IN TRIBUTE TO JACK EDWARD TANNER

______

HON. JIM McDERMOTT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend, Jack
Edward Tanner, for his outstanding career as a federal judge and his
unwavering commitment to ensuring that all Americans are treated fairly
in our judicial system. Judge Tanner has set a standard of excellence
that we all should aspire too. On May 17, 1978, the Senate of the
United States did unanimously consent to the nomination of Jack Edward
Tanner to serve as United States District Judge for the Eastern and
Western Districts of Washington. On June 2, 1978, Jack E. Tanner took
the oath of office administered by Marshall A. Neil, Chief Judge
Eastern District of Washington, in Tacoma, Washington. On this date,
Judge Tanner has completed 22 years on the federal judiciary. We salute
him as one of this nation's ``Great Native Sons.''
The path to the United States District Court was paved with
distinguished achievements. As the son of Trixie and Ernie Tanner, Jack
and his two siblings, Erna and Bob, were shielded from poverty, but not
injustice. As pioneers in the Northwest, the Tanner family was often
singled out and later called upon for leadership. Like his father,
young Jack excelled in sports in grade school, junior high, and at
Stadium High School. For a sports career, however, young Jack was born
too soon, in the mid-thirties the Major Leagues, for which he was ably
qualified, was not yet integrated by Blacks.
After serving in the United States military in one of its segregated,
``Jim Crow'' units, Jack returned to the waterfront as a longshoreman,
while attending college at the University of Puget Sound. Working on
the docks in Commencement Bay as a longshoreman provided the foundation
for Jack's dedication to the needs and concerns of blue-collar workers
and others. This perspective has never left him and it is reflected in
many of his federal decisions.
The headlines of the Tacoma News Tribune for Sunday, December 29,
1963 feature Tacoma's Top Ten Stories and Personalities. It is no
wonder that a photo of Jack Tanner and the controversial ``Open Housing
Referendum No. 4'' are prominent. Arguing for fair housing in 1963
brought to Tacoma, and to Washington State, the nation's struggle for
equal rights for all.
Jack challenged Washington State to address de-facto segregation in
schools and housing. As local NAACP President and national NAACP board
member, lawyer Tanner believed that the direct action taken by the
student demonstrators in the South also would be effective in the
Northwest. With others, he led a march against discriminatory housing
in the Tri-cities. This was done despite the wishes of some Blacks, who
believed they would be burdened rather than benefited. As a result of
Tanner's urging, efforts undertaken in Seattle to de-segregate the
public schools resulted in the First non-court ordered desegregation
plan in the United States. Jack's effective approach blended the best
of the strategies used by the NAACP and the student non-violent
protests.
John F. Kennedy, the President of the United States, invited Jack to
attend the White House on two different occasions. In June, 1963, just
after the assassination of Medgar Evers, the nation was in crisis.
Tanner as a leader in the Northwest, worked closely with his friend
Senator Warren Magnuson, the Chair of Senate Commerce Committee, to
help Kennedy's famous 1964 Civil Rights Bill get introduced. Equality
in public accommodations, the core of the bill, opened the way for
later legislation on voting rights, fair housing and employment.
Clarence Mitchell, Director of the Washington Bureau for the NAACP
said it best, ``It is a fact that the passage of the Civil Rights bill
has come about because of the tremendous and consistent work that you
and others have done to make it possible. It is true that there have
been some magnificent contributions by Senate leaders in this fight,
but it was also you and the people that you represented who used your
resources to make it possible for us to get a successful vote.
Therefore, I wish to thank you and to let you know that this is your
time of triumph.''
As Washington's First African-American member of the federal
judiciary, controversy did not elude Judge Tanner. Among the first
cases he decided, he drew sharp criticism: by finding conditions at
Walla Walla State Penitentiary, as cruel and unusual punishment
(Hoptowit case); the unconstitutionality of the 1982 anti-busing
initiative; and unequal pay for women by the State of Washington, known
nationally as the Comparable Worth case. In this landmark decision,
Judge Tanner decided that the state's policy of paying lower salaries
in 14,000 jobs, held predominately by women, than those paid in
comparable jobs held by men, ``overwhelmingly constituted direct,
overt, and institutionalized discrimination.''
In the midst of criticism, Judge Tanner continued to rule on cases,
by doing what he believes is right, and not for personal gain or
popularity. But Father, he rules from the heart and the law to improve
the lives of others, especially those who have been historically
disenfranchised. We Thank you Judge Tanner for Being our Shining
Judicial Light.
On this day, June 6, 2000 and in celebration of 22 years on the
federal judiciary and for his life-time achievements, I, Jim McDermott,
as United States Congressman from the Seventh Congressional District,
along with the entire Washington delegation, ask that the Congressional
Record reflect, the ``Triumph of this Native Son, the Honorable Jack E.
Tanner, a Tacoman, a Washingtonian and a True American.''

____________________

FAIR LAWN LIONS CLUB ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th
anniversary of the Fair Lawn Lions Club which will be celebrated June
9, 2000.
For 50 years this group has been an important asset to local and
statewide charities, raising in excess of $750,000. Unlike many
organizations, every dollar raised by the Fair Lawn Lions Club is
donated to charity.
The Fair Lawn Lions Club founded The Fair Lawn Opportunity Center, a
facility for mentally challenged adults. To this date, they remain its
largest private contributor. In addition to the Opportunity Center, the
Fair Lawn Lions also contribute to the Mental Health Center, the Boy
and Girl Scouts, the Ambulance Corps, Fire Department, and several
other groups.
Furthermore, they financially support many statewide services. Among
these are the St. Joseph's School for the Blind and the Juvenile
Diabetes Foundation. I commend their fervent dedication in assisting
both the community and the entire state of New Jersey.
Worldwide, The Lions Clubs International is currently the largest
service organization. They operate in 180 countries, boasting 50,000
clubs and 2,000,000 members.
I am proud to recognize the services of Charter Member and Past
International Director William McCormick and Past District Governor
Paul A. Meyer. I encourage the Fair Lawn Lions Club to continue their
cause. They set a positive example for the community by raising money
for those in need and are sure to remain a pillar of the community for
the next 50 years and beyond.
On this, their 50th anniversary, I am proud to extend my
congratulations to the Fair Lawn Lions Club.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MILTON V. FREEMAN

______

HON. MARTIN FROST

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of one of
the truly outstanding attorneys of the 20th century, Milton V. Freeman.
Milton Freeman died on June 3 at the age of 88 after a long and
remarkable career. He graduated from City College of New York in 1931
and received his law degree from Columbia University in 1934, serving
on the law review. Following his graduation from law school, Milton
Freeman spent the next 12 years as an attorney with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
During his tenure at the SEC, Milton Freeman wrote many of the
regulations that implemented the law that created the SEC, regulations
that are still in effect today. I once introduced him at a meeting of
my classmates at Georgetown Law Center as a ``famous author'' and, in
fact, he was just that. He was the author of SEC Rule 10b-5, the heart
of the SEC's anti-fraud regulations dealing with insider trading.
But Milton Freeman was much more than just a pioneering SEC lawyer.
For many years he served as managing partner of Arnold and Porter, one
of the most prestigious law firms

[[Page 9646]]

in the nation. He also took time to defend people accused under anti-
communist laws at the height of the McCarthy era, one of the darkest
periods in our history.
Milton Freeman was a warm, generous person. He and his wife Phyllis
befriended a group of insecure first-year law students at Georgetown
who were friends of his daughter Nancy, who was also attending
Georgetown. We spent a number of wonderful evenings at their home,
evenings which somehow made the traumatic experience of the first
months of law school a little more bearable.
Another of Milton's four children, Dan, also became a lawyer and has
served the U.S. House of Representatives with great distinction for
many years. Dan is currently Chief Counsel and Parliamentarian for the
House Judiciary Committee, a position he has held under both Democratic
and Republican chairmen.
Mr. Speaker, Milton Freeman was a good husband and father and a great
American. He will be truly missed.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER JAMES HERBERT HOWARD

______

HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished
American and dedicated veteran who passed away on March 15, 2000.
James Herbert Howard enlisted in the United States Navy on July 7,
1942 beginning a period of thirty-six years of service to his beloved
country. He was a veteran of World War Il. He was catapulted off
aircraft carriers, transferred at sea and saw combat in the Solomon
Islands.
James Herbert Howard served aboard several LSTS and was assigned to
the U.S.S. Teror until it was decommissioned in 1947. Chief Howard
served as a Quarter Master aboard such distinguished Naval Ships as the
U.S.S. Ajax and the U.S.S. Ticonderoga. In 1972, Commander N.H.
Kragseth wrote, ``Chief Howard is a man of poise with an excellent
military appearance . . . that he can express his ideas and
communicate his instructions. He is dedicated to the United States
Navy. He contributes to our retention, advancement and organization and
he is an individual I would most want in my unit.''
James Herbert Howard was a highly valuable asset to the United States
Navy. He received numerous commendations including the Good Conduct
Medal and Bronze Star on July 1, 1945, January 20, 1960, and January
20, 1963. While Chief Howard might have been frightened as a young man
when he saw combat, he believed there to be a greater fear, a fear of a
great nation losing freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to a
wonderful man who lived a life of purpose, who loved his country and
who believed in the United States of America and that we extend our
deepest sympathy to his loving family.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. RONALD UZELAC

______

HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a truly outstanding
citizen of Sacramento, Dr. Ronald Uzelac. On June 8, 2000, he will be
retiring as Principal of Rio Americano High School in Sacramento,
California. As his friends and co-workers gather to celebrate his
retirement, I ask all my colleagues to join with me in saluting his
remarkable career.
Dr. Uzelac attended California State University, Sacramento, where he
received his B.A. Degree and Teaching Credential. He continued his
educational pursuits there and went on to receive a Master's Degree in
Education and his Administrative Credential.
Over the years, he has dedicated himself to educating today's youth.
He has served as an Elementary Vice Principal, Elementary Principal,
Junior High School Principal, and High School Principal.
In these various educational posts, Dr. Uzelac has accumulated a vast
collection of awards and citations. In 1983, he received the
Administrator of the Year, Secondary Level by the Association of
California School Administrators. He has been recognized with the ACSA
Silver Star Award (Region 3) for leadership in developing a National
Blue Ribbon School in March of 1996. In addition, he was the recipient
of an Honorary Service Award Administrator of the Year from the San
Juan PTA Council in April of 1996.
The list of accolades for Dr. Uzelac's schools is as extensive as his
personal awards. Some of these include the California Distinguished
Schools Award in 1988, 1990, and 1994. Also, he received national
recognition from the Department of Education as a National Blue Ribbon
School in 1996. Further achievements include recognition as one of
Redbook's ``American Best Schools'' in 1996. His was one of only five
California schools recognized for overall excellence.
In an effort to improve his schools, Dr. Uzelac has implemented
programs to ensure their continued success. One such program is
CIVITAS: a Political Studies Academy with restructured curriculum
aligned with school-to-career emphasis. This has been in place since
1994.
Over the years, Dr. Uzelac has been recognized by California State
Senator Patrick Johnston, former California State Senator Leroy Greene,
and myself for his tremendous leadership and dedication to the youth of
Sacramento. He is a very valuable member of our community.
Mr. Speaker, as Dr. Uzelac's friends and coworkers gather to
celebrate his retirement, I am honored to pay tribute to one of
Sacramento's most outstanding citizens. Dr. Uzelac's contributions to
Sacramento and California have indeed been commendable. I ask all of my
colleagues to join with me in wishing him and his family continued
success in all their future endeavors.

____________________

IN HONOR OF MARY KAY KOSA

______

HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an
absolutely elegant woman. Mary Kay Kosa has been an educator and school
administrator in the Monroe Public Schools for the past 50 years. She
is also a dedicated volunteer, community activist and public servant
who is the epitome of an involved and caring citizen. Mary Kay is
admired by all and commands my highest respect and admiration as well.
Mary Kay has decided to retire from her career in education where she
currently serves as the principal of two Monroe elementary schools. She
will undoubtedly be missed by the Monroe Public School System, but I
take some measure of comfort in knowing that Mary Kay's kind and giving
nature will make it impossible for her to also retire from her
community activism.
Always independent and feisty, Mary Kay does not take no for an
answer and will always fight for what is right. In the 1950's, Mary Kay
stood up to the paranoia and censorship created by McCarthyism, she
continued to teach her students the truth about the world and withstood
fervent attempts to stop her. A champion of the poor, underprivileged
and challenged, Mary Kay used her tremendous compassion and energy to
serve as an effective advocate for those who are in need and less
fortunate.
While always dedicated to first educating Monroe's children, Mary Kay
has also managed to serve as a member and chair of several boards and
commissions. The Huron Valley Girl Scout Council, Monroe Historic
Districts Committee, Child and Family Services Board, Monroe County
Mental Health Board, Monroe Housing Commission, Monroe County United
Way Board of Directors, Monroe City Planning Commission, Salvation Army
Advisory Council, The Art Lebow Community Center, Monroe County
Opportunity Program, and the American Association of University Women
have all benefited from Mary Kay's leadership and involvement.
A proud and active member of the Michigan Education Association, Mary
Kay has used her activism, involvement and leadership to make public
education better for our children. She has also utilized her talents to
create a better situation for generations of public school teachers.
Mary Kay has been married to Edward Kosa for 41 years. Their loving
relationship speaks volumes about the outstanding character of this
wonderful woman and her terrific family. Mary Kay remains a valuable
advisor, confidant and friend. She has touched the lives of everyone in
Monroe County in a meaningful and substantial way and the community
will be ever grateful for her dedication and good deeds.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to rise with me in tribute to
a fine educator and public servant, Mary Kay Kosa.

____________________

[[Page 9647]]

IN HONOR OF REVEREND JOHN P. SCHLEGEL

______

HON. NANCY PELOSI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday June 6, 2000

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Reverend John P.
Schlegel, S.J., for his 9 remarkable years as President of the
University of San Francisco. Father Schlegel has been honored with the
position of President of Creighton University. His many friends in the
San Francisco Bay Area bid him farewell with mixed emotions--happy for
his personal success, sad that he is leaving, and forever grateful for
his many accomplishments as President of the University of San
Francisco.
Father Schlegel brought with him to San Francisco strong academic
credentials. He holds B.A. and M.A. degrees from Saint Louis
University, a B.D. degree in Theology from the University of London,
and a Doctorate in International Relations from Oxford University. He
entered the Wisconsin Province of the Society of Jesus in 1963 and was
ordained in 1973.
He also brought a record of strong leadership. John began his
academic career as a lecturer at Creighton University in 1969. He
joined Creighton's faculty in the Political Science department in 1976
and also served as Assistant Academic Vice President from 1978-1982.
John went on to serve as Academic Dean and Dean of Arts and Sciences at
Rockhurst College, as Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at
Marquette University, and as the Executive and Academic Vice-President
at John Carrol University in Cleveland.
Father Schlegel continued that record of service and leadership while
in San Francisco. John serves on the Boards of Trustees of Loyola
University in Chicago and of Xavier University in Cincinnati. He is the
Chair of the Executive Committee of the Commonwealth Club of
California, a director of the American International School of Hong
Kong, and a member of the Advisory Council at the California Academy of
Sciences. John also serves on the Board of Directors of the Coro
Foundation and the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities,
and on the Executive Committees of the Western College Association and
the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities.
At the University of San Francisco, John has had remarkable success.
Thanks to his leadership, the caliber of the faculty and students has
risen, the facilities have been upgraded, and the endowment has grown
enormously. At the same time, the Jesuit mission of the University has
been advanced.
We are grateful to Father John Schlegel for all that he has done for
the University of San Francisco and for the entire Bay Area. We will
miss him greatly but know that it is Creighton University's turn to
benefit from his wisdom and vision. As we glory in his triumphant
return home, we hope that he will visit San Francisco often. I join my
constituents in wishing him the very best.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CHUCK BLASKO OF THE VOGUES

______

HON. RON KLINK

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 6, 2000

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a musical legend,
Chuck Blasko of The Vogues. A native of Turtle Creek, PA, and a
resident of my congressional district, Mr. Blasko celebrates the 35th
year of the music group this year. In 1965 he created the vocal group,
and is the only original member still touring and performing.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Vogues recorded 16 hits on the top 40
charts, including 9 in the top 20. Some of their best-known hits
include ``Turn Around, Look At Me'' and ``Five O'Clock World.'' Few
groups have rivaled the success of the Vogues in placing so many songs
on the top 40 charts.
Led by Mr. Blasko, their harmonic vocals continue to attract fans to
sellout concerts and club appearances. With his outstanding talent and
love of performing, the Vogues is an enduring fixture on the music
scene and one of the world's top concert acts. Mr. Blasko has been
immortalized by the Vocal Music Hall of Fame where fans can see photos
of the group and a set of his stage clothes.
Despite his tremendous success, Mr. Blasko and his family continue to
make western Pennsylvania their home. As an avid fan of The Vogues, I
am truly honored to have this opportunity to acknowledge not only a
fine musician but a man who cares about his community.
Once again, I urge my colleagues to rise and recognize Mr. Blasko on
his 35th anniversary in the music industry. His commitment to his
family and to his music represent the finest qualities of the people of
the Fourth Congressional District.