Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 for June 9, 1999

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 9]
[Issue]
[Pages 12039-12325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 12039]]

105

VOLUME 145--PART 9

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.

SENATE--Wednesday, June 9, 1999

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the President
pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond].
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Lloyd John Ogilvie, offered the following prayer:
Here is a promise from God for today. It is as sure for us as it was
when it was spoken through Isaiah so long ago. Hear this word today!
``Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God. I
will strengthen you. Yes, I will help you. I will uphold you with my
righteous right hand.''--Isaiah 41:10.
Let us pray.
Dear God, we claim that promise as we begin this day's work. Your
perfect love casts out fear. Your grace and goodness give us the
assurance that You will never leave nor forsake us. Your strength
surges into our hearts. Your divine intelligence inspires our thinking.
We will not be dismayed, casting about furtively for security in
anything or anyone other than You. Fortified by Your power, help us to
focus on the needs of others around us and of our Nation. May this be a
truly great day as we serve You. Bless the Senators as they place their
trust in You and follow Your guidance for our Nation.
Gracious God, we thank You for the people who work here in this
Chamber to serve the Senate. Especially today we thank You for Senate
doorkeeper Eugene Kelly, who died last evening. We thank you for his
life and for his work among us and ask You to be with his wife, Doris,
to comfort and encourage her. Through our Lord and Saviour. Amen.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The able Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today the Senate will be
in a period of morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. As a
reminder, the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Y2K
legislation has been vitiated. By previous consent, debate on the Y2K
bill will begin following morning business at 11 a.m. Amendments are
anticipated throughout today's session, and therefore votes can be
expected.
I thank my colleagues for their attention.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). 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 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10
minutes each.
Under the previous order, the Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes.
(The remarks of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire pertaining to the
submission of S. Res. 113 are located in today's Record under
``Submission of Concurrent and Senate Resolutions.'')
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized for a period of up to 20
minutes.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1189
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, Senator Durbin has asked that I control
his 30 minutes under the previous agreement. I ask unanimous consent
that I may do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, Senator Dorgan, I will be probably 5
minutes in my initial remarks and then will yield to him, if he needs--
how much time?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask consent to be
recognized for 15 minutes. Senator Wellstone is coming over to take
part of that, following the presentation by Senator Boxer.
Mrs. BOXER. I have no objection to that. I have Senator Torricelli
coming over for time. I will go for 5 minutes, to be followed by 15
minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan. Then I will take back the
remainder of that time. That is a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN THE SENATE

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a funny thing happened before the Memorial
Day recess. We finally did something around here. I say ``a funny
thing'' because we haven't done that much to write home about. What
happened was we had the juvenile justice bill come before this body. It
was debated. Amendments were offered. Votes were taken. The Senate
passed the bill by a large bipartisan majority.

[[Page 12040]]

I think that is the way we ought to be doing our business rather than
having a bill brought up and having the so-called amendment tree filled
to prevent those of us on this side of the aisle from bringing up
amendments. I think the way the juvenile justice bill was handled was
good. I hope we see more of that openness on the floor of the Senate.
When we had the juvenile justice bill before us, we did some good
things. One of the good things we did was to pass some commonsense gun
laws.
Now, after a 2-week break, the House is going to be taking up the
juvenile justice bill and looking at these gun laws and deciding on
which of them they are going to move forward. From the reports I read
in the paper today--I haven't read the House bill yet, although we are
going over it now--those gun laws are significantly weakened.
I say to my friends in the House, where I proudly served for 10
years, if anything, you should strengthen those laws, not weaken those
laws. We had the Lautenberg amendment that passed. As I understand it,
it has been weakened over on the House side, opening up new loopholes
so that people at gun shows can call themselves exhibitors and not have
to pay attention to all the important background checks that should
take place before a gun is purchased at a gun show. So we will be
watching.
As the people were very happy to see us do sensible gun laws, they
also are waiting for us to do something else. That has to do with their
health care. That has to do with the Patients' Bill of Rights. That has
to do with the fact that many HMOs are not treating patients in the
right fashion.
I know we are taking up the Y2K bill to protect businesses from
lawsuits. It is an important bill. I am glad we are taking it up. I
have my opinions on it. I will be offering an amendment on it. I hope I
can support it.
But what about the vast majority of Americans who need us to pass a
Patients' Bill of Rights? Somehow this keeps going to the back of the
list. More and more Americans need us to look at their problems: Women
who can't get access to their OB/GYNs or, if they do, it is very
restrictive; people who get taken to an emergency room far away from
the closest one and are told that this really wasn't an emergency,
because, guess why, they didn't die, so then their HMO doesn't cover
the visit; a child needs to see a specialist and can't see one or has a
chronic condition and must always see a specialist and go through
bureaucratic hoops to see that specialist.
I thought we honored our children. That is not the way to treat a
sick child. We should be making the lives of our children easier, not
harder, especially when they are very sick.
Worst of all, HMOs cannot be held accountable in court. You cannot
sue your HMO, even if the HMO made a medical decision that resulted in
a patient's death or put someone in a coma permanently.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator from California
have expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to complete in 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the practices of too many HMOs are
outrageous. It is equally outrageous that we haven't had a chance to
bring that bill to the floor for debate. We on this side of the aisle
spent all last year pleading to bring it up, but we were met with delay
and obstruction, just as we did on the minimum wage.
We fought hard to finally get a minimum wage bill brought up a couple
of Congresses ago. We are going to fight hard again to get a new
minimum wage bill brought up, to get a Patients' Bill of Rights brought
up. We are not going to stop until it happens. We want to make this
Senate relevant to the lives of our people, just as we did when we took
up the juvenile justice bill. I look forward to working with Members on
both sides of the aisle on a Patients' Bill of Rights, raising the
minimum wage, and other issues we need to take up.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
North Dakota is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator from North Dakota control the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California would have 5
additional minutes after the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am just trying to get in line here.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, can I say to my friend that Senator Durbin
had taken 30 minutes in this part of the morning business hour. He has
designated me to control that 30 minutes. As I understand it, I took 6
minutes. We now have 15 minutes for Senator Dorgan and the remaining
time by Senator Torricelli. That would complete this side's time. We
have no problem with the Senator getting his time.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am confused as to what I am inquiring
about. The time is controlled by Senator Durbin until when?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-three and a half minutes remain under
the control of the Senator from California.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized at the end of the time controlled by Senator Durbin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nicolas
Benjamin be granted floor privileges.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Wellstone are located in today's
Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TORRICELLI. 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. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Reed
be recognized for 10 minutes and I be recognized for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 10 minutes.

____________________

GUN CONTROL

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, last month for the first time in a
generation, the Senate voted for some reasonable additions to the
national gun control legislation.
We principally did three things of value to our country: We voted to
ban the possession of assault weapons by minors; we voted to require
background checks on the purchase of firearms at the 4,000 gun shows
held nationally in our country; and to require that firearms come
equipped with a child safety lock.
They were hard-won victories. Each in their own right was an
important statement about our commitment to the safety of our citizens.
Each represents America coming to terms with the level of gun violence
in America. But it is important that they be held in some perspective,
because none was particularly bold. While they make a contribution to
dealing with the problem, they do not begin to end the problem.
Now the House of Representatives has another chance to build on the
work of the Senate and respond to the needs of the American people, the
desperate need to have some reasonable levels of gun control to protect
our citizens. The simple truth is that we have a great deal more to do.
Every year, 34,000 Americans are victims of gun violence. Firearms are
now the second leading cause of death, after car

[[Page 12041]]

accidents, and gaining quickly. The lethal mix of guns and children is
particularly disturbing. Fourteen children are dying every day from
gunfire. Teenage boys are more likely to die from gunshots than all
natural causes combined. It is not simply a problem. It is not enough
to call it a crisis. There is an epidemic of gun violence that is
consuming our citizens generally and our children in particular.
In truth, there are many causes. No one measure in either gun control
legislation or in addressing this problem generally is going to solve
the problem. Those who wait for a single answer to solve a complex
societal problem will never be part of a solution. Our schools will
play different roles. Our parents are learning the difficulties of
raising children in a changing and complex society. The media will
learn new levels of individual voluntary responsibility. But, as
certainly as each of those elements is a part of dealing with gun
violence in America, and particularly the new problems of youth and
school violence, so, too, this Congress and gun control is an element.
In the last 2 months the shootings in Littleton, CO, and Conyers, GA,
have represented a potential historic turning point on this issue.
Almost certainly, when the history of our generation is written, the
events in Conyers and Littleton will be seen in the same light as the
publishing of Rachel Carlson's ``Silent Spring'' is seen as the
beginning of the environmental movement or the 1960s march on
Washington is for civil rights.
It may be possible we have now reached a critical mass in this
country where, as a majority of the American people have otherwise been
relatively silent on this issue while a small minority seemed to
control and monopolize both the national debate and the political
judgments, now the balance may be changing. If, indeed, we have reached
this point of change, then this Congress will respond by doing several
things that are meaningful in ending gun violence:
First, restrict the sales of handguns to one per month. It is not
unreasonable that Americans limit their consumption of handguns to one
every 30 days, and it is a real contribution to dealing with this
problem, because States such as my own, New Jersey, which have had
reasonable gun control for 30 years, are being frustrated. Mr.
President, 80 percent of the guns used to commit felonies in New Jersey
are coming from five States that do not have similar gun control. Guns
are being purchased wholesale in other States and taken to my State for
use in the commission of a crime. Limiting purchases to one a month
will prohibit it from becoming profitable for people to engage in this
unseemly business.
Second, reinstitute the Brady waiting period. Even if we perfect the
technology of an instant background check to assure that people with
mental illness or felony convictions do not buy guns, a cooling off
period is still valuable. In this nation, the most likely person to
shoot another citizen is a member of his or her own family in a crime
of passion or rage. A cooling off period to separate the rage from the
purchase of the gun and the act could save thousands of lives.
Third, require that handguns be made with smart gun technology. We
have the technology to assure that the person who fires a gun owns the
gun--a thumbprint or another means of electronic identification. That
technology is in hand. It can be perfected. If it is not available
today, it can be available soon. It can separate criminals from guns
that are being stolen out of our own houses, our own stores, and
killing our own people.
Fourth and finally, to regulate firearms, as every other consumer
product, to ensure that firearms are safely designed, built, and
distributed, not only for the general public but specifically and, more
importantly, for the people who are actually buying the guns.
Together, these four measures represent a comprehensive national
policy of responding to the growing spiral of gun violence in our
society. Individually, none of them will meaningfully solve the
problem, but together they represent an important statement and a
critical beginning, using our technology, our common sense, and our
laws to protect our citizens. Ironically, they principally benefit the
people who own and buy guns, who are most likely to be hurt by a gun
improperly made or distributed or stolen from their own home.
In recent months, we are recognizing that what the Federal Government
is failing to do in dealing with gun violence other levels of
government are doing, particularly the mayors of our cities--New
Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Camden County in my home State, Philadelphia
through Mayor Rendell--who are beginning lawsuits to hold gun
manufacturers responsible for how they manufacture these guns and how
they distribute them. I am proud they are doing so but not proud that
the Federal Government is not part of this effort. The simple truth is,
in a society in which the Federal Government regulates the content of
our air, the quality of our water, virtually every measure of consumer
product for its safety, its design and its content, the single
exception is guns manufactured in the United States. By statute, the
ATF is prohibited from engaging in the regulation of the design and
distribution of firearms.
A toy gun is regulated for its design: The size of its parts, to
protect an infant child, the contents of the materials. A toy gun is
completely regulated by the Federal Government. But the actual gun,
including the TEC-9 used in Columbine High School, is not. No one could
rationally explain that contradiction, but it is the truth. Indeed, as
I have demonstrated on this chart, a child's teddy bear is regulated
for its edges, its points, small parts, hazardous materials, its
flammability, but a gun--which 14 times a day takes a life--that may be
in the same home, in proximity to that child is not.
I want to point out that in the Firearms Safety Consumer Protection
Act we deal with each of these issues. I urge my colleagues to consider
it and lend their support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am here today to join my colleagues,
Senator Torricelli and Senator Boxer and others, who are pointing out
that America has recently been both shocked and, we hope, awakened to
the danger of gun violence throughout our land and particularly the gun
violence that envelops our children.
A few weeks ago, last month, we in this Senate began to recognize
that the people of the United States want reasonable gun control
policies. They want these policies to protect themselves and
particularly to protect their children. During consideration of the
juvenile justice bill, we made some progress by passing a ban on the
juvenile possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and a ban on the
importation of high-capacity ammunition clips. We saw Republicans join
all Democrats in voting to require that child safety devices be sold
with all handguns. Finally, with a historic, tie-breaking vote by the
Vice President, we passed the Lautenberg amendment to firmly close the
gun show and pawnshop loophole by requiring background checks on all
sales and allowing law enforcement up to 72 hours to conduct these
background checks, as currently permitted by the Brady law.
These are the kinds of measures that Democrats in Congress have been
advocating for years. It is unfortunate that it took the Littleton
tragedy to bring our colleagues in the majority around to our way of
thinking. We welcome even these small steps in the right direction. But
these are, indeed, small steps, and we need to do much more. We should
reinstate the Brady waiting period, which expired last November, to
provide a cooling off period before the purchase of a handgun. My
colleague from New Jersey said it so well: Too often crimes with
handguns are crimes of rage and passion. A cooling off period might
insulate the acquisition of the gun from the crime of passion or rage.
Even if we do perfect the instant check, this waiting period will still
play a very valuable role in ensuring that handguns are not the source
of violence and death in our society. We

[[Page 12042]]

should also pass a child access prevention law to hold adults
responsible if they allow a child to gain access to a firearm and that
child uses the firearm to harm another.
These are the types of protections that are, indeed, necessary.
In addition, we should completely close the Internet gun sales
loophole, something the Senate failed to do last month when we were
considering the juvenile justice bill. We all know the increasing power
of the Internet to sell goods and services. Whatever is happening now
in the distribution of firearms through the Internet is merely a
glimpse and a foreshadowing of what will happen in the months and years
ahead. We should act now, promptly, so we can establish sensible rules
with respect to the Internet sale of firearms.
I also believe that we should apply to guns the same consumer product
regulations which we apply to virtually every other product in this
country. Again, the Senator from New Jersey was very eloquent when he
described the paradox, the unexplainable paradox, the situation in
which we regulate toy guns but we cannot by law, in any way, shape or
form, regulate real guns. If toy guns, teddy bears, lawn mowers, and
hair dryers are all subject to regulation to ensure they include
features to minimize the dangers to children, why not firearms?
I have introduced legislation to allow the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to regulate firearms to protect children and adults against
unreasonable risk of injury. I know my friend and colleague from New
Jersey has introduced a bill to allow the Treasury Department to
regulate firearms. Whichever agency ultimately has oversight, the
important thing is that guns should no longer be the only consumer
product exempt from even the most basic safety regulations.
Finally, I believe that gun dealers should be held responsible if
they violate Federal law by selling a firearm to a minor, a convicted
felon, or others prohibited from buying firearms.
Currently, there are over 104,000 federally licensed firearms dealers
in the United States. While most of these dealers are responsible small
business people, recent tracing of crime guns by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms has found substantial evidence that some dealers
are selling guns to juveniles and convicted felons. This direct
diversion of weapons from retail to illegal markets is taking place
both through off-the-book sales by corrupt dealers and through so-
called straw purchases, when an ineligible buyer has a friend or
relative buy a firearm for him or her.
Indeed, just this week, my colleague, Senator Schumer, from New York
released a study of Federal firearms data that reveals a stunning
number of crime guns being sold by a very, very small proportion of the
Nation's gun dealers. According to data supplied by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, just 1 percent of this country's gun
dealers sold nearly half of the guns used in crime last year. The
statistics suggest we must move aggressively against these dealers who
are flouting the laws and who are disregarding public safety.
To remedy this situation, I have introduced S. 1101, the Gun Dealer
Responsibility Act, which would provide a statutory cause of action for
victims of gun violence against dealers whose illegal sale of a gun
directly contributes to the victim's injury. I believe this legislation
will make unscrupulous gun dealers think twice about to whom they will
sell a weapon, particularly if they intend to sell it to minors,
convicted felons or any other ineligible buyer, either directly or
through straw purchases.
Anyone who honestly considers the tragic events in Littleton 1 month
ago and the 13 children who die from gun violence each day in this
country must concede that our young people have far too easy and
unlimited access to guns. It is a shameful commentary that in this
country today, in 1999, for too many children it is easier to get a gun
than it is to get counseling. We have to work on both fronts--improving
our schools and access to mental health services and counseling and
support--but we also have to close the loopholes which make it easy for
youngsters to get guns. Last year, 6,000 American students were
expelled from elementary or high school for bringing a gun into the
school building. That, too, is an indication that we have to work to
ensure that children do not have access to firearms.
We must do more than just keeping the guns away, but that is
something we have to do right now in a comprehensive and coherent way.
The measures I have suggested and the measures that my colleague from
New Jersey suggested are sensible parts of a comprehensive strategy to
do what every American wants done: to keep weapons out of the hands of
young children who may use them to harm themselves or harm others.
I hope that having been awakened by the tragedy in Littleton, we are
ready to move progressively and aggressively to remedy this situation
in the Senate.
I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask that we remain in morning business
and I be allowed to make a statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for the remainder of
morning business.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.

____________________

MEDICARE

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, when I first got into this business of
being involved in Congress many years ago and also involved in
fundraising activities, I remember trying to compose a fundraising
letter. I sat down at my desk and drafted one. I thought I put out a
pretty good fundraising letter to constituents saying why I thought I
was the best person running for a particular office and would they
please consider sending a contribution to me because I was obviously
the best person for the job.
I shared the draft of my fundraising letter with one of the
professional people who does this for a living. He looked at it, read
it and said: This will never do.
I said: Why?
He said: It is not outrageous enough.
I said: What do you mean?
He said: In order to get people to extend money to you in your
election, you have to be outrageous in the letter, be as outrageous as
you possibly can; don't worry about whether it is totally accurate.
Just make sure it gets the people's attention and really scares the you
know what out of them in order for them to feel like it is absolutely
essential that to save their future, they need to send you a political
contribution.
I said: I am not going to do that. It doesn't fit how I operate, and
I think it is a wrong thing to try and scare people.
Apparently, there are organizations in this city that think
otherwise. I call to my colleagues' attention one of them called the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. It is a
very noble-sounding organization. They sent out this letter, a bright
yellow thing, and it came in an envelope that is enough to look like it
is from the Internal Revenue Service.
It says: ``Urgent Express. Please expedite. Dated material
enclosed.''
It would really get your attention if you walked out to the mailbox
and received this. But also, if you are a senior, you would be scared
to death if you thought what they were telling you was true.
It starts off by saying the Breaux-Thomas effort to fix Medicare is
going to basically destroy Medicare by giving you a voucher instead of
a guaranteed contribution for your Medicare benefits. No. 1, that is
absolutely, totally inaccurate, incorrect, misleading, false and
anything else you want to call it.
What we do is give seniors the same type of system that every one of
us as Federal employees, including Members of the Senate, has. Under
our plan, it is guaranteed in law that the Federal Government will
contribute 88 percent of the cost of whatever plan the seniors take.
The seniors would pay about 12 percent. That is what they pay now. That
is not a voucher. For them to say

[[Page 12043]]

it is a voucher is misleading, false, and intended to simply scare
people into giving more money.
If you look at the rest of their letter, they say you do not get
guaranteed benefits. That is not true. The statute clearly says that
you will have the same guaranteed benefits that you get under Medicare
today. That is in statute. That is guaranteed. What they have to say is
false.
What they are really trying to do, in addition to scaring seniors, is
they are trying to raise money from them; tell them anything to scare
them to death and hope they send money.
I was underlining all the times they said, ``please send money'' in
this letter. It is one after another.
It says on page 3: ``. . . we need your signature . . . and your
generous special donation . . . .''
Then they go on to say: ``We also need as generous a donation as you
can afford. . . .''
They then talk about sending a special donation to help us with our
effort, and by making a special donation today, we can help save
Medicare; endorsing this with as generous, and then they call it an
``emergency donation''--they go from ``special donation'' to send us an
``emergency donation'' to stop what Breaux and Thomas are trying to do
by fixing Medicare.
Then they say:

[Please] boost our grassroots efforts by including an
emergency contribution with your Petition. Your contribution
of [$10] or $25, will be used to reinforce [our] message. . .
. I've suggested [some] contribution amounts, but anything
you can give will help more than you know. Please decide the
most you can afford and enclose your check with your signed .
. . Petition in the enclosed envelope . . . .

Your emergency donation is needed ``along with your contribution of
[blank] or [blank] in the envelope provided.''
Mr. President, this is a fundraising letter intended to scare seniors
into digging into their pockets, into their retirement funds and
funding this operation so they can continue to put out false,
erroneous, inaccurate information, information which is simply not
true.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. I would
like for him to go on.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Louisiana be allowed as much additional time as he needs.
Mr. BREAUX. This is not the way to fix Medicare, by scaring seniors.
They do not mention that under the current Medicare program the
premiums are going to double by the year 2007 if we do not do anything
to fix it. That should really scare seniors into saying we need to do
something to fix the program for our children and our grandchildren.
But to send out false information calling the program a voucher, which
it clearly is not, and to say it does not have the defined benefits,
which it clearly does, all under the guise of scaring seniors into
digging into their pockets and sending money that they need for food
and groceries and extra Medicare benefits that they do not get now is
something they should be ashamed of.
I think all of us know what they are trying to do. We just have to
stand up and say it like it is and call it what it is. This is
shameful.

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 96

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Graham
amendment to the Y2K legislation be designated an amendment to be
offered by Senator Torricelli.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Morning business is closed.

____________________

Y2K ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S. 96, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 96) to regulate commerce between and among the
several States by providing for the orderly resolution of
disputes arising out of computer-based problems related to
processing data that includes a two-digit expression of that
year's date.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.

Amendment No. 608

(Purpose: To regulate interstate commerce by making provision for
dealing with losses arising from Year 2000 Problem-related failures
that may disrupt communications, intermodal transportation, and other
matters affecting interstate commerce)

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to start out by offering a
substitute amendment to S. 96, the Y2K Act. This substitute amendment
is truly a bipartisan effort. It represents spirited discussion, hard
fought compromise, and agreement with a number of my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle, led by Senators Dodd, Wyden, Hatch, Feinstein,
Bennett, Lieberman, Gorton, Lott, Abraham, Santorum, and Smith of
Oregon.
The substitute is at the desk, and I ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Lott, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Frist, Mr. Burns, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Lieberman, proposes an
amendment numbered 608.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden for being one of the
true leaders on this bill. Senator Wyden said at our committee markup
that he wanted to get to ``yes.'' He has worked tirelessly with me and
others to get there. Having not only the necessary majority vote but
the 60 votes necessary to move forward is directly related to his
efforts.
I also thank Senator Dodd of Connecticut. He has offered an important
perspective and has provided excellent suggestions and comments which I
think make this substitute we offer today a better piece of
legislation.
I am grateful to my colleagues, especially the senior Senator from
Connecticut, for their unflinching dedication to dialogue, to working
through our differences and remaining focused on the common goal of
enacting this critical piece of legislation. Without the leadership of
Senators Dodd and Wyden, this bipartisan effort would not have been
possible.
Before I talk about the legislation and the language of the
substitute itself, I would like to note that there was a unanimous
consent agreement that 12 amendments would be in order on both sides.
We are now in the process of working with the sponsors of those
amendments, some of which we can agree to, some of which may require
votes. But I hope my colleagues will also come over here ready to offer
those amendments so that in a very short period of time we can begin to
dispense with them.
We all know the very heavy schedule of legislation that lies before
us between now and the next recess on the Fourth of July. So I am
hopeful we can take up and dispense with these amendments in a timely
fashion.
The first effort, obviously, will be to get time agreements on those
amendments that we are unable to get agreement on, although I believe,
from a first look at many of these amendments, we will be able to work
out language so that we can accept a number of them. In fact, I think
some of them will improve the legislation.
I want to walk through the details of this substitute amendment and
the background and history of this bill.
First, let me summarize what this substitute contains.
Specifically, the substitute amendment:

[[Page 12044]]

Provides time for plaintiffs and defendants to resolve Y2K problems
without litigation.
It reiterates the plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages and highlights
the defendant's opportunity to assist plaintiffs in doing that by
providing information and resources.
It provides for proportional liability in most cases, with exceptions
for fraudulent or intentional conduct or where the plaintiff has
limited assets.
It protects governmental entities, including municipalities, school,
fire, water, and sanitation districts, from punitive damages.
It eliminates punitive damage limits for egregious conduct while
providing small businesses some protection against runaway punitive
damage awards.
And it provides protection for those not directly involved in a Y2K
failure.
The substitute, as the original bill, does not--I emphasize, does
not--cover personal injury and wrongful death cases.
The specific changes the substitute makes from the version of the
bill which Senator Wyden and I offered in April are those proposed by
Senator Dodd. It eliminates the director and officer liability caps, it
eliminates the punitive damages caps for businesses with more than 50
employees, it provides that State evidentiary standards will be used in
specific situations, and it preserves the protections provided in the
Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act.
Let me be quite blunt. These revisions represent significant
compromise. They move this bill a considerable distance from the Y2K
bill passed by the House. Even with these compromises, I believe the
bill will accomplish the goals for the legislation--to encourage
remediation and prevention of Y2K problems and eliminate frivolous and
opportunistic litigation which can only serve to damage our economy.
However, I do not believe any additional compromises are necessary or
warranted.
I want to reemphasize that point. There have been additional efforts
made to have us accept or work on additional changes to the bill. We
run the risk right now of compromising to the degree where it makes
these protections, if not meaningless, so reduced that we are not able
to achieve the goal we seek. So I do not intend--nor do, I believe, the
majority of my colleagues, including those on the other side of the
aisle--to continue to work behind the scenes towards a compromise. If
there is a change that Members believe needs to be made to this
legislation, then let's go through the amending process, let's have a
time limit on debate, and vigorously debate and educate our colleagues,
and then have votes.
We have, thanks to Senator Wyden, moved a significant way, and also
thanks to Senator Dodd; we have done that. We cannot move from our
position further. Yet we do obviously have 12 amendments in order on
that side, 12 amendments on this side, which is ample opportunity for
debate and discussion about this issue and further amending, obviously,
with majority rule.
So I point out again, these are significant compromises that have
already been made, some of them to the dissatisfaction of some of our
constituents. It has not made everybody happy. But having been around
here now for some years, it is my firm belief that we have to make
compromises, because that is the essence of legislation. But we have
made enough compromises that we can no longer make any further changes
without compromising the fundamental principles behind this
legislation.
Let me make one other point. Time is of the essence here. We cannot
dally. We cannot wait until the end of the year when Y2K is upon us.
Already lawsuits have been filed, some of them pretty interesting,
and emphasize, at least to my mind, the necessity of this legislation.
But we need to move. I fully intend, once we pass this legislation,
to move to conference as quickly as possible. There are differences
between the House-passed legislation and this legislation. I am
absolutely convinced we will be able to reach agreement in conference
and come back here before the recess with a final conference report and
bill to be approved by both Houses.
I am committed to passing legislation which is effective. I am not
interested in passing a meaningless facade. We will do the public a
great disservice to claim victory in passing legislation which leaves
loopholes for spurious litigation. If we aren't going to legitimately
fix the problem, then we must be forthright with the public and tell
them it could not be done. I think that would be a disastrous result,
but it would be more honest than to pretend to provide a solution and
not.
This bill deserves the support of every Member of the Senate. It is
fair, practical, and legally justifiable. It is important not only to
the high-tech industry or only to big businesses but carries the strong
support of small businesses, retailers, and wholesalers.
The coalition of support for this bill is compelling. Yesterday a
press conference was held to reiterate the support of the overwhelming
majority of the Nation's gross national product: the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; the National Association of Manufacturers; the National
Retail Federation; virtually every high-tech industrial association,
including the ITAA, the Business Software Alliance, and others who
participated, to emphasize the need for the bill and their support for
the compromises which have been made.
Many of those supporting this legislation will find themselves as
both plaintiffs and defendants. They have weighed the benefits and
drawbacks of the provisions of this legislation and have overwhelmingly
concluded that their chief priority is to prevent and fix Y2K problems
and make our technology work, not to divert their resources into time-
consuming and costly litigation.
The estimated cost of litigation associated with fixing the Y2K
problem is really quite enormous. In the view of some, it is as high as
$1 trillion. I do not know if it is that high, but already major
corporations in America have spent millions and millions, in some cases
tens of millions, of dollars in fixing existing problems. If we throw
into the mix the litigation we have already seen the beginnings of, it
could really have an effect, not only on the ability of our businesses
to do business, not only on the ability of our high-tech corporations
to continue investing in research and development and improvements in
technology, but it really would have a significant effect on our
overall economy. You take that much money out of our economy in the
form of litigation, you are going to feel the economic impacts of it.
Let me remind my colleagues how this legislation came to be, its
genesis and rationale. The origin, as we all know, of the Y2K problem
was in the 1950s and 1960s, when computer memory was oppressively
expensive. According to the February 24, 1999, report of the Senate
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, headed by
Senators Bennett and Dodd, in the IBM 7094 of the early 1960s, core
memory cost around $1 per byte. By comparison, today's semiconductor
memory costs around $1 per million bytes. Thus, there was a strong
incentive to minimize the storage required for a program and data.
A two-digit data code became the industry standard in order to
economize on storage space. It was presumed that sometime during the 40
or 50 years before the end of the millennium, the coding would be
changed as computer memory became more accessible. Unfortunately,
although memory costs fell dramatically, the interface requirements of
old software with new discouraged and slowed the changeover process.
The computer equipment and software that was expected to become
obsolete survived many layers and programming updates. The result is
that the two-digit programs are not designed to recognize dates beyond
1999 and may not be able to process data-related operations beyond
December 31 of this year.
Although some who oppose this litigation charge that the solutions
are simple and should have been completed long ago, the reality is not
that simple. First, there are over 500 programming

[[Page 12045]]

languages in use today. A universally compatible Y2K solution would
have to be compatible with most or many of these languages. Embedded
processors in embedded chips have to be found and replaced. There are
also several ways to reprogram causing additional interfacing issues.
Technical approaches to solving the problem include reprogramming all
two-digit date codes with a four-digit date code; windowing the date
codes to make programs think that the two-digit codes are applicable to
the year 2000 and beyond; and encapsulation which, like the windowing
method, tricks the computer program into thinking that the two-digit
date code is applicable beyond 1999. Unless the same approach is taken
in all computers, additional programming is required to allow interface
of four-digit codes with two-digit codes which have been windowed or
encapsulated.
Let me read from a recent publication of the National Legal Center
for the Public Interest, the Year 2000 Challenge, Legal Problems and
Solutions, which summarizes why the year 2000 problem is so difficult
to solve.
I quote from the article from the National Legal Center for the
Public Interest:

One of the most insidious characteristics of the Year 2000
problem is that the difficulty of solving it in any
particular organization often is so underestimated. Since
both the nature of the problem and the actions needed to fix
it are relatively easy to explain, people who are not
familiar with IT projects in general and the peculiar
difficulties of Year 2000 projects in particular tend to
think of Year 2000 projects as less difficult and risky than
they really are.
The unfortunate fact is that there is no ``silver bullet''
solution to the Year 2000 problem in any organization, and
the risks and difficulties in any Year 2000 project of even
moderate size and complexity can be enormous. None of the
remediation techniques described above is without
disadvantage, and for many IT users the time and resources
required to accomplish Year 2000 remediation far exceed what
is available. Most major remediation programs involve finding
and correcting date fields in millions of lines of poorly
documented or undocumented code. There is no single foolproof
method of finding date fields, no assurance that all date
fields will be found, corrected, or corrected accurately, and
no assurance that corrections will not produce unintended and
undesirable consequences elsewhere in the program. In many
cases it will be necessary to rely on information or
assurances from third-party vendors regarding the Year 2000
compliance of their products, even though experience teaches
that many such representations are inaccurate or misleading.
Comprehensive end-to-end system testing of remediated systems
in a simulated Year 2000 ``production'' environment is often
impractical or impossible, and less intensive testing may
fail to detect uncorrected problems. And even when an IT user
has succeeded in making its own system Year 2000 ready, Year
2000 date handling programs of external programs or systems
(such as the systems of customers or suppliers) can often
have a devastating effect on internal operations.

In addition to the technical problems with solving the problems, we
must consider the cost dimension of the Y2K problems. From the ITAA,
Information Technology Association of America, Year 2000 website, I
have the following information:

At $450 to $600 per affected computer program, the Gartner
Group has estimated that a medium-sized company will spend
between $3.6-$4.2 million to convert its software. The cost-
per-line-of-code has been estimated between $1.00-$1.50.
Viasoft estimates cost-per-impacted-programs between $572-
$1,204.
Estimates place correcting the problem for businesses and
the public sector in the United States alone between $100-
$200 billion. If you accept the premise that the total
information technology services marketplace in America
approaches $150 billion annually; that means Year 2000
Software Conversion could represent anywhere from 33%-50% of
dollars spent for information systems in one year. Some ITAA
Year 2000 Task Group members report estimates placing the
worldwide total to correct the problem between $300 to $600
billion.

In addition, the Senate Year 2000 Committee in its report cites
figures for several specific companies, as well as total costs which
include estimated litigation costs.

There is no generally agreed upon answer to this question.
The Gartner Group's estimate of $600 billion worldwide is a
frequently cited number. Another number from a reputable
source is that of Capers Jones, Software Productivity
Research, Inc. of Burlington, MA. Jones' worldwide estimate
is over $1.6 trillion.\5\ Part of the difference is that
Jones' estimate includes over $300 billion for litigation and
damages but Gartner's does not. A sense of the scale of the
cost can be gained from looking at the Y2K costs of six
multinational financial services institutions; Citicorp,
General Motors, Bank America, Credit Suisse Group, Chase
Manhattan and J.P. Morgan. These six institutions have
collectively estimated their Y2K costs to be over $2.4
billion.

Mr. President, the point here is that this is a complex technical
problem with no easy, cheap solution. Although the opponents of this
legislation would have us believe that Y2K failures can only result
from negligence or dereliction on the part of the technology industry,
and all those who use computer hardware and software, in truth, massive
efforts are underway, and have been for some time, to prevent the Y2K
problem from occurring. Even with the nearly incomprehensible amounts
of money being devoted to reprogramming date codes in virtually every
business and industry in our country, there are going to be failures.
Well-intentioned companies, acting in good faith, are nevertheless
going to encounter problems in their systems, or in the interface of
their systems with other systems, or as a result of some other
company's system.
But what experts are also concluding is that the real problems and
costs associated with Y2K may not be the January 1 failures, but the
lawsuits filed to create problems where none exist. An article in USA
Today on April 28 by Kevin Maney sums it up:

Experts have increasingly been saying that the Y2K problem
won't be so bad, at least relative to the catastrophe once
predicted. Companies and governments have worked hard to fix
the bug. Y2K-related breakdowns expected by now have been low
to nonexistent. For the lawyers, this could be like training
for the Olympics, then having the games called off.
The concern, though, is that this species of Y2K lawyer has
proliferated, and now it's got to eat something. If there
aren't enough legitimate cases to go around, they may dig
their teeth into anything. . . . In other words, lawyers
might make sure Y2K is really bad, even if it's not.

Mr. President, the sad truth in our country today is that litigation
has become an industry. While there are many fine, scrupulous attorneys
representing their clients in ethical fashion, there are also many
opportunistic lawyers looking for new ``inventories'' of cases. The Y2K
problems provide these attorneys with a lottery jackpot.
Let me read from an article published in March of this year, by the
Public Policy Institute of the Democratic Leadership Council, written
by Robert D. Atkinson and Joseph M. Ward:

As the millennium nears, the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer
problem poses a critical challenge to our economy. Tremendous
investments are being made of fix Y2K problems, with U.S.
companies expected to spend more than $50 billion. However,
these efforts could be hampered by a barrage of potential
litigation, as fear of liability may keep some businesses
from effectively engaging in Y2K remediation efforts. Trail
attorneys across the country are actually preparing for the
potential windfall. For those who doubt the emergences of
such a litigation leviathan, one only needs to listen to what
is coming out of certain quarters of the legal community. At
the American Bar Association annual convention in Toronto
last August, a panel of experts predicted that the legal
costs associated with Y2K will exceed that of asbestos,
breast implants, tobacco, and Superfund litigation
combined.\1\ That is more than three times the total annual
estimated cost of all civil litigation in the United
States.\2\ Seminars on how to try Y2K cases are well underway
and approximately 500 law firms across the country have put
together Y2K litigation teams to capitalize on the event.\3\
Also, several law suits have already been filed, making trail
attorneys confident that a large number of businesses, big
and small, will end up in court as both a plaintiff and
defendant. Such overwhelming litigation would reduce
investment and slow income growth for American workers.
Indeed, innovation and economic growth would be stifled by
the rapacity of strident litigators.

I want to point out that is from the Public Policy Institute of the
Democratic Leadership Council.
Mr. President, already at least 65 lawsuits--some report as many as
80--have been filed, and we are still 6 months away from January 1.
Most of these lawsuits involve potential problems that have not even
occurred yet.

[[Page 12046]]

Our nation's legal system is not designed to handle the tidal wave of
litigation which will undoubtedly occur if we do not act to prevent it.
We must reserve the courts for the cases with real harm, real factual
support, and which cannot be otherwise resolved through mediation and
resolution.
Probably the classic example of opportunistic litigation is a class
action suit filed in California by Tom Johnson against six major
retailers. Tom Johnson, acting as a ``private attorney general'' under
California consumer protection laws, has brought an action against a
group of retailers, including Circuit City, Office Depot, Office Max,
CompUSA, Staples, Fryes, and the good guys, inc. for failing to warn
consumers about products that are not Y2K compliant.
He has not alleged any injury or economic damage to himself, but,
pursuant to state statute, has requested relief in the amount of all of
the defendants' profits from 1995 to date from selling these products,
and restitution to ``all members of the California general public.''
Although he claims that ``numerous'' products are involved, he has not
specified which products are covered by his allegations, but has
generally named products by Toshiba, IBM, Compaq, Intuit, Hewlett
Packard, and Microsoft.
It is crystal clear that the real reason for this lawsuit is not to
fix a problem that Mr. Johnson has with any of his computer hardware or
software, but to see whether he can convince the companies involved
that it's cheaper to buy him off in a settlement than to litigate--even
if the case is eventually dismissed or decided in their favor.
And, even more interesting, is the history of how this case came to
be filed. The Wall Street Journal carried a story on Friday, May 14,
1999 in its Politics and Policy column by Robert S. Grernberger.
It says:

Michael Verna, a California lawyer, is warning a group of
technicians about the dangers ahead if they don't get the
gliches out of their companies' computers by the end of the
year.
Here in Seattle, Mr. Verna is explaining how writing
internal memos or careless e-mail could hurt a firm in a Y2K
lawsuit. Loretta Pirozzi of Data Dimensions Inc., a
consulting firm, complain that most bosses aren't budgeting
enough money to fix the problems. A knowing chuckle sweeps
the room. Mr. Verna warns that memos on such budget disputes
become smoking guns in court.
``What can we do?'' asks another woman.
``Have lawyers show you how to protect your documents, for
one thing,'' he says. ``By the way,'' he adds, ``that isn't a
sales pitch.''
But, of course, it is. Bowles & Verna, a 21-member firm in
Walnut Creek, Calif., has a Y2K game plan. It starts with
semimars that help develop new clients. The millennium itself
will usher in the ``failure litigation phase'' of court
fights. And in about five years, just when it seems like
everyone has sued everyone else, comes the ``insurance-
coverage phase,'' when companies go after their insurers to
pay some of their Y2K losses.
``You want to be on the leading edge of the tort of the
millennium,'' Mr. Verna says.
Bowles & Verna's journey to 2000 began almost by chance, in
1997, while Kenneth Jones, then a third-year law student, was
playing a computer football game. It is wife, Sandy, was
telling him that people were stocking up on canned goods and
bottled water for the expected chaos of Y2K. At that moment,
Mr. Jones recalls, he had an epiphany.
A new area of law, involving future failures due to Y2K
bugs, was being born, and Mr. Jones, a law student
comfortable with technology, was perfectly positioned for it.
He also was headed for a job at Bowles & Verna, where he had
been a summer law clerk. ``I decided the firm could be the
experts.
With Mr. Verna's strong encouragement, the 28-year-old Mr.
Jones proded his colleagues, giving some of the firm's
techno-challenged lawyers a book, ``Year 2000 Solutions for
Dummies.'' Gradually, the firm formed a Y2K team. All it
lacked was a client. Then, late last year. Mr. Jones's friend
Torn Johnson, a Walnut Creek swimming coach, went shopping
for a laptop computer--and Bowles & Verna found its first Y2K
lawsuit.
But with no apparent injury to Mr. Johnson, the firm needed
a legal theory. California's Unfair Business Practices Act
came to the rescue. The statute permits citizen lawsuits on
behalf of the people of the state to stop unfair or deceptive
business practices. And so Mr. Johnson is suing about half a
dozen retailers for injunctive relief to require disclosure
for Y2K compliance, but not for damages. And, under the state
law, Bowles & Verna would collect attorney's fees.

This is precisely the type of frivolous and opportunistic lawsuit
which would be avoided by S. 96. Rather than have all of these named
companies wasting their time and resources preparing a defense for this
case, S. 96 would direct the focus to fixing real problems. In this
instance, Mr. Johnson does not have an actual problem, but if he did,
he would need to articulate what is not working due to a Y2K failure.
The company or companies responsible would then have an opportunity to
address and fix the specific problem. If the problem isn't fixed, then
Mr. Johnson would be free to bring his suit.
This case is the tip of the iceberg--if thousands of similar suits
are brought after January 1, the judicial system will be overrun--and
the nation's economy will be thrown into turmoil. This is a senseless
and needless abuse that we can avoid by passing S. 96.
Mr. President, let me turn to the substance of the substitute
amendment offered today. Without going through every paragraph of the
bill, let me highlight the most important provisions.
Certainly the centerpiece of the bill are the provisions of Section 7
regarding notice. This section requires plaintiffs to give defendants
30 days notice before commencing a lawsuit. This provides an
opportunity for someone who has been harmed by a Y2K failure to make
the person responsible aware of the problem and to fix it. If the
defendant doesn't agree to fix the problem, then the plaintiff can sue
on the 31st day. If the defendant does agree to fix the problem, 60
days are permitted to accomplish the remediation before a lawsuit can
be filed. This offers a reasonable time and opportunity for people to
work out legitimate problems with sincere solutions, without cost of
litigation. It focuses on the fact that most people want things to
work--they don't want to sue.
A corresponding critical element of this legislation is the
requirement for specificity in pleadings found in Section 8. Not
written nor intended to cause loopholes for lawyers, the thrust of this
requirement is that there must be a real problem in order to sue. Our
judicial system should not be clogged with possible Y2K failures, nor
novel complaints to ensure the payment of lottery style settlements and
attorneys fees. We must reserve our judicial resources for real
problems which have caused real injury which can be redressed by the
court.
The Duty to Mitigate in Section 9 is also important. While it is in
some respects merely a statement of current law, it highlights the
emphasis to be placed on preventing problems and injury to the maximum
extent possible, and articulates the role that prevention information
made available by the affected industries can play in limiting injury
to product users.
The economic loss rule found in Section 12 is also a restatement of
law in the majority of states. It is critical, however, because it
confirms that damages not available under contract theories of law
cannot be obtained through tort theories. This is particularly
important here where personal injury claims have been excluded.
Punitive damages caps have been retained for small businesses,
defined as those with 50 fewer than 50 employees. Punitive damages are
permitted under some state laws in certain egregious situations
primarily as a deterrent from a repetition of the conduct.
Punitive damages are awarded primarily as punishment to a defendant.
They are intended to deter a repeat of the offensive conduct.
Punitive damages are not awarded to compensate losses/damage suffered
by a plaintiff.
The Y2K cases are unusual in that the conduct is not likely to occur
again, thus there is little deterrent value in awarding punitive
damages.
Without a deterrent effect, punitive damages serve only as a windfall
to plaintiffs and attorneys.
Additionally, since we have eliminated personal injuries from
coverage of the bill, the only harm caused by defendants will be
economic damage, which can be appropriately compensated without the
need for punitive awards.

[[Page 12047]]

Further, excessive punitive damage awards will simply compound the
economic impact of Y2K litigation and the costs will be passed along to
the public/consumers through higher prices.
In this situation, punitive damages truly become a ``lottery'' for
the plaintiff, thus they should be limited.
S. 96 provides an exception to the caps for intentional injury to the
plaintiff, which is most likely to be conduct worthy of additional
punishment.
S. 96 protects all governmental entities so that taxpayers are asked
to provide compensation for actual damages, but not provide windfalls
to plaintiffs. This is especially important to municipalities and
special districts (school, fire, water and sanitation). This is
strongly supported by National League of Cities.
Let me speak to some of the points raised by the proposal of Senators
Kerry, Robb, Daschle, Reid, Breaux, and Akaka. While it is encouraging
that they agree the Y2K problem is one which must be addressed, it is
unfortunate that they continue to reject some of the most important
goals of the legislation.
First, their proposal applies only to ``commercial losses.'' It
excludes consumer actions from the scope of the bill. I think this
exclusion is misguided and merely strengthens the hand of the
opportunistic lawyers.
It denies the consumer the protections afforded by S. 96, including
the ability to have problems fixed quickly and without the need for
expensive litigation. It places a burden on those least able to afford
legal counsel.
Notwithstanding the purported attempt to cover consumer claims
brought as class actions, in fact it provides a ``lawyers' loophole''
by permitting individual claims to be brought and consolidated or
aggregated to avoid the notice and pleading requirements of the class
action section.
There are no punitive damage limitations or protections, either for
business (large or small) or for governmental entities. Punitive
damages are intended to punish poor behavior and deter a repeat of it
in the future. Punitive damages do not have such an effect in Y2K
litigation because of the uniqueness of the problem. Thus, in Y2K
litigation, punitive damages become an incentive for ``jackpot
justice'' and abusive litigation.
The proportionate liability provisions are ineffective in preventing
``deep pocket'' companies from being targeted by mass litigation.
The approach of requiring a defendant to prove itself innocent in
order to be assured proportionate liability is misguided and ignores
the vast array of potential defendants and the myriad of factual
situations which may be encompassed in a Y2K action. In particular,
defendants who are in the middle of the supply chain may be sued for a
breach of a contract caused not by the failure of the defendant's
computers but by those elsewhere in the supply chain.
Requirements in the Kerry proposal would result in that defendant
being jointly and severally liable--an injustice. The result is, the
deep-pocketed defendants will face needless and abusive litigation and
will be subjected to either defending or settling such cases,
regardless of their share of responsibility for causing the plaintiff's
problems.
The Kerry proposal also fails to encourage settlement of cases before
trial. Defendants who do settle with the plaintiff should not be
subjected to continued liability or responsibility for other
defendants. This defeats the purpose of incentive for early settlement
in mediation.
The Kerry proposal rejects the protections for settling defendants
contained in S. 96. The fair rule in this situation is that each
defendant pays for the portion of the problem which that defendant
causes. S. 96 provides that clear rule, with exceptions patterned after
the Securities Act, as proposed by Senator Dodd.
There are important differences as well. The Kerry proposal does not
protect contracts as negotiated but permits them to be revised and
overturned by uncertain common law. This results in the parties being
uncertain of their duties and obligations under their contracts and
will increase the likelihood of litigation. The proposal also too
narrowly applies the economic loss rule, subjecting defendants to
broader damages available under current law in most States.
Taken as a whole, the Kerry proposal simply does not provide the
solutions which are needed to the Y2K problem. It is a meager attempt
to provide lip service to the business community while protecting the
trial lawyers' income stream. I urge my colleagues to carefully review
the details of the proposal and reject this form-over-substance
amendment.
I have taken a long time on this legislation. This is a very
important issue, to say the least. It has a profound impact on our
economy, on our country, and the lives of men and women who are engaged
in small, medium, and large business throughout America.
This substitute amendment is a good piece of legislation that
deserves the support of the Senate. It is not perfect. It certainly
does not provide a wish list of product liability or tort reform. The
business community certainly would like more than what is in this
compromise. The House passed a bill that contained many of the
provisions we have eliminated to reach this bipartisan compromise.
As in any negotiation process, there must be give and take. We have
given a great deal. I remain convinced that the Y2K problem is real and
must be addressed now. I believe that this substitute offered will
achieve a just and reasonable approach to Y2K: Fair prevention,
remediation, and litigation. This bill should not be further
emasculated. It has the support of the broadest possible cross section
of our Nation's economy. It is a bill which is good for our country. It
will ensure that our economy is not derailed with opportunistic
litigation.
It is critical that it pass without further delay. I ask each of my
colleagues for their support in bringing this bill to its final
successful conclusion and enacting it into law.
I thank the Senator from South Carolina, who I know has the very
strongest views on this issue. He is a fierce fighter for the
principles he believes in, which are obviously in opposition to this
legislation. However, the Senator from South Carolina has allowed this
bill to come to the floor. He could easily have blocked it further. I
appreciate his cooperation in doing so.
We have 12 amendments that are in order on each side. We would like
to see those amendments, and we would like to start work on them so we
can resolve those and perhaps get time agreements or accept those
amendments on both sides.
I thank my two dear friends who are on the floor today, Senator Wyden
and Senator Dodd, without whose cooperation and effort we would never
have reached this stage nor would we reach enactment of this
legislation. The essence of doing business in this body on these kinds
of issues is a bipartisan coalition. That is why we have a 60-vote
rule, which many times I decry when I am pushing issues which have no
more than 50 votes, such as campaign finance reform.
I think it also compels Members to work in a bipartisan fashion so we
can work together. I argue that at the end of the day the legislation
is probably much better for it.
If it is agreeable with the Senator from South Carolina, I will begin
with colleagues on our side and then the other side of the aisle to
begin addressing the amendments, so we can get agreement and time
agreements so we can dispatch this legislation as soon as possible,
although I know that the Senator from South Carolina will have a great
deal to say on this issue, as he has in the past.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman is correct,
the Senator has had sufficient time now during the negotiations over
the past 4 weeks to consider, after hearings before our committee, all
the different ramifications and contentions by the parties. It is the
intent of Members on this side of the aisle to expedite the

[[Page 12048]]

vote on this particular measure whereby we will have only amendments
that are germane to the particular issue, and that they be limited and
there be no delaying conduct and action.
I must address immediately some of the comments made by my
distinguished colleague from Arizona with respect to trial lawyers,
with respect to punitive damages, the lottery, and various other things
that go without contest up here in Washington because they look good on
a poll.
If we were to poll the States' attorneys general or the Governors,
they wouldn't be here at all. The State tort law has taken care of
product liability, according to the American Bar Association, in a very
efficient manner over the many years. In fact, we have the safest of
all societies in America as a result of product liability. That is the
subject at hand, of course--product liability--namely, the
computerization, the software, the glitch or the Y2K problem that could
occur January 1, 2000.
Everybody is on notice for January 1, 2000. All of these measures
before the Senate--the McCain-Wyden-Dodd amendment--say January 1, if
we have a glitch, we should first talk about it for 2 or 3 months. We
have 6 months right now. We have had 30 years.
The computer industry, the software industry, has appeared before the
committee. They have known about this problem for the past 30 years.
Ross Perot says it is easy to fix; just take the year 1972; everything
conforms in the year 2000 with the year 1972, and we have a fix.
There are other sinister drives, motives, and intents behind this
particular measure that must be surfaced at the very outset. This is
not a product liability problem for the computer industry. They know
and have warned everybody, and everybody is making tests. For example,
the best of the best, some 2,000 leading industries, are named in March
in Business Week. The market, of course, has taken care of the problem.
It is a nonproblem, as far as Y2K, as far as computerization, as far as
the product itself.
There is another problem with respect to the Chamber of Commerce, the
Business Roundtable, and that crowd coming in here and trying to
diminish the rights of consumers, the protection for consumers, of all
Americans.
March 1 in Business Week, an article tells a story about Lloyd Davis,
in his Golden Plains Agricultural Technologies, Colby, KS, business.
He needs $71,000 to get his particular system Y2K-compliant. He has a
problem. He can borrow up to $39,000, but he has not been able to
borrow the rest of it.
We are not talking about an injured party in an auto collision who
has a bad back and brings a frivolous suit--nobody can tell whether the
back is bad or not until after the verdict--and then walks away. That
has happened in America several times. But these are substantial small
businesses. I am quoting now from the article:

Multinationals such as General Motors, McDonald's, Nike,
and Deere, are making the first quarter--or the second at the
latest--the deadline for partners and vendors to prove
they're bug free. A recent survey says that 69 percent of the
2,000 largest companies will stop doing business with
companies that can't pass muster.

Mr. President, 2,000 companies of the blue chip corporations in
America here are coming forward and saying--already, 2 months ago, 3
months ago--if you are not compliant by the end of this month, June at
the latest, we are going to have to find another supplier. We cannot
play around. We have to do business. We are going to others:

Cutting thousands of companies out of the supply chain
might strain supply lines and could even crimp output. But
most CEOs figure it will be cheaper in the long run to avoid
bugs in the first place.
Some small outfits are already losing key customers. In the
past year, Prudential Insurance Co. has cut nine suppliers
from its ``critical'' list of more than 3,000 core vendors,
and it continues to look for weak links, says Irene Deck,
Vice President for Information Systems at the company. And
Citibank Vice President, Ray Apte, ``cuts have already been
made.''

Mr. President, you are talking about frivolous lawsuits. Not with all
this warning, with all the record made and public hearings here in the
Government itself and the Congress, with all the chances to cure all
the glitches. We have had chance upon chance upon chance and effort
upon effort. The most recent one here, of course, was just a couple of
weeks ago in the Washington Post:

Banking regulators worried about the year 2000 readiness of
a big ATM service company in the west have just ordered it to
get in shape by June 30 or face possible contract
cancellations by its 750 bank customers.

The point is, business is not telling business let's work it out in
90 days, like the law that they propose. Business is telling business:
Blam, you either get with it, business is business, or we are going to
cut you off.
As an old-time trial lawyer, the punitive damages they are talking
about is only for willful neglect. By January 1, 6 months from now, we
have this big debate, we have the best of minds, we have the best of
witnesses, we have the best of software experts coming, everything
else--we have the best of business leadership saying: Get with it or we
are going to cut you off. If they have not gotten with it by January 1,
that is willful neglect. All cases after January 1, under the record
being made here in 1999 in the National Government, ought to indicate
if there ever were an indication of willful neglect, willful
misconduct, it would be now on Y2K.
No, this is not really about business because business cannot wait
around. Incidentally, the claimants are not frivolous--which is a
remarkable thing, how they can tie people in. The National Federation
of Independent Business ought to be standing here with me in this well,
because the average computer for these small businesses, I would say,
is around $20,000. These are not people willy-nilly looking for a
lawsuit. They are not looking for a punitive damage lottery and all of
that kind of nonsense that they make fun of here and try to stir up the
emotions and say we have those old trial lawyers.
The truth of the matter is, these small business people have to get
on and do business. They have no time to get a lawyer and wait the 90
days and come back around after 90 days, then file a pleading, and then
on and on. Then under their particular bill, on joint and several--I
cannot tell where the parts are made, but I guarantee the majority of
the parts of the computers are made outside of the United States. If I
cannot get joint and several, where am I going? To India, where a lot
of the parts in computerization are made? Am I going to Malaysia to
bring my suit? I am a small businessman.
Oh, no, they have to get joint and several out of here. Why? On
account of product liability, the Chamber of Commerce on account of Tom
Donahue and Victor Schwartz. I have been here for 20 some years in the
Federal Government proudly standing on the side of the American Bar
Association, the Association of State Supreme Court Justices, the State
legislators. They met and they back us up every time, because this is a
problem at the local level that has long since been solved in tort law,
in verdicts made there. But otherwise, long since, here, there is
evidence upon evidence of businesses saying we cannot wait around for
lawsuits and lawyers and punitive damages and everything else of that
kind. We have to get on with it.
But Silicon Valley has the money. People are falling over pell-mell.
I wish we could have passed campaign financing reform because we are
going to talk money out here on the floor, which is when this
legislation really gets any kind of impetus or attention. Everybody
wants Silicon Valley contributions. I do, too. But I cannot see
changing 200 years of tort law in order to get it.
Most advisedly, if General Motors came up here to the National
Government and said: Look, we are going to put out a new model come the
first of the year, and it might have some glitches. So, if we find any
glitches in our 2000 year's model, what we need to do is get together
with anybody who has a glitch, and let's talk to them for 2 or 3
months. I don't know what they are supposed to do with the car during
that time because it will not work.
But that is the law they want to pass: let's talk about it for 90
days.

[[Page 12049]]

How fanciful and nonsensical this whole move is. Thereafter, bring your
lawsuit. By the way, everybody has known about this particular problem
for years on end, every business magazine and everything else. But
let's not have any punitive damages or willful misconduct. Let's not
have any joint and several liability.
General Motors would say: Senator, how about changing 200 years of
the State tort law for me because I am going to put out a new model?
You would run General Motors out of town. You would not listen to
them at all. But General Motors is not up here making those kinds of
contributions. Silicon valley is. Oh, boy, we can bring the records
here and show just exactly what the issue is. Everybody wants to show I
am a friend of technology.
They do not have to talk to this Senator about technology. I authored
the Advanced Technology Program. I authored the Advanced Technology
Business Partnership Act. I have been working with the young
computerization people and technology people for 20-some years at
least. So don't tell me about technology and being a friend of
technology. What they are is a friend of campaign contributions.
So, you have the money marrying up with the manifest intent of the
Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Conference Board, the
National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of
Independent Business. The reason I can correlate them so easily is I
had to face them last year in the campaign. Of course the Chamber of
Commerce endorsed my opponent because I was such a sorry Senator. Then
in February they gave me the Enterprise Award for the year 1998, since
I had done such a good job. They do not have any shame. That is the
bunch with the most gall I ever met to come around, take the fellow
they opposed, and then give him an award for doing such an outstanding
job; the very reason, such a sorry job, why they opposed him. But that
is the kind of shenanigans we have going on and giving it an official
recognition here.
Do not let me leave out the insurance companies. The insurance
companies out there right now are at a hearing, Mr. President, before
your subcommittee and mine: ``No fault.'' But they have a different
name for it.
It has not worked. They have tried it in Connecticut, they have tried
it in Georgia, they have tried it in Nevada, but it has not worked, and
they canceled it out. We do not need a hearing. We have the actual
experience in the States. But the insurance companies, at every turn,
are in here driving to change the laws here, there and yonder for
money, to increase their profits.
I have been at the State level and have been a sort of States rights
Senator. I have been defending insurance at the State level, saying it
has been regulated.
They have come with Y2K; they have come with product liability; they
have come with auto choice. They call it no fault. They want a little
tidbit here and a little tidbit there. Let's federalize interstate
commerce--if any business is an interstate commerce--and let's
federalize the insurance industry in the United States and set the
rules for all 50 States, and then they will not have to qualify it.
I bring these things out because they are most important, for the
simple reason that the trial lawyers, for example, and punitive
damages--both--do a wonderful job for America.
Let's go back to the leading case: the Pinto case back in 1978. There
is an outstanding attorney in California named Mark Robinson. He got a
verdict for $3.5 million actual damages and $125 million punitive
damages. He never collected a red cent of the punitive damages.
When the Senator from Arizona gets up here and talks about the
punitive damages lottery, the American Bar Association said less than 4
percent of all tort cases result in a punitive damage verdict, and half
of those are reversed again on appeals. So we are talking about less
than 2 percent. He is up here describing it as ``just roll the dice and
we can get a lot of money and we have a lottery coming.''
What has that punitive damage verdict done? Go over, as I have done,
to the National Safety Transportation Board and you will find out that
in the last 4 years--Mr. President, I want you to listen to this
statistic--they have had 73,854,669 vehicle recalls. There were some
last week. Chrysler was recalling some cars. Another one had something
to do with the ignition; it was causing fires. Another one had
something else wrong with it. We are constantly getting the recalls.
Why? Not because they love safety, but because of the punitive damage
lottery and the trial lawyers; they are going to get them.
On a cost-benefit basis, in the Pinto case, they said do not worry
about it, we can kill a few, let the gas tank explode and let them die;
but the cost of those deaths is not near as much as the profit we make
on selling the car.
On cost-benefit, as a result of trial lawyers, we have had, just in
the last 4 years, 73 million recalls. That has promoted tremendous
safety in America, has saved thousands of lives, millions of injuries,
I can tell you that. If they want to give a good Government award to
anybody with respect to bringing about safety in America, find Mark
Robinson in San Diego and give him the award, because I am proud of him
and America is proud of him.
The trouble is, they are being derided and rebuked and defamed in the
National Congress because we have a bunch of Congressmen and Senators
who have never been in a courtroom, never tried a case, do not
understand that people do not have time for frivolous lawsuits. Trial
lawyers know they take on all the expenses, they take on all the time
and effort for the discovery, for the interrogatories, for all the
motions, all the appearances, thereupon the trial and thereupon--this
is what they call a lottery--get all 12 jurors by the greater weight of
the preponderance of evidence, take the case on appeal and get a
verdict from the Supreme Court, and then they get that fee they all
talk about now in the tobacco cases.
The trial lawyers have done more than Koop and Kessler. I have been
up here working with them on cancer. I have received national awards, I
can say immodestly. I helped and worked and got a center for this
particular disease, but I can tell you advisedly, after 32-some years,
these trial lawyers on smoking, on lung cancer, on heart attacks,
saving lives, preventing cancer deaths, have done way more than Koop
and Kessler, because we used to meet out here and nobody would pay
attention to Koop and nobody would pay attention to Kessler. When the
trial lawyers then started bringing the cases and getting these
settlements, it was not the fees that they got but, more or less, the
good that they brought to our society. Let's give them the good
Government award this morning.
I want to clear the air here because we have just run into all of
this lottery stuff and spurious suits and frivolous suits. This case
involves small business folks who have put $20,000 or more into a
computer, and they are trying, like the doctor who appeared before the
committee, their dead-level best to get some results because they are
not waiting, of course, until January 1, 2000.
We had the testimony of Dr. Robert Courtney on February 9, 1999,
before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The good
doctor was from Atlantic County, NJ. I had never met him before, but he
gave an outstanding recount.
I ask unanimous consent that his statement be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Testimony of Dr. Robert Courtney at the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Hearing on S. 96, the Y2K Act, February 9,
1999

Good morning, my name is Bob Courtney, and I am a doctor
from Atlantic County, New Jersey. It is an honor for me to be
here this morning, and I thank you for inviting me to offer
testimony on the Y2K issue.
As a way of background, I am an ob/gyn and a solo
practitioner. I do not have an office manager. It's just my
Registered Nurse, Diane Hurff, and me, taking care of my 2000
patients.
These days, it is getting tougher and tougher for those of
us who provide traditional, personalized medical services.
The

[[Page 12050]]

paperwork required by the government on one hand, and by
insurance companies on the other is forcing me to spend fewer
hours doing what I do best--taking care of patients and
delivering their babies.
But it was a Y2K problem which recently posed a serious
threat to my practice, and that is why I am here this
morning.
As a matter of clarification, although I am a doctor, I am
not here to speak on behalf of the American Medical
Association. Although I am also a small businessman, I am not
here to speak on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. I cannot
tell you how these organizations feel about the legislation
before the Committee. But I can tell you how it would have
affected my practice and my business.
I am one of the lucky ones. While a potential Y2K failure
impacted my practice, the computer vendor that sold me the
software system and I were able to reach an out-of-court
settlement which was fair and expedient. From what my
attorney, Harris Pogust, who is here with me today tells me,
I doubt I would have been so lucky had this legislation
been in effect.
In 1987, I purchased a computer system from Medical
Manager, one of the leading medical systems providers in the
country. I used the Medical Manager system for tracking
surgery, scheduling due dates and billing. The system worked
well for me for ten years, until the computer finally crashed
from lack of sufficient memory.
In 1996, I replaced my old system with a new, state of the
art pentium system from Medical Manager for $13,000. This was
a huge investment for a practice of my size.
I remember joking with the computer salesman at the time
that this was a big purchase for me, and that I was counting
on this system to last as long as the last one did.
I remember the salesman telling me that he was sure that I
would get at least ten years out of it. He showed me a list
of how many of his local customers had used the Medical
Manager for longer than ten years.
And, the salesman pointed me to this advertising brochure
put out by Medical Manager. It states that their product
would provide doctors with ``the ability to manage [their]
future.''
In truth, I never asked the salesman about whether the new
system that I was buying was Y2K compliant. I honestly did
not know even to ask the question. After all, I deliver
babies. I don't program computers. Based on the salesman's
statements and the brochure, I assumed the system would work
long into the future. After all, he had promised me over ten
years' use, which would take me to 2006.
But just one year later, I received a form letter from
Medical Manager telling me that the system I had just
purchased had a Y2K problem. It was a problem that would make
it impossible for me to schedule due dates or handle my
administrative tasks--as early as 1999.
Medical Manager also offered to fix the problem that they
had created--but for $25,000.
I was outraged, as I suspect anyone sitting around this
table would be. The original system had cost me $15,000 when
I purchased it in 1986. The upgraded system cost me $13,000
in 1996. Now, a year later, they wanted another $25,000. They
knew when they sold me the $13,000 system that it would need
this upgrade--but of course, they didn't tell me.
I wrote back to the company that I fully expected them to
fix the problem for free, since I had just bought the system
from them and I had been promised that it would work long
into the future.
The company ignored my request, however, and several months
later, sent me an estimate for fixing the problem--again, for
over $25,000.
At this point, I was faced with a truly difficult dilemma.
My practice depends on the use of a computer system to track
my patients' due dates, surgeries and billings--but I did not
have $25,000 to pay for an upgrade. Additionally, I was
appalled at the thought of having to pay Medical Manager for
a problem that they had created and should have anticipated.
If I had to pay that $25,000, that would force me to drop
many of my indigent patients that I now treat for free. Since
Medical Manager insisted upon charging me for the new system,
and because my one year-old system was no longer dependable,
I retained an attorney and sued Medical Manager to fix or
replace my computer system at their cost.
Within two months of filing our action, Medical Manager
offered to settle by providing all customers who bought a
non-Y2K compliant system from them after 1990 with a free
upgrade that makes their systems Y2K compliant by utilizing a
software ``patch.''
This settlement gave me what I wanted from Medical
Manager--the ability to use my computer system as it was
meant to be used. To my great satisfaction, the legal system
worked for me and the thousands of other doctors who bought
Medical Manager's products since 1990. In fact, since I
brought my claim against Medical Manager, I have received
numerous telephone calls and letters from doctors across the
country who had similar experiences.
Additionally, even Medical Manager has stated that it was
pleased with the settlement. According to the Medical Manager
president who was quoted in the American Medical News,
``[f]or both our users and our shareholders, the best thing
was to provide a Y2K solution. This is a win for our users
and a win for us.'' [pick up article and display to Senators]
I simply do not see why the rights of doctors and other small
businesses to recover from a company such as Medical Manager
should be limited--which is what I understand this bill would
do. Indeed, my attorney tells me that if this legislation had
been in effect when I bought my system, Medical Manager would
not have settled. I would still be in litigation, and might
have lost my practice.
As an aside, at roughly the same time I bought the non-
compliant system from Medical Manager, I purchased a sonogram
machine from ADR. That equipment was Y2K compliant. The
Salesman never told me it was compliant. It was simply built
to last. Why should we be protecting the vendors or
manufacturers of defective products rather than rewarding the
responsible ones?
Also, as a doctor, I also hope the Committee will look into
the implications of this legislation for both patient health
and potential medical malpractice suits. This is an issue
that many doctors have asked me about, and that generates
considerable concern in the medical community.
In sum, I do appreciate this opportunity to share my
experiences with the Committee. I guess the main message I
would like to leave you with is that Y2K problems affect the
lives of everyday people like myself, but the current legal
system works. Changing the equation now could give companies
like Medical Manager an incentive to undertake prolonged
litigation strategies rather than agree to speedy and fair
out-of-court settlements.
I became a doctor, and a sole practitioner, because I love
delivering babies. I give each of my patients my home phone
number. I am part of their lives. This Y2K problem could have
forced me to give all that up. It is only because of my
lawyer, and the court system, that I can continue to be the
doctor that I have been. This bill, and others like it, would
take that away from me. Please don't do that. Leave the
system as it is. The court worked for me--and it will work
for others.
Thank you.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
I will run right down, trying to save time. It says:

But it was a Y2K problem which recently posed a serious
threat to my practice, and that is why I am here this
morning.
As a matter of clarification, although I am a doctor, I am
not here to speak on behalf of the American Medical
Association. Although I am also a small businessman, I am not
here to speak on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. I cannot
tell you how these organizations feel about the legislation
before the committee. But I can tell you how it would have
affected my practice and my business.
I am one of the lucky ones. While a potential Y2K failure
impacted my practice, the computer vendor that sold me the
software system and I were able to reach an out-of-court
settlement which was fair and expedient. From what my
attorney, Harris Pogust, who is here with me today tells me,
I doubt I would have been so lucky had this legislation been
in effect.
In 1987, I purchased a computer system from Medical
Manager, one of the leading medical systems providers in the
country. I use a Medical Manager system for tracking surgery,
scheduling due dates and billing. The system worked well for
me for ten years until the computer finally crashed from lack
of sufficient memory.
In 1996, I replaced my old system with a new, state of the
art pentium system from Medical Manager for $13,000. This was
a huge investment for a practice of my size.
I remember joking with the computer salesman at the time
that this was a big purchase for me, and that I was counting
on this system to last as long as the last one did.
I remember the salesman telling me that he was sure that I
would get at least ten years out of it. He showed me a list
of how many of the local customers had used the Medical
Manager for longer than ten years.

The salesman pointed out the advertising brochure, and so forth.

But just one year later, I received a form letter from
Medical Manager telling me that the system I had just
purchased had a Y2K problem.

Here comes business. This is the practice of the business that is
going on here now in June of 1999, 6 months ahead of January 1, 2000.
The computer people are moving in and they are saying: Wait a minute,
you have got a Y2K problem.
I quote again:

It was a problem that would make it impossible for me to
schedule due dates or handle my administrative tasks--as
early as 1999.
Medical Manager also offered to fix the problem that they
had created--but for $25,000.
I was outraged, as I suspect anyone sitting around this
table would be. The original system had cost me $15,000 when
I purchased it

[[Page 12051]]

in 1986. The upgraded system cost me $13,000 in 1996. Now, a
year later, they wanted another $25,000. They knew when they
sold me the $13,000 system that it would need this upgrade--
but of course, they didn't tell me.
I wrote back to the company that I fully expected them to
fix the problem for free, since I had just bought the system
from them and I had been promised that it would work long
into the future.
The company ignored my request, however, and several months
later, sent me an estimate for fixing the problem--again, for
over $25,000.
At this point, I was faced with a truly difficult dilemma.
My practice depends on the use of a computer system to track
my patients' due dates, surgeries and billings--but I did not
have $25,000 to pay for an upgrade. Additionally, I was
appalled at the thought of having to pay Medical Manager for
a problem that they had created and should have anticipated.
If I had to pay that $25,000, that would force me to drop
many of my indigent patients that I now treat for free.
Since Medical Manager insisted upon charging me for the new
system, and because my one-year old system was no longer
dependable, I retained an attorney and sued Medical Manager
to fix or replace my computer system at their cost.
Within two months of filing our action, Medical Manager
offered to settle by providing all customers who bought a
non-Y2K compliant system from them after 1990 with a free
upgrade that makes their systems Y2K compliant by utilizing a
software ``patch.''

This witness appeared before the committee attesting to the fact that
what really happened is the attorney put it on the Internet. Whoopee
for the Internet. And once he got his case on the Internet, some 20,000
purchasers in a similar situation started calling on the phone and
filing in. Then on a cost/benefit--business is business--they knew what
the law was. They knew they intentionally misled. The salesman had
said: Man, this thing will last you more than 10 years, like your last
system. In a year it was already on the blink. They wanted to charge
$25,000--more than he paid for the first system and the upgrade
combined.
They got a free upgrade. They paid the lawyers, too. They were
tickled to death to get out of this one after it got on the Internet.
Let me quote:

This settlement gave me what I wanted from Medical
Manager--the ability to use my computer system as it was
meant to be used. To my great satisfaction, the legal system
worked for me and the thousands of other doctors who bought
Medical Manager's products since 1990. In fact, since I
brought my claim against Medical Manager, I have received
numerous telephone calls and letters from doctors across the
country who had similar experiences.

Reading on and skipping a good part, to conclude:

I became a doctor, and a sole practitioner, because I love
delivering babies. I give each of my patients my home phone
number. I am part of their lives. This Y2K problem could have
forced me to give all of that up. It is only because of my
lawyer, and the court system, that I can continue to be the
doctor that I have been. This bill, and others like it, would
take that away from me. Please don't do that. Leave the
system as it is. The court worked for me--and it will work
for others.

It is working all over the country, and, frankly, at a very minimal
cost. The consummate sum total of all products--this is product
liability matters--of all product liability verdicts does not exceed
the $12.1 billion that Pennzoil received in a verdict against Texaco.
When business sues business, oh, boy, as Senator Dirksen stood here at
this chair and said: Then it gets into money. He said: A billion here
and a billion there, and before long it runs into money.
This is something to protect the consumers of America. It is very
much needed. They are working on it at the State level, and they have
plenty of notice. They do not need a bill to say, come January 1st,
give them another 90 days. We are going to give them 90 days beginning
right now with the debate. And we are going to give them another 60.
Happy day. We are giving them more days right now.
Just use the law, use your sense, do what business practices are
doing all over the country. But there is no question that this thing
here is just the footprint of a political exercise by those entities
downtown at the Chamber, which I am embarrassed for because I used to
be a champion of the Chamber of Commerce.
Talk about a businessman's politician, I challenge anybody to meet
the record we made bringing business, and continue to bring, to the
State of South Carolina. Incidentally, none of them have said anything
about Y2K; none of them have said anything about product liability.
I remember taking another prospect the other day to Bosch. They make
not only all the fuel injectors but all of the antilock brakes for
Toyota and Mercedes and a 10-year contract for General Motors. Just
going along down the line, I said: By the way, what do you have on
product liability?
The fellow got insulted. He said: Product liability? He ran over and
said: Look here. He showed me a serial number on every one of the
antilock brakes. He said: We would know immediately what went wrong.
You see, substantive basic tort law brings about due care, brings
about safety, brings about sound products. It is working in America.
And here comes a bunch of pollster politicians and a downtown group,
greedy as they are, trying to ruin small business, that is going to
have a problem.
Here is what the Washington Post, which is usually on the other side
of trial lawyers and everything else of that kind, said:

The Senate is considering a bill to limit litigation
stemming from the Year 2000 computer problem. The current
version, a compromise reached by Sens. John McCain and Ron
Wyden, would cap punitive damages for Y2K-related lawsuits
and require that they be preceded by a period during which
defendants could fix the problems that otherwise would give
rise to the litigation. Cutting down on frivolous lawsuits is
certainly a worthy goal, and we are sympathetic to litigation
reform proposals. But this bill, though better than earlier
versions, still has fundamental flaws. Specifically, it
removes a key incentive for companies to fix problems before
the turn of the year, and it also responds to a problem whose
scope is at this stage unknown. Nobody knows just how bad the
Y2K problem is going to be or how many suits it will provide.
Also unclear is to what extent these suits will be merely
high-tech ambulance chasing or, conversely, how many will
respond to serious failures by businesses to ensure their own
readiness.
In light of all this uncertainty, it seems premature to
give relief to potential defendants. The bill is partly
intended to prevent resources that should be used to cure Y2K
problems from being diverted to litigation, but giving
companies prospective relief could end up discouraging them
from fixing those same problems. The fear of significant
liability is a powerful incentive for companies to make sure
that their products are Y2K compliant and that they can meet
the terms of the contracts they have entered. To cap damages
in this one area would encourage risk taking rather than
costly remedial work by companies that might or might not be
vulnerable to suits. The better approach would be to wait
until the implications of the problem for the legal system
are better understood. Liability legislation for the Y2K
problem can await the Y2K.

That is the message of Business Week. It was very interesting that
they reached the same conclusion. I quote from that March 1 article:

Other industries are following suit.

It went on to talk about the 2000.

Through the Automotive Industry Action Group, General
Motors and other carmakers have set Mar. 31 deadlines for
vendors to become Y2K-compliant.

There is the Pinto case. They know what is coming down the road. They
run good business. If I was on the board of General Motors, I would say
right on. We are not waiting for political fixes of tort law by
politicians looking for silicon contributions.

In March, members of the Grocery Manufacturers of America
will meet with their counterparts from the Food Marketing
Institute to launch similar efforts. Other companies are
sending a warning to laggards and shifting business to the
tech-savvy. ``Y2K can be a great opportunity to clean up and
modernize the supply chain,'' says Roland S. Boreham, Jr.,
chairman of the board of Baldor Electric Co. in Fort Smith,
Arkansas.

There you go. They look upon it as a wonderful business opportunity,
the Y2K problem.
They, in essence, are saying, come on. Let's have the problem. Let's
find out who is efficient, who can really supply us. Let's find out who
can become compliant in time. You still have 6 more months. But
politicians are coming up here, we have to get there and identify. We
have to get those contributions. We have to get with the Chamber of
Commerce and Victor Swartz at the NAM and that crowd and

[[Page 12052]]

show them that we are good boys, and we are going to be on their voting
charts that they will publish when I run for reelection and everything
else. They have a political problem. It is not a Y2K problem. Business
says, right on with the Y2K problem. We can clean up the supply chain,
find out who is not really compliant and everything else early on here
in 1999. We are not waiting for January 1, 2000.
Right to the point, this particular legislation changes 200 years of
tried and true tort law, all for a special group that has the
unmitigated gall to come in and say all this about punitive damages,
lotteries, trial lawyers, frivolous lawsuits, and everything else.
Nothing is going to be frivolous after January. We have talked it to
death already this year. They have published the business articles
about it. Everybody has known about it. Every case, come January 1,
ought to be punitive, I can tell you that, because they ought to know
about it.
My particular power company group has already met and they have
tested to make sure it works. My State of South Carolina was just
cited, by July 1 the entire State system will be ready and going. So
everybody is doing it.
What we see and hear at the Washington level with the McCain-Wyden
amendment is, sit back, rest on your fanny, don't do anything. We are
going to take care of you, because on the one hand we are going to
provide a time that will put you out of business waiting the 90 days,
because you are a small businessman and you have to do business. And
then after the 90 days, we are going to say, by the way, the part was
made in Malaysia, so you have the wrong party.
Now, that is the game in this particular McCain-Wyden-Dodd amendment.
It should be defeated outright.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am going to be brief this morning. I know my
colleague from Colorado has been waiting. The Democratic leader of the
Y2K effort, Senator Dodd, has also been waiting. I will be brief to
begin.
It is just a couple of hundred days to the new millennium. It seems
to this Member of the Senate that how this body handles this
legislation will say a great deal about our Nation's ability to keep
our strong technology-oriented economy prospering in the next century.
I believe that failure to pass this responsible legislation would be
like sticking a monkey wrench in the high-tech engine that is driving
our economic prosperity. There is no question that there are going to
be problems early next year stemming from the Y2K matter. What is going
to happen, however, is that the frivolous lawsuits will compound those
problems.
The sponsors of this legislation--the chairman of the committee, the
Democratic leader of the Y2K effort, Senator Dodd, and myself and
others who have been intensively involved--believe that with this bill
our Nation will be in a better position to be on line rather than
waiting in line for a courtroom date when the problems occur.
We have heard my chairman, Senator Hollings, and others talk about
the matter of changing jurisprudence in our country. Senator Hollings
specifically, who I respect so much, talked about how 200 years of case
law and jurisprudence is being changed.
This is a very narrow bill. Senator Dodd and I insisted that there be
a sunset date on this legislation. We believe, and all the evidence
points to the fact, that we are going to see the problems stemming from
Y2K trailing off 1 to 3 years into the new century. We have put a tight
36-month sunset date on this legislation.
This is not changing Anglo-American jurisprudence for all time. This
is a narrow bill that will apply for 36 months so that we do not have
to have, for example, a special session of the Senate early next year
to deal with this problem.
Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. I have been waiting about an hour. I will be happy to
yield to my friend, who I know has also been doing a lot of work.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague if he might yield during
the course of his statement so that we may have a good dialogue with
respect to some of the issues he raises as he raises them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be anxious to yield to my colleague
from Massachusetts after I have had a chance for just a few minutes of
discussion of this issue.
I will take a minute and outline an example of the kind of issue that
we are going to see early next century and how this legislation
specifically responds to it.
Let's say that Mabel's restaurant buys $10,000 worth of computers
from the Jones Company and they crash on January 3 of next year.
Mabel's restaurant loses a million dollars' worth of business as a
result. Mabel writes to Jones Computer Company telling them that the
crash was as a result of a Y2K failure; they want the computers fixed,
she wants compensation for the million dollars.
Here is what happens: The Jones Computer Company has to respond
within 30 days of hearing from Mabel's restaurant. They can say: Yes,
Y2K failure; we are going to fix the computer the way Mabel wants, and
we are going to pay the million dollars as well. Or they can say: We
will fix the Y2K problem, but we don't think we ought to be responsible
for the entire million dollars' loss. Mabel and Jones Computer agree
Jones ought to fix them, they negotiate and come up with what Jones is
liable for, and if Mabel doesn't think she is getting everything she
ought to, she can go out and sue Jones immediately. Or she can say the
situation isn't fixed the way she wants it and she can go out and again
file a lawsuit immediately.
Now, some have said, well, what happens if the Jones Computer Company
is bankrupt and insolvent? Well, Mabel can name in her lawsuit anybody
she thinks is a responsible party. The jury will then decide what
portion of the blame each potential defendant ought to bear. Virtually
all of these cases are going to be decided on the basis of existing
State contract and tort law. We lock into this legislation protection
for existing contracts, and in virtually all of the cases State
contract and tort law is going to be protected.
So what you are going to have is a situation where Mabel's
restaurant, if it isn't fixed to her satisfaction, can go to court
essentially immediately and recover all of her economic damages. She is
in a position, by the way, to recover up to a quarter of a million
dollars in punitive damages. I made my career with the Gray Panthers,
the senior citizens group, before I came to Congress and now for 18
years in Congress, around consumer advocacy. It seems to me that is a
pretty good deal, what I have outlined in this hypothetical case for
this restaurant, for just about any consumer in our country.
I want to talk specifically about whether Americans are losing any
legal rights in this particular legislation. I guess we could say they
are losing the right to sue for a few days. As I said, they can sue
immediately if they choose to. But the reason we are trying to have
that 30-day period for defendants is to make sure they fix people's
problems. It is better to be on line than waiting in line for that
court date.
Second, I guess you can say the cap on punitive damages as it relates
to small business means we are not going to stick it to small business.
Well, I happen to think those small businesses are making an
extraordinary contribution to our economy. So let's have a
philosophical debate. The Senator from Massachusetts, who has worked
hard on this issue, and I have a difference of opinion on that. We
don't disagree on a whole lot of issues. I think we do disagree on that
one. But I think we ought to protect the small businesses from these
unlimited punitive damages.
Third, I guess you can say our legislation does make some changes
with respect to joint and several liability. What we are saying,
however, is that anytime you have a corporate defendant who engages in
egregious conduct,

[[Page 12053]]

rips off consumers, is guilty of fraud, joint and several liability
applies in those kinds of instances. It also applies when we have
individuals with a low net worth as well.
I would like the Senate to also reflect on the fact that essentially
what we are doing here is what we did in the Securities Litigation
Reform Act. It parallels most of the key issues in that area.
I want to wrap up by just mentioning briefly all of the major changes
that were made in this legislation after it left the Senate Commerce
Committee where Democrats, in a united fashion, opposed the bill.
I mentioned the 3-year sunset provision. I want it understood by all
Members of this body that I will be against any bill that comes out of
the conference committee that doesn't have a sufficient sunset
provision. This is not changing Anglo-American jurisprudence for all
time; this is a 3-year bill. We insisted on it after it came out of the
Commerce Committee.
Second, the business community originally talked about a vague
Federal defense that would essentially give them protection if they
engage in reasonable efforts. On the basis of what we heard from the
consumer groups, the Democratic leader of the Y2K effort, Senator Dodd,
and I thought that was too vague, to give corporate defendants that
kind of break. So we cut that out.
Third, we dropped the new preemptive Federal standard for
establishing punitive damages. The only people we are protecting are
the small business people. We may have a philosophical difference of
opinion on that. We think those folks deserve protection.
On the question of joint and several liability, when it came out of
committee, even if you engaged in fraud, even if you had a low-net-
worth defendant, there wasn't protection for the plaintiff. We insisted
on those kinds of changes. We said if a corporate defendant engages in
outrageous conduct, if they are trying to rip somebody off, you bet
joint and several applies. Senator Dodd and I insisted on that
provision as well.
Also, a provision which is certainly not popular in the business
community: There is liability for directors and officers if they make
misleading statements or they withhold information regarding any actual
or potential Y2K problems.
So at the end of the day, I believe we have a balanced bill. The
defendants have an obligation under this legislation to go out and cure
problems, to get their businesses online and make sure they are in a
position so that this technology-driven economy can continue to hum as
it has. The plaintiffs have equal obligations. They have a duty to
mitigate. So there are obligations on the part of the defendants and
obligations on the part of the plaintiffs.
But this is a narrow bill. It is going to discourage frivolous
claims, but it is also going to make sure that those who have a
legitimate, honest concern, as in that example of a small business I
outlined here this morning, that that small business is going to be
able to go after all of the parties, all of the parties responsible,
and hold them liable for the portion of the problem to which they
actually contribute. So I am very hopeful the Senate will pass this
legislation.
We heard mention of the trial lawyers on the floor of the Senate
earlier. Probably, prior to my involvement in this legislation, I was
considered one of the better friends of those folks. Mention was made
of the tobacco issue. I was the Member of Congress who got the tobacco
executives under oath to say nicotine was addictive, which I think has
had a little bit to do with helping to protect kids and consumers in
this country. So I don't take a back seat to anybody in terms of
standing up for consumer rights.
I say to the Senate today that as a result of months of difficult
negotiations, led by the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator
McCain, the Democratic leader of the Y2K effort, Senator Dodd, myself,
Senator Feinstein, and others, we have brought a balanced bill to the
floor of the Senate. It is going to ensure that we do not throw a
monkey wrench into this technology engine that is doing so much to
ensure our prosperity.
Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tania Calhoun,
a fellow with the Select Committee on Y2K, be granted the privilege of
the floor during consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to again turn to the Y2K liability
bill and the very real importance of this issue. As you know, I have
served for the past year with Senator Bennett on the Senate Special
Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem. For over a year, we have
examined the coming millennium changeover and the possible problems
associated with it. We have held hearings to examine the effects of the
year 2000, including hearings on industry, finance, energy,
telecommunications, international trade, community safety, health, and
litigation. Throughout these hearings, the committee has become
increasingly alarmed at both the perception and the reality of a
gathering storm of potential liability and consequent litigation that
could swamp our court system and impact our Nation's businesses.
Mr. President, I would dare say that many Americans, have in one way
or another felt the direct effect of our Nation's burgeoning wave of
litigation that has been growing steadily over the past half century.
Whether it be the increasing cost of health care, insurance premiums or
consumer products, we have all experienced the results of litigation
costs. Americans have become accustomed to living in a litigious
society. Occasional abuses of the legal system generally arise from
problems that are generally limited in scope. An example of this can be
found within the securities industry where the legal system was no
longer an avenue for aggrieved investors but rather had become a
pathway for a few enterprising attorneys to manipulate legal procedures
for their own profit. So-called strike suits were generated whenever
stocks went down and sometimes when they went up. These costly suits
were frequently settled by companies seeking to avoid the expense of
protracted litigation. I authored litigation reform legislation, which
passed despite a veto by the White House. In other words, I have
strongly supported litigation reform efforts in the past. As with
securities litigation reform, the need for Y2K litigation reform arises
from a national problem yet it should be addressed with a narrowly
tailored solution.
Mr. President, only a narrowly tailored solution could effectively
manage the demands of such a pervasive problem. Potentially, any
business in the country might be swept into the Y2K problem, either
because it is itself not prepared or because a firm it depends upon is
not prepared. The Special Committee on Year 2000 has heard testimony
that as many as 15 percent of the businesses in this country will
suffer Y2K-related failures of some kind. Even now we read that small
and medium-sized businesses across the globe are not taking the
necessary steps to become Y2K-compliant, and many think they don't have
a Y2K problem. Since businesses are interconnected these days, just one
failure in one business may generate cascading failures that may then
generate numerous lawsuits.
The mere fact that this is such a pervasive problem is in itself the
primary reason why litigation on this matter could cost in the hundreds
of billions. It has been suggested that as a result of Y2K, the United
States could easily find itself witnessing not only a huge surge in
litigation, this potential litigious bloodletting could have long-term
consequences on the economic well-being of our country. By now we have
all heard that the cost of Y2K litigation could reach the astronomical
figures. Various experts, including the Gartner Group from my own state
of Connecticut, have estimated that the costs of litigation may rise to
$1 trillion. Such estimates, and I must stress that these are only
estimates, underscore the need for serious review and a

[[Page 12054]]

bipartisan approach to this issue. Massive amounts of litigation has
the potential to overwhelm the court system, disrupting already-crowded
dockets for years into the next millennium. We must be careful that an
avalanche of lawsuits does not smother American corporations and bury
their competitive edge. A maelstrom of class action lawsuits could have
long-term consequences on the American economy and the American people.
There are several things that should be absolutely understood about
this bill, first and foremost, the provisions in this bill will sunset
in 2003. Secondly, this bill will not affect the rights of plaintiffs
and defendants in personal injury actions in any way. Most importantly,
this bill seeks to encourage individuals and businesses to do all that
they can do to make themselves Y2K compliant and to encourage efforts
to mitigate Y2K related damages.
This is a complex bill with many complex legal issues. Some of my
colleagues are opposed to the section of the bill that provides for
proportionate liability, which generally means that a defendant can be
held liable only for the damages for which he is responsible. Some of
my colleagues argue that it is unfair for an innocent plaintiff to run
the risk that it might not recover 100 percent of its damages if it
can't hold the defendant liable for that amount, even if that defendant
was only responsible for 20 percent of those damages. I would respond
by saying that not only is it equally unfair to demand that businesses
with little complicity in a dispute be required to pay for most of the
damages just because it has deep pockets. Moreover without some form of
proportionate liability, plaintiffs' lawyers will always name a deep-
pocketed defendant in a suit because they know the deep-pocket will
have to pay for all the damages even if that defendant is only
marginally responsible. I would remind my colleagues that the bill
retains joint and several liability in cases where the defendant acted
with specific intent to injure the plaintiff or knowingly committed
fraud and does not affect personal injury cases. As a result, the
proportionate liability provision in this bill finds a reasoned balance
between the rights of plaintiffs and the rights of defendants.
As I have said on numerous occasions that a Y2K liability bill should
not be a vehicle for broad tort reform. And efforts to impose broad
caps on punitive damages are just that. The provisions that I propose
aren't tort reform, but merely protect small businesses and the mom and
pop enterprises by capping punitive damages only for small businesses
that have 50 or less employees and caps damages at $250,000 or three
times the compensatory damages, whichever is smaller. The White House
has expressed concern about the bill's provisions for capping punitive
damages, however as my esteemed colleague Senator Wyden pointed out the
last time the Senate considered this issue during last year's products
liability bill, it included a cap on punitive damages lower than this,
and the White House agreed to this proposal. It is unclear then why
they are opposing the cap in this bill which provides for more punitive
damages.
Other voices have suggested that this bill relieves businesses and
corporations from accountability or responsibility. The bill does not
do this, but does try to ensure that those who do sue will do so
responsibly and specifically and that there will be ample opportunity
for parties to solve the Y2K problem before litigating their Y2K
problems. To ensure responsibility on the plaintiff's side, for
example, the bill requires the plaintiff to provide specific details
about the injuries they've suffered when they file a complaint.
Plaintiffs who can articulate the nature of their injuries are less
likely to be filing frivolous complaints. To ensure accountability on
the defendants side, companies are given a narrow window of opportunity
to solve any Y2K problems they've created before a lawsuit is filed.
This window of opportunity gives them the chance to maintain a business
relationship by providing professional and responsible service to their
customers before the business relationship is soured by a lawsuit.
There are those who say that state courts have been addressing issues
like the Y2K problem for years and can continue to do so. They also say
the state legislatures are fully capable of addressing the Y2K problem
and that there is no need for the Federal Government to become
involved. My colleagues should know, however, that nearly every state
to date has either passed Y2K liability legislation or is considering
such legislation, so Y2K actions in the future will probably not be set
on long-standing state precedents. Instead, they may be decided under
new untested and untried state laws. The bill provides in most cases,
for uniform provisions to be applied to Y2K cases, enabling both
plaintiffs and defendants to predict the law that applies to them.
Furthermore, since all of these laws are different, firms engaged in
interstate commerce--nearly every firm these days--will be at a
disadvantage. It is difficult to do business where potentially 50
different and changing sets of laws might apply. The bill's provision
of generally uniform guidance for Y2K cases levels the playing field
and reduces the cost of doing business for potential plaintiffs and
potential defendants. Multiple sets of laws also raise the problem of
forum shopping, which occurs when plaintiffs try to bring their
lawsuits in states where the laws are most advantageous to them. This
leads to imbalances in our state courts, and high costs for defendants.
Since the bill provides for generally uniform standards across the
country, forum shopping in Y2K cases will not be a problem. State
courts can maintain balanced caseloads: and the cost of defending Y2K
lawsuits will not be unreasonably high due to forum shopping.
Some are of the view that the Y2K problem has been around for 40
years and should already have been solved, and that the Senate has no
business stepping in to protect the high-technology industry. And we
should be clear, we are not trying to protect the high-technology
industry, but instead we are trying to manage a problem for all
business and individuals, the mom and pop grocery and the major
enterprise. We are all plugged in today, and the bill speaks to the
massive litigation boom that has the potential to bankrupt all kinds of
businesses, costing individual Americans their livelihoods.
While we are rushing to solve the Y2K problem and the policy issues
therein, we should above all strive to enter the next century with a
sense of vision, and this vision should include a prudent analysis of
the looming challenges of potential Y2K litigation. As I have said
before, no one wants to begin the next millennium by trading a vision
of the future for a subpoena.
I commend my colleagues from Arizona, Oregon and others who have
worked so hard on this. I thank my colleague from South Carolina, the
ranking Democrat of this committee. He feels very strongly about this
legislation. It could have--as Members have the right to do--delayed
action a long time on this. In fact, to be able to get to the
consideration of it today is something that I deeply appreciate. We
disagree on this matter. It is one of those rare occasions when we do.
But, when we do, that is a normal way of conducting business.
I happen to think this is a good bill. It is a practical bill. It is
a 36-month bill--3 years. That is it. It is narrow in scope and narrow
in time. It is a practical way to try to deal with a serious problem
that looms on the horizon.
We have to have balance. It incorporates the ideas that are fair to
the plaintiffs and that are fair to the defendants. It allows
resolution of these potential difficulties without having to get to
court. We are a very litigious society. Every person in the country
knows that. I think every effort that we can make to avoid going to
court instead of rushing to fix the problem we ought to do. This bill
tries to achieve that goal without denying people the right to get to
court.
I commend my colleagues in this effort. I hope that we can pass this
bill today or tomorrow after covering a variety of amendments, and go
to conference.

[[Page 12055]]

I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will yield the floor in just a moment.
First, I thank the Democratic leader for the Y2K effort, and Senator
Dodd for all of his counsel and help. He, of course, is the principal
author on securities litigation legislation which, to a great extent,
this bill is modeled after.
Just before I yield the floor, I, too, want to say to Senator
Hollings, the Democratic leader of the Commerce Committee, that I agree
with so much of what he has done--whether it is a matter of Social
Security surplus or campaign finance. I regret that on this one we have
a difference of opinion.
I think that we have brought a balanced bill to the floor of the
Senate. But I look forward to the many other issues on which Senator
Hollings and I are going to be in agreement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.

Amendment No. 609 To Amendment No. 608

(Purpose: To provide that nothing in this Act shall be construed to
affect the applicability of any State law [in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act] that provides greater limits on damages and
liabilities than are provided in this Act)

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an
amendment numbered 609 to amendment No. 608.

At the end of the amendment, add the following:

SEC. . APPLICABILITY OF STATE LAW.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
applicability of any State law that provides greater limits
on damages and liabilities than are provided in this Act.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say that I support
the piece of legislation that has been brought forward by Senator
McCain, working with the Senator from Oregon, and also the efforts of
the Senator from Connecticut in that regard.
I believe that we need to address a very important issue that is in
this amendment. I appreciate the work that Senator McCain and the
Commerce Committee have done to craft this important and vital piece of
legislation, especially in our high-technology society.
I support this effort to encourage prompt resolution of Y2K problems,
minimize business disruptions, and discourage unnecessary and costly
lawsuits. However, I am concerned about one aspect of this proposal:
State laws addressing year 2000 liability issues will be preempted by
Senate bill 96 unless we specifically provide for protection of
stronger State statutes. I am proposing an amendment to do just this.
The Colorado State Legislature passed a strong statute which
specifically addresses the Year 2000 liability issue.
Our Governor signed the legislation on April 5, 1999, and it will be
effective July 1, 1999.
Colorado's law provides certain protections from damages for
businesses that experience a year 2000 problem. While the intent of
this state law is similar to that of S. 96, the state's protections are
stronger than those proposed in S. 96.
Colorado's statute will be overridden by the Federal legislation we
are considering today.
My State is not the only one in this situation; Texas, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Virginia, Florida, and Arizona have also passed Year 2000
liability legislation that is stronger than this Federal law would be
in one way or another.
The State laws are consistent with the intent of S. 96 and were
supported by a broad cross-section of concerned groups.
In addition, 17 other States have pending Y2K legislation that is
near passage.
We should not be working to nullify the States' efforts. I am
offering this amendment in order to allow the greater State limits on
damages and liabilities to stand.
The intent of S. 96 as it relates to State law is confusing, and most
troublesome is the provision stating that the Federal law will
supersede State law to the extent that it is inconsistent with the
Federal law.
I am sure that several of my colleagues will be interested in
protecting their States' Year 2000 liability laws.
I encourage those Senators to support my amendment, and I encourage
others to consider the justification for preempting State laws
outright, especially those laws that establish stronger limits than
proposed at the Federal level.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. McCAIN. May I ask the Senator from Colorado to yield to me?
Mr. ALLARD. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I will tell my friend from Colorado that I believe we are
going to accept the amendment. So the yeas and nays will not be
necessary. So I request that he retract his request.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I withdraw the request.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me commend the distinguished Senator
from Colorado. This was exactly the intent when we reported this bill
out by 11 to 9. Of the nine that was the main concern--that if there
were a problem, we have laws to take care of these problems. We have
had laws on the books for years. Business was moving.
What the Senator is saying here in this particular amendment is that
this shouldn't preempt any greater provisions of State law, that the
State law would apply.
I think it is an excellent amendment. I am glad to accept it.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank both the manager for the minority
and the manager for the majority for their favorable comments.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I don't believe there is any further
debate on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 609) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I think
it is an important amendment. I appreciate not only his concern for the
entire bill but for the State of Colorado, since this obviously would
have an effect on the hard work of the State legislature and the
Governor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, at an appropriate time I may send an
amendment to the desk. But I want to begin at least talking about where
we are, where this bill currently puts us, and I have a number of
points I would like to make in the effort to do that.
I am struck by one thing that has just happened, which is why I am a
little less hesitant.
A few moments ago, the Senator from Colorado put in an amendment that
preserved the State law; but at the same time the Senator from Oregon
previously had made it very clear that their bill leaves in place the
existing State law protections for consumers in both tort law and
contract, but, in fact, what has happened is by virtue of the amendment
just passed by the Senator from Colorado, they have actually changed
that so that we have a different law for both contract and for tort.
It seems to me the bill has already, suddenly, by acceptance, moved
to a significantly different place from what they had intended. Maybe
this will be worked out later. I think it certainly makes this bill
more complicated in many regards and will probably give yet another
reason for the White House to veto this.
Let me state where I think we are with respect to this legislation. I
supported willfully, happily, and with a sense of pride the securities
reform legislation. Senator Dodd was a leader on that, and I voted for
it and voted to override the veto of the President because I thought it
was important to address what was an egregious overreach

[[Page 12056]]

within the legal community where we saw a pattern of abuse. We took
action as a result of that. I think it was the right action.
In addition, I also voted for tort reform with respect to the
aircraft industry, because Senator Kassebaum appropriately brought
legislation to the Senate that made it clear that liability issues with
respect to manufacturers--and she represented a State which is the home
base for Cessna, among other aircraft manufacturers--and we made an
appropriate change in liability law in the capacity of lawyers to bring
these so-called dreaded lawsuits that we hear a lot about on the Senate
floor. I voted for that and we changed it. It was for the better.
I say that because I want to make it as clear as I can in an
atmosphere where people are quick to try to paint Members into a corner
or sweep Members into one position of ideology or another. I am
approaching this from a perspective of what I hope is common sense and
fairness.
I heard the distinguished Senator from Arizona--who is a great
personal friend of mine and a man for whom I have enormous respect and
a great relationship--say a few minutes ago, and I will certainly pass
it off merely as rhetoric, that the amendment I will offer is ``form
over substance'' and it is designed to ``protect the income stream of
the trial lawyers.'' It is exactly that kind of polarization in the
rhetoric that is preventing Members from looking at what the Senate may
or may not do here, what the Congress may or may not do, and what may
happen to the American citizens that we represent.
I challenge my colleagues to show me one piece of language in the
amendment that I will submit that makes it easier for a lawyer to bring
a lawsuit. There is not one. In point of fact, every point raised by
the high-technology community that they wanted Members to address is
addressed in their favor--in favor of the high-tech community. They
wanted a period to cure; we provide a period to cure. They wanted
mitigation; we put a responsibility on plaintiffs to mitigate. They
wanted economic loss and contract preserved; we preserve contract law.
Finally, they wanted proportionality; all we require for them to
qualify for proportionality is that they act as a good citizen and do
two things: We ask they identify the potential in the product they make
for a Y2K failure, and having done so, we ask that they let their
purchasers, their clients, know of that potential.
That is all we ask. We don't ask that they fix it. They have a duty;
they have a period of cure within which they can fix it. If they fix it
within the duty, a period of cure, as the McCain bill, they would be
free from any lawsuit.
That doesn't help plaintiffs. That is not a plaintiff's bill. That is
not an effort to maintain the revenue stream for lawyers.
Let's talk about the reality of what is happening here. The reality
is that an industry is coming to the Congress for the first time in
American history and asking for prospective anticipatory relief from
liability for something they make--the first time ever.
What would happen if Ford Motor Company came in here and said: Gee,
we produced a car that instead of turning right while turning the wheel
right, turns left. Forgive us. We will fix it. Don't worry.
There are similar ways in which companies could come to a Senator and
say they don't want to be held liable because they ``kind of overlooked
something.''
As the Senator from South Carolina said a little while ago, 20 years
ago people knew about this. The founder and executive director of RX
2000 Solutions Institute said:

I am a former computer programmer who used two digits
instead of four to delineate the year. Granted, this was more
than 20 years ago, but even then I was aware of the anomaly
posed by the year 2000. When I expressed concern to my
supervisor, he laughed and told me not to worry.

The Y2K bug is not something that just fell out of the sky. The Y2K
bug is not a freak occurrence that happened as a God-given act. The Y2K
problem is a result of conscious choices that people made or didn't
make, deliberate decisions made to delay fixing a problem. They have
led us to where we are now.
I represent high-technology companies, and I am very proud of them. I
have had the support of high-technology CEOs, workers, and employees. I
truly have a respect for the entrepreneurial capacity and the
extraordinary path they are leading us on that is second to nobody in
the Senate, and I understand the nature and complexity of this Y2K
problem that suggests we don't want to have a wholesale slug of
lawsuits that clog the courts, that create the capacity for small
companies to tie up their capital, to diminish further entrepreneurial
effort, to reduce creativity.
I understand all of those arguments. Together with Senator Robb,
Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Akaka, I
am offering a compromise. It is not everything that the Chamber of
Commerce wants, and it sure isn't everything the lawyers want. However,
it is common sense, and it will be signed by the President of the
United States into law. The bill that is being offered by Senator
McCain and others will not in its current form be signed into law.
If Members are really concerned about the Y2K problem and want to do
something about it, we have an opportunity to legislate on the floor of
the Senate in a way that is fair, that makes sense, and that will help
the companies deal with Y2K, and at the same time, it doesn't turn
around and ignore common sense about how to leverage good behavior
within the community.
People ask, What are the real differences between this bill and
Senator McCain's bill? I will get to that. I will explain that. Two of
the most important are on the issue of proportionality. That takes a
little bit of explanation. Not everybody in the Senate is a lawyer.
There are 55 Members who are, but even among lawyers there has always
been a great tension on this issue of joint and several liability
versus proportional damages.
Under the bill that Senator McCain, Senator Dodd, and Senator Wyden
are offering the Senate, a company will automatically get proportional
liability. They don't have to be a good citizen. They don't have to go
out and remediate, even though they say that remediation is the purpose
of their legislation. There is no leverage in getting out of joint and
several liability that encourages them to remediate. They automatically
get proportional damages. The bill gives it to them right up front--
automatic. So they could display the most negligent, the most reckless
behavior, and still they get it. Is that possible? Some people will sit
here and say no, that is not going to happen.
Look at the instance the Senator from South Carolina talked about.
Ford Motor Company is historically recorded as having made a conscious
business decision to measure how much it cost them to move the gas
tanks and fix the gas tank problem versus the potential of damages.
They chose not to move it and ultimately it caught up to them in a
famous, famous case and they paid the price. That is why we have had
something called punitive damages.
Punitive damages are not, as the Senator from Arizona said, simply to
deter. Punitive damages are punitive. They are to punish in addition to
deter. The deterrence is not just as to the behavior of the entity that
is creating the problems. The deterrent is as to other potential
entities, in the future. The reason we have the potential of punitives
within the legal system is not just to deter behavior among a
particular set of actors engaged in a particular behavior at a
particular time. It is to say to other actors at a future time: If you
do not heed the warning that the products you make could subject you to
particular kinds of damages, then you, too, may be subject to them in
the future. That is why, today, young kids have pajamas that don't
catch on fire. That is why, today, people have all kinds of products in
their homes where people are sensitive to what the impact of that
product may be on a user.

[[Page 12057]]

My colleagues come in here and say we don't want punitives. These
outrageous lawyers are going to come in and maybe get a punitive damage
verdict. Let me tell you what my colleagues, either inadvertently or
willfully, are doing. They are protecting companies from a requirement
that the behavior they engage in has to be--let me make this very
clear. Punitive damages are only awarded if a plaintiff can show the
defendant acted in the worst activity possible, worse than mere
negligence. We are talking about a defendant who has to commit either
an intentional tort or otherwise here, because in their bill they have
a very narrow limitation as to who will qualify for joint and several,
very narrow. The fact is, they will exempt anybody who acts willfully,
wantonly, maliciously, recklessly or outrageously.
I ask a simple question: What is the public policy rationale for
coming in here and saying that a company that acted maliciously,
willfully, recklessly, outrageously should somehow be completely
exempted from the potential of joint and several liability and have a
blanket exemption even before the fact? I do not understand that. I do
not understand the public policy. Just because we do not like lawyers,
just because on a few occasions there have been a couple of bad jury
verdicts of punitive damages--which in every occasion, I say to my
friends, have been reduced by the court on appeal. Those never get
paid. They are great for headlines. They are wonderful for bad
reputations for lawyers. But they don't get paid because the courts
reduce them.
So I do not want to come here to the floor of the Senate and battle
phantoms. I don't want to battle dragons that do not exist. I want to
deal with the real problem of Y2K, and we deal with the real problem of
Y2K because we make it tougher for lawyers to bring cases. I agree with
what my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, said a few minutes
ago. He said we, in a litigious society, do not want a lot of frivolous
lawsuits. We do not want to be caught up in court with a whole lot of
lawsuits that are inappropriate.
I agree with that. I was outraged when I heard about lawyers
automatically triggering lawsuits by computer when stocks changed and
so forth. That is an abuse of the system. We ought to do everything in
our power to require that the Federal courts, through the rules that
are available to them, hold lawyers accountable so that frivolous
lawsuits are denied and so forth. But we go farther than that. In my
amendment, on Y2K we in fact lay out a series of requirements that make
it much tougher for any lawyer to bring a case. Just like the
legislation of Senator McCain, ours is a 3-year bill. But ours is a 3-
year bill that does not harm consumers. Ours is a 3-year bill that has
a fair balance between this interest for remediation or mitigation and
what we are prepared to contribute to the well-being of the whole
industry, to blanket the whole industry.
Let me be specific about what I mean by that. The Y2K bill of Senator
McCain and company provides you automatically get proportionality,
proportional damages. Ours says you have to do two things. You have to
make the effort to identify the potential for a Y2K failure and then
put out the information to the people you have dealt with about that
potential.
The purpose of this legislation is to get companies to fix the
problem ahead of time. In order to get a company to fix the problem
ahead of time, you want to have the maximum incentive to the company.
So if you say to the company: Look, you can have the lower standard.
You can have what you want--which is you can get out from under joint
and several; you can have proportional liability--but we want you to do
something so you will encourage the very remediation and mitigation we
are looking for. We want you to look at your products and see what the
potential is for one of them to have a Y2K failure. When you find the
potential, we want you to be a good citizen and tell the people who
bought the things from you about it.
Why is that better than Senator McCain's bill? It is better because
of the Pinto principle. Some companies may look at the situation and
say: Hey, the Senate just gave us proportional liability and we don't
even have to worry about paying the full 80 percent if we think we have
only 20 percent liability because we don't have to do anything. They
gave it to us. It is cheaper for us not to fix it and wait and see if
anybody comes after us. And when they do come after us, all we are
going to have to do is do the 20 percent, not the 80 percent. I ask my
colleagues, how is that an incentive for the good fixing of the problem
beforehand that we are seeking?
The answer is, it is not. It will have exonerated people before the
fact from the very thing we are trying to encourage, which is the
incentive to fix it.
I find it very hard to believe that my colleagues in the Senate want
to vote against asking companies to be good citizens. I find it hard to
believe that my colleagues are unwilling to say a company ought to just
look for the potential of failure. We do not require that they
absolutely find it. We do not require that they identify it. They have
to make a good-faith effort to look for it.
Every company with whom I have talked tells me they have already done
that. Most companies tell me they qualify today and they would accept
that standard. I am proud to say that a company--I have a letter
received today from Brian Keane who is co-president of the Keane
Company headquartered in Boston, MA. It is a $1.1 billion information
technology corporation and has over 12,000 employees located in 26
States. I quote from part of the letter, which I ask unanimous consent
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Keane, Inc.,

Boston, MA, June 8, 1999.
Hon. Senator John Kerry,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: Keane, Inc. is a publicly traded, $1.1
billion information technology corporation with over 12,000
employees located in 26 states. As you know, Keane is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.
We are encouraged by your leadership role in the ongoing
debate over the Y2K liability legislation. Keane is concerned
that this important legislation is being used as a
``political football'' and would encourage all parties
engaged in the debate to work together to craft legislation
that will not only pass the Senate and the House, but also be
signed by the President. Y2K liability legislation is a
matter of great importance to Keane because, over the past
three years, Keane has worked with literally hundreds of
American companies to help them solve the Y2K problem.
Keane believes the most recent draft of the Kerry language
is a politically viable solution, because it serves the
purpose of protecting against frivolous Y2K litigation and
would be signed by the President.
Opponents of the Kerry bill argue that it does not
adequately address the distribution of damages to responsible
parties. However, Keane believes that the proportional
liability language in the Kerry bill addresses this issue.
Specifically, your staff has assured us that your language
would protect defendants who demonstrate that the plaintiff
restricted access to or failed to notify the defendant about
any function(s) that could corrupt other Y2K vulnerable
systems and defendant's who (1) performed a reasonable
assessment with a defined methodology for resolution of the
plaintiff's Y2K vulnerability prior to implementing a
solution; or (2) implemented the Y2K solution with
coordinated-comprehensive testing and quality assurance
processes; or (3) secured, after completion of the
remediation or testing, a formal acceptance agreement from
the plaintiff. With such protections, Keane can endorse the
Kerry language without reservation.
We appreciate your attention and leadership on this very
serious matter and look forward to working with your office
in the future.
Sincerely,
Brian Keane,
Co-President.

(Mr. BUNNING assumed the Chair.)
Mr. KERRY. It says:

Keane believes the most recent draft of the Kerry language
is a politically viable solution, because it serves the
purpose of protecting against frivolous Y2K litigation and
would be signed by the President.
Opponents of the Kerry bill argue that it does not
adequately address the distribution of damages to the
responsible parties. However, Keane believes that the
proportional liability language in the Kerry bill addresses
this issue. Specifically, your staff has assured us that your
language would protect

[[Page 12058]]

defendants who demonstrate that the plaintiff restricted
access to or failed to notify the defendant about any
function that could corrupt other Y2K vulnerable systems and
defendants who (1) performed a reasonable assessment with a
defined methodology for resolution of the plaintiff's Y2K
vulnerability prior to implementing the solution, or, (2)
implemented the Y2K solution with coordinated comprehensive
testing and quality assurance processes. . . . Keane can
endorse the Kerry language without reservation.

I believe that is reasonable, and I believe it is reasonable because
they have looked at the reality of the language we have put forward. I
want to go through a little bit of this now.
The McCain bill does not protect the individual consumer. They are
requiring the individual person to go through the same hoops and the
same requirements as a corporation. Again one has to ask: What is the
public policy rationale for asking one--let's say one of these people
sitting up in the gallery is assured, when they buy an alarm system for
their house, that the alarm system is Y2K compatible. But they leave to
go on vacation, the alarm system fails in the year 2000, their house is
robbed, and they want recoupment.
They have to go through every hoop of a large corporation. They
cannot go right in, file their suit, and get redress. They are going to
have to be treated like the other corporate entities, and they cannot
even get the discovery. They are left as powerless as, unfortunately,
the average consumer is in our society today.
Again, when one looks at public policy rationale, it is hard to
discern, and this is the main reason: Most of the Y2K problems that
people are envisioning are corporation to corporation. We are talking
about contract law. Most of this is contract law, and what we are
talking about are companies that are going to have an interest
conceivably in suing another company because the product they bought
from that company does not do what the company that sold it to them
said it would do.
Maybe under their warranties, just under the contract, it will be
taken care of. But what the McCain bill wants to do is say to every
American consumer: You are going to have to wait 3 months; you are
going to have to wait the 30 days for the filing; you are going to have
to refile if you were not filing with pleadings that were specific
enough, according to what the corporation had to go through.
It is a remarkable thing, in my judgment, to thrust that kind of
burden on a lot of situations that would be very difficult. Let me give
you an example. This is very specific, and I apologize, it will take a
minute, but I want to go through it.
Let's take a Mrs. Barnes who owns a home several streets away from
the Acme Chemical Company. There are 85 million Americans who live or
work within a 5-mile radius of one or more of the 66,000 facilities
that handle or store high-hazard chemicals. Let me repeat that: 85
million of our fellow citizens live in homes near a chemical company.
On January 1, 2000, let's assume Acme's safety system fails and
hazardous chemicals are released into the air and on to the land in the
neighborhood. It forces Mrs. Barnes and others to evacuate their homes.
People are allowed back into their homes after 2 days, but Mrs. Barnes'
property is contaminated, including her well. She retains an attorney
and she files a tort claim for recovery.
Acme Chemical claims that a Y2K computer failure was partially at
fault for the safety system malfunctioning. Mrs. Barnes did not know
that Y2K was a defense, of course, because most average citizens will
not know this.
Under the new law, the Acme Company will treat the complaint as the
notice. She has to wait 30 days for Acme to respond. In 30 days, they
respond by saying: We can't pay for the cleanup and lost value. But she
has to wait another 60 days to refile her lawsuit, notwithstanding that
they tell her that.
Now the average American consumer is out 90 days and does not know
where they are going, because we have protected the entity. All
discovery is stayed during this period. There is not anybody in our
system of justice who does not know what happens when you stay
discovery for 90 days.
In 2 months, Mrs. Barnes refiles her suit. She refiles it against the
company that installed the safety system. Under the McCain bill, she
has to plead her case with a particularity in the complaint. She can
state her damages as required, but she is going to have a lot of
trouble specifying the materiality effect because she will not know
what that is because there has been no discovery. The case is dismissed
because the complaint failed to meet the pleadings requirements.
Assume somehow she can meet the pleadings requirement. She comes
back, she finds other information to survive another motion to dismiss,
and finally gets her day in court.
After hearing the case, the jury finds both defendants acted
recklessly and outrageously for not identifying and fixing the problem,
and it awards her $300,000 compensation for the property and the need
to replace her water supply. They may find that Acme is 70 percent
responsible and the safety system 30 percent liable under the
proportionality. The total amount of her award might be $1.3 million,
with the compensatory and punitive adjusted and reduced by the number
of people according to the cap, because they only have 40 people who
work for them. Under the cap in S. 96, that would be an adjusted award
of $550,000.
We find that Acme cannot pay for all of the damage and files for
bankruptcy. The safety system pays Mrs. Barnes $90,000 under their
percentage, but that is not enough to clean up her property. She cannot
get a new water supply, especially after she pays the legal bills. She
tries to collect from Acme but without success. In the end, under the
State law she would have received her $1.3 million, but because we are
going to take that away, at the end, because of the Senate bill that is
contemplated being passed here that does not protect this individual
consumer, she will be left with only $135,000--not nearly enough to
compensate for her loss, pay her legal fees, replenish her well and
make her whole.
What is the public policy here? That is literally how this bill would
work. That is taking us step by step through the requirements that are
being put on the average American here, even though what we are really
talking about doing here is protecting companies from lawsuits by
companies.
To the degree that my colleagues say: Wait a minute, Senator. We know
about those naughty things called class actions, and we don't want to
have a class action brought against us, I say to my colleagues, I
agree. We want to have a tough standard for the potential of any class
action.
So we have put in our bill something lawyers do not like; we have put
in our bill a materiality requirement that means they have to show that
very specificity of defect, and it has to be specifically material to
the impact on that particular damage that took place for that person.
The majority of the people who make up the class have to have the same
linkage to the materiality. That makes it very hard to go out and just
construct a class. So I think class actions would, in fact, be
seriously reduced and impacted in an appropriate way, I might add. So
we are raising the bar. We are raising the standard.
Our bill, therefore, in my judgment, protects consumers. The McCain
bill would apply all of its procedural burdens and damage limitations
to individual consumers. I know that this is one of the things that the
White House, the President, is particularly concerned about. We need to
try to find some kind of reasonable compromise. We have not. And that
begs a veto.
In addition, I have talked about the proportionality issue. It is
hard to believe that colleagues would not be willing to vote that a
company ought to engage in good citizen behavior of a two-step effort
to identify mere potential--I underscore that mere potential; the
company does not have to find the problem; the company does not have to
cure the problem--they have to find the mere potential that something
that they have created may have done it; and, two, let people know that
they

[[Page 12059]]

have done that. It is hard to believe that we would not vote to do
that.
In addition to that, we impose an additional duty on the plaintiff.
My colleague from Arizona said this is to keep the revenue stream
going. We impose an additional duty on the plaintiff because existing
State law generally requires plaintiffs to mitigate their losses in the
case of a breach of contract. S. 96 puts on the plaintiff an additional
burden to mitigate that isn't part of additional contract law, which
allows a defendant to argue that the plaintiff should have avoided the
damages based on information that was in the public domain.
So what we have done, to encourage information sharing and in order
to encourage the remediation that we want, we leave the existing State
law duties in place, supplementing them with an additional mitigation
requirement if the defendant itself made the information available.
Why is that good policy? Because, again, it encourages the good
behavior that our colleagues are saying everybody is going to engage in
but for which there is no certainty and there is no leverage.
Here you have an additional burden on the plaintiff if the company
undertook to share the information. What does that do? That means that
the company is going to say: Oh, boy, if we go out and get the
information and we put it out to the people we have sold it to, they
are going to have the burden of showing that we somehow did not do what
we were supposed to. We have shifted the burden to the people who then
would be the plaintiffs. It makes it harder to bring a case. It also
does more to encourage the mitigation that we want to get in this
particular effort.
I want to make it very clear, I think it was back in April the
Senator from Arizona, the chairman, put a letter in the Record from
Andy Grove of Intel. The letter that was part of Mr. Grove's
communication to the chairman. I will read the relevant portion of it:

Dear Senator McCain . . . The consensus text that has
evolved from continuing bipartisan discussions would
substantially encourage [bipartisan] action and discourage
frivolous lawsuits.

He cited several key measures that are essential to ensure fair
treatment of all parties under the law.
One was procedural incentives, the requirement of notice and an
opportunity to cure defects before a suit is filed.
Senator McCain has that in his bill. We have that in our bill: The
same procedural requirement to cure, the same procedural effort to have
alternative dispute resolution. We both encourage alternative dispute
resolution and mitigation.
Second point: A requirement that courts respect the agreements of the
parties on such matters as warranty obligations and definition of
recoverable damages.
Senator McCain does that; we do that. We provide the exact provision
of contract protection except where there is an intentional--
intentional--injury to a party. I ask my colleagues, what is the public
policy rationale for exempting a company from an intentional wrongdoing
to an individual that is not a specific intent to that individual but
nevertheless fits under the concept of a reckless, willful, or wanton
act?
Third, Mr. Grove said he wanted threshold pleading provisions
requiring particularity as to the nature, amount, and factual basis for
damages and materiality of defects. We do the same thing. Senator
McCain does that; we do that.
Finally, appointment of liability according to fault, on principles
approved by the Senate in two previous measures. That is the securities
reform bill. I have already spoken to that.
Senator McCain gives it to them no matter what, forget it. You just
get it because you are who you are. We give it to them if they take two
steps: Identify the potential for a Y2K problem, which is what this
bill is all about, and let the people they have dealt with know about
that potential.
Again, we do not require that they fix it. We do not require with a
certainty that they find it. We require that they just say there is a
potential. That is what they have to go out and fix.
The fact is that is a minimalist standard that most companies ought
to be prepared to live by. Every company I have talked to tells me they
are doing that. Of course, they are going to do that. They would have
no reason to be concerned about that.
So the real fight here, I suppose, is over punitive damages and over
the breadth of reach that some people are making with respect to some
other efforts which I can go into later as they arise in the course of
the debate.
We have a consumer carveout. We have a duty to mitigate. We have
proportionate liability.
The McCain bill also creates jurisdiction for almost all Y2K class
actions in Federal court. We do not do that. First of all, the Federal
bar has told us they cannot handle it. They do not have room for
whatever that might mean. Secondly, I cannot think of anything less
respectful of States rights, of the States' abilities to manage their
own affairs with respect to how they want to proceed. There is no
showing that that is, in fact, necessary. So the reach of the bill, in
fact, goes further than that which is necessary to fix Y2K.
I want to emphasize that I still hope maybe we can find some medium
where people will come together. It may be that the Senate isn't in the
mood to do that right now, so it will just go ahead and pass S. 96--it
will go to conference, come back, and then go to the President, and he
will veto it, and we will come back. Or maybe when the President gets
into the negotiations in the conference committee, the very things I am
talking about will be resolved, and it will come back to us in a way
that people of good conscience can say: This is good public policy
because it protects consumers even as it creates a fair process for the
avoidance of frivolous suits and the avoidance of the burdening of an
industry that we all respect and care about.
I think our bill does that. I think our bill justifiably protects the
capacity of companies to be free from frivolous lawsuits. It increases
the pleading requirements. It provides a cure period. It provides a
duty to mitigate. It shifts a greater duty to the plaintiffs, and it
does so, I think, in a reasonable and fair-minded way.
I regret that, unfortunately, this debate has been so caught up in a
larger agenda of entities that are very forceful outside of the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I continue to respect the views of the
Senator from Massachusetts. He makes some very persuasive arguments.
I strongly recommend to the Senator from Massachusetts that he put
his objections in the form of an amendment or amendments and we vote.
We have been through, I think the Senator from Massachusetts would
agree, literally weeks, if not months, of negotiations with the Senator
from Massachusetts. At no time have we been able to agree. I strongly
recommend that he just propose an amendment, and we have a vote on it.
The Senate will be on record. We will be then able to move forward, as
is the legislative process.
I will make a parliamentary point. I have asked the Democratic side
to try to get an agreement within about an hour or so on remaining
amendments that will be proposed of the 12. We now have about 6 or 7. I
think the same is true on the other side. We want to give everybody
ample opportunity to propose their amendments. Then I will also ask
that we get those amendments in so we can start negotiating time
agreements. I see no reason why we can't finish this bill by tomorrow
evening.
I urge my colleagues, again, if you have an amendment on either side
of the aisle, tell Senator Hollings or me so we can get those 12 nailed
down on either side so we can start negotiating.
I think it is very important to recognize that there has been amazing
solidarity shown on the part of big, medium, and small business on this
legislation, including the parts of it that were just addressed by the
Senator from Massachusetts. They do not accept his remedy. I strongly
admire the

[[Page 12060]]

knowledge, the information, and the incredible tenacity that Senator
Kerry has shown on this issue.
The reality is--and every once in awhile we have to face reality, I
say to my friend from Massachusetts--we are going no further. However,
if we are going no further in the process of negotiation, that does not
change in the slightest the fact that the Senator from Massachusetts
can propose 1 of these 12 amendments, or 2 or 3 or 4 of them, I think
there is room, and we can debate and vote on them.
I yield for the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the chairman yielding. I will be brief.
I think what the chairman of the Commerce Committee is suggesting is
a practical way to get at it. This Member of the Senate believes, with
all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts, that the Kerry
amendment would be a lightning rod for additional frivolous lawsuits
with respect to Y2K. I think, for example, some of the language is so
vague--this question of identifying the potential for Y2K failure.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. As soon as I have made this point, because it is the
chairman's time.
I think that is so vague that it is going to ignite a litigation
derby. That is No. 1.
No. 2, we have had a kind of mixing of the concept of punitive
damages and proportionality by the Senator from Massachusetts that I
think is just not borne out by the bipartisan bill. Our punitive damage
limitation applies only to small business. It has nothing to do with
reckless behavior or careless behavior.
On proportionality, we are saying that you can hold everybody liable
for exactly what they contribute, whether they are a small business or
anything else.
Finally, on the example of the person, I believe it was Mrs. Barnes,
and the chemical plant, she has all her existing remedies with respect
to personal injury and wrongful conduct under negligence law. That is
all outlined on page 10.
I appreciate the chairman of the Commerce Committee yielding me the
time to briefly make a response to the Kerry amendment. As I say, I am
a Senator who agrees with the Senator from Massachusetts on so many
things. I do share his view that I hope by the time we are done with
this legislation, we can have something that gets upwards of 70 votes.
But suffice it to say, this Senator believes, with all due respect, the
proposal of the Senator from Massachusetts will be a lightning rod for
a variety of frivolous lawsuits.
I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I intend to send my amendment to the desk.
It is more inadvertence than anything else, and enthusiasm. I am not
going to delay it whatsoever. I agree with him. We want to get on with
this and make an effort.
Let me just make a couple of comments and address this. First of all,
with respect to what the Senator from Oregon just said, the woman in
the hypothetical I used would be precluded from the very kind of
damages, because your bill limits it to physical injury. She is not
physically injured. The fact is, the property damage and other damage
would, in fact, not be subject to it.
Secondly, under the economic losses in the bill from the Senator from
Arizona--and I think this is important for the Senator from Arizona to
understand--data processing would not be included in the definition
that you have with respect to economic loss. You speak to the question
of property and you allow certain kinds of property, but you don't
include in the definition of ``property'' intellectual property.
What happens if a company has a loss as a consequence of an entire
software system that went down and their data being lost and,
therefore, they do not provide a service to somebody? You could have a
huge economic interruption as a result of that, and you don't include
that as an economic loss. I will give you the precise language. There
are serious, real consequences here.
Secondly, the Senator from Oregon just said that we are just
precluding small businesses from punitive damages. Again, I just spoke
at a graduation of a law school. I hate to say it, I had to stand up
and say in front of the graduates of the law school, welcome to the
most hated profession in America. They understood what I was saying.
You can't come to the floor of the Senate and quote me defending
lawyers. That is not what I am doing. I am defending a principle. I am
defending a cherished notion within America about how we redress
problems.
I know people do not like being hauled into court. I almost laughed
when I heard the Senator from Arizona say that all the big businesses
and all the business community are united behind this bill. Of course,
they are. Big surprise. They are about to get out from under an
accountability system that suggests to them that they ought to behave
some way.
The Senator from Oregon has just said to me, small businesses will
only be held accountable for the proportion that they are liable. OK.
What happens in this example? The small businesses in Oregon and the
people served are in Oregon, but they are only 20 percent of the
problem. The people who sold them the hardware and the rest of the
equipment are in Japan. You cannot reach them, because you are a small
lawyer and you don't have the long reach. You don't have jurisdiction,
and you cannot get them conceivably. There are a lot of companies out
there right now operating like that. So all you have is 20 percent of
the person being made whole.
The theory of law for years, under joint and several, has been that
in America we care first about the victim, and we are going to make the
victim whole. Then the companies that have the power and the clout will
sort out between each other who gets what. That has been a very
efficient and effective distribution system. It is efficient.
What we are now saying is, sorry, average American, sorry, we are
going to give the power back to the corporate entities and you, the
little average person, you are going to have to go to Japan and chase
them, or you are going to have to just stomach your loss.
Small businesses are most of the business in the country. I am also
pretty sensitive to that, because I am the ranking member of the Small
Business Committee. I take great pride in the things that I have done
to try to further small business efforts. I believe in it. I am the
only Senator I know who has a zero capital gains tax bill here for
targeted investments in the high, critical technologies. I would love
to empower small business to do better. But all that punitives apply to
are willful, wanton, reckless, destructive, irresponsible, unacceptable
behavior. And what my colleagues are doing is coming to the floor, as a
matter of public policy, and saying the Senate ought to go on record
saying that we don't care how you behave. We are going to take away the
capacity to make the average citizen whole, and we are going to give it
to the corporate entity.
Now, I love these corporations. Look, I represent them and I respect
the leaders of them. They are doing great work for America. We have
created 18 million jobs in the last 10 years or so because of their
virtues and capacities. I will come back here and labor on their behalf
on encryption and a host of other things. But, fair is fair. Fair is
fair. Are you telling me we should not have these companies do two
simple things?
My colleague said the language is too vague on those two simple
things. Well, let's talk about that for a minute. The bill says
``identify the potential.'' What does that mean, ``identify the
potential''? Does anybody have trouble with that? It means to identify
whether the product the defendant made or sold had the potential for
Y2K failure. How would you know that? You know you have an embedded
chip in it. You know whether or not in the digitalization process you
use two or four digits. I am

[[Page 12061]]

not technically competent enough to tell you all of them, but there are
people who are; they are running around the country fixing these
things.
The IRS has invested $1.3 billion and several years of effort in
order to be Y2K compliant, and they are today. How did they get there?
They got there because they asked this very question. Do we have the
potential for failure? And if we do, what are we going to do to fix it?
My colleagues come to the floor and they are trying to tell us that
this bill is to encourage people to fix it. But what do they do? They
let them right out from underneath it, give them an upfront, blanket
exemption saying: We are not going to require that you be subject to
joint and several; you don't have to do anything; you just walk. And
that is wrong as a matter of policy.
All we ought to ask them to do is the very thing this bill's purpose
is about: Look and see if you have the potential for failure and tell
the people you sold it to. If we can't ask them to do that, then we are
not standing up for the average citizen in this country. It is that
simple.

Amendment No. 610 to Amendment No. 608

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

The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. Robb, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Akaka, and
Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered 610 to Amendment
No. 608.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I find the logic of my friend from
Massachusetts somewhat tortured. He maintains that these ``two simple
things'' will meet the approval of the high-tech community. Yet, it
doesn't. So in his mind, of course, clearly it should. But the fact is,
it doesn't.
So we are in a very interesting kind of hyperbole here that the
Senator from Massachusetts keeps saying the high-tech community
supports this and this is perfectly acceptable to them. Yet, they don't
support it or agree with it--and for good reason--because these ``two
simple things'' are directed at the high-tech defendants, not the rest
of the business community that will be defendants. When a wholesaler
fixes their systems within their company, yet it leases a trucking
group to deliver whatever that product is, and then they are subject to
joint and several liability, then, of course, it opens the floodgates.
The Senator from Massachusetts seems surprised that, or somehow casts
doubt about the motivation of business in supporting this legislation.
Of course they are supporting it, because they don't want to be subject
to a flood of litigation. That is the whole purpose of the legislation.
The whole purpose, I tell my friend from Massachusetts, is to stop a
flood of litigation.
Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
Mr. McCAIN. In a second. The Progressive Policy Institute of the
Democratic Leadership Counsel says:

Despite the number of lawsuits avoided during a 90-day cure
period, or the number of disputes settled through ADR, the
cost of Y2K litigation will remain exorbitantly high as long
as opportunities remain for people to abuse our legal system.
However, there are a number of Y2K-specific reforms that can
be enacted to curb that abuse and the subsequent costs. To
begin with, responsibly strengthening pleading standards
would keep many baseless suits out of the systems. Plaintiffs
seeking money awards for damages should be required to state
the particular nature and effects of material Y2K defects and
how they figured into calculating those damages. In addition,
to insure fairness, rejected plaintiffs should be allowed to
refile their suits with the required specifics in order to
protect legitimate claims that are not initially apparent.
Furthermore, legislation should deny awards for damages that
could reasonably have been avoided.
Class action suits are normally the most expensive and
wasteful of product liability lawsuits and often contain
enormous numbers of groundless complaints. Legislation should
insure that the majority of members in class action suits
have truly experienced Y2K-related failures and deserve
redress. By reducing the number of invalid claims, waste and
fraud could be significantly eliminated from the adjudication
of class action suits.
The effects of abusive litigation could be further curbed
by restricting the award of punitive damages.

That is what this legislation does. That is where the Senator's
amendment will open a loophole wide enough to drive a truck through.
Punitive damages are meant to punish poor behavior and discourage it
in the future. However, because this is a one-time event, the only
thing deterred by excessive punitive damages in Y2K cases would be
remediation efforts by businesses.
I say again to the Senator from Massachusetts--and we have had this
dialog for hours on the floor, and for hours in the committee, and I
will continue because of the enormous affection I have for the Senator
from Massachusetts. We will continue this dialog. We are in fundamental
disagreement on the interpretation of the Senator's proposed amendment.
It is as simple as that. So I would be----
Mr. WYDEN. Will the chairman yield briefly?
Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Massachusetts has asked me to yield
first.
Mr. KERRY. I am happy to let my colleague go first, and I will come
back.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Oregon for a question.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman.
It seems to me that on the basis of everything we have gone through
in terms of the committee, there is a reason that the high-tech
community is overwhelmingly opposed to the Kerry amendment. As far as I
can tell, there is this company the Senator from Massachusetts has
talked about, and I will acknowledge that. But the high-tech community,
as far as I can tell, is overwhelmingly opposed to this Kerry
amendment. As far as I can tell, the reason they are is that the Kerry
amendment introduces vague, ill-defined terms that are going to trigger
more litigation. On the basis of everything we went through in the
committee, is it the chairman's judgment that that is the reason the
high-tech community is overwhelmingly opposed to the Kerry proposal now
before the Senate?
Mr. McCAIN. That is my understanding.
Obviously, I would like to include the Senator from Massachusetts in
this dialog. Under his amendment--and I will be glad to respond to his
question--isn't it true that defendants who are in the middle of the
supply chain may be sued for a breach of contract caused not by the
failure of the defendant's computers but by those elsewhere in the
supply chain? That is the fundamental problem we have with Senator
Kerry's amendment.
I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me respond to that because it is very
important. May I also respond by saying this, and, again, I say this
with great respect and affection for both of my colleagues. But to be
on the floor of the Senate using as a justification the passage of
something that does somebody a lot of good, the fact that they like
that it does them a lot of good, is kind of a strange argument. If the
fox is there to guard the chicken coop and you are going to put a big
fence around the chickens, and you ask the fox, ``Do you like it?'' and
he says, ``No,'' that is no surprise. It is the same thing here. Who is
going to be surprised that the companies are going to say: Of course,
we support your bill, because it gives us more than we really properly
ought to get.
Having said that, let me say to my friend that our bill does
everything the Senator from Arizona just said.

[[Page 12062]]

We could do all of the things the Senator listed. The only difference
is, we asked them to identify the potential for the failure and provide
information that is calculated to reach the people. We don't even
require that it reach the people.
My colleague just said this is going to open up a whole lot of
litigation.
I ask my colleague, has he asked companies? Does he know of a company
that isn't trying to identify their Y2K failure? Does he know of a
company that, having done that, would not tell the people to whom they
sold it?
Mr. McCAIN. First of all, my response to the Senator from
Massachusetts is that these companies and corporations that are in
favor of this legislation--did the Senator from Massachusetts forget
that half of them could be plaintiffs? Why is it that so many of them
who could be plaintiffs are in support of this legislation? They are
not just the defendants, they are the plaintiffs.
The fact is that we are helping business all over America. I have to
tell my friend from Massachusetts that I came here to help business all
over America. I came here to help entrepreneurs. I came here to stop
the flood of litigation that has so distorted the business system in
America. I came here with a clear campaign to say, look, we have too
many frivolous lawsuits in America; we have too many class action
suits; we have too many lawyers and not enough business people.
I am unashamed and unembarrassed to tell the Senator from
Massachusetts that I am here in behalf of defendants who, if I took a
poll tomorrow, would number 90 percent. I don't know the percentage
that are lawyers, but I know it grows bigger by the day. But all of
those who are lawyers would say: Yes, please, Senator McCain, help
business get off this terrible burden where we are paying so much,
where we have become a litigious society in America and so many
terrible things have happened as a result.
As I pointed out, Mr. Tom Johnson--a man who is becoming famous here
on the floor of the Senate, I might add--is bringing these lawsuits
against honest, hard-working people, especially small and medium-sized
businesses.
If the Senator from Massachusetts is astonished--and I include the
Senator from Oregon in the category--at trying to help businesses,
small, medium, and large, from the incredible burden of litigation
which has flooded the United States of America--guilty as charged.
Guilty as charged.
The second aspect of this issue is clearly what I, as a business
owner, would tell people. It is that I, as a business owner who
distributes my product, would not be able to vouch for other people and
other businesses that are also part of this distribution chain of my
product.
That is again where I get back to the point that I do not know of any
business in America that doesn't want to fix the Y2K problem. I know
lots of business people who don't know, because of the distribution
system--both through distributors and retailers--that they can vouch
for those persons' willingness or ability to fix the Y2K problem, which
then opens up that flood.
I hope I answered the Senator's question.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I hate to say this. I say it again with
affection and respect. But the Senator didn't actually completely
answer the question, because he didn't tell me of any company in the
country that wouldn't do what I have said or that hasn't done what I
have said.
Mr. McCAIN. My answer is, I know of no company or corporation in
America that would not want to have the problem fixed.
Mr. KERRY. That is precisely the point. The Senator has just
acknowledged precisely the point I am making. I come back to it.
I am not serving on the Banking Committee and the Commerce Committee
and the Small Business Committee because I don't care about business. I
have the same desires as the Senator from Arizona to see business
succeed. He came here for the same purpose--to create jobs and to make
the country better for all of our citizens.
But this bill is not going to make lives better for all of our
citizens in its current structure. Yes, it is wonderful for those
corporate entities to be singled out to get the benefits of it. I agree
with the Senator. Everything in the amendment I have offered does the
exact same thing--to protect those companies, as his does, with one
exception. We are fighting here over one big exception right now. This
is the exception. The very thing the Senator from Arizona just
acknowledged--he said yes, every company ought to want to find that,
and I don't know of any company that isn't trying to.
That is the precise standard that we are trying to be sure companies
embrace--to have a guarantee that we are doing the most to encourage
mitigation, to fix the problem, inadvertently or otherwise.
The Senator's bill gives them automatic entry into the
proportionality of damages, without the guarantee that they tried to
make that effort. Why is that important? It goes to the Senator's
question to me. It is important because some companies may conceivably
choose the cheaper road, which is to not necessarily pay for the fix up
front but wait and see what the damage might be and not engage in the
very mitigation we have encouraged.
If that company is the midline company that the Senator just referred
to, under his proposal they would automatically be subject to get the
proportional level of their damage. But they could have weighed on an
economic basis whether the bottom line of that proportional damage was
such that they would rather wait and see, or weigh that rather than fix
the problem and avoid whatever the consequences may be to consumers
generally.
I don't think that is good public policy. Maybe we differ on that. I
think there is a fair way to provide all of these companies with the
protection that we want them to have, and we want them to have an
appropriate level of protection.
But, again, my colleagues can't show me why it is unreasonable to
suggest that a company can't identify the potential for a Y2K failure.
How can you not do that? All you have to do is sit down with your
design people, have a meeting, document the meeting, and ask a couple
of questions: Do we have a Y2K problem? Do we have any invented
processors? What products do we have them in? Whom did we sell them to?
Whoops. Let's send a letter to those people and tell them.
Is that asking too much?
The purpose of this bill is to encourage people to fix the problem.
If you do not ask people to do that, how can you say you are really
exhausting all of the possibilities of how you are going to fix the
problem? I don't understand that. I say to my colleagues that that is
one thing we are fighting about.
The other thing is the question of dealing with damages. I know I
have said it before. Some people do not like dealing with damages. But
the standard you have to get over to have punitive damages apply--I
don't know of anyone in the high-tech industry, I can't imagine a
company in the high-tech industry, that would be subject to that. Any
CEO I have met has as much public conscience as anybody in the Senate
and is engaged in a bona fide effort to make their company work. I
don't know anybody who is not.
But if there is some junk artist out there who is just hungry for the
bottom line, trying to gamble on all of the Internet success and
everything that has happened with high-tech stocks, who started out
fly-by-night, who wanted to go out there and make a quick hit, if that
person did it, and willfully, wantonly, recklessly, outrageously
impacted the life of an American citizen, I want that American citizen
to be able to have redress for that. I don't think it is right to deny
them that.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. McCAIN. If I could respond very quickly about one aspect of this,
I have confessed with great pride and sometimes with pleasure that I am
not a member of the legal profession. But I

[[Page 12063]]

am afraid the Senator from Massachusetts does not quite comprehend what
we are dealing with here.
This is a book, ``Year 2000 Challenge, Legal Problems and
Solutions,'' from the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.
Let me quote for the Senator what we are facing so we can really put
this in the proper perspective.

The unfortunate fact is there is no ``silver bullet''
solution to the year 2000 problem in any organization, and
the risks and difficulties in any Year 2000 project of even
moderate size and complexity can be enormous. None of the
remediation techniques described above is without
disadvantages, and for many IT users the time and resources
required to accomplish Year 2000 remediation far exceed what
is available. Most major remediation programs involve finding
and correcting date fields in millions of lines of poorly
documented or undocumented code. There is no single foolproof
method of finding date fields, no assurance that all date
fields will be found, corrected, or corrected accurately, and
no assurance that corrections will not produce unintended and
undesirable consequences elsewhere in the program. In many
cases it will be necessary to rely on information or
assurances from third party vendors regarding the Year 2000
compliance of their products, even though experience teaches
that many such representations are inaccurate or misleading.
Comprehensive end-to-end system testing of remediated systems
in a simulated Year 2000 ``production'' environment is often
impractical or impossible, and less intensive testing may
fail to detect uncorrected problems. And even where an IT
user succeeded in making its own systems Year 2000 ready.
Year 2000 date handling problems in external systems (such as
the systems of customers or suppliers) can have a devastating
effect on internal operations.

With all due respect to my friend from Massachusetts, this is what we
are trying to get in our legislation and this is what the Senator's
amendment basically prevents us from doing.
Here is the problem. I don't claim to have the expertise that the
Senator does on punitive damage or on joint and several liability. I
know the problem pretty well. We have had extensive hearings in the
Commerce Committee, and we have talked to all the experts. This is
really what we are trying to take care of--not as the Senator from
Massachusetts asked me, in good faith, do I believe there is any
company or corporation that is not trying to fix a problem. I don't
know of any.
I think what I read to the Senator from Massachusetts explains how
difficult and enormously complex solving this problem is. This is why,
although I respect and admire the Director of the FAA who will fly all
day long on January 1, the year 2000, I intend to remain at home that
day. However, I encourage others, as the Senator from Massachusetts, to
fly around the country.
I say seriously to my friend from Massachusetts, I hope this explains
to him the complexity of the problem. We not only can take care of the
individual manufacturer, but all the systems and subsystems that are
connected with it are not addressed, in my view, adequately, in the
Senator's amendment.
Before I yield to both Senators, could we agree to some time on this
amendment?
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to cooperate. I cannot agree at this
particular instant, because I need to canvas the cosponsors to figure
out who desires to speak. We have no intention of prolonging this.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Massachusetts and his staff will work
on that, I appreciate that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me come back to the remarks of the
Senator from Arizona, because I appreciate everything he just read. I
would like to be associated with putting it into the Record. However, I
don't associate myself with the notion that the consequences of what he
just read ought to be automatically given a bye, a pass, if you will,
without some duty to make the determination of what he just read.
Any company that is going to be subject to what the Senator from
Arizona just read would answer the standard I have put forth about a
potential for failure in the affirmative in 10 seconds. The Senator
from Arizona has acknowledged that. We are almost fighting about a
difference that is not a huge distinction here, but it is significant
enough because of what we want to do to achieve the mitigation we want
to get out of this bill.
There isn't a company in good standing in this country that cannot
answer affirmatively the two-step qualification for proportional
damages. To suggest that we will give every company an automatic bye
without requiring them to do that is to actually adopt a bill that
doesn't go as far as it can to achieve the purpose that the Senator
from Arizona states we are trying to achieve.
That is why there is a fundamental difference here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I want to respond to
the point the Senator from Massachusetts made with respect to the
standard that he would apply in identifying the potential for Y2K
failure.
I believe that using language that vague virtually ensures that a
significant number of frivolous cases are going to end up going to
juries--exactly what we fear. What will happen, companies will attempt
to defend themselves, the judge will be offered a motion to dismiss,
and the company will say: It is frivolous; we move to dismiss the case.
The judge will look, and if this were the standard that were actually
adopted, he would say: I don't know whether they identified the
potential for Y2K failure. And we would, in fact, be igniting an
additional round of frivolous lawsuits.
A motion to dismiss under this standard will get by because it is so
vague.
With respect to the economic losses the Senator from Massachusetts
has talked about and believes are inadequately addressed under our
bipartisan legislation, in this bill we keep State contract and tort
law in effect. We keep State contract and tort law in effect. The
problem is that there are some who disagree, some who would essentially
like to create torts out of these contractual rights where no torts
exist.
Finally, with respect to punitive damages, the Senator from
Massachusetts said again that our bipartisan bill would hollow out, for
example, protections that are needed for consumers. We ensure our
standard of evidence with respect to this is in line with State
requirements. Again, we are trying to take a balanced approach.
I hope my colleagues will oppose the Kerry amendment. I think it
ensures we will see a significant number of frivolous suits not being
dismissed where they ought to be but essentially ending up going to
juries and causing great economic duress early in the next century.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the purpose of proposing some
amendments, I ask that the pending Kerry amendment be set aside for
that purpose, with the proviso of returning immediately to the Kerry
amendment.
I send to the desk two amendments by Senator Murkowski, an amendment
by Senator Gregg, an amendment by Senator Inhofe, and two amendments by
Senator Sessions, and I ask for them to be numbered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
numbered and laid aside.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent we return to the
pending Kerry amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. One of the irate staff just came over here. I saw no harm
associated with that process. If there were an objection, I would be
glad to remove those amendments. They were simply amendments to be
numbered in case when we get an agreement on both sides of the aisle.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw those amendments, and we will
leave everything as it was before.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Regarding the Kerry amendment, I want to mention that a
company that has made no effort to prevent failure or fix its systems
will undoubtedly be found more responsible for a plaintiff's injuries
under the terms of S. 96 in liability already proposed, without the
hazard of making a

[[Page 12064]]

company that can't control the entire chain of distribution liable for
the entire damage awarded the plaintiff. Our opposition to the pending
Kerry amendment is almost that simple.
I note that the Senator from California is waiting to speak. I hope
by the time the Senator is finished, perhaps we could have some
agreement for a vote on this amendment so we could move forward, as
well as agreement on the other side for resolving the remaining 12
amendments on both sides.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from the great State of
California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to support the underlying
McCain-Dodd-Wyden-Lieberman-Feinstein bill, because I believe this bill
is a once in a millennium, 3-year law. Without it, I believe we could
see the destruction or dismemberment of America's cutting-edge lead in
technology. We all know that the year 2000 is rapidly approaching and
with it there comes a wide variety of possible disruptions relating to
the so-called Y2K problem.
It is true, though, that no one really knows how big the problem will
be or how small it will be, so government organizations, businesses
large and small, and private individuals are all scrutinizing the area
from their own particular perspective. The area that has received the
most attention is concern over a possible flood of lawsuits that could
clog courts and distract businesses from solving these problems early
in the next millennium. Several well-known consultants and firms,
including the Gartner Group, have established that Y2K litigation could
quickly reach as high as $1 trillion. So concerned Members of Congress,
including Senators McCain, Hatch, Dodd, and others, have been working
for many months in an attempt to craft a solution to what has recently
been described as this trillion-dollar headache.
The genesis of the bill now pending on the floor was a request by
literally dozens of companies and more than 80 industry groups--
including the Semiconductor Industry Association, the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Information
Technology Association--to develop legislation to prevent frivolous and
baseless lawsuits that could jeopardize companies moving to quickly
solve Y2K problems. The trick was not at the same time to prevent the
suit with merit.
I began working on a similar bill with Senator Hatch almost 6 months
ago, because I became convinced that the Congress did need to intervene
in order to ensure that Y2K problems are quickly and efficiently
solved. Now, after several months of negotiating and a combined effort
among a number of different Senators, I believe we have reached a fair
compromise. This bill is especially important to California where over
20 percent of the Nation's high-tech jobs are located. The problem
actually extends even beyond high-tech companies to the lives of
employees, stockholders, and customers in a wide range of American
businesses.
One of the first indications I had of the depth of the concern was
when groups of consultants began to come to us saying they refused to
become involved in helping companies solve Y2K problems for fear that
they would open themselves up to being sued later on. Instead, they
would rather just not get involved. One such group was the American
Association of Computer Consulting Businesses that represent 400
companies and more than 15,000 consultants. They told me personally
that they were going to refuse to enter into any Y2K consulting
contract until they had some kind of additional protection. So it
became very clear to me that, indeed, we do have a real problem. I
believe the underlying bill crafts a real solution.
I think it is important to say, and say again and again, that nothing
in this bill is permanent. It is simply a 3-year bill, limited to
specific cases. The bill applies only to Y2K failures and only to those
failures that occur before January 1, 2003. Let me quickly go over the
provisions as I see them.
The 90-day cooling off period during which time no suit may be filed
enables businesses to concentrate on solving Y2K problems rather than
on fending off lawsuits.
The bill provides for proportionate liability in many cases, so that
defendants are punished according to their fault and not according to
their deep pockets. I am not an attorney and I have always felt this
was the most fair way to go, except in certain situations, and the bill
does provide for those certain situations. I would like to go into this
in greater detail.
The bill also encourages parties to request and use alternative
dispute resolution at any time during this 90-day cooling off period.
For Y2K class actions, the bill requires, in order to qualify, that a
majority of plaintiffs must have suffered some minimal injury. That
would avoid cases in which thousands of unknowing plaintiffs are lumped
together in an attempt to force a quick settlement.
For small businesses, the bill limits punitive damages to $250,000,
or three times compensatory damages, so as to deter frivolous suits. It
prevents the ``tortification'' of contracts with several provisions
that require businesses to live up to their agreements rather than
turning to the courts in the hopes of avoiding their responsibilities.
These are not the only provisions in the legislation, but these
provisions represent the basic premise of a bill that does not seek to
prevent the truly injured from recovering damages, but will hopefully
prevent the frivolous lawsuit and keep companies from solving problems
without delay.
There is much that is not in this bill, and there have been many
changes made in the bill, certainly since I became involved in it. I
would like to just indicate a few of them.
All caps on attorney's fees have been removed. Punitive damage caps
for large businesses have been eliminated. Punitive damage caps for
small businesses have been increased from three times actual damages to
three times compensatory damages. All government regulatory or
enforcement actions have been exempted from the bill, and three
exceptions to the elimination of joint and several liability are
provided in order to protect smaller plaintiffs and those who cannot
recover from every defendant. The caps on liability for officers and
directors have been removed, and the bill has been changed to provide
that per suit there is only one 90-day cooling off period.
I think the cooling off period is probably very well known and
probably very well accepted, so let me dispense with any further
explanation on that point. But let's go to one of the more
controversial parts, proportionate liability.
One of the reasons this bill is important to the affected companies
is that it prevents plaintiffs from forcing quick settlements from
innocent defendants who should be trying to solve Y2K problems.
Additionally, under the system of joint and several liability, a
defendant found to be only 20, 10, or even 1 percent at fault can
nonetheless be forced to pay 100 percent of the damages. This system,
as we all know, encourages plaintiffs to go after deep-pocket
defendants first in order to force that quick settlement. It is my
basic belief that this is fundamentally unfair, and the bill eliminates
joint and several liability in some Y2K cases.
Under the new system, for this brief 3-year period, defendants will
be responsible only for that portion of damage that can be attributed
to them. The bill does have, as I have said, three specific exceptions
to the elimination of joint and several liability, and those were taken
from the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act recently passed
overwhelmingly by the Congress and signed into the law by the
President.
First, any plaintiff worth less than $200,000 and suffering harm of
more than 10 percent of that net worth may recover against all
defendants jointly and severally. This exception in the bill protects
those plaintiffs with a low net worth but will not unduly injure
defendants, because the damages recovered will not be that great.
Second, any defendant who acts with an intent to injure or defraud a
plaintiff loses the protections under this bill and is again subject to
joint and several liability. The bill does not protect those acting
with an intent to harm.

[[Page 12065]]

Finally, the bill provides a compromise for those cases in which
defendants are judgment-proof. In cases where a plaintiff cannot
recover from certain defendants, the other defendants in the case are
each liable for an additional portion of the damages. However, in no
case can a defendant be forced to pay more than 150 percent of its
level of fault.
These proportionate liability provisions offer a more fair and, I
truly believe, rational approach to the system of damages in Y2K cases.
Without this more balanced system, a few large companies will soon be
forced to bear the entire brunt of Y2K litigation regardless of fault,
and that is the problem. That is what will destroy the cutting edge of
American prominence in this area, and that will result in jobs being
lost.
Under the system of proportionate liability, this bill holds
defendants responsible for the extent of their fault and no more, with
the exceptions I have just mentioned.
Another area that I think deserves a little bit of clarification is
the class action area. Under the class action section of this bill, a
year 2000 class action suit cannot proceed unless the defect upon which
the action is based is material to a majority of class members. This
section is very important. Essentially, this clause prevents the type
of ``strike suits'' we saw in the securities litigation area.
In the Y2K context, this provision will stop overly aggressive
plaintiffs from searching out small defects in computer programs,
gathering together thousands of software users who do not even know
they have been injured, and trying to force a quick settlement out of
the software manufacturer.
Once this bill passes, if a class action suit alleges that software
does not function properly, the action can proceed only if the alleged
defect affects a majority of the class members in some significant way.
Trivial defects that would not even be noticed by most class members
would not be cause for a class action. Again, plaintiffs with good
cause may still proceed, but frivolous suits would be stopped. That is
the purpose of the provision and the purpose of the bill.
There has been a lot of discussion in this Chamber about punitive
damage caps. The Dodd-McCain compromise caps punitive damages, for
small businesses only, at the lesser of $250,000 or three times
compensatory damages.
The idea of capping punitive damages is one of the most controversial
issues in this or any other bill dealing with changes to our system of
civil justice. In this case, I believe reasonable and carefully drafted
caps on punitive damages can deter frivolous suits. Additionally,
capping punitive damages reduces the incentive to settle meritless
suits because companies will not be at risk for huge, unwarranted
verdicts.
I recognize that this is a controversial issue and that intelligent,
well-meaning people may disagree over whether this is the time or the
place to address punitive damages. But I have continually emphasized
that this bill is not about punitive damages, and the compromise
dramatically limits the punitive damage caps compared to earlier
versions.
In summary, this $1 trillion litigation headache is approaching. This
Congress can provide thoughtful, preventive medicine and some
anticipatory pain relief in the form of reasoned, fair, and thoughtful
compromise. I think the bill sets forward clear rules to be followed in
all Y2K cases. I believe it levels the playing field for all parties
who will be involved in these suits. Companies and individuals alike
will know the rules and will know what they have to do. Most important,
there is an element of stability that can come from this bill which
will allow companies to prevent Y2K problems when possible, fix Y2K
defects when necessary, and proceed to remediate damages in an orderly
and fair manner.
It is true that some plaintiffs may have to wait a little bit longer
to file a suit for damages, but their rights will not be curtailed and
recovery will not be prevented. In fact, the waiting period in the bill
will make it far more likely that problems will be solved quickly,
allowing potential plaintiffs to get on with the activities that were
disrupted by the Y2K problem at issue.
This bill has been through a tortuous legislative drafting process
with criticisms, suggestions, and changes made from every side and by
every sector of our society. I hope we can pass this bill and send it
to the President, and let us show the Nation that the Y2K crisis will
not cripple our courts, will not disrupt our economy, and will not slow
our progress toward a 21st century world.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 610

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am grateful to Senator Kerry of
Massachusetts for offering his amendment, which allows us now to have a
full debate on what is a comprehensive amendment. It covers a whole
series of provisions which are included in the pending bill before the
Senate.
Let me try, if I can, to take each of the critical provisions in the
amendment, address them, and explain why I believe, despite the good
intentions of its author, it would do significant damage to the
underlying purpose of the bill that Senator McCain and Senator Wyden
and myself and others have offered to the Senate for its consideration.
I said at the outset of my remarks earlier today that this bill is
very narrow in scope, very narrow in duration, and limited to a fact
situation which most Americans, I think, have a growing awareness of
today.
In 204 days the millennium clock will turn, and there is a very
serious set of issues that could affect many Americans and many people
outside of our shores: that is the so-called Y2K glitch or bug in
computers based on information that is included in embedded chips and
other items within these computers which would read the date of the
year 2000 incorrectly.
I am, of course, simplifying the situation. I think the Senate is
well are aware of the danger inherent in the Y2K problem. That problem
could, of course, create serious disruptions in a variety of mission-
critical functions in telecommunications, transportation, medical care,
Federal services, and the like.
Over the last year and a half the Senator from Utah and I, as
chairman and vice chairman of the Y2K Special Committee, have conducted
some 21 hearings to examine where we were with the Y2K problem, what
the Federal Government was doing, what State governments were doing,
what local municipal governments were doing, and what the private
sector and nonprofits were doing in order to remediate the problem; to
fix the problem as soon as possible; and, where that may not be
possible, to have contingency planning to avoid the kind of potential
disruptions that those who are most knowledgeable about this issue
suggest could occur.
Over that period of time we have seen significant improvement in the
remediation done by the private and public sector, State and local
governments, all across this country. In fact, we are at the point
where we believe, as of this date, in June, with some 204 days to go,
the country is by and large in good shape. We should not anticipate or
be worried about any major disruptions here in the United States. There
could be exceptions to that but, by and large, we think that is the
situation today.
One of the things we are trying to do is see to it that when January
1 arrives, the best effort of a business--small, medium, or large--does
not go for naught as a result of its inability to detect problems with
embedded chips that ultimately result in Y2K-related failures.
Last year we passed a bill on disclosure to encourage the various
sectors

[[Page 12066]]

of our society to share as much information as possible with each other
so that we could contribute to the remediation effort and avoid the
kinds of problems some are anticipating will occur after January 1.
That bill created a safe harbor provision, which allowed for the
sharing of information--not sharing of lies and knowingly false
information, but sharing as much knowledgeable information that
businesses had--without worrying that someone would come around later
and say, ``what you said in June of the year 1999 was not exactly
right,'' and, therefore, you would be subject to litigation.
That bill was passed overwhelmingly by this body and the other body
and signed into law. It is making, we think, a significant contribution
to avoiding the kinds of problems that we could have had after January
1 of the year 2000. But it does not eliminate all the problems. In
fact, no one can pass a piece of legislation that will eliminate all
the difficulties.
We realize with those problems that may emerge that you could have
disruptions as a result of the failure to detect such things as faulty
embedded chips. So this legislation before us is designed to be a
complementary piece of legislation to the disclosure act of last year,
a complementary piece of legislation to the efforts of Senator Bennett,
myself, and others who have worked on that committee, who strived to
encourage, jawbone, do whatever we could, to minimize the kind of
difficulties Americans could face.
We do not claim we have achieved all of that yet. But with the
adoption of this bill, a 3-year bill, a 36-month bill, we say to
potential plaintiffs and defendants: If, in fact, a problem arises that
under any other circumstances might give rise to a lawsuit, we want you
to try to avoid that lawsuit, if you can. We want you to try to work
out the problem. We want you to spend your time, your money, and your
efforts to fix the Y2K problem, not to run to the nearest courthouse
and then spend weeks and months, potentially years, at the cost of
millions of dollars, litigating an issue and not solving the underlying
problem which is causing the kind of disruptions this issue can
potentially cause.
That is the purpose of this bill. That is the rationale behind it: to
try to avoid rushing to the courthouse.
We are a litigious society. We love lawsuits. Most Americans are
painfully aware of this. There is nothing wrong with going to court to
try to solve your problems. But I think most would agree that if you
can avoid going to the courtroom to solve your problems, you can get
better results in many instances.
So this legislation is designed specifically to avoid rushing to the
courthouse for 36 months--not for a lifetime, not for eternity, but for
36 months--during the critical period where this issue is upon us, to
see if we can't work out these difficulties. We only do that for 36
months with issues directly related to the Y2K issue, not any matter
that comes up, but specifically the Y2K issue. We do so in a very
limited way.
Specifically, we do not prohibit lawsuits. We merely are trying to
see if we cannot come up with an alternative vehicle to solve the
problems.
Mr. President, what Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has done is
offered a series of ideas that he and those who have joined him believe
will enhance the underlying legislation. They state --and I believe
them--that they are desirous of making this a better bill, of making it
less likely that we are going to have a race to the courthouse.
As you analyze what they have proposed, despite their good intentions
it would appear they are doing just the opposite of their intentions. I
can accept, although I do not entirely understand, those who are just
fundamentally opposed to what we are trying to do, and then offering a
series of provisions which would gut our very underlying intent. I do
not support it. I vehemently oppose it. But I can't understand how a
rationale could be made for you to oppose the idea of trying to avoid
litigation for 36 months, if you can, on this Y2K issue.
Let me take, if I can, some of the provisions included specifically
in the Kerry proposal and explain why I think those provisions directly
undercut the underlying intent of the McCain-Wyden-Dodd proposal.
One deals with the bill's proportionate liability provisions. As I
read the legislation, the Kerry bill, on page 13 of this proposal,
states that notwithstanding the proportionate liability sections, the
liability of a defendant in a Y2K action is joint and several if the
defendant fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
prior to December 31, 1999, the defendant identified the potential for
Y2K failure, and then, in paragraph two, provided information
calculated to reach persons likely to experience Y2K failures. Consider
what those two provisions would do. Those are findings of fact, not
findings of law. So even if a defendant has made some effort to
identify potential Y2K failures, and made efforts to provide
information calculated to reach the likely persons, you know very well
that those are questions of fact, not of law. I would be hard pressed
to identify a judge that was not going to say that questions of fact go
to a jury.
As a result, there will be litigation on the very issue upon which my
colleague from Massachusetts is trying to avoid litigation. Again, I
can understand why some may disagree with the proportional liability
provisions of the bill. They do not like the idea of having
proportional liability. But I think it is only fair and just, under
these fact situations. Otherwise what you get, very clearly, is
attorneys who will go shop around for some company that is
infinitesimally involved but simultaneously has deep pockets, and that
becomes your defendant. They will then try to get that fractionally
involved defendant as becoming totally responsible and culpable for the
Y2K failure.
That is directly contrary to what we are trying to do here in this
bill, directly contrary to what we are trying to do with the 90-day
cooling off period, directly contrary to our saying that you have to go
after the people responsible for the injury. By suggesting here that if
they would just identify the potential Y2K problems and provide
information to reach the persons likely to experience these failures,
it seems to me that you have undercut entirely the desired goal in the
underlying bill by avoiding the proportional liability provisions of
the legislation. It is these provisions that we think will do a great
deal to minimize the rush to the courthouse.
These matters just do not end up in court miraculously. It takes an
energetic and aggressive bar that wants to pursue them. That would be
the case, in my view, if this amendment were adopted.
Again, these are findings of fact, not of law. No judge that I know
of would dismiss a case where there are findings of fact to be
determined. Those should go to a jury. Therefore, your motion to
dismiss fails. Therefore, you are in court. Therefore, you have
destroyed what we are trying to accomplish with this 36-month bill,
just to deal with a Y2K issue, where the issue ought to be to try to
resolve the problems the American public faces.
As a practical matter, we have 204 days left before the millennium
clock turns. If you adopt these provisions here over the next 204 days,
instead of remediating the problem, setting up your contingency
planning, which is what you ought to be doing at this point, we will
have people running around here trying to figure out ways to meet some
standard here so they can avoid the joint and several liability
provisions.
I can see them suggesting that we ought to be spending resources here
to identify potential Y2K failures and provide information to persons
likely to be subjected to those failures. With 204 days to go--if my
colleague from Utah were here, I think he would echo these comments--we
need everyone in this country involved in this issue spending every
available moment of time and every bit of resources fixing these
problems instead of trying to avoid the kind of legal hurdles placed in
the way that the Kerry amendment would require, if his amendment were
to be adopted.
An excellent point that should be made is that this proportional
liability

[[Page 12067]]

section would also encourage results where U.S. companies could end up
paying for the wrongs of foreign companies, non-U.S. companies. It has
been stated over and over again, and I can tell you that it is true
based on our information, that Y2K remediation efforts abroad are
lagging. If a U.S. plaintiff can't recover against a non-U.S. company,
he is going to try to recover against the closest deep pocket in this
country. So you end up having U.S. companies that have made a
significant remediation effort having to bear all the burden because a
foreign manufacturer has not done the job as well. The plaintiff has a
hard time reaching that potential defendant, so he races to the most
fractionally involved U.S. company in order to get their full
compensation. That is just not fair.
The amendment's contracts preservation section does not preserve
contracts. Although it is essential that Y2K contract rights be fully
enforceable, the bill's formulation allows contractual provisions to be
set aside, even by vague State common law rules. This approach would
give State court judges the power to throw out contract provisions they
don't like.
One thing that has been sacrosanct is, when there is a contractual
relationship, that is what prevails. If the parties enter into a
contract, then the contract rules. If you are going to allow, as you
would if the Kerry amendment is adopted, State court judges to undo
contracts, because you don't like contract law but you want tort law,
then you are expanding an area of the law that we have never done.
Where there is a contract in place, the contract rules. If you are
going to allow State courts to undo that and then allow attorneys to
shop around the country until they find a State jurisdiction where they
have avoided these contracts, you have just gutted this bill.
If you want to gut the bill, gut the bill. If you want to destroy
this effort, destroy the effort. But do not stand up simultaneously and
tell me you are trying to enhance what we are trying to do and then
allow State courts to gut contract law in this country.
The Kerry amendment also makes liability for economic losses more
expansive than current law. Under current law in most jurisdictions,
plaintiffs who are in a contractual relationship with the defendant
cannot circumvent the contract by trying out the tort idea.
I understand lawyers want to do this. We don't like the contract my
client entered into, so let's try going to the tort idea here. Not
terribly clever, not terribly unique, pretty commonplace. But we are
not going to all of a sudden say that contracts are no longer valid
here.
In essence, if you adopt this amendment, at least this part of it,
that is what you are doing. If there is a good contract, then the
contract rules. The idea you can circumvent that contract by seeking to
bring a tort suit to recover your economic losses permits all
intentional torts to go forward, whether or not the parties have a
preexisting relationship. Whatever else you may like about this
amendment, that provision alone ought to cause it to be overwhelmingly
defeated.
The amendment's carveout for noncommercial suits, in my view, will
permit a huge range of abusive actions. The Kerry proposal carves out
suits by individuals from most of the provisions of this bill. I
believe that abusive class actions on behalf of consumers are one of
the greatest dangers in the Y2K area, because such suits are easily
created and controlled by plaintiffs' lawyers. That also was the case
in the securities area prior to the enactment of the securities
legislation, a bill that we adopted several years ago.
Again, in this area, the McCain-Wyden-Dodd bill does protect class
action lawsuits. They are not done away with here. We simply try to
tighten up the rules under which class actions can be brought, and I
think wisely so. We don't want to be going back and saying basically
that in these areas you can file vague complaints where no one can
determine what the charges are against you. Remember, in this area of
Y2K--unlike securities litigation where clearly the defendants are
going to be securities firms and the like--a small business can be a
plaintiff and a defendant very quickly. It is not going to be as clear
as to who the consumers are here.
Is one going to suggest to me that a small business where there is a
computer glitch that all of a sudden gets sued is a nonconsumer, in a
sense? I think we are trying to draw lines here that don't apply in the
area of law that we have crafted with the McCain-Wyden-Dodd bill.
So by suggesting that all the other provisions of law are OK here is
to basically just say this bill has been defeated. If that amendment is
offered as a single freestanding amendment, we may as well not take the
time of the Senate to go further. I will recommend that you pull the
bill down because, frankly, then you have said this proposal here has
no merit.
So I am not suggesting these are all the provisions of the Kerry
amendment, but they are the ones I think are most egregious and which I
think would do the most damage to the underlying effort that the
Senators from Oregon and Arizona, and others, have tried to craft here.
Again, this is a bill for 36 months, that is it. We have 204 days
left to do something to minimize a serious problem. I hope we have no
problems come January 1 and February, and that all of the talk about a
serious Y2K problem turns out to be wrong. Then we can look back and
say maybe we didn't need this bill. But I would rather be standing here
and have that happen than to be sitting around in January and all of a
sudden watch serious problems occur, people racing to courtrooms all
over the country because this body didn't think 36 months set aside in
this area was a worthy exercise to defend against a potential problem
that could cause Americans a lot of difficulty.
For once, this body, the Congress, is taking action in anticipation
of a problem. What we normally do is wait for the problems to happen
and then scurry around trying to fix them. Here in June we are trying
to do something to avoid potential catastrophes in January. I commend
my colleagues again--those who have been involved in this--for having
the wisdom to step up and try to take meaningful action here.
Do we have a perfect bill? No, I can't tell you that. We realize we
are sailing in uncharted waters here. But we think we are on the right
side of this and our footing is strong--36 months, narrow in scope and
time--to try to avoid the millions, if not billions, of dollars that
ultimately taxpayers and consumers may end up paying for a lot of
worthless lawsuits to satisfy the appetites of a few narrow members of
the bar. I think it is a risk worth taking. I think in the long run the
American public will support our efforts. With all due respect to my
colleague from Massachusetts, for whom I have a great deal of
admiration, we fundamentally disagree. Were his proposal to be adopted,
I believe it would do significant, if not irreparable, damage to the
McCain-Wyden-Dodd approach we have drafted and submitted for our
colleagues' consideration.
I yield the floor.

Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments on this side be in order and these amendments only:
Senator Murkowski, two amendments; Senator Inhofe, one amendment;
Senator Gregg, one amendment; Senator Lott, one amendment; Senator
Sessions, two amendments.
Although it may be redundant, I add to that the amendments that were
already agreed to in yesterday's Congressional Record: Senator
Hollings, three amendments; Senator Kerry, one amendment; Senator
Boxer, one amendment; Senator Feinstein, one amendment; Senator
Feingold, one amendment; Senator Graham of Florida, one amendment;
Senator Leahy, one amendment; Senator Dodd, one amendment; Senator
Edwards, two amendments; Senator Daschle, one amendment.
Would it be agreeable to Senator Hollings if that is included in the
unanimous consent agreement?

[[Page 12068]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. I thank the distinguished Senator. The Feinstein
and Dodd amendments are now cared for. As listed in the calendar for
today, it is correct. We agree.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be the only
ones in order in consideration of the bill.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, has switched with
the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli.
Mr. McCAIN. The amendment under Senator Graham will now be listed
under Senator Torricelli.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also want to mention that I think the
Senator from Massachusetts wants to discuss this amendment again. We
are prepared to enter into a time agreement with the Senator from
Massachusetts when he returns to the floor for his further discussion
of the amendment. Perhaps we can enter into an agreement at that time.
I will also be contacting Members whose amendments are still listed as
relevant to reach time agreements with them so that perhaps by the
close of business this evening we could have time agreements allocated,
if possible. If not, we will just proceed with the amending process
tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Y2K
Act. I commend Senator McCain for the leadership he has provided the
Senate on an issue that is of critical importance to small businesses
across this country. I do not know if we have highlighted enough the
cost of the Y2K problem on small business. That is what I would like to
briefly address. I also thank the Chamber of Commerce for the effort
they have made to bring this problem to the attention of the Congress
and to the public.
I support protecting businesses from unnecessary and frivolous
litigation that will arise from the Y2K problem. While businesses are
hard at work trying to fix potential problems arising from the Year
2000, others are trying to exploit it through excessive and expensive
litigation. It has been reported in that the cost of litigation in the
U.S. arising from this problem will range from $200 billion to $1
trillion. It is just incredible. The Senate Commerce Committee has
reported that up to 48 lawsuits relating to the Y2K problem have
already been filed. What has been described as a ``tremendous new
business opportunity'' for lawyers is done at the expense of the
private business sector, in particularly small businesses. Small
businesses are most at risk from Y2K failures because many have not
begun to realize the potential problem and they do not have the capital
to remedy any Y2K difficulties.
This bill goes a long way toward preventing litigation from the Y2K
problem by establishing punitive damage caps, alternative dispute
resolution, and proportional liability. While this bill will limit the
amount of frivolous litigation, it will not prevent those who are
blatantly negligible in becoming Y2K compliant or have caused personal
injuries as a result of their noncompliance from escaping their
responsibilities. They will still be held responsible.
Although I believe S. 96 will prevent and limit any litigation
arising from the Y2K problem, I am still concerned that the greatest
beneficiaries of the Year 2000 computer problem will be the trial
lawyers. I am disheartened that there is no provision in this bill that
places a reasonable cap on attorneys' fees. An attorney fees' cap will
help prevent excessive litigation against small businesses by creating
a financial disincentive for trial lawyers. Unlike the big corporations
who have millions to spend on solving the Y2K problem and defending
themselves in any Y2K civil action, the small businesses do not have
the financial resources and are therefore the primary targets of any
potential Y2K litigation. A reasonable and fair attorney fees' cap will
decrease the amount of excessive and frivolous litigation arising from
the Y2K problem. But without a reasonable cap, I am concerned that the
Y2K problem could become a boondoggle for the trial lawyers at the
expense of small businesses. However, in the interest of passing this
legislation, I will not be offering an attorney's fee amendment at this
time. I do hope that the Senate will be able to consider and debate
this issue in the future.
That having been said, I ask that the Senate move quickly to pass
this legislation and protect small businesses from potential Y2K
litigation.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as one of the original cosponsors of both
S. 96 and the bipartisan amendment that now constitutes the base bill
before the Senate, I am, of course, strongly in support of that
proposal and opposed to the Kerry amendment, even including all of the
changes, almost all of which are constructive, that have been added to
it during the course of its development.
But in reflecting on both my support of the base bill and my
opposition to the Kerry amendment, I wish to reflect on the fact that
most, though not all, of the major actors in this bill have been
Members of the Senate for a decade or so. Each of them can remember
that it is a decade or less ago that one of the constant refrains on
the floor of the Senate--and for that matter, throughout our society--
was our deep concern about American competitiveness.
Volumes of the Congressional Record are filled with speeches about
the fact we were losing ground to many of our competitors, most
particularly the Japanese, because of their work ethic, because of
their educational system, or for a half dozen other reasons. Probably
the last such speech was made on the floor of this Senate more than
half a decade ago.
It is obvious that the United States, whatever its problems then, has
had a magnificent recovery and dominates the economic and technical
world by as great a margin as it ever has had during the course of the
20th century.
While all kinds of American geniuses are responsible for this change,
I think it is safe to say that the extraordinary, imaginative,
entrepreneurial work of the men and women whose companies make up the
Year 2000 Coalition supporting this legislation have the greatest
responsibility and deserve the greatest amount of credit for changes in
the nature of our economy and of our society and the way in which we
live, the way in which we communicate with one another and the way in
which we preserve and enhance knowledge. These factors have changed as
much in this last decade as in the previous century.
It is, therefore, the very people and the very companies that have
done more to enhance the quality of life in the United States and the
quality of life around the world who have done more to break down
barriers between people and regions and nations. It is these people who
seek the modest relief proposed in this bill, these people who are so
responsible for our economic success.
I have been handed a letter to the distinguished junior Senator from
Massachusetts from the Year 2000 Coalition. I ask unanimous consent
that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Year 2000 Coalition,

June 8, 1999.
Hon. John F. Kerry,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kerry: The Year 2000 Coalition, a broad-based
multi-industry business group, is committed to working with
the Senate to enact meaningful Y2K liability legislation. We
fully support S. 96 sponsored by Senators McCain and Wyden,
with amendments to be offered by Senator Dodd. This is also
supported by Senators Hatch, Bennett, Gorton, Feinstein and
others. S. 96 is the most reasonable approach to curtail
unwarranted and frivolous litigation that might occur as a
result of the century date change.
While we appreciate any effort that further demonstrates
the bipartisan recognition of the need for legislation, the
Coalition does not support the amendment to S. 96 that is

[[Page 12069]]

being circulated in your name. We urge you to support S. 96
and to not introduce an amendment to it. Your vote in favor
of cloture is important to bring the bill to the floor and
allow the Senate to address the challenge of Y2K confronting
all Americans. A vote in favor of S. 96 is a vote in favor of
Y2K remediation, instead of litigation.
This letter was also sent to the following Senators: Robb,
Daschle, Reid, Breaux, and Akaka.
Sincerely,
Aerospace Industries Association, Airconditioning &
Refrigeration Institute, Alaska High-Tech Business
Council, Alliance of American Insurers, American
Bankers Association, American Bearing Manufacturers
Association, American Boiler Manufacturers Association,
American Council of Life Insurance, American
Electronics Association, American Entrepreneurs for
Economic Growth, American Gas Association, American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, American
Insurance Association, American Iron & Steel Institute,
American Paper Machinery Association, American Society
of Employers, American Textile Machinery Association,
American Tort Reform Association, America's Community
Bankers, Arizona Association of Industries, Arizona
Software Association, Associated Employers, Associated
Industries of Missouri, Associated Oregon Industries,
Inc.
Association of Manufacturing Technology, Association of
Management Consulting Firms, BIFMA International,
Business and Industry Trade Association, Business
Council of Alabama, Business Software Alliance,
Chemical Manufacturers Association, Chemical
Specialties Manufacturers Association, Colorado
Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Software
Association, Compressed Gas Association, Computing
Technology Industry Association, Connecticut Business &
Industry Association, Inc., Connecticut Technology
Association, Construction Industry Manufacturers
Association, Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Copper & Brass Fabricators Council, Copper
Development Association, Inc., Council of Industrial
Boiler Owners, Edison Electric Institute, Employers
Group, Farm Equipment Manufacturers Association,
Flexible Packaging Association.
Food Distributors International, Grocery Manufacturers of
America, Gypsum Association, Health Industry
Manufacturers Association, Independent Community
Bankers Association, Indiana Information Technology
Association, Indiana Manufacturers Association, Inc.,
Industrial Management Council, Information Technology
Association of America, Information Technology Industry
Council, International Mass Retail Council,
International Sleep Products Association, Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America, Investment Company
Institute, Iowa Association of Business & Industry,
Manufacturers Association of Mid-Eastern PA,
Manufacturer's Association of Northwest Pennsylvania,
Manufacturing Alliance of Connecticut, Inc., Metal
Treating Institute, Mississippi Manufacturers
Association, Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association, National Association of Computer
Consultant Business.
National Association of Convenience Stores, National
Association of Hosiery Manufacturers, National
Association of Independent Insurers, National
Association of Manufacturers, National Association of
Mutual Insurance Companies, National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors, National Electrical
Manufacturers Association, National Federation of
Independent Business, National Food Processors
Association, National Housewares Manufacturers
Association, National Marine Manufacturers Association,
National Retail Federation, National Venture Capital
Association, North Carolina Electronic and Information
Technology Association, Technology New Jersey, NPES,
The Association of Suppliers of Printing, Publishing,
and Converting Technologies, Optical Industry
Association, Printing Industry of Illinois-Indiana
Association, Power Transmission Distributors
Association, Process Equipment Manufacturers
Association, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association.
Reinsurance Association of America, Securities Industry
Association, Semiconductor Equipment and Materials
International, Semiconductor Industry Association,
Small Motors and Motion Association, Software
Association of Oregon, Software & Information Industry
Association, South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, Steel
Manufacturers Association, Telecommunications Industry
Association, The Chlorine Institute, Inc., The
Financial Services Roundtable, The ServiceMaster
Company, Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc., United
States Chamber of Commerce, Upstate New York Roundtable
on Manufacturing, Utah Information Technology
Association, Valve Manufacturers Association,
Washington Software Association, West Virginia
Manufacturers Association, Wisconsin Manufacturers &
Commerce.

Mr. GORTON. This letter was signed by companies or groups too
numerous for me either to name or to count. They explicitly state
support of the Year 2000 Coalition for S. 96 in the form in which it
finds itself now, explicitly opposing the Kerry amendment to that bill.
Personally, I think that letter deserves great weight and our most
solemn consideration without regard to any of the details of the debate
on the differences between S. 96 with its bipartisan amendment and the
Kerry amendment. When one goes into the details of those differences,
the justification for this letter becomes even more apparent.
My long-time friend and distinguished rival in this matter, the
Senator from South Carolina, and I have differed on a substantial
number of legal concepts that go far beyond Y2K legislation. He knows,
as does the distinguished occupant of the Chair, that my own personal
preference--and I suspect the preference of the Year 2000 Coalition--
would be to abolish the concept of joint liability in its entirety. The
concept of joint liability is one pursuant to which a person, a group,
a defendant, only partially or even marginally responsible for a given
legal wrong, nonetheless can be held responsible for all of the damages
caused by all of the defendants against whom a judgment is entered.
On its surface and beneath its surface, such a concept is
extraordinarily difficult to justify.
In the case of potential Y2K litigation, it is even more difficult to
justify, as in any typical Y2K lawsuit there may well be dozens of
defendants--the manufacturers of all of the elements of what can be an
extremely complicated software and hardware production, its
distributors, both wholesale and retail, and perhaps many others. The
risks to companies, whether sophisticated or unsophisticated in the
nuances of the law, the panic created in them, the disruption of their
priorities, both in the development of new technology and dealing with
potential Y2K litigation, is impossible to overestimate.
At first, this bill, or any bill that has seriously been considered
here on subjects like this, abolishes in its entirety the concept of
joint liability. Even though I prefer the original S. 96 to this
proposal, it is a matter that has been worked out very carefully by a
group of Republicans and Democrats--one of the most important of whom
is the Senator from Connecticut who is present on the floor--to be a
result that has broad support not only in this Chamber but around the
country as a whole.
Just as the Senator from Connecticut and many of his colleagues have
compromised on some elements they wish like to have in the bill, so
have we on our side, and we have with respect to joint liability. There
are some very real limits on it and S. 96, as it appears before the
Senate now, and there are a few in the Kerry substitute, but they are
largely illusionary.
A second field in which there are differences in this bill has to do
with punitive damages. How anyone even in this isolated Chamber could
come up with a proposition that software companies, members of this
Year 2000 Coalition, are so indifferent to the problems of Y2K that
somehow or another they deserve to be punished--not in a criminal court
but by the potential loss of unlimited punitive damages--is difficult
for me to imagine. It is clear by the vehement opposition to limits on
punitive damages that there are those in the legal profession who at
least hope for the bonanza of huge punitive damage awards, however
difficult it is to imagine the justification for such awards as we
debate this matter. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say they
hope they can force settlements, even on the part of companies they
believe have not been negligent at all, because of the threat, the mere
possibility of a very large punitive damage award.

[[Page 12070]]

I represent one of the handful of States in the United States of
America that does not permit punitive damages in civil litigation, that
believes that punishment should be a part of the criminal law and not
the civil law. I have not noticed, in a long career, that justice is
unavailable to plaintiffs in the courts of the State of Washington on
that account. I believe we would have a more responsible legal system,
a more fair and more just legal system, if the concept of punitive
damages in civil litigation was abolished across the country. It is not
going to be. It was not even in the product liability legislation of
which I have been a sponsor in the past. It was not in the original
form of this bill, and it is not in the form that appears before us
now.
But there are some distinct limitations on punitive damages for
relatively small companies, companies that could obviously be
bankrupted by punitive damage awards--a bankruptcy that, I submit, in
almost every case would not benefit the economy or the people of the
United States. Yet, for all practical purposes, even those minor
limitations are removed from this bill in the Kerry amendment.
Finally, the Kerry amendment allows for the single form of litigation
that may most disturb the members of the Year 2000 Coalition, class
actions on the part of consumers, actions in which almost invariably
the plaintiffs are nominal plaintiffs, actions in which many of the
plaintiffs often do not even know they are plaintiffs, actions that
very frequently have been far more on behalf of the lawyers who bring
them than on the nominal class of plaintiffs themselves. To allow such
actions seems to me to be a serious mistake and seriously to undermine
the entire goal of Y2K relief.
In summary, I do not think S. 896, as modified, is a terribly strong
bill. I think it provides a degree of appropriate relief to a
fundamentally vital element of the American economy and the advancement
of our own standard of living in a fashion which is important to that
industry and in a fashion that is beneficial to that industry. But I do
not think it goes far enough. Others think it goes too far. I do
believe, however, we have now reached a conclusion that will be
supported by a significant majority of the Members of the Senate,
members of both parties.
I can no longer say, with the changes that have been made in it, that
the Kerry amendment is useless, that it provides no relief at all. It
does include in it some constructive elements, some which may be
appropriate for consideration during a conference subcommittee meeting
between the House and the Senate as we put this bill in final form. But
in comparison with the base bill before us, it does not provide
appropriate relief. It does not meet the minimum needs of the year 2000
Coalition. It does not meet the minimum needs of a standard of
reasonable justice with respect to a single problem that will go away
shortly after the beginning of the new millennium in a piece of
legislation that will not become a part of the permanent law of the
United States, because it will not be needed.
So, I return to the remarks with which I began. The members of this
coalition, the signatories to this letter, have done an extraordinary
service, not only to themselves, not only to the American people and
the American economy, but to the entire world and to the task of
building bridges among people in the entire world. They have asked for
help for a single specific problem that faces them and that faces us
and will for a few short months and for a relatively short period of
time thereafter. They deserve that relief. They deserve it as promptly
as we can possibly pass it. And they deserve it with our enthusiastic
support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, as a Senator from Virginia, with one of the
most vibrant high-tech communities anywhere in the country, I am
acutely aware of the problems the Y2K bug presents. And I want a bill.
I have worked with the high-tech community in Virginia, particularly
Northern Virginia, but throughout the State since my days as Lieutenant
Governor and as Governor.
During the time I was Governor, I created a task force on high
technology and they came up with 44 recommendations, the most prominent
of which was to create a Center for Innovative Technology, which, for
the benefit of our colleagues, is housed in that funny-shaped building
very close to Dulles International Airport. Colocated with it was the
Software Productivity Consortium, because we wanted to be able to
provide a central point for consideration of all the issues and
concerns of the technology industry and a way to broker the release of
the scientific work on technology-related projects.
So, I come with a lengthy background of working with the high-
technology community and a specific interest in getting legislation
that will address the Y2K problem.
The potential wave of litigation which could accompany the turn of
the century could, in fact, be crushing, and many businesses have
indicated that the threat of litigation could keep them from devoting
the necessary resources to addressing their own Y2K problems. A
reasonable bill, which would weed out frivolous lawsuits and encourage
parties to remediate their Y2K disputes outside the courtroom, would be
to everyone's benefit. But while there is general agreement that some
sort of bill should pass, regrettably, we do not yet have consensus on
exactly what language should be in this bill.
Passage of almost any legislation requires some elements of
compromise. We have seen that process ongoing. Indeed, I entered this
debate several weeks ago--actually, now months ago--to help find the
necessary consensus on this issue. Given the rapidly approaching new
year, as well as the dwindling number of legislative days left in the
Senate, it is important for us to act on this legislation now. Further
delay will only make it more difficult to reach the consensus most of
us are looking for.
With the tight timeline we are facing, I am concerned with the
direction the debate still seems to be taking. Notwithstanding my own
misgivings about certain provisions in S. 96, the administration
strongly objects to the bill in its current form, and the President has
promised that if Congress sends S. 96 to the White House without
significant modifications, he will veto it. Thus, we are presented with
a dilemma. If we want a bill that will solve a legitimate problem, we
need a bill that the President will sign or at the very least will not
veto, or we need 67 hard votes in order to override a veto. Otherwise,
we are just playing with politics. I regret to say I am afraid that is
where we are now. We do not at this point, on this language, have the
necessary 67 hard votes.
The President has promised to veto this bill if it comes to him in
its current form. So we are going through an exercise to polarize and
politicize an issue instead of providing a solution to an issue.
I appreciate the very hard work that my distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts has put in trying to find the necessary language that
would provide the relief that is legitimate and on which virtually
everyone in the Chamber can agree and still get the President to sign.
If we continue to approach this legislation with a vehicle we know
the President has already promised to veto, we are not giving the
industry the relief they so critically need. All we are doing is
scoring political and debating points, but we are not coming up with a
solution. We have that dilemma.
I am, therefore, a cosponsor of the legislation offered by my
distinguished friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, because the White
House has indicated they will sign that particular legislation if these
changes are made. It has line-by-line changes to certain provisions,
and they are relatively limited at this point.
I applaud the good will that has prevailed on both sides to this
point in reaching this particular position, but we are still not there.
For this reason, I hope that our colleagues will support the amendment
that has been drafted

[[Page 12071]]

and negotiated by my distinguished partner from Massachusetts because,
at that point, we will have a bill. It will not be a perfect bill, but
it also will not be a vetoed bill.
It is inconceivable to me, given the many demands that have come to
this Chamber from all of the interests that are involved, that we could
ever come up with a perfect bill, but at least we will have protection
from the kinds of lawsuits that the industry is most concerned about,
and we will have it in time to make decisions to remediate some of the
problems they could otherwise deal with if they were free from the
threat of litigation in this particular area.
I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his patience in working
out the amendment which is now before us, and I urge my colleagues to
pass this particular amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 610

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know my colleagues on the other side are
anxious to know how we will proceed. Senator Daschle intends to speak,
and I suspect that may be it on our side. I am sure our colleagues on
the other side will be thrilled to hear that, and we can move forward.
I want to say a couple of things about what has been said in the last
hour of debate. Some of my colleagues have mentioned the ``vagueness''
of the standard that is being applied to ask whether or not a company
ought to determine if they have a potential for Y2K liability. First of
all, there is no vagueness whatsoever in any company's capacity to
determine on its own, through its technological knowledge, whether or
not it has a potential of liability, and that is because of the nature
of the problem.
We are talking about inventing chips with time-sensitive
digitalization on ``00'' and its capacity for interpretation. People
can run through their programs and run through the demand list, so to
speak, on that program and pretty thoroughly test it to make the kind
of determination about potentiality. Anybody who has sufficiently done
that is going to qualify automatically for proportionality.
To the degree that my colleagues complain and say, well, gee, they
are coming in here with this standard that might have to go to jury--
the Senator from Connecticut is worried about a standard that goes to
the jury--turn to their bill, page 28, Section 9: Duty to Mitigate.

Damages awarded in any Y2K action shall exclude
compensation for damages the plaintiff could reasonably have
avoided in light of any disclosure or other information of
which the plaintiff was, or reasonably should have been,
aware, including information made available by the defendant
to purchasers. . . .

So there is an issue for the jury. There is an issue. They have no
problem putting the responsibility on the plaintiff. They have no
problem at all finding a vague standard, so to speak, using their
terminology. I do not believe our standard is vague, but they have no
problem at all requiring the jury to determine the reasonableness of
what the defendants have done. And the plaintiff is going to have to
prove it.
So that is part of the imbalance of this bill. Every step of the way,
there is a shifting, a change in tort law, a requirement for a higher
standard that goes beyond the original purpose.
I have heard my colleagues say the purpose of this bill is to help
technology companies that are an important part of the American
mainstream, economic bloodline, if you will, for all of our country. I
agree with that. I absolutely agree with that. I do not want frivolous
lawsuits. I do not want lawyers lining up for some kind of constructed
settlement process that is based on a fiction.
But our bill does not provide for that. Our bill is very clear in the
way in which it requires a period of cure, just as S. 96 does, a period
of mitigation, just as S. 96 does. It requires the same underlying
relationship with contract law, with one exception--where you have an
intentional, willful, reckless action by a company. No one for the
other side has been able to answer the public policy question of why
any entity that acts recklessly, with wanton, willful purpose, ought to
be exonerated from a standard that holds them accountable. I do not
think any American, average citizen, who is subjected to the
consequences of those kinds of actions would believe that is true.
Finally, on proportionality, the argument was just made by the
Senator from Washington that you ought to have this proportionality
available to a company. I agree with him. But it ought to be available
to a company that has at least made a de minimis effort, a de minimis
effort to determine whether its own product might have the potential to
have a Y2K problem.
I think our colleagues are going to have a hard time explaining why a
company should not have to at least show that it inventoried its own
products to determine that. It would be irresponsible, in the context
of a bill that is supposed to encourage mitigation and encourage remedy
and cure, to suggest that companies should not be encouraged to go out
and determine what they may have done wrong. It is just inconsistent.
So I believe our effort is a bona fide effort to do precisely what
the sponsors of S. 96 want to do. I believe it achieves it in a more
fair and evenhanded way. I believe that, as a consequence of the White
House agreement with our position, ultimately we are going to have to
adjust.
I say to my friends in the high-technology industry, I hope they will
carefully read the language in our proposed amendment. If one of them
wants to come to me and suggest language that is clearer, to suggest
how they could conform in a reasonable way that they are not afraid of,
I will adopt that language.
If any one of them wants to show me a reasonable way to have a
standard here that makes them a good citizen or qualifies them as such,
I am all for it. I have not yet found a CEO of a company who has been
able to suggest to me anything except wanting to not be sued as a
rationale for why, from a public policy perspective, we should change
the law of this country prospectively in an anticipatory fashion to
change a longstanding relationship. And I do not think that case will
be made.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
I would like to take just a few minutes, as we wait for the minority
leader to address some of the concerns that have been raised by the
Senator from Massachusetts, to describe why I and the Democratic leader
of the Y2K efforts, Senator Dodd, believe that the Kerry amendment,
though certainly sincere, is really a glidepath, an invitation, to
frivolous lawsuits with respect to this Y2K matter.
I come today to say we know we are going to have problems early in
the next century. That has been documented on a bipartisan basis by the
Y2K committee. What we are concerned about is not compounding the
problem with frivolous lawsuits. Regrettably, the Kerry proposal is
going to do just that.
What the Senator from Connecticut and I have tried to do is to talk
first about the vagueness of the language in the Kerry proposal. This
notion that

[[Page 12072]]

you would simply have to identify ``potential'' with respect to the Y2K
issue and Y2K problems is just going to be a lawyers' full employment
program. What is going to happen is, you are going to have frivolous
cases brought; you will very quickly have companies, particularly small
business defendants, move to dismiss those cases because they are
patently frivolous.
Because the Kerry standard is so vague, a judge is going to have
really no alternative other than to send that to a jury. So I think
that provision, identifying ``potential,'' is a real lightning rod for
frivolous lawsuits. That would be our first concern.
The second, it seems to me, is that the Senator from Massachusetts
has, to a great extent, mixed together, commingled, the principles of
punitive damages and proportionality. I would like to try to step back
for a minute and see if I can clarify that.
The Senator from Massachusetts has spoken repeatedly, he has come to
the floor repeatedly, and said that under the bipartisan legislation,
if defendants are engaged in reckless, irresponsible, wanton conduct,
there is going to be no remedy for the plaintiff in those situations.
The fact of the matter is, under proportionality--clearly laid out in
our legislation--you are liable to the extent that you contributed to
the problem. That is true if you are a small business, if you are one
of the Fortune 500 businesses--it is true no matter who you are. Under
our language, with respect to proportionality, you are liable for what
you contribute. It is just that simple.
With respect to punitive damages, besides keeping in place the State
evidentiary standards on punitive damages, what we in fact say is the
only people we are really going to try to protect are those who are
such a key part of the technology engine for our country, and that is
the Nation's small businesses.
Finally, colleagues, I think there is some confusion with respect to
this issue of economic losses as well. The Senator from Massachusetts
has said that in some way the bipartisan proposal we bring has narrowed
the availability of coverage for economic losses. We very specifically,
in our legislation, make clear that existing State contract and tort
law is kept in place.
What the dispute is all about is that the Senator from Massachusetts,
and perhaps others, is in effect trying to tortify existing contract
law. They would like to try to create some torts for 36 months in the
Y2K area where those torts do not exist today in existing law.
My reputation, my background is as a consumer advocate. That is what
I was doing with the Gray Panthers for 7 years before I was elected to
the Congress, what I have tried to do for 18 years in both the House
and the Senate. I feel very strongly about protecting consumers, and
there are areas where it is appropriate to create new torts. Certainly,
I have created a few causes of action during my years of service in the
Congress.
If I can just finish, then I will be glad to yield to the Senator
from Massachusetts. I think it would be a mistake, given the
extraordinary potential for economic calamity in the next century, to
change the law with respect to economic loss. We are neither broadening
it nor narrowing it. We are keeping it in place. I know that those
State laws with respect to economic loss do not do a lot of the things
that the Senator from Massachusetts thinks are important, but that is,
in fact, what we do in our legislation.
I want to be clear, our legislation does nothing, absolutely nothing,
to limit remedies that are available to plaintiffs when, in fact, they
are victims of a personal injury or wrongful death. So if an
individual, early in January of the next century, is in an elevator,
for example, and the computer in the elevator breaks, and the
individual tragically falls to his or her death or suffers a grievous
bodily injury, all existing tort law remedies apply in that kind of
instance.
The bill that is before the Senate now is a very different one than
the one that was voted on on a partisan basis by the Senate Commerce
Committee. In fact, in the Senate Commerce Committee, I joined the
Senator from Massachusetts in saying that it was wholly inadequate in
terms of protecting the rights of consumers. I happen to think the bill
the House of Representatives passed is wholly inadequate.
The legislation that we have now is a balanced bill. The defendants
have strong obligations to cure defects. The plaintiffs have an
obligation to mitigate damages. I think our failure to pass this bill,
which has now included 10 major changes to favor consumers and
plaintiffs since the time it left the Commerce Committee, our failure
to pass this bill, I think, is a failure to meet our responsibilities
as it relates to this technology engine that is driving so much of our
Nation's prosperity.
I think when we look at the potential for calamity early in the next
century, I don't think there is any dispute that we are going to have a
significant number of problems. The question is, does the Senate want
to compound those problems by triggering a round of unnecessary and
frivolous litigation?
I hope we won't do that. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Kerry
amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the comments of the Senator from Oregon now
have highlighted the sort of difference between what they say they do
and the reality of what is done here.
I am not going to ask the reporter to read back the comments, but let
me just quote the Senator. He can tell me if I have said differently.
The Senator just said on the floor of the Senate that the Kerry bill
seeks to create new torts. Am I correct? Am I stating what the Senator
said?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to
engage him.
I am saying that our proposal protects State contract law with
respect to economic losses. It seems to me that the gentleman's
proposal, in wanting to change existing State contract law, is clearly
moving us in a different area which legal experts have come to
describe, pretty arcanely, as the notion of tortifying contract law
doctrine, yes.
Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my colleague, he has just confirmed what I
said. He is insinuating that we are creating a new tort.
I want to make it very clear, what the Senator and Senator McCain and
others are doing is taking away the right of State law, with respect to
existing contract law, to be applied. They are saying that if a State
allows a particular tort with respect to economic loss, they can't do
it.
I will be very specific about it. My provision with respect to
economic loss does exactly what the provision of the Senator from
Oregon and the Senator from Arizona does. We are both trying to hold on
to contracts, to avoid contract limitations on liability, and not to
have people move into tort. Neither of us want contract law to become
tort. So we both prevent that.
Here is the distinguishing feature. What we do that Senator McCain
and company do not do is, we say the following: If the defendant
committed an intentional tort, you are not going to void the contract
law, except--and this is the only exception--where the tort involves
misrepresentation or fraud regarding the attributes or capabilities of
the product that is the basis of the underlying claim.
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield on one point?
Mr. KERRY. In a moment I will yield.
Mr. WYDEN. Is that available under current law?
Mr. KERRY. I want to make this clear, Mr. President. Under the McCain
bill, if a party is induced by fraud to enter into a contract, they
can't recover damages for that. So what if in a conversation they say
to the salesperson of the company: Is your product Y2K compliant? And
the person says: Oh, absolutely, our product has been Y2K compliant. We
are terrific, blah, blah, blah.

[[Page 12073]]

If they intentionally were to induce them into the contract on
misrepresentation and they lose business as a result of that, they are
being denied the ability to sue for that by S. 96.
I think that is wrong. I don't know, again, what public policy
interest is served by suggesting that fraud and misrepresentation ought
to be protected. Why should they be protected?
Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. KERRY. I will yield for an answer to the question. Why should
fraud or misrepresentation be protected?
Mr. WYDEN. We apply State contract law to these economic losses. What
we say is, you get your economic loss under current law if your State
law lets you. The Senator from Massachusetts is absolutely right. There
is a sincere difference of opinion here. We are saying economic losses
should be governed by State contract law. The Senator from
Massachusetts says that he would like to go with a different concept.
That is the difference of opinion here.
Mr. KERRY. Let my say to my colleague, with all due respect, that he
is dead wrong. He is even more so dead wrong, because moments ago they
adopted an amendment by the Senator from Colorado, the Allard
amendment, which makes it very clear that State law is superseded. That
is the amendment they adopted. So State law takes precedence, period,
end of issue. You cannot protect people from misrepresentation or
fraud, and there is no public policy rationale for that.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, with consent across the aisle, I believe,
I ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour equally divided on the
Kerry amendment No. 610, followed by a vote on or in relation to the
amendment, with no amendments to the amendment being in order prior to
the vote, but that the vote will take place at a time to be determined
by the managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if my friend from
Washington could hold that unanimous consent request for a few minutes.
We have to make a couple calls.
Mr. GORTON. I will withdraw the request for the moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time? The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am here to speak as one of those who is a
cosponsor of the amendment now pending, the Kerry amendment. People
have spent a tremendous amount of time coming up with the various
proposals that are now before the Senate. I commend and applaud those
who have worked so hard on this issue. I see on the floor my friend
from Oregon. He has spent not hours and days, but weeks on this
legislation. I commend him for the efforts he has made.
I do, however, say that in addition to the work he has done as a
principal author of the bill, the junior Senator from Massachusetts has
also spent a tremendous amount of time on this issue--as much if not
more than my friend from the State of Oregon. The problem we have with
this legislation--and we all recognize that it is extremely important--
is that we have 204 days left until Y2K. We don't have time to play
partisan politics and wait until the next session to produce a bill.
With 204 days left, we have to get to some serious legislation here
and get something that is not perfect, but doable. I suggest that the
amendment I am cosponsoring, which the chief author, the Senator from
Massachusetts, has spoken at some length on, is legislation that the
President will sign. We have to take that into consideration.
In the last several months I have traveled around the country meeting
with high-tech companies, small businessmen and women, and individuals
who have done so much to help this robust economy in which we are now
involved. These individuals who run these companies want a bill. They
don't want or expect a perfect bill, but they want a bill. They want a
bill that would become legislation. They want a bill that would meet
the demands they have. These small business men and women are
successful enough, and certainly smart enough, to realize that with 204
days left there is a lot that has to be done. They would much rather
have something signed into law than nothing at all.
We have to make sure that whatever we do is reasonable. The Kerry
amendment is reasonable. The amendment now pending before this body is
reasonable. We reward people for making an effort to address the Y2K
problem. We also discourage frivolous lawsuits. I hope this amendment
will receive a resounding vote.
I submit to this body that what we are doing is offering an amendment
to the underlying bill that would make the legislation something the
President would sign. We hope that when this bill, with this amendment,
gets out of here, it will go to conference, and at the conference the
differences will be worked out.
As it now stands, the underlying bill simply will not be signed by
the President. I submit to my friend from the State of Oregon, who has
worked so hard on this, that his legislation will not be signed. They
have amended the McCain legislation, but the President of the United
States will not sign this legislation. He has said this orally and he
has said it in writing.
So I think, we have to push something through, in good faith, to help
this problem that we have, something that would be signed by the
President. I hope that people of good will on both sides of the aisle
will join together and offer support for the underlying amendment.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 1
hour equally divided on the Kerry amendment No. 610, followed by a vote
on or in relation to the amendment, with no amendments in order prior
to the vote, with the vote to take place at a time to be determined by
the managers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object. I actually didn't hear it.
Mr. GORTON. It provides for 1 hour equally divided, with no more
amendments while that hour is going on, and that the time for the vote
will be determined by the managers of the bill.
Mr. KERRY. The managers, plural?
Mr. GORTON. Yes.
Mr. KERRY. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Who yields time?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to talk as in morning business for up to 10 minutes, and that
it not be charged to either side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg pertaining to the introduction of S.
1193 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Amendment No. 610

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thought our colleagues might find it
worthwhile to know that there are literally dozens of organizations,
representing a significant percentage of the gross domestic product of
this country, that endorse the McCain-Wyden-Dodd legislation, the Y2K
bill. Beginning with the aerospace industry organizations, running
through to the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce Association, the
West Virginia Manufacturers Association, Valve Manufacturers, Service
Masters--all of the high-tech organizations, many of the State
organizations--the North Carolina Electronic and Information Technology
Association, Technology of New Jersey--it just goes on down this long
list. My colleagues may want to have some idea and sense of the people
we have worked with mostly now for many months to try to craft this
legislation in a timely fashion.
This list represents almost 70 percent of the gross domestic product
of the United States and thousands and thousands of working men and
women in this country who would like to see Congress come up with some
answer of

[[Page 12074]]

how to solve the Y2K problem and yet not create a cost and an action
that doesn't solve the problem but ends up with more costs and without
resolving the very serious issue that Y2K poses. I ask unanimous
consent that list be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Year 2000 Coalition,

June 8, 1999.
Dear Senator: The Year 2000 Coalition hand-delivered the
attached letter to Senators Kerry, Robb, Daschle, Reid,
Breaux, and Akaka, who have prepared a staff working draft of
a proposed amendment to S. 96, The Y2K Act. The Coalition
supports passage of S. 96 with incorporated amendments to be
offered by Senator Dodd. We have urged the Senators that are
working on the staff draft to support S. 96.
Sincerely,
Aerospace Industries Association; Airconditioning &
Refrigeration Institute; Alaska High-Tech Business Council;
Alliance of American Insurers; American Bankers Association;
American Bearing Manufacturers Association; American Boiler
Manufacturers Association; American Council of Life
Insurance; American Electronics Association; American
Entrepreneurs for Economic Growth; American Gas Association;
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants; American
Insurance Association; American Iron & Steel Institute;
American Paper Machinery Association; American Society of
Employers; American Textile Machinery Association; American
Tort Reform Association; America's Community Bankers; Arizona
Association of Industries; Arizona Software Association;
Associated Employers; Associated Industries of Missouri;
Associated Oregon Industries, Inc.; Association of
Manufacturing Technology; Association of Management
Consulting Firms; BIFMA International Business and Industry
Trade Association; Business Council of Alabama; Business
Software Alliance; Chemical Manufacturers Association;
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association; Colorado
Association of Commerce and Industry; Colorado Software
Association; Compressed Gas Association; Computing Technology
Industry Association; Connecticut Business & Industry
Association, Inc.; Connecticut Technology Association;
Construction Industry Manufacturers Association; Conveyor
Equipment Manufacturers Association; Copper & Brass
Fabricators Council; Copper Development Association, Inc.;
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners; Edison Electric
Institute; Employers Group; Farm Equipment Manufacturers
Association; Flexible Packaging Association; Food
Distributors International; Grocery Manufacturers of America;
Gypsum Association; Health Industry Manufacturers
Association; Independent Community Bankers Association;
Indiana Information Technology Association; Indiana
Manufacturers Association, Inc.; Industrial Management
Council; Information Technology Association of America;
Information Technology Industry Council; International Mass
Retail Council; International Sleep Products Association;
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; Investment
Company Institute; Iowa Association of Business & Industry;
Manufacturers Association of Mid-Eastern PA; Manufacturer's
Association of Northwest Pennsylvania; Manufacturing Alliance
of Connecticut, Inc.; Metal Treating Institute; Mississippi
Manufacturers Association; Motor & Equipment Manufacturers
Association; National Association of Computer Consultant
Business; National Association of Convenience Stores;
National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers; National
Association of Independent Insurers; National Association of
Manufacturers; National Association of Mutual Insurance
Companies; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;
National Electrical Manufacturers Association; National
Federation of Independent Business; National Food Processors
Association; National Housewares Manufacturers Association;
National Marine Manufacturers Association; National Retail
Federation; National Venture Capital Association; North
Carolina Electronic and Information Technology Association;
Technology New Jersey; NPES, The Association of Suppliers of
Printing, Publishing, and Converting Technologies; Optical
Industry Association; Printing Industry of Illinois-Indiana
Association; Power Transmission Distribution Association;
Process Equipment Manufacturers Association; Recreation
Vehicle Industry Association; Reinsurance Association of
America; Securities Industry Association; Semiconductor
Equipment and Materials International; Semiconductor Industry
Association; Small Motors and Motion Association; Software
Association of Oregon; Software & Information Industry
Association; South Carolina Chamber of Commerce; Steel
Manufacturers Association; Telecommunications Industry
Association; The Chlorine Institute, Inc.; The Financial
Services Roundtable; The ServiceMaster Company; Toy
Manufacturers of America, Inc.; United States Chamber of
Commerce; Upstate New York Roundtable on Manufacturing; Utah
Information Technology Association; Valve Manufacturers
Association; Washington Software Association; West Virginia
Manufacturers Association; Wisconsin Manufacturers &
Commerce.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, again, I listened to the debate on the Kerry
amendment. Again, as I stated earlier, I went down the various points
of the proposal. The amendment basically is designed to open up the
McCain legislation to the kinds of unbridled litigation that can occur
in this area.
As I said earlier, we have not argued that we have crafted a perfect
bill. It is our fervent hope that this legislation will become
unnecessary, because the problems that many anticipate we hope will not
occur. But if they do occur, if, as some claim, we are going to face
serious problems in this country, then we think it is the wiser course
of action for Congress to enact legislation that would encourage the
resolution of the Y2K problem.
That is what we have attempted to do with this bill. We have had to
compromise it, because it asks for compromise. Senator Wyden, our
distinguished colleague from Oregon, is responsible for at least 11 or
12 changes, that I know of, in this bill from its original crafting. I
worked on three or four of the ones dealing with the punitive damages
and directors' and officers' liability in the States in this bill. We
have compromised slightly. But every day you have to move the goal post
to serve yet another constituency.
We would like to have a bill that everyone would support. It would be
wonderful to have a piece of legislation that 100 Senators would get
behind. But candidly, you have a handful--really just a handful--of law
firms that are opposed to this, it is a total misstatement to suggest
that the trial bar in general is opposed to this bill. It is a couple
of law firms in this country that are opposed to this bill. That is the
fact of the matter. Because of a couple of law firms, we have an
amendment that I am confident these law firms are very attracted to,
like, and support for the obvious reasons. It basically makes this bill
meaningless or worse; it actually expands an area of the law that
didn't exist prior to the consideration of this bill. It is one thing
if you want to change the bill. It is another matter to take existing
law and create yet new opportunities. That is what the Kerry amendment
does. When you allow State law to obviate contract law, you are not
only disagreeing with our bill but you are disagreeing with existing
law.
For Members to come in and support this amendment, understand that if
it carries and ends up being adopted, it will encourage the adoption of
it. Then we are not only not dealing with the Y2K problem, we are
expanding areas of litigation that do not presently exist. Whatever
disagreements you have with the underlying bill, if you want to vote
against that bill, fine; but don't expand areas of litigation.
With all due respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, clearly his
amendment does that. I think it would be a tragedy, as we are trying to
shut down and reduce the proliferation of litigation, that we find we
are expanding those opportunities.
Again, a lot of compromise has been involved in this and a lot of
time and a lot of effort to bring it to this point.
Again, I have a great deal of respect for those who disagree with
this work product. They have a different point of view--one that I
disagree with, but I respect. To come in and to somehow suggest that we
are improving this legislation and that we are in fact minimizing the
possibility of further litigation with the adoption of the Kerry
amendment is just not the case. You are expanding the opportunities for
litigation.
For those reasons, the high-tech communities of this country feel
strongly about this amendment, and for good reason.
When the amendment comes up for a final vote, I urge my colleagues to
reject it and to let us move along and try to pass this legislation,
and send a message that we care about this issue and want to minimize
the problems the Y2K issue can present.
I do not know if there is any more time. I know there is some talk
about other Members who wish to come over. I urge them to do this. This
has been going on for 6 hours now. We have 21

[[Page 12075]]

other amendments to consider. My hope is that we can get this completed
fairly quickly and at least have one or two votes today before we
adjourn.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are now under controlled time, are we
not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KERRY. How does that stand? How much time does each side have at
this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 26 minutes
50 seconds, and the opposition has 23 minutes 53 seconds.
Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I listened to the Senator from Connecticut. I must say that I am a
little disappointed, from what I heard, for a simple reason. I haven't
come to the floor of the Senate and talked about the Chamber of
Commerce. I haven't come to the floor of the Senate and talked about
specific companies and interests that are represented or the dynamics
this raised. I think to suggest that somehow what I have put on the
floor represents the interests of just a few law firms really is an
insult to the legislative effort that has taken place here. There is
nothing in here that lawyers like. There is a restraint on plaintiffs
almost every step of the way. This has been negotiated with many
different people. I have sat with high-tech people at great length.
I have tried to do the bidding of the high-tech community to the
greatest degree possible. I have listened to them. I have talked to
Andy Grove three or four times. In his letter to the committee
chairman, he stated that of his four interests, each had been met in
this legislation.
We do exactly what the McCain bill does on cure. We do exactly what
the McCain bill does on the mitigation. We do exactly what they do with
respect to contract preservation. The one distinction in the four
ingredients is a requirement that a company be a good citizen by
looking over its inventory and making a determination as to what it did
or didn't put out into the marketplace that might have the potential
for creating a problem.
My colleagues come to the floor say again and again: We want
remediation; we want to make it get better; we don't want lawsuits. I
don't, either. We want the same remediation.
But if you ask a company to investigate its inventory, in my
judgment, you are doing a better job of encouraging them to remediate
than if you give them a blanket ``out'' from under one of the great
leverages of our judicial system, which is the joint and several
liability. They get it no matter what they do. How that is an
invitation to fixing the system and making it better is beyond me.
I think we need to be very clear here. Moreover, we have been told we
are changing contract law. We are not changing contract law. We are
suggesting contract law ought to be respected, and we are very clear
about that. In fact, we uphold the contract law as it is, State for
State.
No one has answered this question: Why should a company be able to
escape responsibility for an intentional, willful, wanton, reckless or
outrageous, willfully committed fraud against an individual when it
creates economic loss? If you have economic loss under the provision of
S. 96, you are not permitted to sue with respect to the intentional
willfulness that took place. Why you want to protect a company that so
behaves is beyond me. Another company may have a huge loss of
intellectual property; they may drop their entire database; they may
not be able to provide their contracts to other companies for months;
they have economic loss; there was an intentional defrauding. And we
are not going to hold them accountable for that.
We should be clear as to what we are talking about. This is a very
moderate, very legitimate effort, just as legitimate without any
insinuations of who may be directing the interests of the other side
and just as legitimate to legislate a sound approach to Y2K liability.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am reluctant to get into this fight
because, as I said before, I am unburdened with legal education.
Occasionally when I hear these legal debates, it makes me grateful for
the fact that I did not go to law school.
However, I feel the need to stand and comment on some of the things
that have been heard and some of the statements that have been made
with respect to this particular amendment.
It is my understanding that anybody who commits an intentional act of
fraud has no relief as a result of this bill. If anybody can contradict
that, I will be happy to hear it, because I do not want, in any way, to
be part of supporting a bill that protects people from intentional
fraud. That is not my purpose.
I must stand, as the chairman of the Senate Special Committee On The
Year 2000 Technology Problem, and tell my colleagues that this is a
unique situation. This has the potential of creating a unique chain of
events that requires a unique solution. That is the purpose of the
McCain-Dodd-Wyden bill, and that is why the bill has a 3-year sunset in
it. We are not changing the world forever. We are crafting, as
carefully as we can, a piece of legislation to deal with the unique
circumstance of the Year 2000.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the Senator's comment enormously. I want to
call the Senator's attention to the language of the bill. Section 121,
Damages and Tort Claims:

A party to a Y2K action making a tort claim may not recover
damages for economic loss involving a defective device or
system or service unless----

And you have two conditions under which they could.
No. 1, where the loss is provided in the contract; and, No. 2, if the
loss results directly from damage to the property caused by the Y2K
failure.
I have a third, and the Senator's folks are opposed to it. Here is
the third. The defendant committed an intentional tort. Except where
the tort involves misrepresentation or fraud regarding the attributes
or capabilities of the product. Does the Senator want to pass a bill
without that, without the fraud and misrepresentation?
It is in the bill.
Mr. BENNETT. I see my colleague from Oregon wishes to respond to this
and perhaps has a better legal handle on it than I do.
My own layman's reaction would be not to sign a contract that didn't
have a provision for fraud in it, as a businessman.
Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate my colleague yielding.
This goes right to the heart of the debate. We essentially say that
State contract law will govern in these jurisdictions. The Senator from
Massachusetts believes in a variety of instances that there should be
other remedies. He is creating other remedies during this 36-month
period where we are trying to present frivolous lawsuits.
The key principle here and what is now being debated is that under
what Senator McCain, Senator Bennett and Senator Dodd, the leader on
our side on the Y2K issue, have said, we are going to protect State
contract law with respect to economic losses. But we don't feel it is
appropriate to try to create new remedies at this time when we are
trying to prevent these frivolous lawsuits.
I am very appreciative to the Senator from Utah for yielding to me. I
hope our colleagues will see that on this point of economic loss, State
contract law is fully protected.
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Let me give a factual example to make the case. Assume you
have two identical computer systems, system A and system B, sold by the
same manufacturer. They prove to be defective and cause economic
damages of $100 million and lost profits to each purchaser, A and B.
System A crashed because of defective wiring, while system B crashed
because of the Y2K bug. If Congress enacts the proposal suggested by my
colleague from Massachusetts, that would

[[Page 12076]]

allow no recovery of economic damages in tort cases. Purchaser B in the
example would be able to sue for economic losses under the Y2K
legislation while purchaser A would not.
There is no justification for such a result. In effect, the net
result of the Y2K bill would be to expand liability in Y2K cases.
Indeed, it would create an incentive for plaintiff's lawyers to look
for any Y2K problem and then make that the predicate for legislation,
exactly the opposite of the policy aim of the legislation.
In the faulty wire case, you only get economic damages and you have
to apply State law. Under the Y2K legislation as proposed by my
colleague from Massachusetts, you are expanding this. We are not trying
to expand law here; we are trying to at least follow a similar pattern.
So there is a fundamental difference: the defective wire in one case,
the defective Y2K problem in the other. You end up with completely
different results and encourage, of course, groping around, looking for
Y2K issues, rather than defective wire which may be the cause of the
problem.
I don't think that is the intent of our colleagues who are generally
supportive of the very proposal we have before the Senate. That does
expand existing law.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I realize the
Senator from Massachusetts wants to engage in this. I ask unanimous
consent that such time as is taken up by the Senator from Massachusetts
be charged to the time of the Senator from Massachusetts rather than
charged against my time.
With that understanding, I am happy to yield to the Senator further.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. That is entirely fair. What I would like to do is just
respond and then I will sit down and reserve the remainder of the time.
Let me say to both of my colleagues, and I am glad we are getting to
the nub of this, I say this gently and nicely: Both of the
presentations that were made are incorrect with respect to what I said.
The Senator from Oregon made a bold defense of contract law, and the
economic loss argument that he made refers to the preservation of
existing contract law. But economic loss is a tort claim. It is a tort
claim. His argument is simply irrelevant when he says he is protecting
the capacity of the contract law, so to speak, to be preserved within
the framework of the economic loss argument. Here is why: My colleague
from Connecticut just said we are trying to open this up to some broad,
new thing, and the example he cited would not be, in fact, included. It
absolutely would be included because our language includes both of the
examples that he gave.
If it is provided in the contract, the person would be made whole. Or
if it is the result of a Y2K failure, the person would be made whole.
Here is the only difference. We go one step further. We do not allow
them a whole lot of intentional torts except--and I read from the
language--``where the tort involves misrepresentation or fraud.'' That
is the only ``new thing'' here. So, if the Senator from Connecticut is
really concerned, what he is concerned about is that a lawyer might be
able to lay out, according to the tough standards in both of our bills,
sufficiently precise pleadings with a period to cure.
You may never have a lawsuit because everybody is going to have a 90-
day period to cure, and we hope they are going to do exactly that. But
if they do not do that and they do meet the sufficiency of the
pleadings, and there also is a sufficiency of a showing of fraud or
misrepresentation, they ought to get their economic losses. What we are
saying is that under S. 96, under the current way it is written, you
are denying economic losses if there is fraud or misrepresentation.
That is the only ``new thing.''
The Senator from Connecticut says we are going to open up some great
Pandora's box, a whole lot of lawyers bringing cases. We have tough
pleading requirements here, really tough. Even after you send in your
first notice of a lawsuit, the company is going to get 90 days to fix
it. Any company that does not fix it in 90 days probably ought to be
held accountable for the fraud and misrepresentation. But your bill
says no to fraud and misrepresentation. Ours says yes. I ask anybody
which they think is more fair.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, again I witness this clash between great
legal minds. Yet, I am informed by a number of other legal minds the
Kerry amendment would, in fact, destroy the effect of the bill. As a
businessman, I always ended up asking my legal team whether it was
appropriate for me to sign a particular lease or contract. I had to
learn to depend on good lawyers. I think we have hired good lawyers in
this situation and I am accepting their advice. I am moved by the
eloquence of my friend from Massachusetts, but I shall not vote with
him.
I want to once again focus on what it is we are doing here. We are
dealing with a unique situation the likes of which we have never seen
in international commerce and probably never will see again. That is
why specific legislation is necessary.
Let me go back to a statement made by my friend from Massachusetts in
the earlier debate when he said: We want people to be driven to examine
their inventory to make sure it is compliant, but if the liability is
limited they will not do that. This is not a question of examining your
inventory to make sure it is compliant. We are already getting examples
of people who have done everything prudent and possible to make sure
that things were compliant with Y2K, only to discover after they had
done everything prudent that it still didn't work. There are bugs
hidden in this kind of problem that cannot in reasonable fashion be
discovered in advance. There is a presumption on the part of the
Senator from Massachusetts that those bugs were there because of some
misrepresentation or fraud. My concern is that there will be that
presumption on the part of a lawyer bringing suit if those bugs occur
in equipment that at one time or another has passed through the hands
of a very wealthy corporation.
This is where proportionality of joint and several liability comes
in. If a corporation with deep pockets has at one time or another had
its hands, figuratively, on a product where such a Y2K glitch occurs,
there will be an obvious invitation to sue that corporation and then
settle out of court for a large settlement because the corporation will
decide, on business terms, it is cheaper to settle than proceed with
the suit.
I have had the experience as CEO of a company of settling a lawsuit
where I felt the merits were firmly on our side but where the economics
said you do your shareholders a better service by taking this
settlement than you do by going to court. I have had personal
experience with that. I know how those kinds of decisions are made. In
a situation where there will be unforeseen consequences and products
that have passed through many hands in order to finally get to where
they go, the temptation to sue the deep pockets will be overwhelming
unless we pass this legislation. Every lawyer that I have spoken to who
has examined the legislation from that point of view has said you
cannot adopt the Kerry amendment. It will gut the legislation. It will
render the whole thing moot, as far as we are concerned.
So I stand here not as a lawyer but as a businessman who has now, for
3 years, immersed himself in the Y2K issue and, frankly, who feels he
understands that issue fairly well. I call on my colleagues to defeat
the Kerry amendment, to pass this legislation, and to give to American
firms--not just high-tech --give to American firms that will be
involved in products that will suffer from Y2K problems the ability to
solve those problems without the specter of huge lawsuits and huge
settlements hanging over them.
Let me go back to one thing I said and repeat it. As I have been
immersed in this issue for the period of time I have, I have come to
realize that it is not strictly a high-tech issue. Yes, the high-tech
community has been the most visible in pushing for this legislation.
But they are by no means the

[[Page 12077]]

only part of the American economy that will be affected by this issue.
There will be municipalities that can be sued. There will be cities
around this country that will suddenly discover that essential services
do not work, that will have done everything they thought reasonable to
get there only to have some glitch that they were unaware of come out
of the blue.
Then the lawsuits will start. The question will be who was in the
supply chain to produce whatever the device is that failed. Let's see
who has the deepest pockets. It may not be a high-tech company at all.
States are scrambling now to try to pass their own limited liability. I
think that is a mistake. I think the Federal legislation makes a lot
more sense. But let us understand, once again, we have a unique
situation here. We already have anecdotal evidence that shows us how
capricious it can be, in spite of the greatest effort to remediate and
be in control. We do not want to turn this into a playground for
plaintiffs' lawyers who want to take advantage of the class action
circumstance, sue the deepest pockets, take a settlement, and walk away
in a way that is of no advantage to anybody.
If we are making a mistake in this bill, if as we draft it there is
mischief, it is not permanent mischief because the bill is gone at the
end of 3 years. Everything is over at the end of 3 years. No one--no
one--will make any attempt to extend it. Certainly I will not. By
virtue of what the voters of Utah did, I will be here 3 years from now,
if I am still alive, and I will certainly oppose any extension of this
bill. I would think everybody would oppose any extension if somebody
were to bring it up.
We are facing a unique situation. We have a piece of intelligently
crafted legislation to try to deal with that situation, and we should
not let ourselves get convinced that we are somehow changing the basis
of American jurisprudence for all time as we try to take a prudent step
in this particular circumstance.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I yield myself such time as I use.
Let me begin by paying tribute to both the Senator from Connecticut
and the Senator from Utah. I know they have spent a huge amount of
time, and they have done for the entire Senate and the country a great
service in calling attention to and helping people understand the
nature of this problem. I genuinely give both of them great credit for
their leadership and their vision, understanding well over, what, 3
years ago that it was a problem and we needed to address it.
Our difference is not in good faith, in purpose, or intent. It is how
we will or will not do something. I know my colleague from Utah is a
very thoughtful and diligent student of these kinds of issues, and I
share with him his own language with respect to the damages of
limitation by contract, for instance. This is section 110, page 11, of
the bill. It says:

Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, I suggest the
Senator is reading from an old version. There is no section 110 in the
current----
Mr. KERRY. I apologize, it is now section 11.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KERRY. I am reading from the accurate language. The point I am
making is that you only allow damages according to the express terms of
the contract. That contract could be illegal. That contract could be
unenforceable or enforceable under other circumstances under State law.
The language we have added simply says ``unless enforcement of the term
in question would manifestly and directly contravene applicable State
law in effect on January 1, 1999.'' Here is a major difference. You
would, in fact, allow the contract to supersede applicable State law
even if the contract were illegal. That is the way it reads.
There are serious implications in the language that is in the bill
that would have a profound impact, and that is the kind of difference
we have tried to address in pulling together our amendment.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. DODD. May I address----
Mr. KERRY. On your time.
Mr. BENNETT. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we are getting arcane. If a contract is
illegal, it is not a contract. Just to say we have a contract, if there
is no consent, if all the principles necessary for it to be a valid
contract are missing, if a contract is inherently illegal, two people
who engage in a contract for illegal purposes is not a contract to be
protected under State law.
Mr. KERRY. With all due respect to my colleague, under the language
in this bill, you will have given it life because you have, in fact,
made it a contract that is binding.
Mr. DODD. We do not protect illegal contracts in this legislation. If
there is any question, let the legislative history confirm that. I do
not think we need confirmation. Upholding an illegal contract by
legislation would require herculean efforts that do not exist in this
particular proposal.
I yield the floor to others who may want to speak.
Mr. KERRY. I yield myself 30 seconds. If there is an illegal
provision in a legal contract, you have the same problem I just
defined. I do not want to get arcane, either. But you have, in the
language of this bill, superseded the capacity of that illegality to be
either a defense or a problem. That is all we are saying. These ought
to be curable issues. We are passing a bill where they have not been
cured. I promise you, if you want to create litigation problems, there
they are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, with some trepidation, I am going to read
some legal language. As a layman, I have a hard time with this, but I
will do my best and I think it is fairly clear. Under section 4 of the
act:

(d) Contract Preservation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in any Y2K
action any written contractual term, including a limitation
or an exclusion of liability, or a disclaimer of warranty,
shall be strictly enforced unless the enforcement of that
term would manifestly and directly contravene applicable
State law embodied in any statute in effect on January 1,
1999, specifically addressing that term.

State law is preserved. State law is not overridden in this catchall
provision, if you will, at this stage. At this point, I will quit
trying to practice law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will make one additional comment.
Mention was made of Andy Grove. The Senator from Connecticut and the
Senator from Oregon and I, along with several other Senators, had
breakfast with Andy Grove this morning.
Just so the record is clear, the subject of the Kerry amendment came
up in that discussion, and Mr. Grove, if I am quoting him correctly,
said that his lawyers felt that the Kerry amendment would destroy the
bill and leave it with no value. Indeed, my memory says he said that if
the Kerry amendment was adopted, they would be better off without any
bill. I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he has the same memory or
if I am embroidering things.
Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, we had a very delightful meeting for
an hour and a half with Andy Grove. Those were, as I recall them, his
sentiments expressed to us. He is someone who has been quoted over and
over in the last number of weeks, and we finally got to meet the man
quoted endlessly and found out where he stood on this legislation. Four
or five of us had the privilege this morning of spending an hour and a
half with him and discussing a wide range of issues, including
education policy. He was very clear, I thought, in his expression of
concerns about this effort and the damage that can be caused by the
adoption of this amendment.

[[Page 12078]]

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
that the time be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 14\1/2\
minutes, and the Senator from Utah has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. KERRY. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity
to express the views of this Senator on a very important amendment.
I think the biggest question facing the Senate today is not whether
to support the Y2K liability reform. Most supporters, on both sides of
the aisle, agree that we need to protect the high-technology companies
from frivolous lawsuits.
For more than a decade, this industry has been the driving force of
our economy. Its well-being is extremely important to this country and
to all of us.
In South Dakota, Gateway computers is the largest private employer in
the State today. I want a bill that provides Gateway--and every other
member of this industry--with reasonable protections from frivolous
Y2K-related lawsuits.
Businesses need to be able to focus on fixing the problem--not
defending against lawsuits.
But the high technology industry is not the only group that faces
potential difficulties as a result of this problem.
Consumers and other businesses that use and depend on computers face
potential risks as well.
We need to protect consumers who might be hurt by the Y2K bug. We
need to protect their right to seek justice in the courts.
A major problem with the underlying bill, as we consider just how we
do that, is an issue of great importance to many of us; that is, how we
resolve the issue of capping punitive damages that go beyond what is
needed to prevent frivolous Y2K-related lawsuits.
The amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry,
and developed by him, and a number of our colleagues, corrects these
problems.
Before I describe the differences between our approach and the
underlying bill, it is important to point out that--on most of the
basic issues--the two proposals are identical to the pending bill.
Both approaches encourage remediation by giving defendants 90 days to
fix a Y2K problem before a lawsuit can be filed.
Both approaches would discourage frivolous lawsuits by allowing
either party to request alternative dispute resolution at any time
during the 90-day waiting period.
Both approaches require anyone seeking damages to offer reasonable
proof--including the nature and amount of the damages--before a class
action suit could proceed.
Both approaches would permit class-action lawsuits to be brought only
if a majority of the people in the lawsuit suffered real harm by real
defects.
Our approach addresses 95 percent--if not 100 percent--of what those
in the high-technology community have asked for. It addresses all of
the principles they have said are essential.
But there are a number of important ways in which our approaches
differ.
Our proposal carefully balances the rights and interests of the
industry, and consumers.
It limits its remedies to problems that are truly, legitimately Y2K
related.
Our alternative offers high-tech companies more incentives than the
underlying bill to fix the problem--now, while there is still time.
We are concerned that the underlying bill may--perhaps
inadvertantly--provide such blanket protection against all Y2K
problems, including those that could have and should have been avoided,
that companies will lose the incentive to fix problems now.
For example, our amendment provides a balanced and reasonable
solution to the issue of ``proportionality.''
The underlying bill preempts State laws on this issue. It would grant
defendants proportional liability in almost all Y2K cases--no questions
asked.
Our amendment, simply says that Y2K defendants would have to pass a
simple test to quality for this protection.
It is sometimes referred to as the ``good corporate citizen'' test.
And I know my colleague from Massachusetts has discussed this in some
detail this afternoon. All a company has to do to pass the test is to
show that it has identified potential problems and made a good-faith
effort to alert potential victims.
This is a major concession. But we are willing to make it in this
case because of the extraordinary circumstances.
These are reasonable conditions. Every single high tech company we
know of has already met it.
If there are others that have not done so, they do not deserve
special protection from Congress--plain and simple.
There are a number of other ways in which our amendment improves on
the underlying bill:
It does not prohibit consumers from seeking justice in the courts for
real and legitimate Y2K-related problems.
The underlying bill would require consumers to meet so many
conditions before bringing suit that it would effectively shut the
courthouse door.
Our bill establishes strict requirements for class actions to protect
against frivolous suits.
The underlying bill shifts virtually all Y2K suits to the Federal
courts. This has two effects. In many cases, it makes it harder for
consumers to bring a suit. It also increases the strain on an already
backlogged Federal court system.
This is strongly opposed by the Judicial Conference--not only because
of the additional strain it would place on Federal courts, but also
because it would upset the traditional division of responsibility
between State and Federal courts.
I might say, I am continually amused by those on the other side of
the aisle who have expressed themselves as being advocates of States
rights and the Constitution and the requirement that States be given
the prerogative in matters of jurisdiction on this and so many other
areas; but when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle find it
convenient, it seems this shift to Federal responsibility comes so
easily. This is just yet another example of that shift. There have been
scores of those examples in recent years.
Our alternative would not enforce illegal contract terms.
The underlying bill might. It could enforce any and all contracts--
even those that are currently illegal under State and Federal laws.
Our alternative does not protect defendants from liability for
intentionally wrongful acts. It allows victims of such acts to sue for
economic losses.
The underlying bill protects companies even when they knowingly harm
consumers, or use fraud to pressure someone into signing a contract.
Finally, our bill does not include a cap on punitive damages.
The pending bill would limit the amount of punitive damages that
smaller businesses and municipalities could be assessed--regardless of
whether they acted responsibly.
The people who would benefit from a cap on punitive damages are bad
actors who injure others.
Ironically, many of those who would be hurt if this passes are
themselves small businesses.

[[Page 12079]]

In summary, our amendment is identical to the underlying bill in
every important, necessary way.
But, it does differ in ways that are critical to consumers, to
businesses, and to the functioning of our courts.
Perhaps the most important difference between our approach and the
underlying bill is that our approach is the only version the President
will sign. We know that. The administration has said so unequivocally
on numerous occasions. Make no mistake, unless the improvements in this
amendment are adopted, the President will veto this bill for going too
far.
So the choice is ours, and the year 2000 is fast approaching. Do we
want to engage in an exercise that would be fruitless? Do we want to
waste precious days debating a bill we know will be vetoed and then
have to start all over? Do we want to limit frivolous Y2K lawsuits?
This year is now more than halfway over. How much more time are we
willing to let go before we agree to work together on a real solution?
The bottom line is, we have the power to fix the Y2K problem today.
We have before us now an approach that targets the real problem and can
be signed into law.
I urge my colleagues to join us in adopting the Kerry-Robb amendment.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I will make one observation, and then I
have a motion.
We hear again on the floor the threat of a Presidential veto. We hear
that increasingly, as if the President should write legislation and we
should supinely accept whatever the President recommends, that our
function is simply to listen to the President, pass legislation that he
announces in advance is acceptable and, thereby, abdicate our
legislative responsibilities.
I am perfectly willing to risk a Presidential veto. I think that is
the appropriate posture for a Member of the Senate.
I ask consent that following the debate in relation to amendment No.
610, the Senate proceed to an amendment to be offered by Senator
Murkowski or his designee and no other amendments in order prior to 6
p.m., and that at 5:50, there be 10 minutes for explanation followed by
a vote in relation to the Kerry amendment No. 610.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back all further
time on the Kerry amendment, if Senator Kerry is prepared to yield
back.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I cannot do that. I think Senator Edwards
wants to use a little time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 1 minute 13 seconds;
the Senator from Massachusetts has 3 minutes 47 seconds.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to yield back my time, with the understanding that if Senator Murkowski
is not permitted to go forward, Senator Edwards can talk until he is,
and if he has gone forward, that Senator Edwards would then be
recognized to speak within the confines of the unanimous consent
agreement just agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BENNETT. There is no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to table the Kerry amendment, with
the vote to occur at 6, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. For the information of all Senators then, the next vote
will occur at 6 in relation to the Kerry substitute.

Amendment No. 612

(Purpose: To require manufacturers receiving notice of a Y2K failure to
give priority to notices that involve health and safety related
failures)

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, earlier today Senator McCain filed an
amendment No. 612 to the bill on behalf of Senator Murkowski. It is my
understanding this amendment is acceptable to both sides. Therefore, I
ask unanimous consent to call up the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative assistant read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], for Mr. Murkowski,
proposes an amendment numbered 612.

The amendment is as follows:

Section 7(c) of the bill is amended by adding at the end
the following:
(5) Priority.--A prospective defendant receiving more than
1 notice under this section shall give priority to notices
with respect to a product or service that involves a health
or safety related Y2K failure.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we consider S. 96, the Y2K bill, I
want to point out an area of concern that will affect many northern
states, especially my home state of Alaska. January 1, 2000, will
arrive in the middle of winter. Unlike many states in the lower 48,
where a power failure on the first of the year is a major
inconvenience, a power failure in Alaska can have serious consequences
if climate control systems fail.
Earlier this year my home town of Fairbanks saw the thermometer
plummet below 40 degrees Fahrenheit. While I do not doubt the
industrious nature of my fellow Alaskans who have for so long used
their ingenuity and determination to survive in Alaska's cold climate,
any delay in resolving a health or safety related failure in Alaska
cannot only be costly, but also deadly.
Therefore, I am offering an amendment that would require that
companies notified of a Y2K problem must first respond to requests
where the Y2K failures affect the health or safety of the public.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Alaska for offering his
amendment. I point out that his amendment does not only protect
Alaskans. If a consumer radio fails, it's an inconvenience. If a radio
used by the Phoenix police department fails, not only does it put the
life of the police officer carrying it in jeopardy, but it also
jeopardizes the safety of the public he or she protects. A company
should give priority in responding to the Phoenix police station's need
for Y2K failure assistance.
I am pleased to accept the amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Arizona for his attention to
this issue.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator had two amendments. Is this one related to
the safety and health conditions? Is that the Murkowski amendment? That
is the one. OK. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
Mr. BENNETT. The Senator from Connecticut may have an objection.
Mr. DODD. I was going to urge that it be set aside for 5 minutes or
so. There is an item that I think might make that a bit stronger.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be set aside
for 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, under the previous order, I understand
now that Senator Edwards will be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I will speak briefly to the McCain bill and to Senator
Kerry's

[[Page 12080]]

amendment, which I think should be recognized as a real effort by
Senator Kerry to cure some of the problems that exist with the McCain
bill.
From my perspective, I think what we are trying to accomplish here is
to find a reasonable, moderate approach that both protects the rights
and interests of consumers while at the same time ensuring that
computer company manufacturers have the protection that they need and
deserve.
There has been a lot of talk today about frivolous lawsuits. The
McCain bill has very little, if anything, to do with frivolous
lawsuits. The two provisions in that bill that all of the Senators have
spent a great deal of time on and that have caused the most controversy
are joint and several liability and economic loss. Those two provisions
have absolutely nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits.
Speaking for myself, and, I think, speaking for Senator Kerry, both
of us are opposed to any kind of frivolous lawsuit. I would be willing
to support any provision that would provide protection against
frivolous lawsuits. The two provisions that we are talking about, the
elimination of joint and several liability and the elimination, from my
perspective, of the right to recover economic loss, are both things
that occur after a defendant has been found responsible. In other
words, before you ever get to those two provisions, you have to first
determine that there has been some irresponsible behavior on behalf of
a defendant.
The idea that those provisions, which are really the most
controversial provisions in this bill, have anything to do with
frivolous lawsuits just doesn't make any sense. They have absolutely
nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits.
For example, joint and several liability has to do with who you can
recover against and what percentage or proportion of your damages you
can recover, once a jury has determined that the defendant acted
irresponsibly or in violation of a contract.
The economic loss provision has to do with whether the small business
owner or the consumer is allowed to recover for lost profits, lost
overhead, out-of-pocket costs, once it has been determined that, in
fact, the defendant is at fault. So the idea that this has anything to
do with frivolous lawsuits is just misleading. The bill has very
little, if anything, to do with frivolous lawsuits.
If what we are concerned about is getting these cases resolved,
creating incentives for consumers, small business people, people who
have purchased computers, people who have a Y2K problem, to work with
the computer manufacturers, with the people who manufacture the
component parts of computers, I think that makes a great deal of sense.
But this bill doesn't do that. Instead, what this bill doesn't do, in
contrast to Senator Kerry's amendment, is strike a proper balance
between providing reasonable protections for computer companies, while
at the same time making sure we protect consumers. There has been an
awful lot of discussion on the floor today about lawyers and the
interests of lawyers. The reality is that lawyers and the discussion
about frivolous lawsuits have little or nothing to do with this bill.
Lawyers didn't make these computers; lawyers didn't have anything to do
with the manufacture of these computer chips. And it is not lawyers who
are going to be injured as a result of this bill. The people who are
going to be hurt are consumers, the people who have purchased these
computers.
I think it is really important that we as Senators focus on the
people who are most likely to be injured as a result of the passage of
this bill. Now, there are two provisions in the McCain bill that I
think Senator Kerry's amendment addresses that are critically
important. The first, and the one I want to focus most of my attention
on, is a provision about economic losses. This is under section 12 of
the bill entitled ``Damages and Tort Claims.''
What this provision does--and this is a provision of the McCain-Dodd-
Wyden bill--is it eliminates the right to recover economic losses by a
small businessman if a computer or a computer chip manufacturer
irresponsibly creates a Y2K problem. Let me give you an example, and I
think this example is very important. A small businessman in
Murfreesboro, NC, is in his business establishment one day and a
computer salesman comes in the door and says: I have this great
computer system I want to sell you that will make your operation more
efficient. It will help you operate your cash registers. It will help
with your accounting. It will help with your collections. The
businessman heard about all these Y2K problems, but he was told by the
salesman this system is totally Y2K compliant.
This small businessman, believing what he was told, buys the computer
system. Well, come the year 2000, he begins to have problems, and the
problems shut down his cash registers, shut down his accounting system,
shut down his ability to collect; and this business, which he and his
family have been involved in all their lives, all of a sudden has no
cash-flow. So they lose profit and they continue to incur overhead, and
over a period of 2 or 3 months they essentially lose everything they
have spent their lives working on--all as a result of a Y2K problem
that, in my example, the computer salesman knew existed when he sold
them the computer.
In other words, when he made the statement to this businessman that
this system was totally Y2K compliant, he knew full well what he was
saying was not true. In fact, the evidence available to him indicated
it was not Y2K compliant. So he made a fraudulent misrepresentation, a
misstatement to this businessman.
Under that example, under the terms of the McCain bill, this is what
that businessman who has been put out of business for the rest of his
life--a family business they spent their entire lives building up--is
entitled to recover: The cost of his computer.
So if he spent $3,000 on the computer as a result of this
misrepresentation by the computer salesman, and he has been put out of
business forever, under this bill--which will, by the way, control all
of these cases regardless of what State law provides, and I want to
talk about that in just a moment--this small businessman is out of
business and what he can get back is the cost of his computer. So what
the bill does, in essence, is it provides absolute immunity, with the
exception of the cost of the computer.
I want to be clear about one other thing. There has been a lot of
discussion about punitive damages on the Senate floor. Punitive damages
are damages that are awarded to punish a defendant for highly egregious
conduct. But punitive damages have nothing whatsoever to do with what I
am talking about now. We are now talking about a small businessperson
being able to recover lost profits, having to shut down his or her
business, having to continue to pay overhead in connection with the
operation of that business. These are normal damages to be recovered
without reference to punitive damages.
What I am saying is a very simple thing. If this bill passes, then a
negligent computer chip manufacturer, a computer salesman, or computer
company that sells computers, that outright lies--I am talking about
engages in a fraudulent misrepresentation in their sales--can only be
held responsible for the cost of the computer. That is exactly what
this bill provides.
I respectfully disagree with what my colleague, Senator Wyden, said
earlier today, that all Federal and State remedies for economic loss
are left in place. I think exactly the opposite is true. In fact, what
this bill does is eliminate, to the extent that a cause of action
exists under State law, the ability to recover for economic losses.
So what we have is a huge, huge problem. We have a provision in the
bill where, prospectively, we are going to say to small and large
businessmen and women around this country that if somebody has made a
misrepresentation to you about the computer system you were buying, No.
1, and No. 2, if they irresponsibly and recklessly sold you a computer
system that was not Y2K compliant, i.e., they didn't act with
reasonable care or they acted negligently, what we are going to let you

[[Page 12081]]

recover is the cost of your computer; and you cannot recover any of the
costs associated with the operation of your business, your lost
profits, and all of the costs associated with the day-to-day running of
the business.
I don't believe there is an American out there listening to this who
would believe that is fair. It is not fair. Now, I might add, for
Senators Wyden, McCain and Dodd, that there are provisions in this bill
that I have absolutely no problem with. I think we want to create
incentives for people to work together. We want to create incentives
for manufacturers to solve this problem. I think a 90-day cooling off
period is a good idea. I think the idea of having an alternative
dispute resolution so that folks have a mechanism outside having to
file a lawsuit and go to court is a very good idea. These are all very
positive things.
The problem is that, ultimately, there are going to be people across
this country who, because of somebody acting irresponsibly or somebody
misrepresenting something to them, are going to have problems with
their business that will cause lost profits, lost overhead, which could
ultimately lead to a shutdown of their business. And they will be able
to recover absolutely nothing but the cost of their computer. I might
add that later I intend to offer an amendment that specifically
addresses this problem.
I just don't believe that is what the American people would support.
It is fundamentally unfair because what you have is a small
businessperson who acted in good faith, innocently, in purchasing a
computer system, and as a result of a law passed in this Congress, that
person would be out of business, through no fault of his own. But the
person who is at fault and is totally responsible for what happened to
him is only responsible for paying for the cost of the computer. The
bottom line is, if this guy gets hurt and they get caught, what they
have to pay is the money they originally got from these folks, which is
the cost of the computer. That is fundamentally unfair. It violates
every principle of fairness and equity that exists in the law of this
country and has existed for over 200 years. That alone is clearly
enough that this bill should not be supported.
Senator Kerry's amendment addresses that problem. It also addresses
another problem that exists with this bill, which is the issue of joint
and several liability. I have talked about this once before on the
floor, but I think it is really important for the American people to
understand what joint and several liability is. Essentially, it has
existed in the law of this country for a couple hundred years now. It
says that where you have an innocent--as in my example--small
businessman and you have multiple parties on the other side who may be
responsible for what happened, under joint and several liability the
innocent party never has to pay for the loss, that the loss is shared
in some way among the parties who are responsible for that loss. In
this case, it may be the computer chip manufacturers; it may be the
computer company that actually sold the entire system--a whole
multitude of defendants. It is for them to resolve who pays what among
themselves. In my case, the small businessman is innocent. And, as a
result of the current law on joint and several liability, this innocent
party is relieved of having to share the loss with guilty parties.
That is the reason joint and several liability exists. It is the
reason it has existed in law in this country for a long time.
Senator Kerry's amendment sets up what I consider to be a very
moderate, thoughtful approach--that responds to the computer industry
and the high-tech industry's request for some protection against joint
and several liability.
What Senator Kerry says is basically, if you come in and show you
have acted responsibly as a good citizen, you get proportionate
liability; that is, you can never be held responsible for anything more
than your fair share of the damages.
It seems to me, although that is not the law in a great number of
States in this country, that is a reasonable approach. It is a
compromise. There is no question about that. We all recognize that,
while I personally believe joint and several liability makes a great
deal of sense, because it essentially says as a matter of policy we are
going to always make people who are responsible for the loss share that
loss, and never the innocent small businessman pay for the loss.
Senator Kerry has attempted to fashion a compromise that provides
protection for what I believe to be the great bulk of computer
companies that are out there doing business, who have acted
responsibly, who can show that they have been good corporate citizens,
and when they do that, then they get proportionate liability, which is
what they want.
But there is still, I have to say, the most fundamental problem in
the McCain-Wyden-Dodd bill, which is the provision about economic
losses. Ultimately what it means is, if you can't recover anything but
the cost of your computer, we are giving prospective absolute immunity
to an industry, not knowing at this point what the losses are going to
be for anything except the cost of the computer. It is something we
have never done in the history of this country. It would be a
remarkable thing to do now.
I have to say in response to some remarks I heard from Senator Dodd
earlier, whom I greatly admire and respect, that he talks at great
length about this being a 36-month or a 3-year loss, that there is not
some dramatic change in the law, that it is just 3 years.
Here is the problem. That 3-year period is going to cover every Y2K
loss that occurs because of the nature of this problem. These losses
are going to come up quickly, and they are going to occur starting in
January of the year 2000, or before. By the end of that 3-year period,
the problems will have shown themselves, or they will be gone, or they
won't exist at all.
When Senator Dodd says it is just a 3-year provision, it is a 3-year
provision that covers every single Y2K loss that is going to occur. It
covers them all. We just have to recognize that when he talks about
this being just a 3-year period of time that is being covered, that is
what it is. It covers every Y2K loss that may occur.
The bottom line is this: I think it makes great sense to have a bill
that provides some reasonable protection for the computer industry. I
think Senator Kerry's amendment works very hard at doing that.
I think there are at least two huge problems with the McCain bill,
the most dramatic of which, to me, is that no businessman, no matter
what has been done to him, whether he has been lied to, whether he has
been the victim of irresponsible conduct, whatever it is, all he or she
can ever recover is the cost of the computer, even if he or she has
been put out of business. I don't believe the American people would
think that is fair.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on this point, Senator Edwards is such a
magnificent lawyer and I am always reluctant to get into this, but the
bottom line in this matter of economic losses is, whatever the
plaintiff is entitled to get under State contract law with respect to
economic losses is what our bill does. That is just the bottom line.
Whatever the plaintiff is entitled to under State contract law is what
they are going to get for economic loss--no more, no less. The bill
keeps the status quo.
I want to take a minute to go to one example. I want to take a minute
to talk about the options available to the typical small business in
these kinds of cases.
Let's say we have a company that buys $10,000 worth of computers from
another company, and they all crash January 3 of 2000. They lose $1
million worth of business as a result. Obviously, they are unhappy.
They write the computer company and they say that crash was the fault
of the computer company, the Y2K failure, and they want it fixed, and
they want their money, they want their $1 million. I want to take a
second and describe what happens in those situations.

[[Page 12082]]

The computer company has to get back to the small business within 30
days. It has to make it clear. You have to move. They can say it was a
Y2K failure. The computer company says, ``It is our fault. We will fix
it the way the business wants--the restaurant. We will give you $1
million.''
That is that. They can say they will fix the Y2K problem, but they
should not be responsible for the whole $1 million. They might say,
``We will fix it, but we have to negotiate this out. We are liable for
some. You are liable for some.''
If the small business isn't satisfied with what the computer company
does, they can basically go out and sue immediately in that kind of
situation.
The third kind of example would be, the computer company just stiffs
the small businessperson, is completely unresponsive to what the small
business needs. In that case, the plaintiff, the small businessperson,
can go out and file a suit immediately against the computer company.
Finally, we have raised the example of what happens if that computer
company is bankrupt and insolvent. At that point, the small
businessperson can name in their lawsuit anybody they think is a
responsible party. They can name Intel; they can name Microsoft; they
can name anybody they want. It is at that point the jury is going to
decide what portion of the blame each potential defendant ought to
bear.
That strikes us as sensible. That is the principle of
proportionality. We are saying that you ought to pick up the burden of
the problem you actually produced, but if you did something
intentional, if you ripped somebody off, if you engaged in egregious
conduct, then joint and several applies.
If we are talking about a low net worth of a defendant, it is the
same sort of situation. So the plaintiff isn't left hanging.
As we get towards the final vote, I ask my colleagues to remember
that is what a typical small business is entitled to--those four kinds
of situations, so that at the end of the day they are going to have
their economic losses dealt with just as they would under State
contract law--no more, no less.
Really, we have what amounts to only a handful of real protections
for this 36-month period. Yes, we do say that if a small business is
operating in good faith, we would put some limits on punitive damages.
I guess there can be a philosophical difference of opinion on that.
Reasonable people can differ. But we think that if a small business
acts in good faith, there ought to be some limit in terms of these
punitive damages. There are only a handful of protections.
Again, the 30-day period is a limitation on somebody's right to sue.
That is why we say if you really think you are stiffed, you can go out
and sue immediately. We think it makes sense for a 30-day period to try
to cure these problems.
On the proportionality issue, we are making a change to deal with a
situation where we think that unless somebody engages in an egregious
offense-type of conduct with a low net worth defendant, it is
appropriate in this situation to say you are liable for what you
actually produced.
In addition to this being a bill that lasts for a short period of
time, it does not apply to personal injury problems at all. If somebody
is in an elevator and the computer system falls out and the elevator
drops 10 floors and somebody is badly injured, all existing tort
remedies apply.
I am very hopeful we will have a significant number of our
colleagues, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle,
supporting this. There have been 10 major changes made in this
legislation since it left the Senate Commerce Committee. Our senior
Democrat, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, was absolutely
right--the bill that came out of the Senate Commerce Committee was
completely unacceptable in terms of the rights of consumers and the
rights of plaintiffs. I joined him in opposing it.
Since that time, we took out the items that were unfair. A lot of
them happened to be in the House bill--which is completely unacceptable
to me, as well.
This bill is a balanced bill. It tells defendants they have to go out
and cure problems; it tells plaintiffs they have to go out and mitigate
damages. I hope our colleagues recognize that failure to pass a
responsible bill in this area is just like hurling a monkey wrench into
the technology engine that is keeping our economy humming. I hope we
won't do that.
The Senator from North Carolina asked me, before I went through that
enlightening example of small business, to yield. I am happy to do so.
Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the work of the Senator from Oregon. We
have talked about this matter a good deal. I appreciate the time spent
doing that.
We do have a fundamental disagreement. My reading of Section 12 says
that people cannot recover economic losses. I think if you can't
recover economic losses as a result of the negligence or intentional
acts or misrepresentations by a defendant, then essentially that means
all you can ever get is the cost of the computer--even if you have been
put out of business.
I don't think anybody in America would think that is right, fair, or
just.
My first question is if, in fact, all the remedies for recovery of
economic loss--that is lost profits, et cetera--are left in place under
Federal and State law, why do we need a section, Section 12, on that
matter at all in this bill?
Mr. WYDEN. If the Senator will let me reclaim my time, I will read
the precedence we are citing with respect to our opinion that our bill
covers economic losses in line with State law and common law.
Let me read to the Senator the precedent:

The prevailing common law rule is that ``recovery of
intangible economic losses is normally determined by contract
law.''

That is Prosser, 1984.
Accordingly, the courts have essentially allowed plaintiffs to
address these matters in State contract law by Clark v. Int'l Harvester
Company, Chrysler v. Taylor, Inglis v. American Motor Company.
Our position is that the economic loss rule in our bill is merely an
explicit recognition of this sensible principle, which is in line with
the legal precedence I cited, and also Prosser.
Mr. EDWARDS. If the Senator will yield, the problem I have, if it is
true that all State and Federal remedies for economic loss are left in
place, it seems we would need to say nothing about that in this bill.
We could say absolutely nothing and they would remain in place as they
are under existing law, or we could have one sentence and that sentence
would say ``economic losses are permitted as presently exist under
applicable Federal or State law.''
Instead, I have a 2\1/2\ page section on economic loss, and before it
ever gets to mentioning Federal or State remedies for economic loss, it
sets forth a long description of requirements that have to be met--
requirements that don't exist in any State or Federal law.
The reality is this bill sets up requirements that are far more
draconian than exist across this country. Then the amendment says if
you can meet all of those requirements, and the recovery of these
economic losses are permitted under State and Federal law, then you can
recover economic losses.
The truth of the matter is, if it were true that economic losses as
they presently exist in the law and as they exist across this country--
which means people can recover, in my example, more than the cost of
their computer; they can recover for lost profits, their overhead, and
all the costs associated with that, things that most Americans would
consider completely fair, reasonable, and just--if that were true, we
do not need a provision about this at all. We sure do not need 2\1/2\
pages about it. Or we could do it in one sentence: Existing recoveries
for economic losses are permitted under applicable Federal or State
law.
Instead, we have 2\1/2\ pages. We have a provision that essentially
eliminates the right to recover economic losses, even in the case of
someone who has had a fraudulent representations made to them about the
product they are purchasing.
Can the Senator show me the specific language that simply says all
Federal

[[Page 12083]]

and State law remains in place, without any other requirements?
Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate having the chance to look at any alternative
language the Senator from North Carolina wants to pursue.
The Senator raised the question of whether or not plaintiffs ought to
be able to circumvent the provisions of State contract law by
repackaging suits as tort claims. That has not been allowed by the
courts.
If the Senator is talking about something else, we are happy to look
at this. What we have in our legal analysis, and I have cited the
specific cases that back up our particular point, is an indication that
we believe we are protecting plaintiffs and plaintiffs' rights to
recover in line with State contract law on economic losses.
If the Senator is not trying to ``tortify'' contracts, I am certainly
willing to work with him on any kind of language.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I don't have any problem at all with the
idea of protecting existing contracts. I think Senator Kerry's
amendment does exactly that. I think the problem we are confronted
with--and I have asked this question a couple of times--this 2\1/2\
pages on economic loss does not say that State remedies prevail.
I might add, I believe your home State of Oregon allows the recovery
of economic losses under the circumstances that I am describing where
someone has acted irresponsibly. So we have a bill that will change
laws not only in other places around the country but in your home
State.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
Mr. WYDEN. If I could reclaim my time to respond to the Senator,
first, we made it very clear regarding economic losses. We want to see
people recover in line with their State contract law.
If the Senator can show me something in the 2\1/2\ pages that he is
so alarmed about--he has referred to the 2\1/2\ pages now three or four
times--if the Senator can show me something in those 2\1/2\ pages that
indicates that a plaintiff could not recover through their State
contract law economic losses, I guarantee myself, Senator Dodd, and
Senator McCain are interested in working with the Senator on it.
We cannot find anything. We have precedence and we have a legal
analysis that backs up our point of view. If the Senator finds
something in those 2\1/2\ pages that the Senator thinks indicates that
a plaintiff cannot recover their economic losses according to State
contract law, we will be very open to seeing it.
Mr. EDWARDS. For just a moment, if I could just give an example of
what I am referring to, let's suppose a computer has been sold by a
computer company that sells a system. They have sold it to a small
businessman. There is a Y2K problem and the small business is put out
of business. They have lost millions of dollars over the course of
several months. What we determine, when the investigation is done, is
that what caused the problem is a chip, a computer chip that was sold
by a manufacturer with whom this purchaser never had any interaction.
Or it was some program that was loaded onto the computer. And the
plaintiff never had any relation with the software manufacturer. Of
course they would not; they bought the computer at a computer store
from some computer salesman.
Under the provisions of this bill, the person who was actually
responsible, that is the manufacturer of the computer chip or software
that was not Y2K compliant--you cannot recover against that responsible
person for economic losses under the express provisions of this
paragraph in Section 12. In fact, the Senator and I both know in
reality that is what is most likely to happen. What most people are
going to confront when they have a Y2K problem is some very isolated,
discrete part of their computer system that caused the problem. It is
not going to be the entire system. My point being there is no contract
between the purchaser and that responsible party, that party in my
example who is acting irresponsibly.
What you are doing in this bill is you are absolutely cutting off the
right of this innocent businessman to recover anything more than what
he has lost, what he has lost out of his pocket, what he has lost as a
result of not being able to make sales. This bill is very clear about
that, I say to Senator Wyden. I don't think it can be interpreted in
any other way.
Mr. WYDEN. Our interpretation and our legal analysis, which I am
happy to give, indicates the plaintiff can recover exactly what they
are entitled to today. They are not going to get any more.
I recognize what the agenda is here. I respect that we have a
difference of opinion. But the bottom line is--I am happy to give our
legal analysis--they can recover exactly what they are entitled to
today.
Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield for a moment on just a point
further, the language in section 2 says ``such losses result directly
from damage to tangible personal or real other property.''
The economic losses my colleague is skillfully referring to may be
the much larger losses that come from, say, the intellectual property
failure.
Mr. WYDEN. I think the Senator is talking about the tort section.
Mr. KERRY. No, he is referring--excuse me, yes, I am, at this point.
But that is a similar complication here of what the Senator is
eliminating without being aware that is, in fact, being eliminated.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time, there is a
difference of opinion here on the matter of economic losses. In the
2\1/2\ pages the Senator from North Carolina has cited, we believe
every plaintiff is going to be able to recover exactly what they are
entitled to recover today. If in fact there is some evidence to the
contrary, we will certainly be happy to pursue that.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WYDEN. Let me yield, if I can, to Senator Hollings.
Mr. HOLLINGS. When the Senator says ``exactly what he is entitled to
under the contract,'' when I go buy a computer from you, under my
contract I am not contracting for any economic loss or loss of
customers, or wasted moneys for advertising because the business has
closed down, or any of the other economic losses. When the Senator says
``exactly under State contract law,'' the contract is only for the item
itself. State contract law is not State tort law. I take it that is the
difference. ``Exactly what he is entitled to,'' not under State tort
law but under State contract law; isn't that the Senator's position?
Mr. WYDEN. If I could refer the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina to the specific section, I have been talking about section 11,
contractual damages. I gather the Senator from North Carolina, who is
getting us into this area, was largely talking about the tort section.
That, of course, is the difference of opinion here. I believe it would
be a mistake to try to ``tortify'' these contractual rights at this
time when we are staring, early in the next century, at all of these
liabilities.
I have three good friends with whom I agree on probably the vast
majority of issues that come up in this body who see it otherwise. I
recognize that. But I want to, again, in the name of trying to work
things out, make it clear if there is anything in the contract
section--in the contract section--that would suggest a plaintiff cannot
get the economic losses they are entitled to under State contract law,
I am very certain Senator McCain and Senator Dodd and I will be happy
to look at that. We do have a difference of opinion on this matter
involving torts.
Mr. HOLLINGS. How could they be entitled to anything, any economic
losses under State contract law when it was not contracted for? You
see, you just contract to buy the item. If I go into Circuit City, or
whatever it is, and get the computer, I don't say: Now, wait a minute,
if something goes wrong with this computer here 60 days from now or
something else like that and my business is closed down for 90 days

[[Page 12084]]

or whatever, then I want the loss of customers, the loss of good will,
and all these economic losses. I am only contracting for the item.
So when you say ``exactly what he is entitled to under State contract
law,'' it is saying in the same breath he is not entitled to any
economic loss under tort law. Isn't that the case?
Mr. WYDEN. The jurisdictions differ. But what we are trying to adhere
to, with respect to economic losses and contracts, is the status quo.
If there is some evidence we can be shown indicating otherwise, we will
be happy to take a look at it.
I have taken an awful lot of time. I yield the floor.
Mr. EDWARDS. Can I ask Senator Wyden one last question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from North
Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. I want to make sure we are clear about this for purposes
of our discussion. Does my colleague now concede that for any claim
other than under contract, that economic losses are being completely
eliminated by this bill? Does he concede that?
Mr. WYDEN. No. Not at all. In fact, let me again read from our legal
analysis:

The economic loss rule is a widely recognized legal
principle that has been adopted by the United States Supreme
Court in the vast majority of States. It states a party who
has suffered only economic damages must generally sue to
recover those damages under contract law, not under tort law.
Tort law generally applies only where a party has suffered
personal injury or damages to property other than the
property in dispute.

So we are having, I guess, a duel of legal analyses. But we are happy
to share ours. We believe, again, the court precedents and the specific
analysis I am citing make it very clear that recovery that is available
today for economic losses under State contract law is not being altered
in any way by this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, if I can respond just very briefly, there
are two fundamental problems I respectfully disagree with Senator Wyden
about. The first of those problems is he talks at great length about
State contract law. I do not have any problem with State contract law
being totally enforced. I believe the law generally ought to be
enforced and that includes State contract law. The problem is in the
real world, most of the time, as Senator Hollings pointed out, to the
extent there is any written contract that contract is drafted by the
manufacturers. It is not drafted by a small businessman who is buying a
computer. So the Senator knows as well as I do it is a farce to say
there is going to be a provision in the contract that provides for
economic losses. It is not going to be anywhere in any contract,
because the contracts have been written by teams of lawyers who drafted
these contracts to protect the seller. They are the people who are in
the position of economic power.
So the reality is there is not going to be anything in the written
contract if there is a written contract. That is one problem.
But there is a second problem that is even larger than that, which is
in many cases it is not going to be the contracted-with party who is
responsible. The contract is between a purchaser and a seller. The
seller is selling a computer system and the negligent or irresponsible
party is not the seller who has included many computer chips in his
computer system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Under the
previous order, the Kerry amendment is now up for 5 minutes of debate
on each side, equally divided.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EDWARDS. If I can finish this thought, the bottom line is in many
cases--in fact, in the vast majority of cases--the computer company
that is responsible for putting a small businessman out of business,
for all the losses that the small businessman incurs is not going to
have a contract. In fact, the only way the person who is ultimately
responsible can be held accountable is through a cause of action for
breach of warranty or breach of product warranty and negligence, and
this bill eliminates the right of that small businessman to recover any
of his losses other than the cost of the computer.
The result of this discussion is Senator Wyden now recognizes that,
and with all due respect, I do not believe the American people will
find that fair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time,
time will be charged to both sides.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, this country is facing an unusual and
very dangerous legal situation. I understand and appreciate the details
given by the Senators as they have debated the nature of contracts and
damages and economic loss rule and negligence as compared to contract
law. It is pretty complex.
Historically, we have created rules under which to file. For
contracts, you have burden of proof. If you file under tort, you have
another standard you have to prove. All of those are complex, and we
ought to be openminded to make sure we are proceeding in a way so as to
create a statute that is effective and will achieve what we want.
It is time for us to face up to the fact that we do need some change
in this Y2K computer problem. Our Nation is facing a real challenge. We
could end up with massive litigation in every single county in America:
lawyers on both sides filing lawsuits arguing over how much business
was lost in this grocery store, how much this bank lost; arguing over
punitive damages, standards of proof; the computer companies situated
in one State are having to defend themselves against 50 separate State
laws; sometimes individual judges within individual States, if they do
not have guidance, may rule differently than one expects them to rule.
Under the circumstances of this situation, as a person who does
believe States ought to do those things they do best, and the Federal
Government ought not to take over, when we are dealing with the
computer industry--which is not only interstate but international and
is a fundamental source of our productivity increases--that industry
can be sued thousands of times throughout the country, and as a result,
they will be weakened economically, they will be substantially less
able to fix a problem that may occur and will spend more and more time
with lawyers and on litigation than they need.
We need to create a system which focuses on fixing the problem, and
that does mean changing the way we have to do business for this one
problem for a maximum of 3 years. This is what we need to do. We do not
need to allow our Nation to assault from every possible venue that
exists in this country the computer industry, which Alan Greenspan has
indicated is one of the primary reasons for our productivity increases
as a nation, why our Nation is doing better than other nations, and why
we need to keep it that way.
I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona has arrived. There may
be some time remaining. I will be glad to yield the floor to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute 25 seconds remains.
Mr. DODD. How much time remains on all sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 5 minutes;
the Senator from Alabama has 1 minute 24 seconds. Who yields time?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. We reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the course of the day, there has been
a lot of argument about what we seek to do and do not seek to do. I
want to make it very clear. Both sides are seeking a fair and sensible
way to address the Y2K problem. There is no argument that one side
wants frivolous suits, the other does not. There is no argument that
one side somehow wants to keep business from flourishing. We are all on
the same side of the high-tech industry

[[Page 12085]]

and of the capacity of that industry to flourish.
The question is, what is the fairest, most balanced way to
effectively approach the question of how we will do that.
Senator Edwards from North Carolina has very effectively demonstrated
one of the real flaws in the bill as presented by the Senator from
Arizona. The economic losses will be denied in a way, particularly in a
situation where there is fraud or misrepresentation, that no American
deems to be fair.
Equally important, when you balance the fundamental components of
this bill on the question of proportional damages and who gets them and
when, there is a difference between us in what we assert is the
appropriate qualification for businesses to merit the proportional
damages.
The McCain bill automatically makes available, with a few small
exceptions, those proportional damages to businesses without any
fundamental mitigation requirement; that is the essence of this bill.
On the other hand, the proposal I submit with Senator Daschle, Senator
Reid, Senator Robb, Senator Akaka, Senator Mikulski, and others, is a
proposal that embraces 90 days for a cure period, just as the McCain
bill does. It embraces a responsibility to mitigate, just as the McCain
bill does. It preserves contract law, just as the McCain bill does. But
it also requires a good citizenship standard, an effort by companies to
determine the potential--not the reality--the potential, not to find to
a certainty, but to declare the potential that they may have a Y2K
problem, and then in good faith to make available to the people with
whom they have dealt the information about that potential.
It is hard to believe the Senate would not be willing to embrace the
notion that companies ought to embrace the full measure of the purpose
of this bill, which is mitigation, by making that good effort in order
to determine what their liability may be.
Our bill encourages remediation. It requires notice and opportunity
to cure. It imposes additional duty on plaintiffs when the defendant
does act responsibly. It requires the plaintiff to undertake certain
mitigation efforts which is fairly unprecedented. It discourages
frivolous lawsuits by encouraging alternative dispute resolution. It
increases the pleading requirements. None of these, incidentally, are
things the lawyers have asked for and none of them are things the
lawyers like.
It asserts an increased materiality requirement so that the complaint
has to identify with specificity the basis of the complaint which they
make. We discourage frivolous class action lawsuits with a minimum
injury requirement for any class action and a materiality requirement.
We protect business with contract preservation, with strict
limitations on damages awarded for economic loss, and also, unlike the
McCain bill, we embrace the notion that individual consumers should not
be cut out from their capacity to redress their problems.
In the end, I believe the real issue is: Do we want to accomplish
what we have set out to do, which means, will the President of the
United States sign the bill? The President has made it clear the McCain
bill will not be signed into law without the kinds of changes Senator
Edwards and I and others have articulated.
So we can go through the Pyrrhic exercise or we can try to fully
legislate. I think it is clear that we are offering an alternative that
is fair, sensible, protects consumers, and at the same time protects
businesses in this country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support what will be
offered as the bipartisan amendment to S. 96, the Y2K Act. I also rise
to oppose Senator John Kerry's alternative to the Y2K Act.
The Y2K Act has gone through significant and myriad changes. In the
spirit of constructive compromise, Senators of both parties have come
together to work out their differences to produce S. 1138, the
bipartisan Dodd-McCain - Hatch - Feinstein - Wyden - Gorton-Lieberman-
Bennett amendment. Why? Because these and other Senators realize the
importance of resolving a potential Y2K litigation crisis. These and
other Senators have placed the vitality of the nation over any
exaggerated loyalty to one political party.
Y2K-related lawsuits pose the greatest danger to industry's efforts
to fix the problem. All of us are aware that the computer industry is
feverishly working to correct--or remediate, in industry language--Y2K
so as to minimize any disruptions that occur early next year.
What we also know is that every dollar that industry has to spend to
defend against especially frivolous lawsuits is a dollar that will not
get spent on fixing the problem and delivering solutions to technology
consumers. Also, how industry spends its precious time and money
between now and the end of the year--either litigating or mitigating--
will largely determine how severe Y2K-related damage, disruption, and
hardship will be.
Many fear that if Congress does not act, the American high tech
industry, a leader in the world and a significant source of our
exports, will be severely damaged. This is particularly true for the
economies of cutting-edge high tech states--such as my home state of
Utah--whose private sector is a leader in the information revolution.
Why retard the industry that has led the recent boom of the American
economy? Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
Let me restate what I have said on numerous occasions. The potential
financial magnitude of the Y2K litigation problem is enormous. To
understand this enormity, we should consider the estimate of Capers
Jones, Chairman of Software Productivity Research, a provider of
software measurement, assessment and estimation products and services.
Mr. Jones suggests that ``for every dollar not spent on repairing the
Year 2000 problem, the anticipated costs of litigation and potential
damages will probably amount to in excess of ten dollars.'' The Gartner
Group estimates that worldwide remediation costs will range between
$300 billion to $600 billion. Assuming Mr. Jones is only partially
accurate in his prediction--the litigation costs to society will prove
staggering. Even if we accept The Giga Information Group's more
conservative estimate that litigation will cost just two dollars to
three dollars for every dollar spent fixing Y2K problems, overall
litigation costs may total $1 trillion.
Even then, according to Y2K legal expert Jeff Jinnett, ``this cost
would greatly exceed the combined estimated legal costs associated with
Superfund environmental litigation . . . U.S. tort litigation. . .and
asbestos litigation.'' Perhaps the best illustration of the sheer
dimension of the litigation monster that Y2K may create is Mr Jinnett's
suggestion that a $1 trillion estimate for Y2K-related litigation costs
``would exceed even the estimated total annual direct and indirect
costs of all civil litigation in the United States,'' which he says is
$300 billion per year.
These figures should give all of us pause. At this level of cost,
Y2K-related litigation may well overwhelm the capacity of the already
crowded court system to deal with it.
Looking at a rash of lawsuits--there already have been 66 Y2K
lawsuits filed nationwide and the number is growing--we must ask
ourselves, what kind of signals are we sending to computer companies
currently engaged in or contemplating massive Y2K remediation? What I
fear industry will conclude is that remediation is a losing proposition
and that doing nothing is no worse an option for them than correcting
the problem. This is exactly the wrong message we want to be sending to
the computer industry at this critical time.
I believe Congress should give companies an incentive to fix Y2K
problems right away, knowing that if they don't make a good-faith
effort to do so, they will shortly face costly litigation. The natural
economic incentive of industry is to satisfy their customers and, thus,
prosper in the competitive environment of the free market.
This acts as a strong motivation for industry to fix a Y2K problem
before

[[Page 12086]]

any dispute becomes a legal one. This will be true, however, only as
long as businesses are given an opportunity to do so and are not
forced, at the outset, to divert precious resources from the urgent
tasks of the repair shop to the often unnecessary distractions of the
court room. A business and legal environment which encourages problem-
solving while preserving the eventual opportunity to litigate may best
insure that consumers and other innocent users of Y2K defective
products are protected.
The bipartisan compromise amendment accomplishes these ends. It is
significant to note that the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Senate's
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, my good friends
and respected colleagues Robert Bennett and Christopher Dodd, endorse
the bipartisan amendment. Both these Senators have developed great
expertise in Y2K and related matters during their leadership of the
special committee. They were instrumental in crafting the compromise
amendment.
The Kerry proposal, on the other hand, is partisan. As I understand
it, it was in part drafted with the White House. It has not been
endorsed by one Republican. While I firmly believe that Senator Kerry
and other Democrat Senators who crafted the amendment sincerely believe
that they are doing good, their amendment clearly eviscerates the
protections established by S. 96. It reduces the incentives created in
the bill for reducing litigation and resolving Y2K problems outside the
court room. Let me explain.
The Kerry Amendment significantly weakens the class action section of
S. 96. Class actions are a significant source of abuse. I have seen
this as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Both plantiffs and
defendants' attorneys have all too often been successful in rigging the
system. Far too often, sweetheart deals are entered into whereby the
plaintiff's attorneys negotiate huge fees, the defendants buy
litigation peace through a nation-wide class action settlement that
acts as res judiciata and bars all, even meritorious, future
litigation, and class members are given mere trifles, such as coupons
for products that hardly can be considered just compensation.
Far too often, Federal jurisdiction is defeated by joining just one
nondiverse class plaintiff--even if the overwhelming number of parties
are from differing states. This wrecks the clear purpose of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23--to provide for a Federal forum for class
actions where the litigation problem is national in scope. A federal
forum ameliorates myriad state judicial decisions that are conflicting
in scope and onerous to enforce. Now, I am a great proponent of
federalism and the right of our states to act as what Justice Brandeis
termed national laboratories of change. But it is axiomatic that a
national problem needs an uniform solution. That is the justification
for Congress' Commerce Clause power and its consequent promulgation of
Rule 23. That is the justification for the Y2K Act itself, in which the
Y2K defect is clearly a national problem in need of a Federal answer.
Because of the short 2 or 3 year timespan for litigation, all of
these problems are magnified in the Y2K context. There already have
been filed 31 Y2K class action lawsuits with all the attendant problems
associated with class action abuse. Before all is said and done, I
expect many more to be filed. S. 96 deals with the problems generated
by class actions in two ways: first, a certification requirement to
demonstrate a common material defect is mandated. This assures that
class action joinder is available only if common questions of law and
fact exist. Second, minimal diversity is allowed. Thus, a substantial
number of parties must be from different states and joinder of one or
two nondiverse parties cannot defeat Federal jurisdiction. Moreover, to
assure that Federal courts are not saturated with class actions
independently filed or removed from state court, the amount in
controversy must be over one million dollars.
To its credit, the Kerry Amendment adopts the common material defects
showing requirement. But it is silent as to the need for minimal
diversity to assure that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction over
what is after all a national problem. To be sure, I am aware that the
Judicial Conference opposes this provision fearing a substantial
increase in Federal class actions. But I am also aware of their
tendency to overreact. They made no study of the issue. Their concerns
were mere ipse dixits, statements made as true with no foundation as to
their truth.
To the contrary, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has made
a study of both S. 96, the bill reported out of Commerce, and S. 461,
the Hatch-Feinstein Y2K measure, the bill reported out of the Judiciary
Committee. Both bills have nearly identical provisions.
Concerning the class action provisions of S. 461, CBO first
recognized that because of the incentives found in the bill it expects
``that parties to lawsuits would be encouraged to reach a settlement.
Thus, we anticipate that many lawsuits would not result in trial, which
can be [time-consuming] and expensive.'' CBO went on and noted that
``some class action lawsuits could be shifted from state to federal
court under S. 461 because the bill would ease restrictions for filing
such actions in Federal court.'' What is important, however, is their
ultimate conclusion: ``On balance, CBO estimates that the savings from
eliminating trials for many lawsuits would more than offset any
increased costs that might be incurred from trying additional class
action lawsuits in federal court.'' (My emphasis). In other words, in
the only study done of the class action issue, it is concluded that the
Y2K Act's class action provision would not result in the flooding of
the federal courts with unneeded and expensive litigation.
A provision of S. 96 that the Kerry Amendment actually strikes is the
punitive damages limitation provision. Now both S. 96 and S. 461
contained caps on punitive damage awards. The caps applied to all
prevailing parties and limited punitive damages to the greater of three
times compensatory damages or $250,000, or the lesser of that amount if
a small business was the defendant. The reason for these caps are
clear. Runaway punitive damages have hindered economic growth and
productivity nationwide. Businesses are often forced to settle spurious
suits when faced with millions in punitive damages. Thus, prices for
goods and services are unnecessarily raised with consumers suffering
the most. Because of the concentrated time period, this problem will be
magnified for Y2K actions.
The bipartisan Dodd-McCain-Hatch-Feinstein amendment modifies the
punitive damage provision. In the spirit of compromise, the caps were
limited to small business and individuals with a net worth of less than
$500,000. There were two reasons for this change. The first is that
small businesses and most individuals would be ruined by immense
punitive dmamages. The other reason is that punitive damages in this
situation do not serve the intended deterrent effect. In fact,
insolvency and bankruptcy creates a counterincentive to remediate Y2K
glitches. Why would a small business voluntarily notify customers of
potential Y2K defects if the business could face ruin for its good
citizenship?
But Senator Kerry even opposes this watered down provision. The
reason for Senator Kerry's opposition for even this moderate provsion
is that even caps for small business would allegedly reduce the
deterrent effect of those damages. Surely, however, the prospect of
treble damages provides adequate incentives for companies that need
monetary threats to make efforts at compliance. The current, unlimited
punitive regime simply encourages suits by lawyers who hope to hit the
lottery, while driving up the settlement value of insubstantial claims.
Let me turn to the proportionate liability section of S. 96. It is
good to see that Senator Kerry has moved closer to our position. Prior
drafts of his amendment completely weakened this provision. Senator
Kerry's latest attempt in most respects is verbatim the same as the
bipartisan amendment.

[[Page 12087]]

The system of modified proportionate liability in S. 96 makes sense
as a matter of both equity and of litigation management. Based on the
already existing proportionate liability provision of the Federal
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, it ensures that
defendants will not be forced to pay for injuries that are not their
fault. It discourages specious lawsuits because plaintiffs' lawyers
will not be able to take advantage of the archaic joint and several
liability doctrine whereby a deep-pocket defendant will inevitably have
to pay the entire judgment so long as a jury can be persuaded to find
it is even one percent responsible. And the proportionate lability
section will avoid coercive settlements prevalent in a joint and
several liability scheme.
The Kerry provision essentially adopts the proposal in S. 96, which
recognizes that it is unfair to assume that defendants should be forced
to pay for damages that are not their fault. But the Kerry draft also
eliminates proportionate liability if the defendant fails to inform the
plaintiff of a potential Y2K problem before December 31, 1999. This is
true even if the defendant business demonstrates that it was innocent,
or had no knowledge of the defect. Suppose a retailer, having no reason
to believe the manufactured product sold was defective, could not and
did not notify the purchaser of the Y2K defect. In that case the
retailer would be subject to joint and several liability under Kerry.
The result is that deep-pocketed defendants who are subject to strike
suits will have to assume that they face limitless liability, and,
therefore, will have no choice but to pay a coercive settlement, even
if the defendant was innocent of any knowledge of the defect.
The Kerry Amendment duty to mitigate requirement has been so limited
that it will not encourage remediation. The amendment provides that
plaintiffs cannot recover damages for injuries that they could have
reasonably avoided in light of information provided to the plaintiff by
the defendant. It does not impose such a limit if the plaintiff
obtained the relevant information from third parties or other sources.
The provision in the Kerry Amendment is much more narrow than the
general common law of the duty to mitigate. If the plaintiff in fact
obtained information from any source that would have allowed it to
avoid injury, it makes no sense to allow the plaintiff to ignore that
information, to suffer the injury, and then to force someone else to
pay its damages.
There is another significant problem with the Kerry Amendment. The
amendment eliminates all intentional torts--except where the tort
involves fraud or misrepresentation about the product--from the scope
of S. 96's codification of the Economic Loss Rule, regardless of the
relationship between the parties. This exemption would significantly
narrow existing law in many states and undermine the purpose of the
Rule in cases involving two contracting parties.
Breach of contract, intentional or otherwise, does not generally give
rise to a tort claim; it is simply breach of contract. The Economic
Loss Rule thus prevents tort remedies--such as lost profits and other
economic losses--where the parties were in privity and could have
negotiated consequential damages and other economic losses. The rapidly
emerging trend, therefore, among the States is to apply the Economic
Loss Rule to bar fraud claims where those claims merely restate claims
for breach of contract. The Rule does not, however, bar fraud claims
arising independent of a contract. Additionally, the Kerry Amendment
would significantly override State law and allow recovery of economic
loss in cases of intentional torts even where such recovery would be
prohibited by State law. This seems to create a new cause of action for
recovery of economic loss in cases of intentional torts and is
unacceptable. The Kerry Amendment also would apply the Economic Loss
Rule to only actual defects and not anticipated failures. Thus many
lawsuits based on anticipated failures would not fall under the
Economic Loss Rule.
Finally, the Kerry Amendment carve-out for noncommercial suits will
permit a huge range of abusive actions. Carving out noncommercial
suits--including class actions--will permit a huge range of abusive
actions. Abusive class actions on behalf of consumers are one of the
greatest dangers in the Y2K area because such suits are easily created
and controlled by plaintiffs' lawyers. While the Kerry Amendment does
apply the minimum injury certification requirement to individual class
actions, it does not apply to the proportionate liability and other
substantive provisions in such cases. Besides, why should not consumers
get the benefit of the bill's terms, which will speed remediation and
negate the need for costly lawsuits, as CBO opined.
It is clear that the Kerry Amendment has serious flaws. I sincerely
believe that Senator Kerry and the sponsors of his amendment are well-
meaning. Their goals are in harmony with ours. But they are mistaken if
they believe that their proposal would solve the Y2K problem. That is
why I ask all Senators to support S. 96, as modified by S. 1138, the
Dodd-McCain-Hatch-Feinstein amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, as the Senate considers S. 96, the Y2K Act,
I rise to first praise the bipartisan work of Senator McCain and
Senator Wyden. They have worked tirelessly to construct an effective,
fair bill that will address the important issue of liability as it
relates to the Year 2000--or Y2K. There are enough challenges for
America's industry and governments to ensure that they are Y2K
compliant. We all know how vexing computer problems can be.
This bill is constructive, positive legislation. It allows companies
in the information technology industry to focus their limited resources
on solving Y2K related problems in computer software by preventing
frivolous litigation. Litigation which would divert those limited
resources away from solving Y2K programming deficiencies.
With only 205 days left until the globe turns the page on the
calendar to a new century and a new millennium, the Y2K problem is a
crucial matter and must be fixed.
Lawsuits are already being filed regarding the Y2K problem, and
Congress must act now to ensure that frivolous suits are prevented. Our
legal system allows those who have indeed suffered because of the fault
of another party to have their grievances adjudicated in court. This
bill protects that process. This bill allows plaintiffs to bring suit
for Y2K related problems if these problems are not addressed. This
bill, however, prevents and places limits on opportunistic and
unwarranted suits.
Senator McCain and Senator Wyden have worked closely together to
address this relevant matter, and I congratulate them for their
efforts. Their approach has gained support from a substantial number of
our colleagues--from both sides of the aisle.
I would also like to recognize the efforts of Senator Hatch and the
Judiciary Committee. They too have brought additional attention and
clarity to the issue of Y2K liability problems. Senator Bennett and the
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem have also been
invaluable in educating the Senate. Although his task force does not
have legislative authority, he has explored all facets of the public
policy dilemma. The Special Committee has continued to investigate this
matter and provide education on preparations for the new century.
Yes, there were three separate efforts from three different vantage
points to ensure that the Senate gets to a solution rapidly. The
participating Senators have brought expertise and legitimate concerns
from their various roles and responsibilities within the Senate. All of
our colleagues will benefit from their collective efforts.
I am delighted that, without further delay, the full Senate can now
begin consideration of S. 96--the result of the diligent efforts of
many. I am proud to be a cosponsor and urge all Senators to support a
solution that ensures America's continued prosperity.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

[[Page 12088]]

Mr. McCAIN. I remind my colleagues of a letter that has already been
made a part of the Record from the Year 2000 Coalition, which has more
organizations and groups in it probably than I have ever seen--the
entire high-tech community--addressed to Senator Kerry:
``We urge you to support S. 96 and to not introduce an amendment to
it.''
``[T]he Coalition does not support the amendment . . . that is being
circulated in your name.''
Have no doubt about where the high-tech community is on this
amendment.
I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes for the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
Let me just again state to my colleagues, this is a 3-year bill. We
are not changing tort law for all time. We are not even changing tort
law. This is narrow in scope. It affects just Y2K issues for a limited
duration to try to resolve the Y2K issues.
Let me say to my friend from Massachusetts, again, I respect what his
intentions may be, but the adoption of the Kerry amendment expands,
rather than contracts, the area of law we are trying to deal with here.
My colleague from Oregon has stated it well. You cannot, because you
do not like the contract, all of a sudden decide you want to get into
torts. I appreciate a plaintiff's lawyer wanting to do that, but we
ought to be trying to fix these problems, not litigate these problems.
That is what the McCain bill is designed to do.
My fervent hope is my colleagues will understand the fundamental
difference and support the underlying legislation and not allow this
bill to be destroyed, in effect, by adopting a measure here that would
create more litigation, more problems, make it far more difficult for
Americans who are going to be afflicted by this problem with the Y2K
issue. With all due respect to its authors, I urge the rejection of the
amendment and the support of the underlying McCain bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 610.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and
the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 41, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 159 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NAYS--41

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone

NOT VOTING--2

Campbell
Crapo

The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy
now be recognized to offer an amendment with debate limited to 30
minutes equally divided, and following that debate the Senate proceed
to vote in relation to the Leahy amendment with no amendments in order
prior to the vote.
Before I finish this unanimous consent request, for the benefit of my
colleagues, I do not intend to use the full 15 minutes on this side. I
think my colleagues can anticipate a time for a pretty rapid vote by
the time Senator Leahy is finished.
Finally, I ask my colleagues who have amendments on the list of 12
amendments to agree to time agreements, so perhaps we could dispense
with this bill tomorrow at an early moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask my time not begin until the Senate is
in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.

Amendment No. 611 To Amendment No. 608

(Purpose: To exclude consumers from the Act's restrictions on seeking
redress for the harm caused by Y2K computer failures)

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 611.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) proposes an amendment
numbered 611 to amendment No. 608.

Mr. LEAHY. 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:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . EXCLUSION FOR CONSUMERS.

(a) Consumer Actions.--This Act does not apply to any Y2K
action brought by a consumer.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Consumer.--The term ``consumer'' means an individual
who acquires a consumer product for purposes other than
resale.
(2) Consumer product.--The term ``consumer product'' means
any personal property or service which is normally used for
personal, family, or household purposes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this bill as presently drafted would
preempt the consumer protection laws of each of the 50 states and
restrict the legal rights of consumers who are harmed by Y2K computer
failures.
Why is this bill creating new protections for large corporations
while taking away existing protections for the ordinary citizen?
We all know that individual consumers do not have the same knowledge
or bargaining power in the marketplace as businesses with more
resources. Many consumers may not be aware of potential Y2K problems in
the products that they buy for personal, family or household purposes.
Consumers just go to the local store downtown or in the neighborhood
mall to buy a home computer or the latest software package. They expect
their new purchase to work. But what if it does not work because of a
Y2K problem?
Then the average consumer should be able to use his or her home
state's consumer protection laws to get a refund, replacement part or
other justice.
The liability limits in S. 96 would protect companies whose acts or
omissions result in harm to consumers' products or services--even if
those companies manufactured or sold products that they knew would fail
when the date changes to the Year 2000.
Is that fair?
Let me give you a real life example of how an ordinary person might
be harmed by this bill. In 1999, Joe Consumer buys a computer program
and on the package is the claim: ``This software is guaranteed to serve
you well for years to come.'' But in the fine print in the shrink wrap
that comes with the software is a disclaimer of all warranties, either
express or implied.
Joe Consumer's software package, that he brought in 1999, is not Y2K
compliant. He calls and writes the software company to get it fixed but
all he gets in response is a form letter telling him to buy the latest
upgrade.
Under this bill, Joe Consumer would have to wait 90 days for his day
in

[[Page 12089]]

court and might not have a remedy at all.
Joe Consumer would normally be able to pursue justice based on a
failure of the implied warranty of marketability of the software
because it was not Y2K compliant. Or he would normally be able to
pursue justice under his state consumer protection laws. And he
normally would be able to pursue justice with other consumers harmed by
this Y2K defective software on a fairer and more efficient class-action
basis. But not under S. 96.
This bill says that the written contract prevails, even if it limits
or excludes warranties. Enforceable written contracts under this bill
would include the fine-print, boiler-plate language that is standard in
the packaging of computer hardware or software.
A consumer does not have any power to negotiate this fine print,
boiler-plate, shrink-wrap. This shrink wrap is all one sided in favor
of the computer manufacturer. In fact, in some cases, computer
manufacturers even try to take away the right of a consumer to go to
court in the fine print of their shrink wrap. In addition, this bill
would override the Uniform Commercial Code and all state laws that
protect consumers by making certain warranty disclaimers unenforceable.
The consumer protections in the U.C.C. and state law protect individual
consumers from having unfair terms imposed on them by manufacturers of
products with far greater economic power.
But this bill makes all state consumer protection laws null and void
against the fine print terms of any computer manufacturer's shrink
wrap. Maybe we should rename this bill, the ``Y2K Shrink Wrap
Protection Act.''
Moreover, S. 96 would severely restrict the use of class actions by
consumers even when common questions of fact and law predominate in
their cases and the class action would be a fair and efficient method
to resolving their dispute. The use of class actions in state courts
permit consumers to band together to seek justice in ways that an
individual could not afford to take on alone. These state laws were
enacted to protect the average consumer.
But these basic consumer protections would be eliminated under this
bill's Federal peremption provisions.
And no new Federal rights for consumers would replace these lost
state consumer protections under this bill. That is not right.
My amendment uses the same consumer exclusion language in last year's
Hatch-Leahy Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act. My
amendment contains the same definition of consumer and consumer product
that was in that consensus measure, which passed the full Senate by a
unanimous vote and was signed into law about seven months ago. Our bill
become law because it was balanced, in sharp contrast to S. 96 as
currently drafted.
I would hope the full Senate could agree to this amendment since it
uses the same language that we agreed to last year on the Y2K
information sharing law.
Last year, when we passed Y2K legislation to encourage remediation
efforts, we clearly let stand existing consumer protections under state
law. This same policy should apply to the pending legislation, which
currently proposes to limit a consumer's legal rights even in cases
involving fraud or other intentional misbehavior by product
manufacturers or sellers.
In fact, the precedent for using last year's Year 2000 Information
and Readiness Disclosure Act as a model for S. 96 have already been
set. S. 96 includes an exclusion for governments acting in a
regulatory, supervisory or enforcement capacity. The exact language in
the bill was lifted from the Y2K information disclosure law of last
year. I believe this government exception make sense, particularly for
SEC enforcement actions, and improves the underlying bill.
Moreover, section 13(d) of S. 96 also explicitly provides that the
protections for sharing information in our Y2K law shall apply to this
bill.
If the protections for businesses from last year's Y2K information
disclosure law are good enough for this bill, then the exclusion from
last year's Y2K law for consumers should also be good enough for this
bill. Last year's Y2K information disclosure law was a balanced measure
in part because it protected consumers from its provisions. Adding the
same consumer carve out by adopting my amendment would give balance to
this one-sided bill.
Passing this amendment would improve the chances of S. 96 actually
being signed into law by the President, instead of being vetoed as a
bill that protects special interests at the expense of the average
consumer. My amendment is supported by consumer rights associations
including Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Consumers Federation of
America, and the United States Public Interest Research Group. I ask
unanimous consent that a letter from these consumer advocates in
support of the Leahy amendment be printed in the Record at the end of
my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, allowing consumers access to their home
state consumer protection laws is the right thing to do. I urge my
colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Exhibit 1

Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of
America, U.S. PIRG,
June 8, 1999.
Dear Senator: As the full Senate prepares to consider S.
96, The McCain-Wyden-Dodd legislation limiting the liability
of companies responsible for Y2K computer processing
failures, the undersigned consumer groups remain concerned
about the negative effects this legislation will have on
consumers with legitimate Y2K claims. While we would support
legislation to provide incentives to companies to evaluate
and address Y2K problems and product defects, we believe that
S. 96 will have the opposite consequences.
Insulating companies from Y2K liability will only serve to
protect those who have done the least to address their
problems and will render consumers far more vulnerable as a
result. We ask that you support the Leahy amendment, which
would exempt consumer cases from this legislation. Most
experts expect Y2K litigation to be brought primarily by
businesses against other businesses. These litigants will
have contracts with one another that have been drafted to
protect their individual interests. Consumers will not have
benefit of these protections in the marketplace.
In addition, there is federal precedent for a consumer
carve-out in Y2K legislation. The language of the Leahy
amendment is the same language that appears in the law passed
last year, the Y2K Readiness and disclosure Act. Among the
provisions of S. 96 that are most harmful to consumers:
Elimination of Joint and Several Liability. The sweeping
change in this longstanding tort concept will likely leave
consumers uncompensated for damages if one or more defendants
cannot be held liable for the full amount of loss suffered.
The two narrow exceptions to this provision will be of little
benefit to most plaintiffs, and many could be left without
full compensation, even for their economic losses.
Class Actions Removed to Federal Court. Any class action
with aggregated damages of $1 million or more could be
removed to federal court, where cases are likely to face a
large backlog of cases and thus long delays and additional
expense. S. 96 also requires notification by return mail to
each potential plaintiff in a class action, a provision that
may well make bringing these cases financially and
practically impossible--leaving class members without a
remedy.
Caps on Punitive Damages. S. 96 caps punitive damage at
$250,000 or three times compensatory damages, whichever is
less, for defendants with a net worth less than $500,000 or
businesses with fewer than 50 employees, unless plaintiffs
can prove the defendant specifically intended to injure them.
Caps on punitive damages send the wrong signals to the most
irresponsible companies, acting as a disincentive to fix
problems before they occur.
Disclaimer of Implied Warranties. In most states, products
are warranted to be fit for the purpose for which they are
sold. Under S. 96, warranty disclaimers on the packaging or
software--the fine print that consumers rarely read--may keep
consumers from recovering for defective products and the
losses they cause, unless they are proven to manifestly
contradict state law, a difficult standard to meet.
For these reasons, we ask you to support Senator Leahy's
consumer protection/consumer carve-out amendment.

[[Page 12090]]

____
Examples of How Senate Y2K Liability Bill is Unfair to Consumers

The examples below demonstrate the ways in which S. 96
would make it difficult, if not impossible, for consumers
with legitimate claims to get full compensation from
responsible parties. This legislation will have a direct
effect on consumers and will likely result in many consumers
being left without a remedy for Y2K problems.

the case of the non-compliant software

In 1998, Mrs. Betty Barnes purchases a new home computer,
paying an extra $500 for special software that will allow her
to pay her bills and manage her household finances using the
system. One year later, Mrs. Barnes finds that the software
is not Y2K compliant and will not work after the Year 2000.
She calls the store where she bought the software to get a
version of the software that will work. The store tells her a
``patch'' to correct the problem is available but will cost
an additional $250. Mrs. Barnes then writes to the software
manufacturer asking for a fix for the defective program. The
manufacturer writes back within 30 days telling her that she
will have to pay $250 for the Y2K compliant version of the
program.
Under the bill, Mrs. Barnes must wait an additional 60 days
before she can bring any legal action against the software
manufacturer. The manufacturer has met its obligation by
responding to the letter even though the company did not
agree to fix the problem for a reasonable price. Mrs. Barnes
has no right to a free fix or a reasonably priced upgrade
under S. 96. She must wait 60 days even if the manufacturer
has proposed an unfair solution to the problem. Mrs. Barnes
has no bargaining power to force the manufacturer to offer a
more fair solution.
S. 96 does have an exception to the 60-day waiting period:
Mrs. Barnes can sue for injunctive relief. She speaks to a
lawyer and finds out this will not help her in her case.
Injunctive relief is difficult to obtain; it requires proof
of (1) irreparable injury if the problem is not dealt with
immediately, (2) a strong likelihood of winning on the merits
and (3) no adequate remedy at law. Mrs. Barnes is unlikely to
be able to prove irreparable injury. Even if she could, her
likelihood of prevailing on the merits is diminished by the
federal law that makes it harder for plaintiffs in Y2K cases
to win. (She could show that she has no adequate remedy at
law because she cannot sue at this stage.)
Mrs. Barnes is forced to wait for two months before she can
file suit. During this time, she is unable to use the
software for which she paid $500.00--she can't balance her
checkbook, she can't pay her insurance or mortgage, she can't
do her taxes.
After the 60-day period expires, Mrs. Barnes lawyer files
suit against the software manufacturer. under S. 96, she has
to plead her case with specificity, even though she knows
little at this point about her case except that her software
isn't Y2K compliant and she has been barred from conducting
any discovery while the 60 day period ran out. The
manufacturer moves to dismiss the case, arguing that S. 96
protects them from Mrs. Barnes' suit. The software package
has a disclaimer that says, in fine print, ``there are no
warranties, express or implied, that apply to the sale of
this product.'' Under S. 96, the terms of a contract--
including a warranty--prevail over any consumer protection
statutes in state law unless the language in the contract is
deemed to ``manifest and directly'' contradict state law. The
software company argues that the state law that disfavors
this kind of disclaimer does not ``manifestly and directly''
contradict state law. Since this is an issue of first
impression, each side must present legal arguments on this
issue, adding much cost and delay to the suit. If Mrs. Barnes
loses, she will have no legal recourse, even if the
manufacturer knowingly sold her defective software.
Luckily, Mrs. Barnes survives the motion to dismiss. She
and her lawyer now have the chance to conduct discovery. They
learn that there are a number of companies involved in
manufacturing of her particular software, and they move to
add them as defendants. The companies based in the United
States claim little or no responsibility for the Y2K failure.
They all point to a Japanese software maker as the source of
the problem. Mrs. Barnes can't sue the Japanese software
maker since it does not do business in the U.S. If the jury
finds that the Japanese company is the defendant most at
fault, S. 96's limitations on joint and several liability
will mean Mrs. Barnes can never recover fully for her
damages.
Without evidence of specific intent to injure nor knowing
commission of fraud, as required under S. 96, Mrs. Barnes
cannot hold all defendants jointly and severally liable. Mrs.
Barnes learns that the U.S. manufacturer recklessly placed
this software on the market without bothering to check that
is was Y2K compliant. But ``reckless conduct'' isn't enough
under S. 96 to allow the court to hold the U.S. manufacturer
liable for the entire injury, even though the injury could
not have occurred without its participation. Since Mrs.
Barnes damages are not equal to 10% of her net worth as
required under S. 96, she is not eligible to use that
provision to bring the case for an ``uncollectible'' share.
Mrs. Barnes can get only that percentage the jury says the
U.S. manufacturer is responsible for causing.
If the Japanese company is judgment-proof, the U.S.
manufacturer could be responsible for up to 50% more of its
initial share. If the jury finds the U.S. manufacturer was
20% liable and the Japanese company was 80% liable, and Mrs.
Barnes can't collect from the Japanese company, the U.S.
manufacturer is responsible for 50% more than its original
share, a total of 30%. Mrs. Barnes can never recover the
other 70% damages she is owned.

the case of the consumer class action

S. 96 provisions on class actions will result in
meritorious cases being dismissed, leaving consumers with no
practical means for collecting damages.
Assume the same facts as above, but this time Mrs. Barnes
learns that a number of other consumers have bought the same
software and are having the same problems. Together they file
a class action suit in Mrs. Barnes' home state against the
manufacturer. They are able to meet the material defect
requirement imposed on those filing class actions as well as
the heightened pleading standards. The manufacturer, noting
that there are plaintiffs from a number of different states,
under the rules of S. 96 would be entitled to file a motion
to remove the case to federal court. The federal court,
required to resolve differences between and among state laws,
decides there are not enough common issues of law among the
various state laws, and the class action is returned to the
state. The class is disbanded there. While individuals are
free to bring suit on their own, each case is for such small
monetary value, few consumers or lawyers are interested or
willing to pursue the case individually. Mrs. Barnes can't
find a lawyer to take her case and she is left without a
remedy.

the case of the chemical disaster

Mrs. Jacqueline Jensen owns a home several streets away
from the Acme Chemical Company. Like 85 million other
Americans, she lives and works within 5 miles of the one or
more of the nation's 66,000 facilities that handle or store
high hazard chemicals.
On January 1, 2000 Acme's safety system fails and hazardous
chemicals are released into the air and onto the land in the
neighborhoods, forcing Mrs. Jensen and others to evacuate
their homes. People are allowed back to their homes after 2
days, but Mrs. Jensen's property is contaminated, including
her well. Mrs. Jensen retains an attorney and files a tort
claim to recover for the damage to her property.
Acme Chemical claims that a Y2K computer failure was
partially at fault for the safety system malfunction. Mrs.
Jensen did not know Y2K was a defense, so she and her lawyer
did not look up the new statute or file a per-litigation
notice before filing suit. Under S. 96, Acme treats the
complaint as the notice, even though it does not contain all
of the required information because Mrs. Jensen and her
lawyer initially had no idea this was a Y2K case and there
was a new law to follow in addition to the requirements of
filing a civil suit under state law.
Under S. 96, even when consumers' homes and surrounding
properly is contaminated, they cannot file suit right away,
even though they aren't waiting for a computer malfunction to
be fixed. The waiting period applies to all cases, even those
where it is not relevant. Mrs. Jensen must wait 30 days for
Acme to respond to her notice/complaint. In 30 days Acme
responds by saying it cannot pay for the cleanup and lost
value of Mrs. Jensen's home. Nonetheless, Mrs. Jensen still
must wait an additional 60 days to refile her lawsuit. S. 96
only requires defendants to state what steps, if any, they
will take within 60 days for the additional waiting period to
commence. All discovery is stayed during this period, so Mrs.
Jensen and her attorney have no way to gather additional
information about the events surrounding the chemical spill.
In two months, Mrs. Jensen refiles her suits against Acme
and Safety Systems, Inc., the company that installed its
computers. Under S. 96, she must plead her case with
particularity in the complaint. While she can state her
damages as required, she has difficulty specifying the
material defect that caused the accident and specific
evidence of the defendants' state of mind since she has still
not been able to do discovery in the case. The defendants
move to dismiss the complaint for failure to meet the
pleading requirements. After briefs back and forth debating
what the new law requires, the judge does dismiss the case
but without prejudice, allowing Mrs. Jensen an opportunity to
file an amended complaint (now her third).
Somehow, Mrs. Jensen finds enough information to survive
another motion to dismiss and finally has her day in court.
After hearing the case, the jury finds that both defendants
acted recklessly and outrageously for not identifying and
fixing the Y2K problems at the plant, and awards Mrs. Jensen
$300,000 to compensate her for her property damages and the
need to replace her water supply. The jury finds that Acme is
70 percent responsible and Safety Systems 30% liable. The
jury also finds by clear and convincing evidence that Acme's
conduct is so outrageous as to warrant punitive damages and
assesses a one million-dollar punitive damage award. The jury
also finds substantial evidence that Safety Systems knew the
system it installed

[[Page 12091]]

might not work and that it should have fixed the Y2K problem,
which is enough for them to be assessed punitive damages
under state law, but Mrs. Jensen could not make that showing
by clear and convincing evidence as required by S. 96.
Under S. 96, a consumer who suffers harm limited in amount
of punitive damages she can collect. The total amount of Mrs.
Jensen's award from the jury is $1.3 million dollars--
$1,210,000 against Acme ($210,000 compensatory and $1,000,000
punitive) and $90,000 against Safety Systems. Acme employes
40 people, so the punitive damages awarded against them is
reduced by the judge according to the cap under S. 96 to
$250,000. The adjusted award is now $550,000 against Acme and
Safety Systems.
Acme cannot pay for all of the damage caused by the
accicent to Mrs. Jensen and her neighbors and files for
bankruptcy. Safety Systems pays Jensen $90,000, but this is
not nearly enough to let her clean up her property and get a
new water supply--especially after she pays her legal costs.
She tries to collect from Acme, but without success. After 3
months, she applies to the court to require Safety Systems to
pay the rest of the compensatory damage award. Under state
law, they could be required to pay the full amount, but under
S. 96, the maximum they would have to pay is 30% of the
uncollectible share but no more than 50% over Safety Systems'
own contribution. Under this formula, Mrs. Jensen is able to
collect an additional $45,000 from Safety Systems, leaving
her with a actual unrecoverable damages to her property--i.e.
direct economic loss--of $165,000 exclusive of legal fees and
costs.
Although the jury found that Safety Systems acted
recklessly, they do not have to pay the full amount of the
compensatory award--even if they could afford to do so.
Under her state's law, Mrs. Jensen would have received
$1,300,000, that is, full compensation for her losses from
the responsible parties. Because of S. 96, Mrs. Jensen will
be left with only $135,000, not nearly enough to compensate
for her loss and pay her legal fees and costs.

the case of the disclosed medical records

Mrs. Sally Sargent lives in a small town. Her physician is
treating her for HIV. She has been seen at the local hospital
during bouts of pneumonia, but more recently has been on
drugs that have improved her overall health and enabled her
to work. Her biggest fear is that her employer will learn of
her HIV status, which will surely mean the loss of her job in
a rather straight-laced company and that her children will be
ostracized at school. She has been assured by the hospital
that all of her records will be kept confidential.
The hospital records department ignored its potential Y2K
problem, though they were warned by hospital administrators
to check the record system for Y2K bugs. As a result, the
hospital's computer records are mistakenly distributed to
abroad group of hospital personnel. One of those hospital
employees has a child who attends school with Mrs. Sargent's
daughter. This mother becomes very agitated, calls the school
with the information, and before long the rumor about Mrs.
Sargent's medical condition gets around to the whole
community. Mrs. Sargent's daughter is ostracized from her
classmates, and she herself suffers great emotional distress.
When her employer discovers she has HIV, she is fired from
her job.
Under S. 96, her emotional distress and mental suffering
claim is not exempted from the bill, as are personal injury
cases involving physical injuries. Failing to exempt cases
brought for emotional distress and mental suffering, if they
happen to occur unaccompanied by physical injury, is grossly
unfair to individuals who have suffered real harm. In this
case, Mrs. Sargent would have to meet all of the procedural
hurdles and substantive legal limitations if she tried to sue
the hospital for negligent or intentional infliction of
emotional distress and her lost wages and related damages.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment, for all intents and
purposes, will emasculate the bill. It will deny consumers, those least
able to pay for attorneys, to hire attorneys to solve any Y2K problems,
the average consumer the ability to resolve a problem quickly, within a
maximum of 90 days, without litigation.
It also allows more of the Tom Johnson-type lawsuits: No requirement
that there be an actual injury, no requirement that there be a real
problem. This would negate the attempt by S. 96 to limit frivolous
lawsuits.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. LEAHY. I understand the distinguished Democratic leader desires
to speak, so I will hold the floor for a moment.
Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator want an up-or-down vote?
Mr. LEAHY. Please.
So colleagues will understand, in last year's Y2K bill which this
Senate passed unanimously, which the President signed into law, we had
basic consumer protections and business protections. In this bill, we
bring forward business protections but we don't bring forward the
consumer protections we passed last year.
Let's be consistent; let's make sure we give consumers at least as
much protection as we give businesses. That is what I am asking for and
all I am asking for in the Leahy amendment. I also say if it passes, it
improves the chance of this actually being signed into law.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I
applaud the Senator for his amendment.

12,000th Vote for Senator Stevens

Mr. DASCHLE. Today, I call the attention of all my colleagues to a
very important and historic achievement by one of the Senate's most
remarkable Members. With this vote, Ted Stevens will cast his 12,000th
vote in his career.
It is certainly fitting that Senator Stevens represents Alaska in the
United States Senate. He has lived in that great state and worked for
its residents since before it was a state. In fact, as Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior, Ted was instrumental in setting the
groundwork for Alaska's admission to the Union in 1959.
In 1964, Ted was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives. Two
years later, his colleagues elected him House Majority Leader, an honor
that surprises none of us who have first hand knowledge of Ted's
legendary tenacity, legislative acumen and dedication to his
constituents.
Senator Stevens brought that determination and skill to the Senate in
1968. I'm sure that every Senator has his or her own anecdote to
document Ted's dedication and effectiveness as a legislator.
Ted once declared that his constituents ``sent me here to stand up
for the state of Alaska.'' No one who served with Ted over the past
thirty years can doubt his commitment to do just that.
In fact, some surely wonder at times if he isn't more of an
ambassador than a Senator.
Ted has endeavored to ensure that promises made to Alaska under the
Statehood Act are kept. He helped pass the Native Claims Act in 1971
and played a pivotal role in bringing the oil pipeline to Alaska in
1973. He joined with Senator Warren Magnuson in co-authoring the 200
mile fishing limit that protects all coastal states from encroachment
by foreign fishing fleets and helps sustain America's fisheries.
In the late 1970s, when President Carter made the creation of
wilderness areas in Alaska a national priority, Ted worked with his
characteristic focus and tenacity to ensure that the Alaska Lands Act
protected his state's interests as much as possible. After the Exxon
Valdez accident in 1989, Ted managed legislation that not only financed
the cleanup of the despoiled coastline, but also required double-
hulling on tankers.
Senator Stevens has worked tirelessly and effectively for Alaska. But
his accomplishments are certainly not limited to the 49th state. Ted's
career documents his far reaching influence on national policy and
dedication to the institution of the Senate as well.
Ted has been a leader in the defense area for his entire career, as
chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and now the full
Appropriations Committee. And he has developed recognized expertise in
science and technology issues through his long and distinguished
service on the Commerce Committee as well.
Ted has a deep affection for the Senate and has labored to preserve
the character, integrity and prerogatives of the institution. He has
chaired the Rules Committee and served in the leadership as Majority
Whip.
Ted Stevens is recognized for his no-nonsense style, limitless energy
and ability to get things done--not to mention an impressive collection
of neckties.
Everybody in the Senate knows that Ted's word is good, and he has
earned

[[Page 12092]]

the high esteem of his colleagues through his hard work and devotion to
his job.
Mr. President, it is indeed a pleasure to serve with Ted Stevens, and
to count him as a friend. I congratulate Ted on his achievement, and
thank him for his numerous contributions to his state, his country and
the United States Senate.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from Alaska,
Senator Ted Stevens on reaching his 12,000th vote. He is a remarkable
colleague and I admire the outstanding leadership that he has shown on
so many issues. Senator Stevens is a person of great integrity and
energy and works tirelessly for his state of Alaska. I have worked
closely with him on many occasions and it is with admiration that we
celebrate his 12,000th vote.
His accomplishments as Chair of the Appropriations Committee are too
numerous to list. Handling the nation's spending is a complex,
difficult task, yet, Senator Stevens handles this responsibility with
finesse and great skill.
Senator Stevens is active on a range of issues that are of great
importance nationally and to his home state of Alaska. He is a great
advocate for fishing families, a great protector of Native-Americans,
and a leader on promoting quality health care and research. His
leadership on national defense is also remarkable.
Senator Stevens holds a special place in his heart for children and
his advocacy on behalf of early education will help us achieve the
nation's school readiness goals. He was one of the first in the Senate
to recognize the importance of new brain research documenting the vital
role of early stimulation during the first three years of life, and he
is a leading advocate for early education. Working to ensure that every
child reaches his or her full potential, Senator Stevens has introduced
legislation that will improve the quality and accessibility of early
programs for millions of children under the age of 6. He is committed
to making sure that children receive the educational boost they need to
start school ready to read and ready to learn. With Senator Stevens
leadership, I know we will make school readiness a reality for every
child in this country.
Senator Stevens also recognizes the importance of the family and the
central role that parents play in their children's lives. While others
talk about putting families first, Senator Stevens acts on that
commitment by including funds on his appropriations bills for this
purpose. Recently, he introduced an amendment to the Juvenile Justice
bill that will provide essential funds to strengthen supports for
parents.
Put simply, Senator Stevens is a credit to Alaska, the Senate, and
this country. He is a great Senator and a good friend. We are fortunate
to be able to celebrate his 12,000th vote with him, and look forward to
many more votes in the future from this great Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend Senator Daschle for his comments
about Senator Stevens. He is about to cast his 12,000th vote.
Senator Daschle observed the interesting array of Ted Stevens' tie.
My favorite one is the Tasmanian devil. When he comes in with that tie
on, you know an appropriations bill is fixing to be moved through the
Senate. But he has been a great Member of the Senate. He is a great
friend. He is a credit to his State of Alaska.
He has had an unbelievable career, including being a Flying Tiger,
the 14th Air Force, in World War II. He is a graduate of UCLA and
Harvard Law School. He has overcome that. He was a solicitor at the
Interior Department under the Eisenhower administration, and he
certainly was a powerful advocate for Alaska statehood. He served in
the Alaska House of Representatives. He was appointed to the Senate in
1968, and he has been elected five times since.
My greatest experience with the distinguished Senator from Alaska was
when he served as the whip of the majority in the Senate, and I was the
whip for the minority in the House. Unlike what most people think,
where there is this natural difficulty between the House and the
Senate, he was never anything but helpful to me personally. He helped
the two institutions work together. Because of his leadership, we
addressed a number of important problems for the legislative activities
and the security of the U.S. Capitol Building.
His wife Catherine and six children are here, a wonderful assemblage
of people. Catherine does a great job at keeping Senator Stevens on the
straight and narrow. She is a wonderful lady. We thank her for the
sacrifice she makes in allowing Senator Stevens to be here, sometimes
through late nights, to allow him to accumulate these 12,000 votes.
On behalf of the Senate, I extend our appreciation and thanks to
Senator Stevens, a great Senator from Alaska, for what he has done for
his State and for our Nation.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
Mr. STEVENS. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. President, I am humbled and honored by the statements of our two
leaders in the Senate. It is true I have a deep reverence for this
body. When I was in the Eisenhower administration, I sat up in the
gallery many nights during the period when the Senate was considering
Alaska's statehood. I gained the reverence that I have for the body now
from those experiences.
It is truly an honor to serve in this body. Some people, I guess,
have taken it a little bit for granted. I still pinch myself every once
in a while to make sure I am allowed the opportunity to be present in
this body, to be a U.S. Senator.
I value the friendships I have had on both sides of the aisle more
deeply than I can say.
I am very proud to say for other reasons many members of my family
are here in the gallery tonight. Our daughter, Lily, graduates from
high school tomorrow. Tonight the National Guard has flown my grandson,
John Covich, into Washington to give me an award from the USO and the
National Guard. So this is a double celebration for me.
Just having the privilege to still be alive and be part of this body
is more than anyone can know after the accident that I had years ago
and the feeling I had about life then turned around. It turned around
primarily because of the friendship and the helping hand I got from
every Member of the Senate who was here then, and I continue to value
the friendship of every one of you tonight. Thank you very much.
(Applause, Senators rising.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if there is any time remaining, I yield it
back. I am pleased to give my friend a chance to cast the 12,000th vote
on this amendment. He is one of the best friends I have ever had in the
Senate.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question
is on agreeing to amendment No. 611. The yeas and nays have been
ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) and
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) are necessarily absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 65, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]

YEAS--32

Akaka
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Reed

[[Page 12093]]

Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Torricelli
Wellstone

NAYS--65

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kerrey
Kyl
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Biden
Crapo
Gregg
The amendment (No. 611) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

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

____________________

GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this morning's headline says it all:
``House GOP Backs NRA's Gun Show Bill.''
Many of us in the Senate worry that the good work done in this
Chamber will be undone in the House. It is hard to believe that the
House leadership is deaf to the pleas of the families who want
Washington to quit playing patty-cake with the gun lobby and pass a
real bill that closes the gun show loophole.
The measure we passed in the Senate was modest--far too modest for
many people's taste. But we said, let us limit it so it does not hurt
the legitimate gun owner but at the same time will close loopholes that
allow kids and criminals to get guns.
Now in the House, because the NRA is actually in the back room, pen
in hand, drafting legislation, we fear that that legislation will be a
sham. Anything less than an airtight Brady background check at gun
shows is a sham. Redefining what a gun show is and making many gun
shows exempt from the law, in effect, to not allow the FBI to make
background checks in the time they need so that criminals cannot get
guns, is all happening right now in the House.
The only thing I can say to my former colleagues in the House, still
my friends, is this: You will not get away with it. When some in this
Chamber tried to change the rules, to make it seem as if they were
doing something, but winking at the NRA, they were thwarted. The same
thing will happen in the House.
There has been a sea change in the views of the American people. Do
the American people want to repeal the second amendment or confiscate
hunting rifles? No way. But do they believe modest measures that will
move us along and prevent kids and criminals from getting guns are in
order, no matter what the NRA says? You bet.
I urge the House leadership to come clean, to step forward, to pass
the same legislation we passed in the Senate on gun shows without any
loopholes, and allow the families in Littleton and the American people
to breathe one large sigh of relief that we finally have begun to make
progress in preventing kids and criminals from getting guns.
I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.

____________________

THE VERY BAD DEBT BOXSCORE

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday,
Tuesday, June 8, 1999, the Federal debt stood at $5,607,597,460,814.09
(Five trillion, six hundred seven billion, five hundred ninety-seven
million, four hundred sixty thousand, eight hundred fourteen dollars
and nine cents).
One year ago, June 8, 1998, the federal debt stood at
$5,495,352,000,000 (Five trillion, four hundred ninety-five billion,
three hundred fifty-two million).
Five years ago, June 8, 1994, the federal debt stood at
$4,605,626,000,000 (Four trillion, six hundred five billion, six
hundred twenty-six million).
Ten years ago, June 8, 1989, the federal debt stood at
$2,787,738,000,000 (Two trillion, seven hundred eighty-seven billion,
seven hundred thirty-eight million).
Fifteen years ago, June 8, 1984, the federal debt stood at
$1,519,266,000,000 (One trillion, five hundred nineteen billion, two
hundred sixty-six million) which reflects a debt increase of more than
$4 trillion--$4,088,331,460,814.09 (Four trillion, eighty-eight
billion, three hundred thirty-one million, eight hundred fourteen
dollars and nine cents) during the past 15 years.

____________________

DSCC AND INVASIONS OF PRIVACY

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to alert my colleagues to what
may be a very disturbing precedent. My office recently received a copy
of a letter dated May 18 and sent from the Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee to the Department of Health and Human Services. I
want to read the first paragraph:

I am writing to request documents pursuant to the Freedom
of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., involving all
correspondence, inquiries and other information requested by
or provided to the following United States Senators for the
time periods noted.

There are some 10 Republican Senators that are listed here over the
last 10 years. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee,

Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
HHS Freedom of Information Officer,

Washington, DC.
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request.

I am writing to request documents pursuant to the Freedom
of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552 et seq. (``FOIA''),
involving all correspondence, inquiries and other information
requested by or provided to the following United States
Senators for the time periods noted: Spencer Abraham, 1995-
present; John Ashcroft, 1995-present; Conrad Burns, 1989-
present; Bill Frist, 1995-present; Slade Gorton, 1981-1986,
1989-present; Rod Grams, 1995-present; James Jeffords, 1989-
present; John Kyl, 1995-present; Rick Santorum, 1991-present;
Olympia Snowe, 1995-present.
I seek all direct correspondence between the Senators or
members of their staff and your office, including letters,
written material, reports, constituent requests and other
relevant material. I am not seeking any secondary material
such as phone logs, e-mails, notations of conversations and
so on. Since this is a request covering a number of years, I
am willing to discuss ways to make this request more
manageable to your office. Please contact me at the number
above or on my direct line at (202) 485-3109.
In the event any of the documents I have requested are not
available for disclosure in their entirety, I request you
release any material that may be reasonably separated and
released, as provided by Code of Federal Regulations.
Furthermore, for any documents, or portions thereof, that are
determined to be exempt from disclosure, I request that you
exercise your discretion to disclose the materials, absent a
finding that sound grounds exist to invoke the exemption, as
provided by the Code of Federal Regulations. I also request
that you state the specific legal and factual grounds for
withholding any documents or portions of documents. Finally,
please identify each document that falls within scope of this
request but is withheld from release.
If any requested documents are located in, or originated
in, another installation or bureau, I request that you refer
this request or any relevant portion of this request to the
appropriate installation or bureau.
I am willing to pay all reasonable costs incurred in
locating and duplicating these materials. Please contact me
prior to processing to approve any fees or charges incurred
in excess of $125.
To help assess my status for copying and mailing fees,
please note that I am a representative of a political
organization gathering information for research purposes
only, and not for any commercial activity.
I look forward to your response within ten days after the
receipt of this request and

[[Page 12094]]

please do not hesitate to call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Alexis L. Schuler,
Research Director.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in this letter, the DSCC is making a broad
request under the Freedom of Information Act regarding any information
sent from my office to HHS or received from the Department. But it just
doesn't include me. I have already said that. It includes a lot of
Senators--10 of them, in fact, all Republicans, all up for reelection
this year.
The Freedom of Information Act request covers, ``all correspondence,
inquiries and other information requested by or provided to'' my office
over the past 10 years in the Senate, including ``all direct
correspondence between the Senators or members of their staff and the
HHS, including letters, written material, reports, constituent requests
[very important] and other relevant materials.'' In other words, they
want access to our casework.
I have written to President Clinton demanding that he put an
immediate stop to this or any similar action. What we are witnessing
here is an unprecedented attempt to corrupt the nonpolitical casework
system of Senate offices for political gain. I find these efforts
repugnant, and if there are any Americans alive who think politics
can't sink any lower, they need to look no further than right here.
Through the letter to the HHS, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee wants more than just to peer into private correspondence of
political enemies; it wants to leer into the private lives of those who
contact their Senator seeking help with Federal agencies. I have made
tens of thousands of contacts on behalf of Montanans who asked me to
help them with problems they are having with the Federal Government.
These are problems which, if publicly revealed, could possibly ruin
their lives. Many of these people are at the end of their emotional
rope. Some of them are at the end of their financial world.
It is beyond belief that the DSCC would consider ruining the lives of
ordinary Americans to be all in a day's work in order to defeat this
old Senator. This effort would put a permanent chill on the ability of
Senators to help constituents in need. It saddens me to think that
those who view a Senator's help as their last resort may now believe
they have nowhere to turn.
Just today, my office received a letter from a man in Billings, MT,
whose wife we helped to receive treatment for breast cancer. As a
Federal employee, she was having a hard time receiving the treatment.
And she was entitled to it. After she asked for our assistance, we were
able to resolve the matter for her and she got the care she needed.
When her cancer spread, the Federal bureaucracy told her she couldn't
get the care she needed close to home.
Quoting his letter to me:

After becoming totally frustrated with the whole process,
we just gave up. But this time we decided to fight the issue
again. I turned to the Senator's office again to enlist his
help. And again in what seemed to be a flash of light, the
situation has been resolved.

Our office again stepped in. We cut the redtape. We helped her
receive the additional radiation therapy while staying at her home in
Billings.
These are the people who depend on our help--real people whose lives
are literally on the line. But the man who sent me the letter
specifically asked that his name not be used in order to protect his
privacy and, yes, that of his wife.
Is it right that he should be subject to a Freedom of Information
request, that some bureaucrat somewhere could decide on a whim to
release this personal, sensitive information? It is hard to comprehend
that the DSCC would use the time and the resources of the
administration for political purposes in such a massive research
effort, regardless of who ultimately pays.
This effort is as constitutionally breathtaking as it is politically
suspect. All those who value their civil rights should be outraged at
this attempt to invade the privacy of countless unwary citizens. If
indeed Federal law permits it, it is an absolute shame. It is enough to
make me wonder whether Americans should now expect politicians to use
any means to achieve their ends--laws, morals, and ethics be damned.
Our President has said he deplores the politics of personal
destruction. However, in this case we are not talking about the
destruction of one political opponent, but the lives of innocent
Americans. And I am sickened by it. I ask the President and all
Americans to stand up against this kind of invasion of privacy, all in
the name of gaining an electoral advantage.
My political opponents are welcome to engage me anytime, anywhere, on
my record, which I am proud to stand on. But when you try to drag the
lives of innocent Montanans into your ugly schemes, I will fight with
every breath in my body. It is a sad day.
I yield the floor.

____________________

EXTENSION OF NORMAL-TRADE-RELATIONS WITH CHINA

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to support a joint
resolution disapproving the extension of normal-trade-relations status
to China.
This is the fourth time that I have joined with other Senators to
support such a resolution because I believe that trade policy is an
effective tool that the United States can and should use with respect
to the policies of the Chinese Government. I am pleased to join Senator
Smith in supporting his resolution.
On June 3, President Clinton announced his intention to extend the
normal-trade-relations trading status to China. As I understand it,
without actually affecting the practical application of tariff
treatment, legislation last year replaced the term ``most-favored-
nation'' in seven specific statutes with the new phrase ``normal trade
relations.'' Regardless of which phrase you use, I find this policy
unacceptable. Although we have expected the President to make such a
decision, I can only say that under the current circumstances I am once
again disappointed in the President's decision. In fact, I have
objected to the President's policy since 1994, when he first de-linked
the issue of human rights from our trading policy. The argument made
then was that trade privileges and human rights are not interrelated.
At the same time, it was said, through ``constructive engagement'' on
economic matters, and dialogue on other issues, including human rights,
the United States could better influence the behavior of the Chinese
Government.
Clearly events of the last few months have shown the fallacy of that
assumption.
I have yet to see persuasive evidence that closer economic ties alone
are going to transform China's authoritarian system into a democracy.
Unless we continue to press the case for improvement in China's human
rights record, using the leverage of the Chinese Government's desires
to expand its economy and increase trade with us, I do not see how U.S.
policy can help conditions in China get much better. De-linking trade
and human rights has resulted only in the continued despair of millions
of Chinese people, and there is no evidence that NTR or MFN or whatever
you want to call it, has significantly influenced Beijing to improve
its human rights policies. Basic freedoms--of expression, of religion,
of association--are routinely denied. The rule of law, at least as we
understand it, does not exist for dissenters in China.
Virtually every review of the behavior of China's Government
demonstrates that not only has there been little improvement in the
human rights situation in China, but in many cases, it has worsened--
particularly in the weeks preceding the tenth anniversary of the
Tiananmen Square massacre. In fact, China has resumed its crackdown on
dissidents who might have attempted to commemorate the anniversary of
the Tiananmen Square massacre. Human rights groups have documented the
detention of more than

[[Page 12095]]

50 dissidents since May 13, with a number still in custody. These have
included two detained for helping to organize a petition calling on the
government to overturn its verdict on Tianamen. The detainees include
former student leaders at Tiananmen, a member of the fledgling
Democracy Party, intellectuals, and journalists. Those not detained
have reportedly been under constant surveillance amid calls by China's
top prosecutor for a clampdown on ``all criminal activities that
endanger state security,'' including such activities as signature
gathering and peaceful protest.
More generally, five years after the President's decision to de-link
MFN from human rights, the State Department's most recent Human Rights
Report on China still describes an abysmal situation. According to the
report. ``The Government continued to commit widespread and well-
documented human rights abuses. * * * Abuses included instances of
extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced
confessions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado
detention, and denial of due process.'' This list does not even touch
on restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and religion or
the continuing abusive family planning practices.
In my view, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion except
that ``constructive engagement'' has failed to make any change in
Beijing's human rights behavior. I would say that the evidence
justifies the exact opposite conclusion: human rights have deteriorated
and the regime continues to act recklessly in other areas vital to U.S.
national interest. We have so few levers that we can use against China.
And if China is accepted by the international community as a superpower
without regard to the current conditions there, it will believe it can
continue to abuse human rights with impunity. The more we ignore the
signals and allow trade to dictate our policy, the worse we can expect
the human rights situation to become.
This year--1999--is likely to be the most important year since 1989
with respect to our relations with China. We face many thorny issues
with China, including the accidental embassy bombing, faltering
negotiations regarding accession to the World Trade Organizations and
the recent release of the Cox report on Chinese espionage.
But even with all that is going on, the United States and others in
the international community yet again failed to pass a resolution
regarding China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in
Geneva earlier this spring, largely because China lobbied hard to
prevent it. Despite China's efforts to avert a resolution, the United
States must also shoulder some of the blame for the failure to achieve
passage--our early equivocation on whether we would sponsor a
resolution and our late start in garnering support for it no doubt also
contributed to the lack of accomplishment in Geneva. While we would
certainly prefer multilateral condemnation of China's human rights
practices, the failure to achieve that at the UN Commission on Human
Rights proves that it is even more important for the United States to
use the levers that we do have to pressure China's leaders. We can not
betray the sacrifices made by those who lost their lives in Tiananmen
Square by tacitly condoning through our silence the continuing abuses.
We know that putting pressure on the Chinese Government can have some
impact. China released dissident Harry Wu from prison when his case
threatened to disrupt the First Lady's trip to Beijing for the U.N.
Conference on Women, and its similarly released both Wei Jingsheng and
Wang Dan around the same time that China was pushing to have the 2000
Olympic Games in Beijing. After losing that bid, and once the spotlight
was off, the Chinese government rearrested both Wei and Wang. These
examples only affirm my belief that the United States should make it
clear that human rights are of real--as opposed to rhetorical--concern
to this country.
If moral outrage at blatant abuse of human rights is not reason
enough for a tough stance with China--and I believe it is and that the
American people do as well--then let us do so on grounds of real
political and economic self-interest. We must not forget that we
currently have a substantial trade deficit with China. Over the past
few years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has surged. It has risen
from $6.2 billion in 1989 to nearly $57 billion in 1998. Political
considerations aside, a deficit of that size represents a formidable
obstacle to ``normal'' trading relations with China at any point in the
near future. Other strictly commercial U.S. concerns have included
China's failure to provide adequate protection of U.S. intellectual
property rights, the broad and pervasive use of trade and investment
barriers to restrict imports, illegal textile transshipments to the
United States, the use of prison labor for the manufacture of products
exported to the United States, as well as questionable economic and
political policies toward Hong Kong.
This does not present a picture of a nation with whom we should have
normal trade relations. Or, if the Administration accepts these
practices as ``normal'', perhaps we need to redefine what normal trade
relations are. These are certainly not practices that I wish to accept
as normal.
My main objective today is to push for the United States to once
again make the link between human rights and trading relations with
respect to our policy in China. As I have said before, I believe that
trade--embodied by the peculiar exercise of NTR renewal--is one of the
most powerful levers we have, and that it was a mistake for the
President to de-link this exercise from human rights considerations.
So, for those who care about human rights, about freedom of religion,
and about America's moral leadership in the world, I urge support for
S.J. Res 27 disapproving the President's decision to renew normal-
trade-relations status for China.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

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

executive messages referred

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

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

At 1:09 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Hanrahan, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bill:

H.R. 1379. An act to amend the Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, to make a
technical correction relating to international narcotics
control assistance.
The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Thurmond).
____

At 5:10 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 150. An act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to convey National Forest System land for use for educational
purposes, and for other purposes.
____

At 5:45 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Berry, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 1906. An act making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

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

[[Page 12096]]

H.R. 150. An act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture
to convey National Forest System land for use for educational
purposes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
H.R. 1906. An act making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations.

____________________

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-3575. A communication from the Director, 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
``Adequacy of State Permit Programs Under RCRA Subtitle D''
(FRL # 6354-7), received June 2, 1999; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-3576. A communication from the Director, 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
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Pennsylvania; Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance
Program Network Effectiveness Demonstration'' (FRL # 6355-2),
received June 2, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-3577. A communication from the Director, 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
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast
Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District, Siskiyou County Air Pollution
Control District, and Bay Area Air Quality Management
District'' (FRL # 6353-1), received June 2, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3578. A communication from the Director, 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
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado
County Air Pollution Control District'' (FRL # 6356-1),
received June 2, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-3579. A communication from the Director, 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
``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio''
(FRL # 6353-2), received June 2, 1999; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-3580. A communication from the Director, 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
``National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins'' (FRL # 6355-5),
received June 2, 1999; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-3581. A communication from the Director, 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
``Regulation of Fuel and Fuel Additives: Modification of
Compliance Baseline'' (FRL # 6354-5), received June 2, 1999;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3582. A communication from the Director, 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
``Service Contracting--Avoiding Improper Personal Services
Relationships'' (FRL # 6353-9), received June 2, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3583. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of two rules
entitled ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; Enhanced
Inspection and Maintenance Program'' (FRL # 6356-4) and
``Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors''
(FRL # 6058-6), received June 8, 1999; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-3584. A communication from the Director, 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
``Identification of Additional Ozone Areas Attaining the 1-
Hour Standard and to Which the 1-Hour Standard is No Longer
Applicable'' (FRL # 6344-4), received June 8, 1999; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-3585. A communication from the Director, 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
``Kresoxim-methyl; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL # 6085-4),
received June 8, 1999; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-3586. A communication from the Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Information, Office of Policy,
Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of two rules
entitled ``Certain Plant Regulators; Cytokinins, Auxins,
Gibberellins, Ethylene, and Pelargonic Acid; Exemptions from
the Requirements of a Tolerance'' (FRL # 6076-5) and
``Sethoxydim; Pesticide Tolerance'' (FRL # 6080-9), June 8,
1999; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-3587. A communication from the Secretary of the Federal
Trade Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Rescission of Guides for the Watch
Industry'' (16 CFR Part 245), received June 8, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3588. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Regulations; Grand Canal,
Florida (CGD07-98-048)'' (RIN2115-AE47) (1999-0019), received
June 8, 1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3589. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations;
Marblehead, MA to Halifax, Nova Scotia Ocean Race (CGD01-99-
062)'' (RIN2115-AA97) (1999-0026), received June 8, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3590. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Safety/Security Zone Regulations;
Hospitalized Veterans Cruise, Boston Harbor, MA (CGD01-99-
055)'' (RIN2115-AA97) (1999-0027), received June 8, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3591. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of
Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Regatta Regulations; SLR; Independence Day
Celebration, Cumberland River Mile 190.0-191.0, Nashville, TN
(CGD08-99-036)'' (RIN2115-AE46) (1999-0018), received June 8,
1999; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-3592. A communication from the Fisheries Biologist,
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Temporary Rule and Request for
Comments Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp Trawling
Requirements'' (RIN0648-AH97), received June 4, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3593. A communication from the Fisheries Biologist,
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Temporary Rule and Request for
Comments Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp Trawling
Requirements'' (RIN0648-AH97), received June 4, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3594. A communication from the Fisheries Biologist,
Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Notification of an Exemption and
Request for Comments Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp Trawling
Requirements'' (RIN0648-AH97), received June 4, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3595. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Amendment of VOR Federal
Airways; Kahului, HI; Docket No. 97-AWP-35 {6-3/6-3 ''
(RIN2120-AA66) (1999-0186), received June 4, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3596. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives:
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9 and C-9 [Military) Series
Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-110 {6-3/6-3 ''

[[Page 12097]]

(RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0233), received June 4, 1999; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3597. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives:
Cesna Aircraft Company Model 402C Airplanes; Request for
Comments, Docket No. 99-CE-21 {6-3/6-3 '' (RIN2120-AA64)
(1999-0234), received June 4, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3598. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives:
Boeing Model 767 Series Airplanes; Docket No. 97-NM-51 {6-3/
6-3 '' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0235), received June 4, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3599. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives:
General Electric Aircraft Engines CF34 Series Turbofan
Engines; Docket No. 98-ANE-19 {5-28/6-3 '' (RIN2120-AA64)
(1999-0237), received June 4, 1999; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-3600. A communication from the Program Analyst, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
Department of Transportation, transmitting, pursuant to law,
the report of a rule entitled ``Airworthiness Directives:
Boeing Model 747 Series Airplanes; Docket No. 98-NM-223 {6-3/
6-3 '' (RIN2120-AA64) (1999-0236), received June 4, 1999; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

POM-172. A petition from citizens of the State of Tennessee
relative to the President of the United States; ordered to
lie on the table.
POM-173. A resolution adopted by the House of the
Legislature of the State of Hawaii relative to the Food
Quality Protection Act; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.

Resolution No. 56

Whereas, the safe and responsible use of pesticides for
agricultural, food safety, structural, public health,
environmental, and other purposes has significantly advanced
the overall welfare of Hawaii's citizens and the environment;
and
Whereas, the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
establishes new safety standards that pesticides must meet to
be newly registered or remain on the market; and
Whereas, FQPA requires the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to ensure that all pesticide tolerances meet
these new standards by reassessing one-third of the 9,700
current pesticide tolerances by August 1999, and all current
tolerances in ten years; and
Whereas, risk determinations based on sound science and
reliable real-world data are essential for accurate
decisions, and the best way for EPA to obtain this data is to
require its development and submission by the registrants
through the data call-in process; and
Whereas, risk determination made in the absence of
reliable, science-based information is expected to result in
the needless loss of pesticides and certain uses of other
pesticides; and
Whereas, the needless loss of pesticides and certain
pesticide uses will result in fewer pest control options for
Hawaii and would be harmful to the economy of Hawaii by
jeopardizing agriculture, one of the few industries that has
shown great strength during the recent years of the State's
flat economy, and fewer pest control options for urban and
suburban uses that will result in significant loss of
personal property and increased human health concerns; and
Whereas, the needless loss of pesticides will jeopardize
the state and county government's ability to protect public
health and safety on public property and to protect our
natural environmental resources, for example, from aggressive
alien species; and
Whereas, the flawed implementation of FQPA is likely to
result in significant increases in food costs to consumers,
thereby putting the nutritional needs of children, the poor,
and the elderly at unnecessary risk; and
Whereas, the Clinton Administration has directed EPA and
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to jointly work
toward implementing FQPA in a manner that assures that
children will be adequately protected and that risk
determinations related to pesticide tolerances and
registrations will be based on accurate, science-based
information; and
Whereas, the cost of developing data to quantify real-world
risk is prohibitive and minor use data may not be financed by
pesticide registrants and the State, and pesticide users may
fund studies to support minor uses: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twentieth
Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 1999,
That the U.S. Congress is hereby respectfully requested to
direct the Administrator of the EPA to:
(1) initiate rulemaking to ensure that the policies and
standards EPA intends to apply in evaluating pesticide
tolerances and making realistic risk determinations are based
on accurate information, real-world data available through
the data call-in process, and sound science, and are subject
to adequate public notice and comment before EPA issues final
pesticide tolerance determinations;
(2) Provide interested persons the opportunity to produce
data needed to evaluate pesticide tolerances so that EPA can
avoid making faulty final pesticide tolerance determinations
based upon unrealistic default assumptions;
(3) Implement FQPA in a manner that will not adversely
disrupt agricultural production nor adversely effect the
availability or diversity of the food supply, nor jeopardize
the public health or environmental quality through the
needless loss of pesticide tolerances for non-agricultural
activities;
(4) Delay the August 1999, deadline until 2001 or until
EPA, USDA, industry leaders, and manufacturers can provide
science-based data as to use, application, and residue of the
pesticides under review; and
(5) Implement the registration of new crop protection
products for minor and major crops; and be it further
Resolved, That pesticide registrants and EPA are requested
to support minor use registrations by reserving a meaningful
portion of the risks projected from the use of pesticides or
a class of pesticides for minor uses; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of the Resolution be
transmitted to the Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the President of the U.S. Senate, members of
Hawaii's Congressional Delegation, the Administrator of EPA,
the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the
Governor of the State of Hawaii, and the President of the
American Crop Protection Association.
____

POM-174. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Louisiana relative to post-harvest treatment
of oysters and other shellfish; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

House Concurrent Resolution No. 106

Whereas, American consumers have always enjoyed and
depended on the availability of choice in their consumption
of various products, and consumption of oysters and other
shellfish have always been a special treat for American
consumers throughout the country; and
Whereas, emerging technologies have made it possible for
consumers of oysters and other shellfish to choose between
the traditional raw shellfish product and shellfish products
which have been treated or pasteurized; and
Whereas, because a very small segment of American consumers
have health considerations which must be weighed while others
have concerns about the change in the condition, taste,
texture, and price of treated shellfish, the ability to make
a choice between these consideration should be maintained;
and
Whereas, America's shellfish industry is heavily populated
with small self-employed harvesters and producers for which
the added expense of required post-harvest treatment of their
product might make the difference between continued operation
and a harvester having to find employment in another
industry; and
Whereas, America's oyster and shellfish industry has worked
diligently to educate consumers with certain health
conditions about the risks associated with the consumption of
certain types of shellfish, and these education efforts have
been highly successful in the reduction of health impacts
from the consumption of shellfish: Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Louisiana Legislature does hereby
memorialize the United States Congress to oppose U.S. Food
and Drug Administration rules requiring post-harvested
treatment of oysters and other shellfish; and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the Congress of the United States of
America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional
delegation.
____

POM-175. A resolution adopted by the Legislature of Guam
relative to job-training and unemployment; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.

Resolution No. 101 (LS)

Be it resolved by I Liheslaturan Guahan:
Whereas, Guam is in the midst of a severe economic
recession at the same time that the mainland United States is
enjoying unprecedented prosperity, with unemployment
officially pegged at fourteen percent (14%), but likely
higher; and
Whereas, as a result of the economic crisis in Asia, Guam
has seen alarmingly steep declines in tourism arrivals,
tourist spending and off-Island investment; and

[[Page 12098]]

Whereas, major airlines have reduced the number of flights
to and from Guam, resulting in major layoffs in those
airlines; and
Whereas, other major businesses on Guam, in all sectors,
have also downshzed a considerable number of employees; and
Whereas, numbers of temporary government of Guam employees
are likely to lose their positions over the balance of the
year; and
Whereas, the downsizing of the military presence on Guam
has resulted in the loss of thousands of Federal civil
service positions on Guam; and
Whereas, in contrast to the National trend, welfare and
food stamp recipients on Guam are increasing; and
Whereas, the continued decline in government of Guam
revenues due to the economic recession extremely limits the
ability of the government of Guam to help these thousands of
people in need; and
Whereas, Guam requires more job-training and job-
partnership programs in order to train our displaced
workforce in areas where career development in the private
sector is likely and to upgrade work skills for displaced
employees, for the purpose of developing long-term private
sector careers for our underemployed people; and
Whereas, the illegal immigration of more than two thousand
(2,000) individuals from China further compounds the problem
by straining local resources and further limiting the amount
of available jobs as a certain number of illegal aliens may
be occupying jobs, especially in the construction industry;
and
Whereas, the Compacts of Free Association, which allow for
open migration from the Freely Associated States, also have
impact in this area during such tough economic times: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That I Mina'Bente Sinko Na Liheslaturan Guahan
(Twenty-Fifth Guam Legislature) does hereby, on behalf of the
people of Guam, respectfully request the Congress of the
United States of America to authorize I Liheslaturan Guahan
(Guam Legislature) to appropriate some or all of the Ten
Million Dollars ($10,000,000), currently earmarked to Guam
for infrastructure costs due to the impact of the Compacts of
Free Association, for use in job training and job
development, entrepreneurial and business development
programs as shall be enacted by the laws of Guam; and be it
further
Resolved, That I Mina'Bente Sinko Na Liheslaturan Guahan
does hereby, on behalf of the people of Guam, respectfully
request the Guam Delegate to the United States House of
Representatives to sponsor such amendment to the Department
of the Interior Fiscal Year 2000 budget, and fully support
this Resolution in the U.S. Congress; and be it further
Resolved, That the Speaker certify, and the Legislative
Secretary attests to, the adoption hereof and that copies of
the same be thereafter transmitted to the Honorable William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States; to the
Honorable Albert Gore, Jr., President of the United States
Senate; to the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives; to the Honorable
Bruce Babbit, Secretary of the United States Department of
the Interior; to the Honorable Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Congressional Delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives;
and to the Honorable Carl T.C. Gutierrez, I Maga'lahen Guahan
(Governor of Guam).
____

POM-176. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Colorado relative to the Postal Rate Commission;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Senate Joint Resolution 99-027

Whereas, The United States Postal Service, an agency of the
federal government, holds a monopoly on first-class mail and
certain bulk mail services and generates annual multi-million
dollar surpluses from its services; and
Whereas, The United States Postal Service has in recent
years expanded its activities beyond its core mission of
universal mail service to include many competitive and
nonpostal related business products and services, such as
consumer goods, telephone calling cards, and cellular towers,
in direct competition with Colorado private sector
enterprises; and
Whereas, The United States Postal Service has used surplus
revenues from universal mail service to expand into these
competitive and nonpostal activities with no evidence that
these activities benefit the citizens of Colorado by
improving regular mail service; and
Whereas, The United States Postal Service enjoys monopoly
advantages in the marketplace over private sector
enterprises, with its ability to maintain lower prices for
competitive products due to the multi-million dollar
surpluses generated from first-class postage; and
Whereas, The United States Postal Service enjoys many
marketplace advantages not available to private sector
enterprises, including exemptions from state and local taxes,
parking fees, local zoning ordinances, vehicle use taxes,
vehicle licensing fees, and other state and local government
regulations, that deprive Colorado state and local
governments of needed revenue and fees to offset the effect
of the United States Postal Service's operations on highways,
law enforcement, and air quality; and
Whereas, The Postal Rate Commission does not have binding
authority over the actions or activities of the United States
Postal Service related to setting postal rates, entering new
business sectors, or using surplus revenues from first-class
mail to compete with the private sector: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-second General Assembly
of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives
concurring herein, That we, the members of the Sixty-second
General Assembly, hereby urge the United States Congress,
particularly the members for Colorado's Congressional
delegation, to introduce and pass legislation in the 106th
Congress to strengthen the oversight power and the authority
of the Postal Rate Commission to include:
(1) Subpoena power to examine all records and financial
data of the United States Postal Service in order to make
informed decisions on postal rate increases, pricing actions,
and product offerings;
(2) Jurisdiction and final approval authority on all
domestic and international postal rate adjustments; and
(3) Authority over all competitive and nonpostal business
endeavors, including all products and services outside the
scope of universal mail service; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent to
each member of the United States Congress.
____

POM-177. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Colorado relative to post-census local review;
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Senate Joint Resolution 99-032

Whereas, The decennial census provides the foundation of
our electoral democracy; and
Whereas, The decennial census represents an immense
mobilization of resources; and
Whereas, The success of the 2000 census depends upon the
cost involvement of local governments before, during, and
after the census; and
Whereas, Local governments must have trust in all aspects
of the 2000 census, including the final numbers; and
Whereas, The precensus program known as the ``Local Update
of Census Addresses,'' or ``LUCA,'' is a good program but
inadequate without a final review; and
Whereas, Over 21,000 local governments are currently not
participating in the LUCA program; and
Whereas, The Census Bureau involved local governments in a
program known as ``Post-Census Local Review'' during the 1990
census; and
Whereas, The Census Bureau has discontinued this valuable
program for the 2000 census, to the displeasure of most
cities in the United States; and
Whereas, In the 1990 census, 80,000 households that would
otherwise have been missed were added to the final count,
despite a 15-day time limit, through Post-Census Local
Review; and
Whereas, Every household missed contributes to the
undercount; and
Whereas, Congress must make every legal effort to have the
most accurate census possible; and
Whereas, Congress is considering legislation, known as the
``Local Quality Control Act,'' H.R. 472, to reinstate the
Post-Census Local Review program and give the option to
39,000-plus local governments to check for Census Bureau
mistakes before the numbers become final; and
Whereas, The National League of Cities, which represents
17,000 cities, enthusiastically supports Post-Census Local
Review and H.R. 472; and
Whereas, The National Association of Towns and Townships,
which represents 11,000 mostly rural towns and townships,
supports Post-Census Local Review and H.R. 472; and
Whereas, The National Association of Developmental
Organizations, whose members represent approximately 77
million Americans, or one-third of the U.S. population,
supports Post-Census Local Review and H.R. 472; and
Whereas, The Secretary of Commerce's Census 2000 Advisory
Committee recommended that he reinstate Post-Census Local
Review for the 2000 census; and
Whereas, Without Post-Census Local Review, local
governments will not have a final check before the Census
Bureau's count of their cities or towns is reported to the
President of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-second General Assembly
of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives
concurring herein, That the Sixty-Second General Assembly of
the State of Colorado hereby declares its support for the
immediate passage of Post-Census Local Review legislation,
H.R. 472, as an important local government tool to instill
trust in the census process and ensure that no households are
missed by the Census Bureau in the 2000 census; and be it
further
Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be transmitted to
the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the
Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, the President and Vice-
President of the United States, the U.S. Secretary of
Commerce, and to each member of the congressional delegation
from the State of Colorado.

[[Page 12099]]

____
POM-178. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Colorado relative to the Year 2000 Census; to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

Senate Joint Resolution 99-012

Whereas, Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the United
States Constitution requires an ``actual enumeration'' of the
population every ten years, and Congress oversees all aspects
of each decennial enumeration; and
Whereas, The purpose of the decennial census, as set forth
in the U.S. Constitution, is to apportion the seats in the
U.S. House of Representatives among the several states; and
Whereas, An accurate and legal decennial census is
necessary to perform that function properly; and
Whereas, An accurate and legal decennial census is
necessary to enable states to comply with federal
constitutional mandates governing congressional districts and
with federal and state constitutional mandates governing
state legislative districts; and
Whereas, In order to ensure an accurate count and to
minimize the potential for political manipulation, the actual
enumeration mandated by the U.S. Constitution requires a
traditional headcount and prohibits statistical estimates of
the population; and
Whereas, Title 13, United States Code, section 195
expressly prohibits the use of statistical sampling to
enumerate the population for the purpose of reapportioning
the U.S. House of Representatives; and
Whereas, After the constitutional requirement to apportion
seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states
has been satisfied, the states must perform the critical task
of redrawing the boundary lines for congressional and state
legislative districts, which also requires the use of census
data; and
Whereas, The United States Supreme Court, in Department of
Commerce et al. v. United States House of Representatives et
al., together with Clinton, President of the United States,
et al. v. Glavin et al., ruled on January 25, 1999, that the
federal Census Act prohibits the Census Bureau's proposed
uses of statistical sampling in calculating population for
purposes of apportioning seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives; and
Whereas, In reaching its findings, the U.S. Supreme Court
found that the use of statistical sampling to adjust census
numbers would result in voters suffering vote dilution in
state and local elections, thus violating the constitutional
guarantee of ``one person, one vote''; and
Whereas, The use of statistically adjusted census data
would expose the State of Colorado to protracted litigation
over congressional and state legislative redistricting plans
at great cost to the taxpayers; and
Whereas, Every reasonable and practical effort should be
made to obtain the fullest and most accurate population count
possible, including appropriate funding for state and local
census outreach and education programs, as well as post-
census local review: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-second General Assembly
of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives
concurring herein:
(1) That the Colorado General Assembly calls on the United
States Bureau of the Census to conduct the 2000 decennial
census consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the
Department of Commerce and Glavin cases, which requires a
traditional headcount of the population and bars the use of
statistical sampling to create or adjust the count.
(2) That the Colorado General Assembly opposes the use of
P.L. 94-171 data for congressional and state legislative
redistricting that have been determined in any way through
statistical inferences made using random sampling techniques
or other statistical methodologies to add or subtract persons
from the census counts.
(3) That the Colorado General Assembly demands that it
receive P.L. 94-171 data for congressional and state
legislative redistricting identical to the census tabulation
data used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives consistent with the Departmemt of Commerce
and Glavin cases, which require a traditional headcount of
the population and bar the use of statistical sampling to
create or adjust the count.
(4) That the Colorado General Assembly urges Congress, as
the branch of the federal government assigned the
responsibility for overseeing the decennial enumeration, to
take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the 2000
decennial census is conducted fairly and legally; and be it
further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the
Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, the President and Vice-
President of the United States, and the Director of the
Bureau of the Census in the U.S. Department of Commerce.
____

POM-179. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Colorado relative to the redesign study relating
to the Cherry Creek Dam; to the Committee on Appropriations.

Senate joint Resolution 99-023

Whereas, The terms ``probable maximum flood'' and
``probable maximum precipitation'' as used by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers are misleading terminology
because they are both improbable events with respect to the
Cherry Creek Basin; and
Whereas, The United States Army Corps of Engineers has
assumed the Cherry Creek Dam will fail following an
extraordinarily improbable chain of events; and
Whereas, The probable maximum precipitation is a
theoretical maximum only and has somewhere between a one in
one million to a one in one billion chance of occurring in
any single year; and
Whereas, The site specific probable maximum precipitation
study completed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers
by the National Weather Service has erroneously applied
meteorological procedures and fails to include documented
historical paleo flood evidence; and
Whereas, This error is further compounded by the erroneous
assumption that the topographic effects of the Palmer Divide
will increase the rainfall in the Cherry Creek Basin; and
Whereas, The probable maximum flood used by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers is more than twice the flood
estimates prepared by other dam safety officials; and
Whereas, Probable maximum precipitation estimates in the
western United States are typically about 3 times the 100-
year rainfall event; and
Whereas, The United States Army Corps of Engineers has used
7 times the 100-year rainfall event; and
Whereas, The United States Army Corps of Engineers and the
National Weather Service have refused an independent peer
review, even though the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
regularly requires such peer reviews as part of its licensing
procedures for hydro power facilities at dams, and the
Colorado State Engineer has a similar policy for reviews of
probable maximum precipitation studies and is currently in
phase II of a study funded by Colorado Senate Bills 94-029
and 97-008 to develop an alternative model to predict extreme
rainfall amounts for basins above 5,000 feet mean sea level;
and
Whereas, Such an independent peer review panel should
consist of local experts in the fields of extreme
precipitation and flood hydrology that have knowledge of
Colorado's unique climatological conditions; and
Whereas, The March 5, 1999, ``peer'' review response
submitted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is
simply another in-house review prepared by the National
Weather Service, is not an independent analysis, and does not
address the full range of issues that are typically addressed
in a proper independent peer review; and
Whereas, The proposed construction of upstream dry dams
will displace many Coloradans from their homes and businesses
and destroy hundreds of acres of active agricultural land and
open space; and
Whereas, Any government agency proposal to spend from $50
to $250 million of taxpayer money must be based on data and
assumptions that are as accurate as possible; and
Whereas, Because all alternatives being considered by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers will have substantial
negative impact on homes and families near the dam and
upstream of the dam and adversely affect property values, the
cost of any real estate that would properly be condemned
should be included in determining the cost of any
alternatives considered: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-second General Assembly
of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives
concurring herein:
That no further funding of the United States Army Corps of
Engineers should be provided for the Cherry Creek Basin Study
until the United States Army Corps of Engineers completes on
independent peer review of the National Weather Service data
in order to determine the appropriate design flood for the
Cherry Creek Basin; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this joint resolution be sent to
the President of the United States, the President of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, each member of Colorado's Congressional
delegation, the Governor of the State of Colorado, the
Commander of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and
the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
____

POM-180. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Colorado relative to national missile defense;
to the Committee on Armed Services.

Senate Joint Resolution 99-029

Whereas, Colorado is the thirty-eighth state to enter the
federal union of the United States of America and is entitled
to all the rights, privileges, the obligations that the union
affords and requires, including the obligation of the federal
government to provide for the common defense; and
Whereas, The federal government has not provided for the
common defense of the United States, including Colorado,
against attack by long-range ballistic missiles; and
Whereas, The United States currently has no defense against
long-range ballistic missiles despite possessing
sophisticated military installations, such as the NORAD
command center in Cheyenne Mountain; and

[[Page 12100]]

Whereas, The people of Colorado recognize the evolution and
proliferation of missile delivery systems and weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons, in foreign states such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, China, and Russia who are sharing ballistic missile
and nuclear weapons technology among themselves; and
Whereas, There is a growing threat to the United States and
its territories, deployed forces, and allies by aggressors in
foreign states and rogue nations that are seeking chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons capability and a means to
deliver such capability using long-range ballistic missiles;
and
Whereas, On August 31, 1998, without any advance detection
by the U.S. intelligence community and to the surprise of the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, communist North Korea
tested its Taepo Dong 1 Long-Range Ballistic Missile; and
Whereas, With its estimated range of 3,000 to 6,000 miles,
this type of three-stage ballistic missile is capable of
reaching the United States, and, if used as a fractional
orbital bombardment system, the missile has an unlimited
range; and
Whereas, In 1996, communist China threatened the United
States with ballistic missile attack if it intervened in the
dispute between China and Taiwan and, in 1995 and 1996,
communist China launched ballistic missiles near Taiwan to
threaten that country; and
Whereas, China has conducted at least forty-five nuclear
tests, and in 1998, the Central Intelligence Agency reported
that thirteen of China's eighteen long-range missiles were
targeted at U.S. cities; and
Whereas, In addition to the long-range ballistic missiles
it currently possesses, China is also building new long-range
ballistic missiles; and
Whereas, In 1993, in response to its economic difficulties
and decline in conventional military capability, Russia's
leaders issued a national security policy placing greater
reliance on nuclear deterrence; and
Whereas, Russia still has over 20,000 nuclear weapons, and
the risk of an accident or loss of control over Russian
ballistic missile forces could occur with little or no
warning to the U.S.; and
Whereas, Russia poses a risk to the United States as a
major exporter of ballistic missile technology, enabling
countries hostile to the United States to threaten or attack
the United States with ballistic missiles; and
Whereas, The congressional chartered Commission to Assess
the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States led by
former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld unanimously
recommended that the U.S. analyses, practices, and policies
that depend on expectations of extended warning of deployment
of ballistic missiles be reviewed and, as appropriate, be
revised to reflect the reality of an environment in which
there may be little or no warning of development and launch
of said missiles; and
Whereas, In March 1999 the United States Congress passed
legislation declaring it the policy of the United States to
deploy a national missile defense, in recognition of the
threats we face: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-second General Assembly
of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives
concurring herein, That the President, Congress, and the
government of the United States are hereby strongly urged:
(1) To take all actions necessary to provide for the common
defense and protect on an equal basis all people, resources,
and states of the United States from the threat of missile
attack, regardless of the physical location of each state of
the union;
(2) To include all fifty states in every National
Intelligence Estimate of missile threat of the United States;
(3) To take all necessary measures to ensure that all fifty
states are protected from weapons delivered by long-range
ballistics missiles or by means of terrorists;
(4) To make the safety and common defense of all fifty
states a priority over any international treaty or
obligation;
(5)(a) To deploy a common defense against long-range
ballistic missiles capable of providing multiple
opportunities to intercept a ballistic missile or
intercepting a ballistic missile in its boost phase (its most
vulnerable position);
(b) To deploy a defense fully exploiting the advantages of
using defenses in space; and
(c) To deploy such a defense using accelerated funding and
streamlined acquisition procedures to minimize the time for
deployment; and
(6) To hold appropriate Congressional committee hearings
that include the testimony of defense experts and
administration officials to enable the citizens of the United
States to understand the nature and extent of their
vulnerability to ballistic missile attack and their level of
security against such an attack; and be if further
Resolved, That copies of this Resolution be sent to the
President of the United States; the Vice-president of the
United States; the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives; the chairmen of the Appropriations
committees of the United States House of Representatives and
the United States Senate; the chairmen of the Armed Services
committees of the United States House of Representatives and
the United States Senate; and each member of the Colorado
Congressional delegation.
____

POM-181. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Maine relative to reauthorization of the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

Joint Resolution

Whereas, Maine the nearly 500 dairy farms producing milk
valued annually at over $100,000,000; and
Whereas, maintaining a sufficient supply of Maine-produced
milk and milk products is the best interest of Maine
consumers and businesses; and
Whereas, Maine is a member of the Northeast Interstate
Dairy compact; and
Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact will
terminate at the end of October 1999 unless action is taken
by the Congress to reauthorize it; and
Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact's mission
is to ensure the continued viability of dairy farming in the
Northeast and to ensure consumers of an adequate, local
supply of pure and wholesome milk; and
Whereas, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact has
established a minimum price to be paid to dairy farmers for
their milk, which has helped to stabilize their incomes; and
Whereas, in certain months the compact's minimum price has
resulted in dairy farmers receiving nearly 10% more for their
milk than the farmers would have otherwise received; and
Whereas, actions taken by the compact have directly
benefited Maine dairy farmers and consumers: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That We, your Memorialists, respectfully urge and
request that the United States Congress reauthorize the
Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact; and be it further
Resolved, That suitable copies of this Memorial, duly
authenticated by the Secretary of State, be transmitted to
the Honorable William J. Clinton, President of the United
States, the president of the Senate and the Speaker of the
House of Representatives of the Congress of the United
States, each member of the United States Congress who sits as
chair on the United States House of Representatives Committee
on Agriculture or the United States Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, the United States
Secretary of Agriculture and each Member of the Maine
Congressional Delegation.
____

POM-182. A resolution adopted by the Commission of Knox
County, Tennessee relative to the Tennessee Valley Authority;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
POM-183. A concurrent resolution adopted by the General
Assembly of the State of Missouri relative to tobacco
settlement funds; to the Committee on Finance.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 14

Whereas, in late November, 1998, Missouri accepted the 206
billion dollar settlement agreement negotiated between 46
states and the tobacco industry;
Whereas, the states' attorneys general crafted the
settlement agreement to protect states' interests, consistent
with the lawsuits filed on behalf of the states;
Whereas, the settlement agreement reflects difficult policy
decisions and years of effort among the states which bore the
risk and expense of litigating their claims against a strong
tobacco industry;
Whereas, the federal government neither participated in nor
assisted with the litigation and negotiation of the states'
claims, yet now seeks to seize a substantial portion of the
resulting payments due to the states;
Whereas, the federal government bases its claim on federal
right to recoupment for medicaid expenses, a claim which was
not promoted by the federal government in any litigation
prior to the settlement of the states' claims;
Whereas, by the terms of the settlement, Missouri would
receive approximately 6.7 billion dollars by 2025, yet faces
an estimated potential loss of 3.9 billion dollars of this
amount to the federal government;
Whereas, Missouri rightfully should determine the best use
of the settlement proceeds achieved through state effort,
using state resources and motivated by state concerns: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the members of the Missouri Senate and the
Ninetieth General Assembly, the House of Representatives
concurring therein, That the President of the United States
and the members of Missouri's Congressional delegation
recognize the effort and resources expended by Missouri to
promote and protect its interests throughout the litigation
and negotiation of claims against the tobacco industry; and
be it further
Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of
Missouri requests that the President of the United States and
the members of Missouri's Congressional delegation protect
the proceeds negotiated by Missouri in settlement of its
claims by refusing to divert, seize or recoup any portion of
the settlement proceeds for federal purposes; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate be instructed to
provide properly inscribed

[[Page 12101]]

copies of this resolution to William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, to each member of Missouri's
Congressional delegation, the Secretary of the United States
Senate and the Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives.
____

POM-184. A concurrent resolution adopted by the General
Assembly of the State of Missouri relative to tobacco
settlement funds; to the Committee on Finance.

Resolution

Whereas, on November 23, 1998, a historic accord was
reached between 46 states, U.S. territories, commonwealths
and the District of Columbia and tobacco industry
representatives that called for the distribution of tobacco
settlement funds to states over the next twenty-five years;
and
Whereas, these funds result from the effort put forth by
state attorneys general in which states solely assumed
enormous risks and displayed determination to initiate a
settlement that will lead to reduced youth smoking and
reduced access to tobacco products; and
Whereas, in the fall of 1997, states were notified by the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of its intention
to ``recoup'' the federal match from funds states received
through suits brought against tobacco manufacturers; and if
such recoupment takes place, the states will lose one-half or
more of the tobacco settlement funds; and
Whereas, the federal government played no role in the suits
brought against tobacco manufacturers or the subsequent
settlement agreement and the November 23rd accord makes no
mention of Medicaid or federal recoupment; and
Whereas, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
has suspended recoupment activities; and
Whereas, we the members of the Ninetieth General Assembly
believe that the suspension on the federal government's
recoupment of tobacco settlement funds should be converted
into an outright prohibition against the federal government
recouping any of the tobacco settlement money; and
Whereas, we the members of the Ninetieth General Assembly
believe that if the federal government recoups any funds
received through suits brought against tobacco manufacturers,
such recoupment should be immediately returned to the state;
and
Whereas, to prevent the seizure of state tobacco settlement
funds when they become available to the states in 2000, an
amendment to the Medical statute must be enacted to exempt
tobacco settlement funds from recoupment: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the members of the Missouri House of
Representatives of the Ninetieth General Assembly, First
Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby go on
record in support of state retention of all state tobacco
settlement funds; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of the Missouri House of
Representatives of the Ninetieth General Assembly, First
Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby urge
the federal government, in the event recoupment occurs, to
return upon receipt any tobacco settlement funds recouped
from the state; and be it further
Resolved, That the members of the Missouri House of
Representatives of the Ninetieth General Assembly, First
Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby urge
Congress to enact an amendment to the Medicaid statute that
would exempt tobacco settlement funds from recoupment; and be
it further
Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of
Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed
copies of this resolution for the President of the United
States, the entire Missouri Congressional delegation, the
Secretary of the United States Senate and the Clerk of the
United States House of Representatives.
____

POM-185. A petition from the Georgia State Properties
Commission relative to a proposed interstate compact between
Georgia and South Carolina; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. CHAFEE, from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, with an amendment:
S. 880. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to remove
flammable fuels from the list of substances with respect to
which reporting and other activities are required under the
risk management plan program (Rept. No. 106-70).
By Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, without amendment:
S. 698. A bill to review the suitability and feasibility of
recovering costs of high altitude rescues at Denali National
Park and Preserve in the state of Alaska, and for other
purposes (Rept. No. 106-71).
By Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with amendments:
S. 748. A bill to improve Native hiring and contracting by
the Federal Government within the State of Alaska, and for
other purposes (Rept. No. 106-72).

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

The following executive reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. CLELAND, for Mr. Warner, for the Committee on Armed
Services:
The following named officer for appointment as the Chief of
Staff, United States Army, and appointment to the grade
indicated while assigned to a position of importance and
responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 3033:

To be general

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, 3256.

By Mr. ROBERTS, for Mr. Warner, for the Committee on Armed
Services:
The following named officer for appointment as Commandant
of the Marine Corps, and appointment to the grade indicated
while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility
under title 10, U.S.C., sections 601 and 5043:

To be general

Lt. Gen. James L. Jones, Jr., 2699.

(The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that
they be confirmed.)

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Cleland, and Mr.
Gregg):
S. 1189. A bill to allow Federal securities enforcement
actions to be predicated on State securities enforcement
actions, to prevent migration of rogue securities brokers
between and among financial services industries, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
By Mr. REED:
S. 1190. A bill to apply the Consumer Product Safety Act to
firearms and ammunition; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Snowe,
and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1191. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to provide for facilitating the importation into
the United States of certain drugs that have been approved by
the Food and Drug Administration, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer,
and Mr. Bryan):
S. 1192. A bill to designate national forest land managed
by the Forest Service in the Lake Tahoe Basin as the ``Lake
Tahoe National Scenic Forest and Recreation Area'', and to
promote environmental restoration around the Lake Tahoe
Basin; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 1193. A bill to improve the safety of animals
transported on aircraft, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. HUTCHINSON (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Nickles,
Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Helms, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Gramm,
Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Frist, Mr. Bond,
Mr. Thurmond, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Enzi, Mr. Warner, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Gorton, Mr.
Shelby, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Mack):
S. 1194. A bill to prohibit discrimination in contracting
on federally funded projects on the basis of certain labor
policies of potential contractors; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 1195. A bill to give customers notice and choice about
how their financial institutions share or sell their
personally identifiable sensitive financial information, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
By Mr. COVERDELL:
S. 1196. A bill to improve the quality, timeliness, and
credibility of forensic science services for criminal justice
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire,
Mr. Levin, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1197. A bill to prohibit the importation of products
made with dog or cat fur, to prohibit the sale, manufacture,
offer for sale, transportation, and distribution of products
made with dog or cat fur in the United States, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Lott):
S. 1198. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, to provide for a report by the General
Accounting Office to Congress on agency regulatory actions,
and for

[[Page 12102]]

other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr.
McConnell, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Helms):
S. Res. 113. A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of
the Senate to require that the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag of the United States be recited at the commencement of
the daily session of the Senate; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Schumer, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Biden, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Bennett, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Burns, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Frist, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Gorton, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Lott, Mr. Reid, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Cochran, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerrey, Mr.
Chafee, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bayh, Mr.
Craig, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Kohl):
S. Res. 114. A resolution designating June 22, 1999, as
``National Pediatric AIDS Awareness Day''; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. ABRAHAM:
S. Con. Res. 38. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Bureau of the Census should
include in the 2000 decennial census all citizens of the
United States residing abroad; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

microcap fraud prevention act of 1999

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microcap Fraud
Prevention Act of 1999 which will equip Federal law enforcement
authorities with new tools to prosecute the fight against microcap
securities fraud that costs unwary investors an estimated $6 billion
annually.
While cold-calling families at dinnertime and high-pressure sales
remain a favorite tactic of microcap con artists, the Internet is
providing a new and inviting frontier for the commission of microcap
frauds. I find it particularly disturbing that despite the best efforts
of regulatory authorities, microcap scam artists often commit repeat
offenses. Similarly, under current law, persons barred from other
segments of the financial industry, such as banking or insurance, can
easily bring their deceptive practices into our securities markets.
I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of two of my
distinguished colleagues in introducing this important legislation.
Senator Cleland and Senator Gregg are united with me in a commitment to
ensure that security regulators have the necessary authority to crack
down on securities fraud. Senator Cleland has a longstanding interest
in protecting investors from securities scams. Senator Gregg also has
been a leader in this arena in his position as the chairman of the
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the SEC's budgets.
In drafting this legislation, I was also pleased to have the
invaluable assistance of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
North American Securities Administrators Association which represents
State securities regulators. In fact, Richard H. Walker, the SEC's
Director of Enforcement, and Peter C. Hildreth, the President of NASAA,
have submitted letters endorsing my legislation. I ask unanimous
consent that these letters be printed in the Record following my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Collins-Cleland-Gregg legislation is
the product of hearings of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
which I chair. We first started looking at this issue in 1997 and held
our first hearing in September of that year. Those hearings revealed
that microcap securities fraud is pervasive, so much so that regulators
estimated that it cost investors $6 billion in losses annually,
according to an article in the Wall Street Journal.
The damage from these microcap scams, however, is not confined to
investor losses. They also damage the reputation of legitimate small
companies and limit their ability to raise capital through the
securities markets. Ironically, the strong performance of the
securities markets over the past several years has provided an ideal
breeding ground for these microcap scams as more and more Americans
invest in stocks. In fact, according to the SEC, in 1980, only 1 in 18
individual Americans participated in the securities markets. Today, 1
in 3 Americans participate in the securities markets. There has been a
tremendous growth in more and more American households investing in
equities.
In a typical microcap fraud, an unscrupulous broker, often acting
through an intermediary, purchases large blocks of shares in a small
company with dubious business and financial prospects. The company
stock may be nearly worthless, but the brokers repeatedly cold call
customers, promise glowing returns and drive up the stock through high-
pressure sales tactics. Inevitably, after the manipulators sell their
shares at a profit, the artificially inflated price plummets, leaving
thousands of unsophisticated investors with worthless stock and heavy
losses. The manipulators then count their ill-gotten gains and move on
to their next target.
The subcommittee's investigation demonstrated that the rapid growth
of the Internet has also provided a new frontier for the commission of
microcap securities frauds. At hearings held by the subcommittee last
March, expert witnesses testified that while the Internet provides
many, many benefits to online investors, such as lower trading costs
and a wealth of investment information, the medium is inviting to con
men as well.
Specifically, the Internet makes it easier and cheaper for microcap
scam artists to contact potential victims and to perpetrate pump-and-
dump schemes or related securities frauds. Rather than having to cold
call potential victims one at a time, con men with home computers and
Internet access can reach millions of potential investors with the
click of a mouse. At a very low cost, these cybercrooks can deceive
many more victims using professionally designed web sites, online
financial newsletters or bulk e-mail. SEC officials testified that the
agency now receives hundreds of e-mail complaints per day, an estimated
70 percent of which involve potential Internet securities frauds.
For example, a constituent of mine from Ellsworth, ME, who appeared
at the subcommittee's hearings, testified that he lost more than
$20,000 in a sophisticated Internet securities scam. My constituent has
an engineering degree, and he has been investing for nearly 10 years.
This demonstrates the potential risk that Internet fraud poses to even
experienced investors. Although the SEC has brought charges against the
alleged perpetrators of this scam, it is, unfortunately, very unlikely
that my constituent will ever be able to recover his losses.
Whether they use cold calls, the Internet, or both, microcap scam
artists rarely strike only once. The subcommittee's investigations have
found that when regulators close down one microcap scam, often after
very lengthy proceedings, it is very common for the perpetrators to pop
up in connection with yet another securities fraud.
Moreover, individuals who have committed consumer frauds in other
financial services industries, such as insurance or banking, frequently
move on to work in the securities industry. Our

[[Page 12103]]

regulatory system must be able to prevent these individuals who have
violated the law from migrating freely from one financial sector to
another.
I commend the actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the State securities regulators in aggressively fighting microcap
securities fraud, but they are simply overwhelmed with the magnitude of
the problem.
The SEC has established a special unit to monitor the Internet for
potential microcap or similar stock securities scams and has initiated
83 enforcement actions against approximately 250 individuals and
companies who have allegedly committed Internet securities frauds.
Similarly, in July of 1998, the State securities regulators,
represented by NASAA, announced that the State securities regulators
had filed 100 enforcement actions in a ``sweep'' against illegal boiler
room operations. Approximately 64 of these enforcement actions involved
brokers peddling microcap stocks. Despite these commendable efforts,
however, the SEC and State regulators face significant challenges just
to keep up with the explosive growth of microcap securities fraud,
particularly on the Internet.
The legislation that I am introducing today is designed to bolster
the SEC's ability to protect investors from ever-increasing microcap
frauds while ensuring that legitimate small companies can continue to
raise capital through securities offerings. To accomplish these
objectives, the bill will streamline the microcap fraud investigative
process and provide the SEC with the tools it needs to suspend or ban
rogue brokers, particularly those who have a history of committing
fraudulent offenses.
Specifically, our legislation will do the following:
First, it will allow the SEC to bring enforcement actions against
securities fraud violators on the basis of enforcement actions brought
by State securities regulators. Currently, State regulators can rely on
SEC-initiated enforcement actions, but the SEC does not have reciprocal
authority. Consequently, the SEC must often conduct duplicative
investigations before the agency can bring enforcement actions against
microcap securities frauds first identified at the State level but
which operate on a nationwide basis. With the new authority proposed by
our legislation, the SEC and the State regulators will be able to
maximize the impact of their limited enforcement resources.
Second, our legislation would permit the SEC to keep out of the
securities business unscrupulous individuals from other sectors of the
financial services industry. As I stated previously, persons with
histories of violations too often roam freely throughout the financial
services industry and commit new frauds. The bill would allow the SEC
to prevent individuals who have ripped off consumers in insurance or
banking scams from similarly defrauding America's small investors.
Third, our legislation will broaden the current penny stock bar to
include fraudulent violations in the microcap markets. Under current
law, the SEC can suspend or bar individuals who commit serious penny
stock frauds involving stocks that cost less than $5. You may be
surprised to learn, however, that the law permits such violators to
participate in micro-cap securities offerings, because even though the
total capitalization of these companies is small, each of their shares
costs more than $5. Our bill will close this loophole by allowing the
SEC to suspend or bar individuals who have committed serious penny
stock fraud from participating in both the penny stock and micro-cap
securities markets either as registered brokers or in related
positions, such as promoters.
Fourth, our proposal will expand the statutory officer and director
bar to include all publicly traded companies. Current law applies only
to companies that report to the SEC, leaving the door open for
violators to serve as officers or directors of all other companies. Our
proposal would extend the bar to include all publicly traded
businesses, including ``Pink Sheet'' or Over The Counter (``OTC'')
Bulletin Board companies, which are often the vehicles for micro-cap
fraud schemes.
Finally, our bill will strengthen the SEC's ability to take
enforcement actions against repeat violators. Currently, the SEC must
request that the Justice Department initiate criminal contempt
proceedings against individuals who violate SEC orders or court
injunctions, which can be a very burdensome and timely process. Our
legislation would allow the SEC to seek immediate civil penalties for
repeat violators without the need to file criminal contempt
proceedings.
Our Nation is blessed with the strongest and safest security markets
in the world. This is a tribute to both the industry and its
regulators. Unfortunately, as our markets bring benefits to more and
more Americans, they also attract those who would exploit unsuspecting
investors through manipulative practices.
By virtue of their small size and relative obscurity, microcap
securities are the most susceptible to manipulation. By giving the SEC
the tools it needs to combat this fraud, this legislation will benefit
not only individual investors, but also the vast majority of legitimate
small businesses who contribute so much to our Nation's growth and
prosperity.
I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the Microcap Fraud
Prevention Act of 1999.
I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the
legislation be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Exhibit No. 1

Securities and Exchange Commission,

Washington, DC, May 24, 1999.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee
on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Collins: I commend both you and your
Subcommittee for addressing the important issue of fraud in
the market for microcap securities. As I said in my March 23,
1999 testimony before your Subcommittee, fighting fraud in
this market has been one of the Commission's more significant
challenges this decade. The hearings you held help to focus
the issues and educate investors, and the principles in the
bill you plan to introduce will help leverage the
Commission's resources to combat microcap fraud.
As you know, Chairman Levitt testified on microcap fraud
before your Subcommittee in September 1997. He noted then
that with our resources remaining relatively constant, we
must ``rely increasingly on innovative and efficient ways of
minimizing fraud and of maximizing the deterrence achievable
with the Commission's limited resources.'' In my own view,
the concepts underlying ``The Microcap Fraud Prevention Act
of 1999'' would be of great assistance to us in this regard.
Most importantly, the bill would give us valuable new tools
to close off participation in the microcap market by those
who would prey on innocent investors.
In recent years, the Commission has made significant
inroads in the fight against microcap fraud. I appreciate
your efforts to address this serious problem through hearings
and legislation that support our enforcement efforts. I
believe your bill would significantly advance the cause and
help make our markets safer for investors. My staff and I
look forward to continuing to work with you and your
Subcommittee on this legislation.
Very truly yours,

Richard H. Walker,

Director,
Division of Enforcement.
____

North American Securities,

Administrators Association, Inc.,

Washington, DC, May 17, 1999.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Collins: On behalf of the membership of North
American Securities Administrators Association, Inc.
(``NASAA'') \1\, I commend you for recognizing and
confronting the problem of fraud in the microcap securities
market. At your invitation NASAA testified before you and the
members of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and
took part in your fact-finding mission. We appreciate your
efforts to protect the investing public from frauds and for
introducing legislation to enhance enforcement efforts in
this area.
As you know, several years ago, state securities
administrators recognized the problem of fraud in the
microcap market. Since then the states have led enforcement
efforts and filed numerous actions against microcap

[[Page 12104]]

firms. There are systematic problems in this area, but they
can be addressed effectively if state and federal regulators
and policymakers work together on meaningful solutions.
NASAA wholeheartedly supports the intent of The Microcap
Fraud Prevention Act of 1999. It would be an important step
in combating abuses in the microcap market and maintaining
continued public confidence in our markets.
I pledge the support of NASAA's membership to continue to
work with you to secure passage of this important
legislation.
Sincerely,

Peter C. Hildreth,

New Hampshire Securities Director,
NASAA President.

Exhibit No. 2

S. 1189, Microcap Fraud Prevention Act of 1999--Section-by-Section
Summary

sec. 1. short title: ``microcap fraud prevention act of 1999''

Explanation: The purpose of the bill is to protect
investors against fraud in the micro-cap securities market,
and for other purposes.

sec. 2. amendments to the securities exchange act of 1934

This section amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to
grant the SEC authority to take actions against registered
persons who have violated the law. It allows SEC enforcement
actions to be predicated on state enforcement actions and
take steps to prevent the entry into the securities industry
of individuals who have committed fraud in other sectors of
the financial services industry.
Explanation: Currently, state securities laws do not allow
state regulators to obtain civil relief having nation-wide
effect. Rather, state regulators only have jurisdiction to
prohibit defendants from doing business in their state.
Wrongdoers are thus free to perpetrate fraud in any other
state where they have not been separately barred. This
section amends Exchange Act section 15(b)(4)(G) to allow the
SEC to bring a follow-up administrative proceeding to suspend
or bar regulated persons who either (1) have been barred by a
state securities administrator from operating within that
state or (2) is subject to a final order for fraudulent,
manipulative, or deceitful conduct.
The SEC would not have the authority to follow-up on ex
parte temporary restraining orders. Such orders are imposed
immediately by state regulators and do not provide alleged
violators with a chance to present a defense until after the
order has already been entered. The SEC would have the
ability to act on these state actions if, after adjudication,
the defendant were ultimately found to have committed a
violation or reached a settlement agreement.
Currently, the Securities Exchange Act does not permit the
SEC to take administrative actions to bar or suspend from the
securities industry individuals who have committed serious
violations--i.e. fraud--in other financial industries, such
as the insurance or banking sectors. This section amends
Exchange Act 15(b)(4)(G) to authorize the SEC (1) to take
administrative action seeking bars or suspensions against a
broker-dealer or associated person based on orders issued by
federal regulators of other financial services industries and
(2) to allow the SEC to take follow-up actions when a foreign
financial regulatory authority has previously found
violations in other financial sectors. To ensure parity and
close off any remaining loopholes, corresponding changes have
also been made to Exchange Act sections 15B(c), 15C(c), and
17A(c) to extend this provision to those who seek to
associate with municipal securities dealers, government
securities dealers, and transfer agents.

sec. 3. amendments to the investment advisers act of 1940

This section amends Investment Advisers Act section 203 to
allow the SEC to bring a follow-up administrative proceeding
to suspend or bar investment advisors who are subject to
certain federal, state, or foreign orders. This sections also
amends section 203(f) of the act to permit the SEC to bar a
person associated with an investment adviser on the basis of
a felony conviction.
Explanation: This section makes the same changes to the
Investment Adviser Act that Section 2 of the bill makes to
the Exchange Act. Both allow SEC enforcement actions to be
predicated on certain federal, state, or foreign enforcement
actions against individuals found to have committed
fraudulent or similar acts in the financial services sector.

sec. 4. amendments to the investment company act of 1940

This section amends Investment Company Act section 9(b)(4)
to allow the SEC to bring a follow-up administrative
proceeding to suspend or bar individuals covered by the
Investment Company Act who are subject to certain federal,
state, or foreign orders.
Explanation: This section makes the same changes to the
Investment Company Act that Section 2 of the bill makes to
the Exchange Act. Both allow SEC enforcement actions to be
predicated on certain federal, state, or foreign enforcement
actions against individuals found to have committed
fraudulent or similar acts in the financial services sector.

sec. 5. conforming amendments

This section amends various provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to authorize the SEC to take
administrative actions against individuals--based on the
findings of certain federal, state, or foreign enforcement
actions--who seek to associate with municipal securities
dealers, government securities brokers and dealers, and
clearing agencies. The section also amends the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, so that actions by state securities
commissions and other regulators can trigger a statutory
disqualification. This section will focus statutory
disqualifications on serious violations of state law,
particularly fraud and similar offenses.
Explanation: This section seeks to prevent individuals who
have committed fraud in other financial services sectors from
entering the securities industry. The section also expands
the definition of violations that trigger automatic statutory
bars from the securities industry.

Sec. 6. broadening of penny stock bar

This section amends Exchange Act section 15(b)(6) to expand
the penny stock bar to cover a broader category of offerings.
Expanation: This section would extend the penny stock bar
to all offerings other than those involving securities traded
on the NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ, NMS, or investment company
securities. While there is no formal definition of ``micro-
cap'' security, this statutory amendment would cover what are
generally referred to as ``micro-cap'' securities.

sec. 7. court authority to prohibit offerings of non-covered securities

This section amends Exchange Act section 21(d)(5) to
provide federal court judges the authority to impose the
remedy outlined in Section 9 of the bill.
Explanation: This section would allow the SEC to obtain all
necessary relief more efficiently and expeditiously by
requesting, in appropriate cases, a district court to issue a
penny stock bar order. This authority would be provided as an
alternative to the SEC's current ability to seek such orders
only through administrative proceedings.

sec. 8. broadening of officer and director bar

This section amends Exchange Act section 21(d)(2) in order
to broaden the scope of the officer and director bar.
Explanation: Current law allows persons barred from serving
as an officer or director of companies that report to the SEC
to serve as officers or directors of other companies. This
section removes the limitation to SEC reporting companies,
and instead covers all publicly traded companies--those
registered pursuant to Exchange Act section 12, those
required to file reports pursuant to Exchange Act section
15(d), and those whose securities are ``quoted in any
quotation medium.''

sec. 9. violations of court ordered bars

This section adds section 21(i) to the Exchange Act to give
the SEC a more direct remedy against recidivist violators of
prior bar orders.
Explanation: This section makes it a stand-alone violation
of the securities laws for a person to engage in conduct that
violated a prior order barring him from acting as an officer,
director or promoter. It allows the SEC to take direct
enforcement action (seeking per-day money penalties, among
other remedies) against a recidivist without the need for
criminal authorities to bring a contempt proceeding.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Snowe, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 1191. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for facilitating the importation into the United States of
certain drugs that have been approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

INTERNATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG PARITY ACT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a piece of legislation
on behalf of myself, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Johnson. These
three Senators, and I hope others as well, have joined me in
introducing this bill, the International Prescription Drug Parity Act,
today.
This piece of legislation deals with the question of prescription
drugs. By consent of the Chair, I would like to show on the floor of
the Senate today examples of the issue that is addressed by this piece
of legislation.
With your consent, I will show two bottles of the drug Claritin, a
medication most people are familiar with. Claritin is a popular anti-
allergy drug. These two bottles contain the same pills, produced by the
same company, in the same strength, in the same quantity. One
difference: a big difference in price. This bottle is purchased in the
United States--in North

[[Page 12105]]

Dakota, to be exact. This bottle of 10 milligram, 100 tablets cost
North Dakotans $218, wholesale price. This bottle--same drug, same
company, same strength, same quantity--was purchased in Canada. They
didn't pay $218 in Canada; they paid $61. Why the difference for the
same drug, same dosage, same quantity, same company? In Canada, it
costs $61; U.S. consumers pay $218.
Here is another example--and I have a lot of examples. But with the
consent of the Chair, I will only use two today.
This is Cipro, a prescription drug to treat infections. Both bottles
are made by the same company. We have the same number of pills, 500
milligram, 100 tablets--same drug, same company, same pill. In North
Dakota, the wholesale price for this bottle is $399; in Canada, it is
$171. The North Dakotan pays--or the U.S. consumer pays because this is
true all over our country--$399, or 233 percent more than for the same
drug in Canada. The question is, Why? The question is, With a global
economy, why would a pharmacist simply not drive up to Canada and buy
the same drugs and offer them for a lower price to their customers? The
answer to that is, there is a law that restricts the importation of
drugs into this country, except by the manufacturers of the drug
themselves. That is kind of a sweetheart law, it seems to me. We want
to change that.
If the manufacturer that produces these pills has been inspected by
the Food and Drug Administration and the same drugs are marketed
everywhere, why on Earth, in a global economy, cannot our consumers
access a lesser price? Incidentally, this pricing inequity does not
just exist with Canada; it is the same with Mexico, Germany, France,
Italy, England, Germany--you name it. It is true around the world. We
pay a much higher price for most prescription drugs than consumers
anywhere else in the world. The United States is the consumer that pays
a much higher price for the same pill, in the same bottle, produced by
the same manufacturer.
With our bill we say, let's decide that what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. If the pharmaceutical companies can access the raw
materials which they use to produce their medicine from all around the
world and produce a pill and put it in a bottle, it seems to me that
the customer here in the United States ought to also benefit from free
trade, as long as the drug is FDA approved and comes from a plant that
is inspected by the FDA.
The drug industry will say that safety is an issue. It is no issue
with respect to my bill. Safety is not an issue here at all. I am
saying--and my colleagues are as well--if medicine approved by the FDA
and produced in a plant inspected by the FDA is to be marketed around
the world, but the American is to pay the highest price--in some cases
by multiples of four and five --let us use the global economy to let
U.S. pharmacists and prescription drug distributors access that
medicine wherever it exists at a lower price, and pass along those
savings to American consumers.
Back in 1991, the General Accounting Office studied 121 drugs and
found that, on average, prescription drugs in the United States are
priced 34 percent higher than the exact same products in Canada. I just
did a comparison of the retail prices on both sides of the border of 12
of the most prescribed drugs, and discovered that, on average, U.S.
prices exceeded the Canadian prices by 205 percent.
I mentioned before that Claritin costs the American consumer 358
percent more. We American consumers pay 358 percent more than the
consumer does north of the border. And incidentally, the Canadian
prices have been adjusted to U.S. dollars. Does this make sense? Of
course not. Studies show that the same drug that costs $1 in our
country costs 71 cents in Germany, 65 cents in the United Kingdom, 57
cents in France, and 51 cents in Italy. All we are saying is that if
this global economy is good for companies that produce the drugs, it
ought to be good for the consumer.
In 1997, the top 10 pharmaceutical companies had an average profit
margin of 28 percent. The Wall Street Journal reported that profit
margins in the drug industry are the ``envy of the corporate world.''
The manufacturers produce wonderful medicines, and I am all for it. But
I want them at an affordable price for the American consumer. I am flat
sick and tired of the American consumer being the consumer of last
resort who pays a much higher price than anybody else in the world for
the same drug, in the same bottle, produced by the same company. It
doesn't make sense.
Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 7 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Let me go for another minute, and then I will yield to my
colleague from Minnesota, who will have 7 minutes remaining on the 15
minutes.
As I have indicated, Senator Johnson from South Dakota and Senator
Snowe from Maine are also cosponsors. We expect other cosponsors to
join us. Frankly, the reason we have introduced this legislation is
that there is an unfair pricing practice that exists with respect to
prescription drugs in this country. It is fundamentally unfair for a
pharmaceutical manufacturer to say that we will produce a drug, and, by
the way, when we decide to sell it we will sell it all around the
world, but we will choose to sell it to the American consumer at a much
higher price than any other customer in the world.
That is unfair to the American consumer.
What prevents the local corner pharmacist from going elsewhere to buy
these prescription drugs in France or in Canada or elsewhere? A law
that says you can't import a drug into this country unless it is
imported by the manufacturer. What a ridiculous piece of legislation
that was passed over a decade ago.
If this global economy works, let's make it work for the consumers
and not just for the big companies.
Our legislation only pertains to this circumstance: If the drug has
been approved by the FDA and the facility where that drug is bought are
inspected by the FDA, then those drugs have a right to come into this
country not just by the manufacturer but by local pharmacists and
distributors who want to access that drug at a less expensive price in
other parts of the world and pass along the savings to American
consumers. That makes good sense to me.
I have a lot more to say, but I will say it at a later time. I yield
my remaining time to my colleague, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota,
who is joined by Senator Johnson of South Dakota and Senator Snowe of
Maine as cosponsors of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me first of all say to my colleague
from North Dakota that I am really pleased to join him in this effort,
along with Senator Snowe and Senator Johnson.
The International Prescription Drug Parity Act makes prescription
drugs more affordable for millions of Americans by applying the
principles of free trade and competition.
I want to give special thanks to a wonderful grassroots citizen
organization from Minnesota called the Minnesota Senior Federation. If
we had organizations such as this all around the country, we would have
such effective citizen politics, and I guarantee we would be passing
legislation that would make an enormous positive difference in the
lives of the people in our country.
This legislation provides relief from price gouging of American
consumers by our own pharmaceutical industry. Those who really pay the
price are those who are chronically ill. Many of those who are
clinically ill are the elderly. It is not uncommon anywhere in our
country to run across an elderly couple or single individual who is
paying up to 30, 40, or 50 percent of their monthly budget just for
prescription drug costs.
In my State of Minnesota, only 35 percent of senior citizens have any
prescription drug cost coverage at all.
This legislation is very simple. I say to Senator Dorgan that what I
liked the best about this legislation, and the

[[Page 12106]]

reason I think it will command widespread support, is its eloquent
simplicity.
We are just saying that if you have drugs which are FDA approved and
manufactured in our country, and now they are in Canada, for example,
and cost half of what they cost senior citizens to pay for that drug in
our own country, it shouldn't just be the pharmaceutical companies that
can bring those drugs back in. You ought to enable pharmacists or
distributors to go to Canada and purchase these drugs which have been
FDA approved, and then bring them back to our country and sell these
drugs at a discount rate for our citizens in our country.
This is the best of competition. This is the best of what we mean by
free trade.
I want to be clear. This legislation will amend the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act. The FDA Commissioner was in Minnesota 2 weeks ago and
senior citizens were pressing her on this question. She was cautious.
But what she was saying was that we would need some legislation; we
would need some change to be able to do what Senator Dorgan is talking
about. We would amend this piece of legislation to allow American
pharmacists and distributors to import prescription drugs into the
United States as long as these drugs meet strict FDA standards. That is
it. The FDA isn't directly involved, but the FDA is critically involved
in the sense that these drugs have to meet all the FDA standards.
This piece of legislation is simple. It is straightforward. It is
very proconsumer, very pro-senior citizen, very procompetition, very
pro-free trade. As I think about the gatherings that I go to in my
State--I bet this applies to New Jersey, I see Senator Torricelli here,
and Senator Reed of Rhode Island--anywhere in the country. You can't go
to a community meeting, and you can't go in into a cafe and meet with
people without having people talk about the price of prescription
drugs. It is just prohibitively expensive. This piece of legislation
will make an enormous difference.
It could be that there is some opposition to this piece of
legislation. I can see some vested economic interests who may figure
out reasons to be opposed to it, but I will say that this piece of
legislation would go a long way in dealing with the problem of price
gouging right now and making sure that these prescription drugs that
can be so important to the health of senior citizens, the people in the
disabilities community and other citizens as well that they will be
able to purchase these drugs, and they will be able to afford these
drugs, which can make an enormous difference in improving the quality
of their health.
I introduce this legislation, along with Senator Dorgan, and we are
joined by Senator Johnson and Senator Snowe. I believe we will have
strong bipartisan support for this bill.
Mr. President, how much time do we have left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators have a total of 9 minutes 54
seconds.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just make a comment to the
Senator from Minnesota, all of us have the experience of going around
our States and talking to especially senior citizens, who take a
substantial amount of prescription drugs--many of them wonderful,
lifesaving drugs but at a substantial cost. Many of them have no health
insurance coverage for these costs.
Let me say at the outset, lest anyone think I don't appreciate what
goes on, that the research done at the Federal level and the research
done by the pharmaceutical companies have produced lifesaving,
remarkable medicines. I commend all of those folks for that, including
these companies. I am only debating the price issue here.
I ran into a woman one day. She was in her eighties. She had heart
disease, diabetes, and was living on somewhere around $400 a month of
total income. She said to me: Mr. Senator, I can't afford to take the
drugs the doctor says I must take for my heart difficulties and for my
diabetes. What I do is buy the drugs, and then I cut the pills in half
and take half of the dose so it lasts twice as long. It is the only
way. Even then I can hardly afford to pay for food.
That is what the problem is here. The problem is that these
pharmaceutical drugs are overpriced relative to what every other
consumer in the rest of the world is paying for them. I am talking of
other consumers in France, in Germany, Italy, England, Canada, and
Mexico--you name it. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why should our
senior citizens--all consumers for that matter--be paying 300-percent
more for the same drug in virtually the same bottle produced by the
same company inspected by the FDA than a consumer 20 miles north in
Canada is paying?
I just came from a meeting near the border of North Dakota and
Canada. I was talking to people, again, about that disparity. The
Senator from Minnesota has exactly the same situation.
The pharmacists at the corner drugstore are saying: Why can't I go up
there and buy some of these medications? I know that it is the same
pill which comes from the same plant.
The reason is the law prevents him from bringing it back, and we want
to change that.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, when we talk
about citizens becoming frustrated and sometimes angry, either two
things are going on.
First of all, you can find people to talk to everywhere, especially
senior citizens who are paying 30, 40, or 50 percent of their monthly
budget just for these costs. They cut the pill in half and take only
half of what they need, or they cut down on food. It is drugs versus
food, or versus something else. They should not be faced with those
choices.
But what adds insult to injury is to then know that the same drug
manufactured quite often in the same place with the same FDA approval
purchased in Canada costs half the price.
We are simply saying let our pharmacists and let our distributors in
our country be able to purchase those prescription drugs in Canada and
bring them back and sell them at a discount to our consumers. That is
what this legislation says.
If you want to talk about a piece of legislation that speaks to the
interests and circumstances of people's lives, I think this legislation
will make an enormous difference.
I am prepared to fight very hard to make sure that we pass this
legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Reid, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr.
Bryan):
S. 1192. A bill to designate national forest land managed by the
Forest Service in the Lake Tahoe Basin as the ``Lake Tahoe National
Scenic Forest and Recreation Area,'' and to promote environmental
restoration around the Lake Tahoe Basin; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

THE LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to begin by thanking Senator
Harry Reid who has worked so hard with me on the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Act. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues Senator
Barbara Boxer and Senator Dick Bryan for cosponsoring this important
legislation.
This legislation really comes directly out of the Tahoe Summit. I am
one that spent her childhood at lake Tahoe, but I had not been back for
a number of years. When I went there for the Tahoe Summit in 1997 with
the President, I saw things I had never seen before at Lake Tahoe.
I saw the penetration of MTBE in the water. I saw the gasoline spread
over the water surface. I saw that in fact 30 percent of the South Lake
Tahoe water supply has been eliminated by MTBE. I saw 25 percent of the
magnificent forest that surrounds the lake dead or dying. I saw land
erosion problems on a major level that were bringing all kinds of
sediment into the lake and which had effectively cut its clarity by
thirty feet since the last time I had visited. And then I learned that
the experts believe that in ten years the clouding of the amazing
crystal water clarity would be impossible to reverse and in thirty
years it would be lost forever.

[[Page 12107]]

For me, that was a call to action, and today I am proud to introduce
the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. This legislation will designate federal
lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin as a National Scenic Forest and
Recreation area and will authorize $300 million of Federal monies on a
matching basis over ten years for environmental restoration projects to
preserve the region's water quality and forest health.
Lake Tahoe is the crown jewel of the Sierra Nevada and its clear,
blue water is simply remarkable. Some people may not know that Lake
Tahoe contributes $1.6 billion dollars every year to the economy from
tourism alone. However, one in every seven trees in the forest
surrounding Emerald Bay is either dead or dying. Insect infestations
and drought have killed over 25 percent of the trees in the forests
surrounding Lake Tahoe, creating a severe risk of wildfire.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency estimates that restoring the lake
and its surrounding forests will cost $900 million dollars over the
next ten years. This is not a cursory evaluation but a careful
evaluation made by this agency over several years.
Local governments and businesses in Lake Tahoe have agreed to raise
$300 million locally in the next ten years for this effort. The Tahoe
Transportation and Water Quality Coalition, a coalition of 18
businesses and environmental groups, including Placer County, El Dorado
County, the City of South Lake Tahoe, Douglass County in Nevada and
Washoe County in Nevada have all agreed. This is an extraordinary
commitment for a region with only 50,000 year round residents.
The Governors of California and Nevada have pledged to provide
another $300 million, but only if the Federal government will step up
and provide $300 million of its own because we must remember that 77
percent of the forest is owned by the Federal Government.
President Clinton took an important first step in 1997 when he held
an environmental summit at Lake Tahoe and promised $50 million over two
years for restoration activities around the lake. These commitments
included: $4.5 million to reduce fire risk at the lake; $3.5 million
for public transportation; $4 million for acquisition of
environmentally sensitive land; $1.3 million dollars to decommission
old, unused logging roads that are a major source of sediment into Lake
Tahoe; $7.5 million to replace an aging waste water pipeline that
threatens to leak sewage into the lake; and $3 million for scientific
research.
Unfortunately, the President's commitments lasted for only two years,
so important areas like land acquisition and road decommissioning were
not funded at the levels the President tried to accomplish. So what is
needed is a more sustained, long-term effort, and one that will meet
the federal government's $300 million dollar responsibility to save the
environment at Lake Tahoe.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act will build upon the President's
commitment to Lake Tahoe and authorize full funding for a new
environmental restoration program at the lake.
The bill designates U.S. Forest Service lands in the Lake Tahoe basin
as the Lake Tahoe National Scenic Forest and Recreation Area. This
designation, which is unique to Lake Tahoe, is strongly supported by
local business, environmental, and community leaders. The designation
will recognize Lake Tahoe as a priceless scenic and recreational
resource.
The legislation explicitly says that nothing in the bill gives the
U.S. Forest Service regulatory authority over private or non-federal
land. The bill also requires the Forest Service to develop an annual
priority list of environmental restoration projects and authorizes $200
million over ten years to the forest service to implement these
projects on federal lands. The list must include projects that will
improve water quality, forest health, soil conservation, air quality,
and fish and wildlife habitat around the lake.
In developing the environmental restoration priority list, the Forest
Service must rely on the best available science, and consider projects
that local governments, businesses, and environmental groups have
targeted as top priorities. The Forest Service also must consult with
local community leaders.
The bill requires the Forest Service to give special attention on its
priority list to four key activities: acquisition of environmentally
sensitive land from willing sellers, erosion and sediment control, fire
risk reduction, and traffic and parking management, including promotion
of public transportation.
The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act also requires that $100 million of the
$300 million over ten years be in payments to local governments for
erosion control activities on non-federal lands. These payments will
help local governments conduct soil conservation and erosion mitigation
projects, restore wetlands and stream environmental zones, and plant
native vegetation to filter out sediment and debris.
I have been working on the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act for over a
year, in conjunction with Senator Reid and over a dozen community
groups at Lake Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Transportation and Water Quality
Coalition, a local consensus group of 18 businesses and environmental
groups, has worked extremely hard on this bill, and I am grateful for
their input and support.
Thanks in large part to their work, the bill has strong, bi-partisan
support from nearly every major group in the Tahoe Basin. The bill is
supported by the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the South Lake Tahoe
Chamber of Commerce, and the Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance, to name just a
few. Major environmental groups also support the bill, including the
Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, and California League of Conservation
Voters.
The bottom line is that time is running out for Lake Tahoe. We have
ten years to do something major or the water quality deterioration is
irreversible.
We have a limited period of time, or the 25 percent of the dead and
dying trees and the combustible masses that it produced are sure to
catch fire, and a major forest fire will result.
Mr. President, this crown jewel deserves the attention, and the fact
that the federal government owns 77 percent of that troubled area makes
the responsibility all so clear.
I am hopeful that the United States Senate will move quickly to
consider the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. I urge my colleagues in the
Senate to join me in preserving this national treasure for generations
to come.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
S. 1193. A bill to improve the safety of animals transported on
aircraft, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.

THE SAFE AIR TRAVEL FOR ANIMALS ACT

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a piece of legislation which I
rise to introduce. This legislation is designed to protect a segment of
our population that can't protect itself. I am talking about pets--
dogs, cats, and others that travel by air. I want to put this into
perspective. Over 70 million households in America have pets--70
million. So it affects a significant portion of our population. Pets
become family members and they become a source of significant affection
and attachment. In some cases, they are the vision for those who are
sightless. They establish precious relationships.
Over the last 5 years, there have been over 2,500 documented
instances of dogs and cats experiencing severe injury in air travel,
and 108 cats and dogs have died just as a result of exposure to
excessive temperatures.
Pets aren't baggage. They are part of a family, in many instances,
and they ought to be treated that way when they accompany their masters
when they fly. Over 500,000 pets a year are transported by air across
this country. News reports have detailed stories of pets being left out
on hot days, sitting on tarmacs while flights were delayed, or stuffed
into cargo holds with little or no airflow, causing them to injure
themselves in the desperation to escape this entrapment and very
difficult environment.
Some pets have actually had heavy baggage placed directly on top of
their

[[Page 12108]]

carriers. It is unacceptable. We can and must prevent these inhumane
practices.
So today I am introducing The Safe Air Travel for Animals Act. This
bill responds to the tragic stories we have heard involving the death
or injury of many beloved pets while traveling by airplane.
The legislation has three goals. First, it ensures that airlines are
held accountable for mistreatment of our pets, to ensure that animals
are not treated like a set of golf clubs or other baggage. This
legislation will put airlines on a tight leash.
Second, the bill provides consumers with the right to know if an
airline has a record of mistreatment or accidents with pets.
Third, the bill addresses the problems of the aircraft themselves,
making sure that the cargo hold is as safe as it possibly can be for
animal travel.
Airlines need to be held accountable for the harm they permit to
happen to our pets. Right now, airlines are only liable to owners for
up to $1,250 for losing, injuring, or killing a pet.
That is no different from what they would be liable for if they lost
your suitcase. Under my bill, that limit for liability will be double.
Now, anyone who owns a pet knows how expensive veterinary bills can
be. If an animal is injured or dies as a result of flying, my bill
would require the airlines to pay for the costs of veterinary care.
Mr. President, my bill also provides consumers with the right to know
about the conditions they face when they transport their animals by
plane. My bill requires airlines to immediately report any incidents
involving loss, injury or death of animals.
Most importantly, the bill puts this information into the hands of
the flying public. Pet owners should know which airlines are doing a
good job, and which need to do better. Just as consumers favor airlines
with solid, on-time records, they will also favor the airlines that
have a good safety record with our pets. And, an airline that does a
good job will want this information in the hands of consumers.
Finally, the bill addresses the problem of the aircraft themselves.
The airline industry is undergoing a retrofitting process, as required
by the FAA, of all ``class D'' cargo holds, to prevent fires.
These are special holds that have the facility to turn off the oxygen
in the event of smoke or fire. But that also means that that is an
execution for the pets that are in those holds.
I believe that the industry should use this opportunity to see what
improvements can be made to allow for better oxygen flow and
temperature control to protect our pets.
Mr. President, we must do more to prevent unnecessary deaths caused
by lack of oxygen flow or exposure to heat.
With this bill, travelers will feel more secure about using air
travel to transport their pets.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this
legislation.
______

By Mr. COVERDELL:
S. 1196. A bill to improve the quality, timeliness, and credibility
of forensic science services for criminal justice purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

THE NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCE IMPROVEMENT ACT

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the National Forensic
Science Improvement Act, a bill designed to address the growing backlog
in our nation's crime labs. Across the country, state and local crime
labs, Medical Examiners' and Coroners' offices face alarming shortages
in forensic science resources. While other areas of our criminal
justice system such as the courts and prison systems have benefitted
from federal assistance, the highly technical and expensive forensic
sciences have received little attention. Mr. President, my bill will
help correct this problem.
There are 600 qualified state and local crime laboratories in the
United States which deliver 90% of the total forensic science services
in this country. In a 1996 national survey of 299 crime labs it was
found that 8 out of 10 labs have experienced a growth in the caseload
which exceeds the growth in budget and/or staff. Mr. President, I need
go no further to demonstrate that this is a national problem. Without
the swift processing of evidence our criminal justice system cannot
operate as it is intended. I believe it is time to take a step to
address specifically the problems our crime labs face.
The National Forensic Science Improvement Act has been endorsed by
organizations such as the National Governors Association, the National
Association of Attorneys General, the Association of State Criminal
Investigative Agencies and the International Association of Chiefs of
Police who see it as a flexible approach to a problem that indeed has
far-ranging consequences. Mr. President, it is my belief that Congress
must work to ensure justice in this country is neither delayed nor
denied. Right now across the country backlogs in crime labs are denying
the swift administration of justice and with this bill we have a ready
solution.
In crafting this bill I have worked closely with the Georgia Bureau
of Investigation which is suffering heavily under a growing caseload.
At its headquarters in Decatur, GA the GBI has a number of cataloging
systems that are not yet computerized. Further, they lack the funding
to create computer networks that would connect not only their forensic
equipment with internal computers, but would also allow them to share
information with crime labs across the country. While the Governor has
taken steps to provide the GBI with more funding for forensic sciences,
it remains clear that federal assistance is needed.
Last year the Senate passed the Crime Identification Technology Act.
This important measure, which I supported, was a good step towards
improving the technology employed by law enforcement across the
country. I believe my bill is the next logical step in this body's
effort to improve the manner in which justice is administered in this
country.
______

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Levin,
and Mr. Schumer):
S. 1197. A bill to prohibit the importation of products made with dog
or cat fur, to prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale,
transportation, and distribution of products made with dog or cat fur
in the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

DOG AND CAT PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
runs to the heart of who we are and what we hold dear and meaningful in
our lives.
There is a special relationship between men, women, children, and
their family pets--particularly their dogs and cats.
I have been profoundly affected in my life because of the animals
that transcended emotional boundaries to become true and meaningful
friends--even a part of the family. I can name every dog I've owned
since I was a boy.
I can tell you their qualities, their peculiarities, their
preferences and dislikes. Even now, my wife Jane and I--our children
and grandchildren--are surrounded by the most loyal St. Bernards in the
world. They--as all the pets we've had--speak volumes about strong and
lasting friendship.
You can understand, given this background, that I am outraged to
learn that there are clothing articles imported into America that are
made from the fur of these precious animals.
I'm outraged to learn that dog and cat fur is being used in a wide
variety of products, including fur coats and jackets.
I'm outraged to learn from the Humane Society of the United States
that more than two million dogs and cats are killed annually as part of
the fur trade, and that many retailers in the U.S. who sell these items
are doing so unaware of their content.
To respond to this growing problem, I'm introducing legislation
today, the Dog and Cat Protection Act of 1999, to prohibit the domestic
sale, manufacture, transportation, and distribution of products made
with cat or dog fur.

[[Page 12109]]

My legislation requires all fur products to be labelled, closing a
loophole in the current law, and it will ban deceptive or misleading
labelling of these products so consumers and retailers can buy with
confidence, knowing that they are not supporting this tragic process.
With this legislation, our message will be clear: No matter where in
the world this merchandise is made, there will be no legitimate market
for it here--not in the United States.
This is important legislation. It will provide uniformity of
regulations and prevent conflicts between states. It will give the
Justice Department the ability to enforce the law and prosecute those
who may try to get around it.
And the U.S. Customs Service would be able to function as the first
line of defense. I appreciate the work being done by the Humane Society
of the United States and many other important organizations to heighten
our awareness of these kinds of issues.
And I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this
legislation enacted into law. Thank you, Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1197

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 ``Dog and Cat Protection Act
of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) An estimated 2,000,000 dogs and cats are slaughtered
and sold annually as part of the international fur trade.
Internationally, dog and cat fur is used in a wide variety of
products, including fur coats and jackets, fur-trimmed
garments, hats, gloves, decorative accessories, stuffed
animals, and other toys.
(2) As demonstrated by forensic tests, dog and cat fur
products are being imported into the United States, in some
cases with deceptive labeling to conceal the use of dog or
cat fur.
(3) Dog and cat fur, when dyed, is not easily
distinguishable to persons who are not experts from other
furs such as fox, rabbit, coyote, wolf, and mink. Dog and cat
fur is generally less expensive than other types of fur and
may be used as a substitute for more expensive types of furs.
(4) Foreign fur producers use dogs and cats bred for their
fur, and also use strays and stolen pets.
(5) The methods of housing, transporting, and slaughtering
dogs and cats for fur production are generally unregulated
and inhumane.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to prohibit the sale, manufacture, offer for sale,
transportation, and distribution in the United States of dog
and cat fur products;
(2) to require accurate labeling of fur species so that
consumers in the United States can make informed choices; and
(3) to prohibit the trade in, both imports and exports of,
dog and cat fur products, to ensure that the United States
market does not encourage the slaughter of dogs or cats for
their fur, and to ensure that the purposes of this Act are
not undermined.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Dog fur.--The term ``dog fur'' means the pelt or skin
of any animal of the species canis familiaris.
(2) Cat fur.--The term ``cat fur'' means the pelt or skin
of any animal of the species felis catus.
(3) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the
customs territory of the United States, as defined in general
note 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States.
(4) Commerce.--The term ``commerce'' means transportation
for sale, trade, or use between any State, territory, or
possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia,
and any place outside thereof.
(5) Dog or cat fur product.--The term ``dog or cat fur
product'' means any item of merchandise which consists, or is
composed in whole or in part, of any dog fur, cat fur, or
both.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any individual,
partnership, corporation, association, organization, business
trust, government entity, or other entity.
(7) Interested party.--The term ``interested party'' means
any person having a contractual, financial, humane, or other
interest.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Treasury.
(9) Duly authorized officer.--The term ``duly authorized
officer'' means any United States Customs officer, any agent
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any agent or other
person authorized by law or designated by the Secretary to
enforce the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITIONS.

(a) Prohibition on Manufacture, Sale, and Other
Activities.--No person in the United States or subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States may introduce into
commerce, manufacture for introduction into commerce, sell,
trade, or advertise in commerce, offer to sell, or transport
or distribute in commerce, any dog or cat fur product.
(b) Imports and Exports.--No dog or cat fur product may be
imported into, or exported from, the United States.

SEC. 5. LABELING.

Section 2(d) of the Fur Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C.
69(d)) is amended by striking ``; except that such term shall
not include such articles as the Commission shall exempt by
reason of the relatively small quantity or value of the fur
or used fur contained therein''.

SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, either independently or in
cooperation with the States, political subdivisions thereof,
and interested parties, is authorized to carry out operations
and measures to eradicate and prevent the activities
prohibited by section 4.
(b) Inspections.--A duly authorized officer may, upon his
own initiative or upon the request of any interested party,
detain for inspection and inspect any product, package,
crate, or other container, including its contents, and all
accompanying documents to determine compliance with this Act.
(c) Seizures and Arrests.--If a duly authorized officer has
reasonable cause to believe that there has been a violation
of this Act or any regulation issued under this Act, such
officer may search and seize, with or without a warrant, the
item suspected of being the subject of the violation, and may
arrest the owner of the item. An item so seized shall be held
by any person authorized by the Secretary pending disposition
of civil or criminal proceedings.
(d) Burden of Proof.--The burden of proof shall lie with
the owner to establish that the item seized is not a dog or
cat fur product subject to forfeiture and civil penalty under
section 7.
(e) Action by U.S. Attorney.--Upon presentation by a duly
authorized officer or any interested party of credible
evidence that a violation of this Act or any regulation
issued under this Act has occurred, the United States
Attorney with jurisdiction over the suspected violation shall
investigate the matter and shall take appropriate action
under this Act.
(f) Citizen Suits.--Any person may commence a civil suit to
compel the Secretary to implement and enforce this Act, or to
enjoin any person from taking action in violation of any
provision of this Act or any regulation issued under this
Act.
(g) Reward.--The Secretary may pay a reward to any person
who furnishes information which leads to an arrest, criminal
conviction, civil penalty assessment, or forfeiture of
property for any violation of this Act or any regulation
issued under this Act.
(h) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall issue final
regulations, after notice and opportunity for public comment,
to implement this Act within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Fees.--The Secretary may charge reasonable fees for
expenses to the Government connected with permits or
certificates authorized by this Act, including expenses for--
(A) processing applications;
(B) reasonable inspections; and
(C) the transfer, handling, or storage of evidentiary items
seized and forfeited under this Act.
All fees collected pursuant to this paragraph shall be
deposited in the Treasury in an account specifically
designated for enforcement of this Act and available only for
that purpose.

SEC. 7. PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Penalty.--Any person who violates any provision
of this Act or any regulation issued under this Act may be
assessed a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 for each
violation.
(b) Criminal Penalty.--Any person who knowingly violates
any provision of this Act or any regulation issued under this
Act shall, upon conviction for each violation, be imprisoned
for not more than 1 year, fined in accordance with title 18,
United States Code, or both.
(c) Forfeiture.--Any dog or cat fur product that is the
subject of a violation of this Act or any regulation issued
under this Act shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture to
the same extent as any merchandise imported in violation of
the customs laws.
(d) Injunction.--Any person who violates any provision of
this Act or any regulation issued under this Act may be
enjoined from further sales of any fur products.
(e) Applicability.--The penalties in this section apply to
violations occurring on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.

[[Page 12110]]

______

By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Lott):
S. 1198. A bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to
provide for a report by the General Accounting Office to Congress on
agency regulatory actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

congressional accountability for regulatory information act of 1999

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 1198

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 ``Congressional Accountability
for Regulatory Information Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) many Federal regulations have improved the quality of
life of the American public, however, uncontrolled increases
in regulatory costs and lost opportunities for better
regulation cannot be continued;
(2) the legislative branch has a responsibility to ensure
that laws passed by Congress are properly implemented by the
executive branch; and
(3) in order for the legislative branch to fulfill its
responsibilities to ensure that laws passed by Congress are
implemented in an efficient, effective, and fair manner, the
Congress requires accurate and reliable information on which
to base decisions.

SEC. 3. REPORTS ON REGULATORY ACTIONS BY THE GENERAL
ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

(a) In General.--Section 801(a)(2) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B)(i) After an agency publishes a regulatory action, a
committee of either House of Congress with legislative or
oversight jurisdiction relating to the action may request the
Comptroller General to review the action under clause (ii).
``(ii) Of requests made under clause (i), the Comptroller
General shall provide a report on each regulatory action
selected under clause (iv) to the committee which requested
the report (and the committee of jurisdiction in the other
House of Congress) not later than 180 calendar days after the
committee request is received. The report shall include an
independent analysis of the regulatory action by the
Comptroller General using any relevant data or analyses
available to or generated by the General Accounting Office.
``(iii) The independent analysis of the regulatory action
by the Comptroller General under clause (ii) shall include--
``(I) an analysis by the Comptroller General of the
potential benefits of the regulatory action, including any
beneficial effects that cannot be quantified in monetary
terms and the identification of those likely to receive the
benefits;
``(II) an analysis by the Comptroller General of the
potential costs of the regulatory action, including any
adverse effects that cannot be quantified in monetary terms
and the identification of those likely to bear the costs;
``(III) an analysis by the Comptroller General of any
alternative regulatory approaches, which have been
identified, that could achieve the same goal in a more cost-
effective manner or that could provide greater net benefits,
and, if applicable, a brief explanation of any statutory
reasons why such alternatives could not be adopted;
``(IV) an analysis of the extent to which the regulatory
action would affect State or local governments; and
``(V) a summary of how the results of the Comptroller
General's analysis differ, if at all, from the results of the
analyses of the agency in promulgating the regulatory action.
``(iv) In consultation with the Majority and Minority
Leaders of the Senate and the Speaker and Minority Leader of
the House of Representatives, the Comptroller General shall
develop procedures for determining the priority and number of
those requests for review under clause (i) that will be
reported under clause (ii).
``(C) Federal agencies shall cooperate with the Comptroller
General by promptly providing the Comptroller General with
such records and information as the Comptroller General
determines necessary to carry out this section.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 804 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (5), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) The term `independent analysis' means a substantive
review of the agency's underlying assessments and assumptions
used in developing the regulatory action and any additional
analysis the Comptroller General determines to be
necessary.''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1) of this subsection) the following:
``(4) The term `regulatory action' means--
``(A) notice of proposed rule making;
``(B) final rule making, including interim final rule
making; or
``(C) a rule.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the General
Accounting Office to carry out chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, $5,200,000 for each of fiscal years 2000 through
2003.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 335

At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Sarbanes) was added as a cosponsor of S. 335, a bill to amend
chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to provide for the
nonmailability of certain deceptive matter relating to games of chance,
administrative procedures, orders, and civil penalties relating to such
matter, and for other purposes.

S. 343

At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Grams) was added as a cosponsor of S. 343, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for 100 percent of
the health insurance costs of self-employed individuals.

S. 424

At the request of Mr. Coverdell, the name of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) was added as a cosponsor of S. 424, a bill to
preserve and protect the free choice of individuals and employees to
form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such
activities.

S. 446

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer)
were added as cosponsors of S. 446, a bill to provide for the permanent
protection of the resources of the United States in the year 2000 and
beyond.

S. 512

At the request of Mr. Gorton, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Chafee) was added as a cosponsor of S. 512, a bill to amend
the Public Health Service Act to provide for the expansion,
intensification, and coordination of the activities of the Department
of Health and Human Services with respect to research on autism.

S. 514

At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 514, a bill to improve the
National Writing Project.

S. 566

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) were added as
cosponsors of S. 566, a bill to amend the Agricultural Trade Act of
1978 to exempt agricultural commodities, livestock, and value-added
products from unilateral economic sanctions, to prepare for future
bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations affecting United States
agriculture, and for other purposes.

S. 676

At the request of Mr. Campbell, the names of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Wellstone) were
added as cosponsors of S. 676, a bill to locate and secure the return
of Zachary Baumel, a citizen of the United States, and other Israeli
soldiers missing in action.

S. 680

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Burns) was added as a cosponsor of S. 680, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the research
credit, and for other purposes.

S. 737

At the request of Mr. Chafee, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 737, a bill to amend title
XIX of the Social Security Act to provide States with options for
providing family planning services and supplies to women eligible for
medical assistance under the medicaid program.

[[Page 12111]]

S. 820

At the request of Mr. Mack, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
820, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the
4.3-cent motor fuel excise taxes on railroads and inland waterway
transportation which remain in the general fund of the Treasury.

S. 914

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum) was added as a cosponsor of S. 914, a bill
to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require that
discharges from combined storm and sanitary sewers conform to the
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and for other purposes.

S. 918

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) were added as
cosponsors of S. 918, a bill to authorize the Small Business
Administration to provide financial and business development assistance
to military reservists' small business, and for other purposes.

S. 1034

At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Texas (Mrs.
Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1034, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase the amount of payment
under the medicare program for pap smear laboratory tests.

S. 1070

At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mr. Gorton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1070, a bill to require the
Secretary of Labor to wait for completion of a National Academy of
Sciences study before promulgating a standard, regulation or guideline
on ergonomics.

S. 1074

At the request of Mr. Torricelli, the names of the Senator from
Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bryan) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1074, a bill to amend the Social Security Act
to waive the 24-month waiting period for medicare coverage of
individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and to provide
medicare coverage of drugs and biologicals used for the treatment of
ALS or for the alleviation of symptoms relating to ALS.

S. 1130

At the request of Mr. McCain, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Lott) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1130, a bill to
amend title 49, United States Code, with respect to liability of motor
vehicle rental or leasing companies for the negligent operation of
rented or leased motor vehicles.

Senate Joint Resolution 27

At the request of Mr. Smith, the names of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were
added as cosponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 27, A joint resolution
disapproving the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade
relations treatment) to the products of the People's Republic of China.

Senate Joint Resolution 28

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint
Resolution 28, 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.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 9

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Rhode
Island (Mr. Reed) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent
Resolution 9, a concurrent resolution calling for a United States
effort to end restrictions on the freedoms and human rights of the
enclaved people in the occupied area of Cyprus.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 22

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Frist) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution
22, a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the Congress with
respect to promoting coverage of individuals under long-term care
insurance.

Senate Resolution 59

At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the names of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Robb), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Grams)
were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 59, a resolution
designating both July 2, 1999, and July 2, 2000, as ``National Literacy
Day.''

Senate Resolution 81

At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 81, a resolution
designating the year of 1999 as ``The Year of Safe Drinking Water'' and
commemorating the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act.

Senate Resolution 92

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Cleland) was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 92, a
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that funding for prostate
cancer research should be increased substantially.

Senate Resolution 96

At the request of Mrs. Murray, her name was added as a cosponsor of
Senate Resolution 96, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate
regarding a peaceful process of self-determination in East Timor, and
for other purposes.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 113--TO AMEND THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE TO
REQUIRE THAT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES
BE RECITED AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DAILY SESSION OF THE SENATE

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Mr. Helms) submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration:

S. Res. 113

Whereas the Flag of the United States of America is our
Nation's most revered and preeminent symbol;
Whereas the Flag of the United States of America is
recognized and respected throughout the world as a symbol of
democracy, freedom, and human rights;
Whereas, in the words of the Chief Justice of the United
States, the Flag of the United States of America ``in times
of national crisis, inspires and motivates the average
citizen to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve
societal goals of overriding importance . . . and serves as a
reminder of the paramount importance of pursuing the ideals
that characterize our society'';
Whereas the House of Representatives of the United States
has opened each of its daily sessions with the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America since
1988; and
Whereas opening each of the daily sessions of the Senate of
the United States with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
of the United States would demonstrate reverence for the Flag
and serve as a daily reminder to all Senators of the ideals
that it represents: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That paragraph 1(a) of rule IV of the Standing
Rules of the Senate is amended by inserting after ``prayer by
the Chaplain'' the following: ``and after the Presiding
Officer leads the Senate in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag of the United States''.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, the resolution that I am
submitting today provides that immediately following the prayer such as
we just heard this morning by Chaplain Ogilvie, at the beginning of
each daily session of the Senate, the Presiding Officer of the Senate
would lead the Senate in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the
United States.
I am pleased and honored that the chairman of the Rules Committee,
Senator McConnell, as well as Senator Feinstein, Senator Helms, an
Senator Lott, have joined me as original cosponsors of this resolution.
The flag of the United States is our most revered and preeminent
symbol, and the flag is recognized and respected throughout the world
as a symbol of democracy, freedom, and human rights. As you know, the
House of Representatives has such a flag salute in the morning at the
beginning of each day. I think it is appropriate that the Senate follow
suit. It is probably long overdue.
The Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, has
written

[[Page 12112]]

that the flag of the United States of America ``in times of national
crisis, inspires and motivates the average citizen to make personal
sacrifices in order to achieve societal goals of overriding importance
. . . and serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of pursuing
the ideals that characterize our society.''
Many Americans, including my father, have given their lives to
protect freedom and democracy as symbolized by this flag. Our family
was presented with a flag at the burial, as so many other families of
veterans have also experienced. It means a great deal, and I think it
is appropriate that we salute the flag every morning to start our
business.
Since 1988, as I said, the House of Representatives has demonstrated
its reverence and respect for the flag, and all of the ideals for which
it stands, by opening its morning session with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
I wish to give credit to a constituent of mine. I would like to take
credit for the idea--perhaps I should have thought of it--but it came
from Rebecca Stewart of Enfield, NH, who recently contacted my office
and suggested that the Senate should do what the House does--open each
session with the Pledge of Allegiance. I thought that was a great idea
and contacted several members of the Senate Rules Committee to get a
sense of the level of support on that committee for the idea, and I was
pleased and delighted by the response from Rules.
The result then is the resolution I am submitting today. I might also
in conclusion point out that Monday, June 14, is Flag Day. It would be
a great tribute if we could get this resolution to the floor and pass
it sometime on or before Monday, June 14. We do have time this week to
do that. It is my hope we can move this legislation out of Rules
quickly and bring it to the floor. I understand Senator McConnell will
be in the Chamber to speak on this matter very shortly.
Mr. President, I trust that the Senate will see fit to promptly adopt
this resolution. I hope that it will receive the unanimous support of
my colleagues in the Senate.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the senior Senator from New Hampshire,
Mr. Bob Smith, introduced a rules change which I, as chairman of the
Rules Committee, am happy to cosponsor. I commend our colleague,
Senator Bob Smith, for an excellent and outstanding idea.
Since 1892, Americans have expressed their reverence for the flag of
this Nation and all it represents by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge was first recited at the 1892 World's Fair to commemorate
the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America. Since that time,
hundreds and thousands of civic organizations and schoolchildren have
taken time before turning to their work to recite these moving words:

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.

Mr. President, I can remember as a schoolchild in Athens, Alabama,
standing at my desk, placing my hand over my heart, fixing my eyes upon
the flag, and reciting these eloquent words. I suspect many of our
colleagues here in the Senate had the same experience in school as they
were growing up.
Even at that early age, pledging allegiance to the flag encouraged me
to think about the history and ideals of this Nation. It was an
important ritual for schoolchildren then. It should be an important
ritual for the Senate now.
Presently, we begin each day's business here in the Senate with a
prayer. This solemn act reminds us of certain principles and values
that we as a people hold dear. Similarly, daily recitation of the
pledge would serve as an inspirational start to each legislative day.
The pledge is a time for reflecting on the inspiring history and
ideals of liberty and freedom that the Stars and Stripes represents.
Setting aside this time each day will serve to remind Americans of the
venerated place the flag holds in our country and our culture.
Mr. President, among my most prized possessions is the American flag
which honored, as he was laid to rest, my father's service to our
Nation. That flag rests proudly on the marble mantel in my Senate
office.
A clinical assessment of that flag would conclude that it is some
mixture of cotton fabric, dyed red, white, and blue. But for me, it
harkens back to the selfless patriotism of a father who fought for his
Nation during World War II, a father who instilled in his son an awe
and abiding respect for this great Nation we are all so fortunate to
call home.
Old Glory has been a beacon of hope for over 200 years, a touchstone
for patriotic Americans, and a source of comfort and pride for
individuals at home and abroad. In the words of Senator Charles Sumner,
``In a foreign land, the flag is companionship, and country itself,
with all its endearments.''
The flag is, without question, a powerful symbol the world over. For
nearly every American, it is the most powerful patriotic inspiration.
It is my distinct honor today to cosponsor this resolution as
chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. I also want to commend my good
friend from New Hampshire, Senator Bob Smith, for an excellent idea and
for his leadership on this issue. The Senate should promptly pass this
resolution to begin every day in the Senate Chamber with the pledge of
allegiance to our flag and to the Republic for which it stands, the
Republic to which we have dedicated ourselves as Senators.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 38--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT
THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS SHOULD INCLUDE IN THE 2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS
ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES RESIDING ABROAD

Mr. ABRAHAM submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs:

S. Con. Res. 38

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

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
SHOULD INCLUDE IN THE 2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS ALL
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES RESIDING ABROAD.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The Bureau of the Census has announced its intention to
exclude more than 3,000,000 citizens of the United States
living and working overseas from the 2000 decennial census
because such citizens are not affiliated with the Federal
Government.
(2) The Bureau of the Census has stated its desire to make
the 2000 decennial census ``the most accurate ever''.
(3) Exports by the United States of goods, services, and
expertise play a vital role in strengthening the economy of
the United States--
(A) by creating jobs based in the United States; and
(B) by extending the influence of the United States around
the globe.
(4) Citizens of the United States living and working
overseas strengthen the economy of the United States--
(A) by purchasing and selling United States exports; and
(B) by creating business opportunities for United States
companies and workers.
(5) Citizens of the United States living and working
overseas play a key role in advancing the interests of the
United States around the world as highly visible economic,
political, and cultural ambassadors.
(6) In 1990, as a result of widespread bipartisan support
in Congress, the Bureau of the Census enumerated all United
States Government officials and other citizens of the United
States affiliated with the Federal Government living and
working overseas for the apportionment of representatives
among the several States and for other purposes.
(7) In the 2000 decennial census, the Bureau of the Census
again intends to so enumerate all such officials and other
citizens of the United States.
(8) The Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975 gave
citizens of the United States residing abroad the right to
vote by absentee ballot in any Federal election in the State
in which the citizen was last domiciled over 2 decades ago.
(9) Citizens of the United States who live and work
overseas, but who are not affiliated with the Federal
Government, vote in elections and pay taxes.
(10) Organizations that represent individuals and companies
overseas, including both Republicans Abroad and Democrats
Abroad,

[[Page 12113]]

support the inclusion of all citizens of the United States
residing abroad in the 2000 decennial census.
(11) The Internet facilitates easy maintenance of close
contact with all citizens of the United States throughout the
world.
(12) All citizens of the United States living and working
overseas should be included in the 2000 decennial census.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Bureau of the Census should enumerate all citizens
of the United States residing overseas in the 2000 decennial
census; and
(2) legislation authorizing and appropriating the funds
necessary to carry out such an enumeration should be enacted.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION NO. 114--DESIGNATING JUNE 22, 1999, AS ``NATIONAL
PEDIATRIC AIDS AWARENESS DAY''

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bond, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
DeWine, Mr. Biden, Mr. Warner, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hollings,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Fitzgerald, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Robb, Mr. Mack, Mr. Torricelli,
Mr. Abraham, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Burns, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Dodd, Mr. Specter, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Gorton, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lott, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Ashcroft, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Kerrey, Mr. Chafee, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Craig,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Kohl) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 114

Whereas acquired immune deficiency syndrome (referred to in
this resolution as ``AIDS'') is the 7th leading cause of
death for children in the United States;
Whereas approximately 15,000 children in the United States
are currently infected with human immunodeficiency virus
(referred to in this resolution as ``HIV''), the virus that
causes AIDS;
Whereas the number of children who have died from AIDS
worldwide since the AIDS epidemic began has reached
2,700,000;
Whereas it is estimated that an additional 40,000,000
children will die from AIDS by the year 2020;
Whereas perinatal transmission of HIV from mother to child
accounts for 91 percent of pediatric HIV cases;
Whereas studies have demonstrated that the maternal
transmission of HIV to an infant decreased from 30 percent to
less than 8 percent after therapeutic intervention was
employed;
Whereas effective drug treatments have decreased the
percentage of deaths from AIDS in the United States by 47
percent in both 1998 and 1999;
Whereas the number of children of color infected with HIV
is disproportionate to the national statistics with respect
to all children;
Whereas The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation has
been devoted over the past decade to the education, research,
prevention, and elimination of acquired immune deficiency
syndrome (AIDS); and
Whereas the people of the United States should resolve to
do everything possible to control and eliminate this epidemic
that threatens our future generations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) in recognition of all of the individuals who have
devoted their time and energy toward combatting the spread
and costly effects of acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS) epidemic, designates June 22, 1999, as ``National
Pediatric AIDS Awareness Day''; and
(2) requests that the President issue a proclamation
calling on the people of the United States to observe the day
with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to submit a Senate Resolution
recognizing June 22, 1999, as ``National Pediatrics AIDS Awareness
Day.'' I am sponsoring this resolution today with my colleague Senator
Boxer from California and 52 of our other colleagues of the Senate.
Senator Boxer and I are cochairs for the 10th anniversary of the
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, which promises to be a
wonderful event. But, more importantly, through the generosity of many
individuals and organizations, substantial funds will be raised to
further the research necessary to defeat this disease which threatens
so many lives--including children.
Infection of children with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is
very different than infection in adults. Infected children get sick
faster; their immune systems may deteriorate more quickly; treatment
protocols are very different; and they often involve more
complications. Almost all children with HIV infection have acquired the
virus from their mothers. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, before
preventive treatments were available, an estimated 1,000-2,000 babies
were born with HIV infection each year in the United States.
Today, because of scientific and medical breakthroughs in
pharmaceutical therapies, the mother-to-infant transmission rate has
dropped from 43% in 1992 to 8% in 1997. The investment in prevention
alone has resulted in avoiding an estimated 656 HIV infections and
saves $105.6 million in medical care costs. Thus we are indeed seeing
results from the time, energy, and resources being expended to fight
this dreaded disease. My hat is off to those front line researchers and
clinicians who have devoted themselves to this task.
While significant advances have been made in decreasing pediatric HIV
infection, we must continue to work tirelessly to develop an HIV
vaccine that will enable the safe and effective immunization of
children and adults. We must better understand why HIV/AIDS
disproportionately affects children of color and find cures to
eradicate this epidemic. For our children living with HIV, we must
provide them with the best possible therapeutic and social support to
ensure their long, high quality life. I urge all senators to join me on
June 22 at the National Building Museum to celebrate the successes
which have been achieved in fighting HIV and AIDS among our youth and
to renew our pledge to fight this disease until it disappears from the
face of this earth.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very honored to rise today with my
good friend, Senator Hatch, to submit a resolution designating June 22
as National Pediatric AIDS Awareness Day.
I am proud that we have the cosponsorship of 52 of our colleagues,
which demonstrates a broad interest in the issue of children and AIDS.
Incredibly, AIDS is the seventh leading cause of death for children
in the United States. We have lost 2.7 million precious children to
this epidemic--a staggering and sobering statistic.
Our resolution recognizes and commemorates the children, families,
and countless others in the health and education communities who have
dedicated their substantial time and efforts to prevention and
eradication of AIDS.
It also recognizes the 10th anniversary of the Elizabeth Glaser
Pediatric AIDS Foundation, an outstanding charitable organization which
has devoted years of effort to the education, research, and prevention
of HIV transmission and disease.
I hope the Senate will act quickly on this resolution to recognize
the devastating effects of this terrible disease on millions of
American children and their families, and to honor the contributions of
thousands of others who are working to end the epidemic.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED

______

Y2K ACT

______

McCAIN (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 608

Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Hatch, Mrs.
Feinstein, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Lott, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Frist,
Mr. Burns, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Smith of Oregon, and Mr. Lieberman)
proposed an amendment to the bill (S. 96) to regulate commerce between
and among the several States by providing for the orderly resolution of
disputes arising out of computer-based problems related to processing
data that includes a 2-digit expression of that year's date; as
follows:

Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF SECTIONS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Y2K Act''.

[[Page 12114]]

(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Application of Act.
Sec. 5. Punitive damages limitations.
Sec. 6. Proportionate liability.
Sec. 7. Pre-litigation notice.
Sec. 8. Pleading requirements.
Sec. 9. Duty to mitigate.
Sec. 10. Application of existing impossibility or commercial
impracticability doctrines.
Sec. 11. Damages limitation by contract.
Sec. 12. Damages in tort claims.
Sec. 13. State of mind: bystander liability; control.
Sec. 14. Appointment of special masters or magistrate judges for Y2K
actions.
Sec. 15. Y2K actions as class actions.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1)(A) Many information technology systems, devices, and
programs are not capable of recognizing certain dates in 1999
and after December 31, 1999, and will read dates in the year
2000 and thereafter as if those dates represent the year 1900
or thereafter or will fail to process dates after December
31, 1999.
(B) If not corrected, the problem described in subparagraph
(A) and resulting failures could incapacitate systems that
are essential to the functioning of markets, commerce,
consumer products, utilities, Government, and safety and
defense systems, in the United States and throughout the
world.
(2) It is in the national interest that producers and users
of technology products concentrate their attention and
resources in the time remaining before January 1, 2000, on
assessing, fixing, testing, and developing contingency plans
to address any and all outstanding year 2000 computer date-
change problems, so as to minimize possible disruptions
associated with computer failures.
(3)(A) Because year 2000 computer date-change problems may
affect virtually all businesses and other users of technology
products to some degree, there is a substantial likelihood
that actual or potential year 2000 failures will prompt a
significant volume of litigation, much of it insubstantial.
(B) The litigation described in subparagraph (A) would have
a range of undesirable effects, including the following:
(i) It would threaten to waste technical and financial
resources that are better devoted to curing year 2000
computer date-change problems and ensuring that systems
remain or become operational.
(ii) It could threaten the network of valued and trusted
business and customer relationships that are important to the
effective functioning of the national economy.
(iii) It would strain the Nation's legal system, causing
particular problems for the small businesses and individuals
who already find that system inaccessible because of its
complexity and expense.
(iv) The delays, expense, uncertainties, loss of control,
adverse publicity, and animosities that frequently accompany
litigation of business disputes could exacerbate the
difficulties associated with the date change and work against
the successful resolution of those difficulties.
(4) It is appropriate for the Congress to enact legislation
to assure that Y2K problems do not unnecessarily disrupt
interstate commerce or create unnecessary caseloads in
Federal courts and to provide initiatives to help businesses
prepare and be in a position to withstand the potentially
devastating economic impact of Y2K.
(5) Resorting to the legal system for resolution of Y2K
problems is not feasible for many businesses and individuals
who already find the legal system inaccessible, particularly
small businesses and individuals who already find the legal
system inaccessible, because of its complexity and expense.
(6) The delays, expense, uncertainties, loss of control,
adverse publicity, and animosities that frequently accompany
litigation of business disputes can only exacerbate the
difficulties associated with the Y2K date change, and work
against the successful resolution of those difficulties.
(7) Concern about the potential for liability--in
particular, concern about the substantial litigation expense
associated with defending against even the most insubstantial
lawsuits--is prompting many persons and businesses with
technical expertise to avoid projects aimed at curing year
2000 computer date-change problems.
(8) A proliferation of frivolous Y2K lawsuits by
opportunistic parties may further limit access to courts by
straining the resources of the legal system and depriving
deserving parties of their legitimate rights to relief.
(9) Congress encourages businesses to approach their Y2K
disputes responsibly, and to avoid unnecessary, time-
consuming and costly litigation about Y2K failures,
particularly those that are not material. Congress supports
good faith negotiations between parties when there is a
dispute over a Y2K problem, and, if necessary, urges the
parties to enter into voluntary, non-binding mediation rather
than litigation.
(b) Purposes.--Based upon the power of the Congress under
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the
United States, the purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish uniform legal standards that give all
businesses and users of technology products reasonable
incentives to solve Y2K computer date-change problems before
they develop;
(2) to encourage continued Y2K remediation and testing
efforts by providers, suppliers, customers, and other
contracting partners;
(3) to encourage private and public parties alike to
resolve Y2K disputes by alternative dispute mechanisms in
order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, to
initiate those mechanisms as early as possible, and to
encourage the prompt identification and correction of Y2K
problems; and
(4) to lessen the burdens on interstate commerce by
discouraging insubstantial lawsuits while preserving the
ability of individuals and businesses that have suffered real
injury to obtain complete relief.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Y2K action.--The term ``Y2K action''--
(A) means a civil action commenced in any Federal or State
court, or an agency board of contract appeal proceeding, in
which the plaintiff's alleged harm or injury resulted from a
Y2K failure;
(B) includes a civil action commenced in any Federal or
State court by a governmental entity when acting in a
commercial or contracting capacity; but
(C) does not include an action brought by a governmental
entity acting in a regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement
capacity.
(2) Y2K failure.--The term ``Y2K failure'' means failure by
any device or system (including any computer system and any
microchip or integrated circuit embedded in another device or
product), or any software, firmware, or other set or
collection of processing instructions to process, to
calculate, to compare, to sequence, to display, to store, to
transmit, or to receive year-2000 date-related data,
including failures--
(A) to deal with or account for transitions or comparisons
from, into, and between the years 1999 and 2000 accurately;
(B) to recognize or accurately to process any specific date
in 1999, 2000, or 2001; or
(C) accurately to account for the year 2000's status as a
leap year, including recognition and processing of the
correct date on February 29, 2000.
(3) Government entity.--The term ``government entity''
means an agency, instrumentality, or other entity of Federal,
State, or local government (including multijurisdictional
agencies, instrumentalities, and entities).
(4) Material defect.--The term ``material defect'' means a
defect in any item, whether tangible or intangible, or in the
provision of a service, that substantially prevents the item
or service from operating or functioning as designed or
according to its specifications. The term ``material defect''
does not include a defect that--
(A) has an insignificant or de minimis effect on the
operation or functioning of an item or computer program;
(B) affects only a component of an item or program that, as
a whole, substantially operates or functions as designed; or
(C) has an insignificant or de minimis effect on the
efficacy of the service provided.
(5) Personal injury.--The term ``personal injury'' means
physical injury to a natural person, including--
(A) death as a result of a physical injury; and
(B) mental suffering, emotional distress, or similar
injuries suffered by that person in connection with a
physical injury.
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory
or possession of the United States, and any political
subdivision thereof.
(7) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a contract,
tariff, license, or warranty.
(8) Alternative dispute resolution.--The term ``alternative
dispute resolution'' means any process or proceeding, other
than adjudication by a court or in an administrative
proceeding, to assist in the resolution of issues in
controversy, through processes such as early neutral
evaluation, mediation, minitrial, and arbitration.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF ACT.

(a) General Rule.--This Act applies to any Y2K action
brought in a State or Federal court after January 1, 1999,
for a Y2K failure occurring before January 1, 2003, including
any appeal, remand, stay, or other judicial, administrative,
or alternative dispute resolution proceeding in such an
action.
(b) No New Cause of Action Created.--Nothing in this Act
creates a new cause of action, and, except as otherwise
explicitly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act expands
any liability otherwise imposed or limits any defense
otherwise available under Federal or State law.
(c) Claims for Personal Injury or Wrongful Death
Excluded.--This Act does not apply to a claim for personal
injury or for wrongful death.
(d) Contract Preservation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in any Y2K
action any written contractual

[[Page 12115]]

term, including a limitation or an exclusion of liability, or
a disclaimer of warranty, shall be strictly enforced unless
the enforcement of that term would manifestly and directly
contravene applicable State law embodied in any statute in
effect on January 1, 1999, specifically addressing that term.
(2) Interpretation of contract.--In any Y2K action in which
a contract to which paragraph (1) applies is silent as to a
particular issue, the interpretation of the contract as to
that issue shall be determined by applicable law in effect at
the time the contract was executed.
(e) Preemption of State Law.--This Act supersedes State law
to the extent that it establishes a rule of law applicable to
a Y2K action that is inconsistent with State law, but nothing
in this Act implicates, alters, or diminishes the ability of
a State to defend itself against any claim on the basis of
sovereign immunity.
(f) Application with Year 2000 Information and Readiness
Disclosure Act.--Nothing in this Act supersedes any provision
of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act.

SEC. 5. PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIMITATIONS.

(a) In General.--In any Y2K action in which punitive
damages are permitted by applicable law, the defendant shall
not be liable for punitive damages unless the plaintiff
proves by clear and convincing evidence that the applicable
standard for awarding damages has been met.
(b) Caps on Punitive Damages.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the evidentiary standard
established by subsection (a), punitive damages permitted
under applicable law against a defendant described in
paragraph (2) in a Y2K action may not exceed the lesser of--
(A) 3 times the amount awarded for compensatory damages; or
(B) $250,000.
(2) Defendant described.--A defendant described in this
paragraph is a defendant--
(A) who--
(i) is sued in his or her capacity as an individual; and
(ii) whose net worth does not exceed $500,000; or
(B) that is an unincorporated business, a partnership,
corporation, association, or organization with fewer than 50
full-time employees.
(3) No cap if injury specifically intended.--Paragraph (1)
does not apply if the plaintiff establishes by clear and
convincing evidence that the defendant acted with specific
intent to injure the plaintiff.
(c) Government Entities.--Punitive damages in a Y2K action
may not be awarded against a government entity.

SEC. 6. PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c), a person against whom a final judgment is entered in a
Y2K action shall be liable solely for the portion of the
judgment that corresponds to the relative and proportional
responsibility of that person. In determining the percentage
of responsibility of any defendant, the trier of fact shall
determine that percentage as a percentage of the total fault
of all persons, including the plaintiff, who caused or
contributed to the total loss incurred by the plaintiff.
(b) Proportionate Liability.--
(1) Determination of responsibility.--In any Y2K action,
the court shall instruct the jury to answer special
interrogatories, or, if there is no jury, the court shall
make findings with respect to each defendant, including
defendants who have entered into settlements with the
plaintiff or plaintiffs, concerning--
(A) the percentage of responsibility, if any, of each
defendant, measured as a percentage of the total fault of all
persons who caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the
plaintiff; and
(B) if alleged by the plaintiff, whether the defendant
(other than a defendant who has entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiff)--
(i) acted with specific intent to injure the plaintiff; or
(ii) knowingly committed fraud.
(2) Contents of special interrogatories or findings.--The
responses to interrogatories or findings under paragraph (1)
shall specify the total amount of damages that the plaintiff
is entitled to recover and the percentage of responsibility
of each defendant found to have caused or contributed to the
loss incurred by the plaintiff.
(3) Factors for consideration.--In determining the
percentage of responsibility under this subsection, the trier
of fact shall consider--
(A) the nature of the conduct of each person found to have
caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the plaintiff;
and
(B) the nature and extent of the causal relationship
between the conduct of each such person and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.
(c) Joint Liability for Specific Intent or Fraud.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
liability of a defendant in a Y2K action is joint and several
if the trier of fact specifically determines that the
defendant--
(A) acted with specific intent to injure the plaintiff; or
(B) knowingly committed fraud.
(2) Fraud; recklessness.--
(A) Knowing commission of fraud described.--For purposes of
subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) and paragraph (1)(B) of this
subsection, a defendant knowingly committed fraud if the
defendant--
(i) made an untrue statement of a material fact, with
actual knowledge that the statement was false;
(ii) omitted a fact necessary to make the statement not be
misleading, with actual knowledge that, as a result of the
omission, the statement was false; and
(iii) knew that the plaintiff was reasonably likely to rely
on the false statement.
(B) Recklessness.--For purposes of subsection (b)(1)(B) and
paragraph (1) of this subsection, reckless conduct by the
defendant does not constitute either a specific intent to
injure, or the knowing commission of fraud, by the defendant.
(3) Right to contribution not affected.--Nothing in this
section affects the right, under any other law, of a
defendant to contribution with respect to another defendant
found under subsection (b)(1)(B), or determined under
paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, to have acted with
specific intent to injure the plaintiff or to have knowingly
committed fraud.
(d) Special Rules.--
(1) Uncollectible share.--
(A) In general.--Norwithstanding subsection (a), if, upon
motion made not later than 6 months after a final judgment is
entered in any Y2K action, the court determines that all or
part of the share of the judgment against a defendant for
compensatory damages is not collectible against that
defendant, then each other defendant in the action is liable
for the uncollectible share as follows:
(i) Percentage of net worth.--The other defendants are
jointly and severally liable for the uncollectible share if
the plaintiff establishes that--
(I) the plaintiff is an individual whose recoverable
damages under the final judgment are equal to more than 10
percent of the net worth of the plaintiff; and
(II) the net worth of the plaintiff is less than $200,000.
(ii) Other plaintiffs.--For a plaintiff not described in
clause (i), each of the other defendants is liable for the
uncollectible share in proportion to the percentage of
responsibility of that defendant, except that the total
liability of a defendant under this clause may not exceed 50
percent of the proportionate share of that defendant, as
determined under subsection (b)(2).
(B) Overall limit.--The total payments required under
subparagraph (A) from all defendants may not exceed the
amount of the uncollectible share.
(C) Subject to contribution.--A defendant against whom
judgment is not collectible is subject to contribution and to
any continuing liability to the plaintiff on the judgment.
(2) Special right of contribution.--To the extent that a
defendant is required to make an additional payment under
paragraph (1), that defendant may recover contribution--
(A) from the defendant originally liable to make the
payment;
(B) from any other defendant that is jointly and severally
liable;
(C) from any other defendant held proportionately liable
who is liable to make the same payment and has paid less than
that other defendant's proportionate share of that payment;
or
(D) from any other person responsible for the conduct
giving rise to the payment that would have been liable to
make the same payment.
(3) Nondisclosure to jury.--The standard for allocation of
damages under subsection (a) and subsection (b)(1), and the
procedure for reallocation of uncollectible shares under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall not be disclosed to
members of the jury.
(e) Settlement Discharge.--
(1) In general.--A defendant who settles a Y2K action at
any time before final verdict or judgment shall be discharged
from all claims for contribution brought by other persons.
Upon entry of the settlement by the court, the court shall
enter a bar order constituting the final discharge arising
out of the action. The order shall bar all future claims for
contribution arising out to the action--
(A) by any person against the settling defendant; and
(B) by the settling defendant against any person other than
a person whose liability has been extinguished by the
settlement of the settling defendant.
(2) Reduction.--If a defendant enters into a settlement
with the plaintiff before the final verdict or judgment, the
verdict or judgment shall be reduced by the greater of--
(A) an amount that corresponds to the percentage of
responsibility of that defendant; or
(B) the amount paid to the plaintiff by that defendant.
(f) General Right of Contribution.--
(1) In general.--A defendant who is jointly and severally
liable for damages in any Y2K action may recover contribution
from any other person who, if joined in the original action,
would have been liable for the same

[[Page 12116]]

damages. A claim for contribution shall be determined based
on the percentage of responsibility of the claimant and of
each person against whom a claim for contribution is made.
(2) Statute of limitations for contributions.--An action
for contribution in connection with a Y2K action shall be
brought not later than 6 months after the entry of a final,
nonappealable judgment in the Y2K action, except than an
action for contribution brought by a defendant who was
required to make an additional payment under subsection
(d)(1) may be brought not later than 6 months after the date
on which such payment was made.
(g) More Protective State Law Not Preempted.-- Nothing in
this section pre-empts or supersedes any provision of State
statutory law that--
(1) limits the liability of a defendant in a Y2K action to
a lesser amount than the amount determined under this
section; or
(2) otherwise affords a greater degree of protection from
joint or several liability than is afforded by this section.

SEC. 7. PRE-LITIGATION NOTICE.

(a) In General.--Before commencing a Y2K action, except an
action that seeks only injunctive relief, a prospective
plaintiff with a Y2K claim shall send a written notice by
certified mail (with either return receipt requested or other
means of verification that the notice was sent) to each
prospective defendant in that action. The notice shall
provide specific and detailed information about--
(1) the manifestations of any material defect alleged to
have caused harm or loss;
(2) the harm or loss allegedly suffered by the prospective
plaintiff;
(3) how the prospective plaintiff would like the
prospective defendant to remedy the problem;
(4) the basis upon which the prospective plaintiff seeks
that remedy; and
(5) the name, title, address, and telephone number of any
individual who has authority to negotiate a resolution of the
dispute on behalf of the prospective plaintiff.
(b) Person to Whom Notice To Be Sent.--The notice required
by subsection (a) shall be sent--
(1) to the registered agent of the prospective defendant
for service of legal process;
(2) if the prospective defendant does not have a registered
agent, then to the chief executive officer of a corporation,
the managing partner of a partnership, the proprietor of a
sole proprietorship, or to a similarly-situated person for
any other enterprise; or
(3) if the prospective defendant has designated a person to
receive pre-litigation notices on a Year 2000 Internet
Website (as defined in section 3(7) of the Year 2000
Information and Readiness Disclosure Act), to the designated
person, if the prospective plaintiff has reasonable access to
the Internet.
(c) Response to Notice.--
(1) In general.--Within 30 days after receipt of the notice
specified in subsection (a), each prospective defendant shall
send by certified mail with return receipt requested to each
prospective plaintiff a written statement acknowledging
receipt of the notice, and describing the actions it has
taken or will take to address the problem identified by the
prospective plaintiff.
(2) Willingness to engage in ADR.--The written statement
shall state whether the prospective defendant is willing to
engage in alternative dispute resolution.
(3) Inadmissability.--A written statement required by this
paragraph is not admissible in evidence, under Rule 408 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence or any analogous rule of
evidence in any State, in any proceeding to prove liability
for, or the invalidity of, a claim or its amount, or
otherwise as evidence of conduct or statements made in
compromise negotiations.
(4) Presumptive time of receipt.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a notice under subsection (a) is presumed to be received
7 days after it was sent.
(d) Failure to Respond.--If a prospective defendant--
(1) fails to respond to a notice provided pursuant to
subsection (a) within the 30 days specified in subsection
(c)(1); or
(2) does not describe the action, if any, the prospective
defendant has taken, or will take, to address the problem
identified by the prospective plaintiff, the prospective
plaintiff may immediately commence a legal action against
that prospective defendant.
(e) Remediation Period.--
(1) In general.--If the prospective defendant responds and
proposes remedial action it will take, or offers to engage in
alternative dispute resolution, then the prospective
plaintiff shall allow the prospective defendant an additional
60 days from the end of the 30-day notice period to complete
the proposed remedial action before commencing a legal action
against that prospective defendant.
(2) Extension by agreement.--The prospective plaintiff and
prospective defendant may change the length of the 60-day
remediation period by written agreement.
(3) Multiple extensions not allowed.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a defendant in a Y2K action is entitled to no
more than one 30-day period and one 60-day remediation period
under paragraph (1).
(4) Statutes of limitation, etc., tolled.--Any applicable
statute of limitations or doctrine of laches in a Y2K action
to which paragraph (1) applies shall be tolled during the
notice and remediation period under that paragraph.
(f) Failure to Provide Notice.--If a defendant determines
that a plaintiff has filed a Y2K action without providing the
notice specified in subsection (a) or without awaiting the
expiration of the appropriate waiting period specified in
subsection (c), the defendant may treat the plaintiff's
complaint as such a notice by so informing the court and the
plaintiff in its initial response to the plaintiff. If any
defendant elects to treat the complaint as such a notice--
(1) the court shall stay all discovery and all other
proceedings in the action for the appropriate period after
filing of the complaint; and
(2) the time for filing answers and all other pleadings
shall be tolled during the appropriate period.
(g) Effect of Contractual or Statutory Waiting Periods.--In
cases in which a contract, or a statute enacted before
January 1, 1999, requires notice of non-performance and
provides for a period of delay prior to the initiation of
suit for breach or repudiation of contract, the period of
delay provided by contract or the statute is controlling over
the waiting period specified in subsections (c) and (d).
(h) State Law Controls Alternative Methods.--Nothing in
this section supersedes or otherwise pre-empts any State law
or rule of civil procedure with respect to the use of
alternative dispute resolution for Y2K actions.
(i) Provisional Remedies Unaffected.--Nothing in this
section interferes with the right of a litigant to
provisional remedies otherwise available under Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any State rule of civil
procedure providing extraordinary or provisional remedies in
any civil action in which the underlying complaint seeks both
injunctive and monetary relief.
(j) Special Rule for Class Actions.--For the purpose of
applying this section to a Y2K action that is maintained as a
class action in Federal or State court, the requirements of
the preceding subsections of this section apply only to named
plaintiffs in the class action.

SEC. 8. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Application with Rules of Civil Procedure.--This
section applies exclusively to Y2K actions and, except to the
extent that this section requires additional information to
be contained in or attached to pleadings, nothing in this
section is intended to amend or otherwise supersede
applicable rules of Federal or State civil procedures.
(b) Nature and Amount of Damages.--In all Y2K actions in
which damages are requested, there shall be filed with the
complaint a statement of specific information as to the
nature and amount of each element of damages and the factual
basis for the damages calculation.
(c) Material Defects.--In any Y2K action in which the
plaintiff alleges that there is a material defect in a
product or service, there shall be filed with the compliant a
statement of specific information regarding the
manifestations of the material defects and the facts
supporting a conclusion that the defects are material.
(d) Required State of Mind.--In any Y2K action in which a
claim is asserted on which the plaintiff may prevail only on
proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of
mind, there shall be filed with the complaint, with respect
to each element of that claim, a statement of the facts
giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted
with the required state of mind.

SEC. 9. DUTY TO MITIGATE.

SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF EXISTING IMPOSSIBILITY OR COMMERCIAL
IMPRACTICABILITY DOCTRINES.

In any Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract,
the applicability of the doctrines of impossibility and
commercial impracticability shall be determined by the law in
existence on January 1, 1999. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as limiting or impairing a party's right to assert
defenses based upon such doctrines.

SEC. 11. DAMAGES LIMITATION BY CONTRACT.

In any Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract, no
party may claim, nor be awarded, any category of damages
unless such damages are allowed--
(1) by the express terms of the contracts; or
(2) if the contract is silent on such damages, by operation
of State law at the time the contract was effective or by
operation of Federal law.

SEC. 12. DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.

(a) In General.--A party to a Y2K action making a tort
claim may not recover damages for economic loss unless--

[[Page 12117]]

(1) the recovery of such losses is provided for in a
contract to which the party seeking to recover such losses is
a party; or
(2) such losses result directly from damage to tangible
personal or real property caused by the Y2K failure (other
than damage to property that is the subject of the contract
between the parties to the Y2K action or, in the event there
is no contract between the parties, other than damage caused
only to the property that experienced the Y2K failure),

and such damages are permitted under applicable Federal or
State law.
(b) Economic Loss.--For purposes of this section only, and
except as otherwise specifically provided in a valid and
enforceable written contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant in a Y2K action, the term ``economic loss''--
(1) means amounts awarded to compensate an injured party
for any loss other than losses described in subsection
(a)(2); and
(2) includes amounts awarded for damages such as--
(A) lost profits or sales;
(B) business interruption;
(C) losses indirectly suffered as a result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission;
(D) losses that arise because of the claims of third
parties;
(E) losses that must be plead as special damages; and
(F) consequential damages (as defined in the Uniform
Commercial Code or analogous State commercial law).
(c) Certain Actions Excluded.--This section does not
affect, abrogate, amend, or alter any patent, copyright,
trade-secret, trademark, or service-mark action, or any claim
for defamation or invasion of privacy under Federal or State
law.
(d) Certain Other Actions.--A person liable for damages,
whether by settlement or judgment, in a civil action to which
this Act does not apply because of section 4(c) whose
liability, in whole or in part, is the result of a Y2K
failure may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
pursue any remedy otherwise available under Federal and State
law against the person responsible for that Y2K failure to
the extent of recovering the amount of those damages.

SEC. 13. STATE OF MIND; BYSTANDER LIABILITY; CONTROL.

(a) Defendant's State of Mind.--In a Y2K action other than
a claim for breach or repudiation of contract, and in which
the defendant's actual or constructive awareness of an actual
or potential Y2K failure is an element of the claim, the
defendant is not liable unless the plaintiff establishes that
element of the claim by the standard of evidence under
applicable State law in effect before January 1, 1999.
(b) Limitation on Bystander Liability for Y2K Failures.--
(1) In general.--With respect to any Y2K action for money
damages in which--
(A) the defendant is not the manufacturer, seller, or
distributor of a product, or the provider of a service, that
suffers or causes the Y2K failure at issue;
(B) the plaintiff is not in substantial privity with the
defendant; and
(C) the defendant's actual or constructive awareness of an
actual or potential Y2K failure is an element of the claim
under applicable law,

the defendant shall not be liable unless the plaintiff, in
addition to establishing all other requisite elements of the
claim, proves, by the standard of evidence under applicable
State law in effect before January 1, 1999, that the
defendant actually knew, or recklessly disregarded a known
and substantial risk, that such failure would occur.
(2) Substantial privity.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B),
a plaintiff and a defendant are in substantial privity when,
in a Y2K action arising out of the performance of
professional services, the plaintiff and the defendant either
have contractual relations with one another or the plaintiff
is a person who, prior to the defendant's performance of such
services, was specifically identified to and acknowledged by
the defendant as a person for whose special benefit the
services were being performed.
(3) Certain claims excluded.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(C), claims in which the defendant's actual or
constructive awareness of an actual or potential Y2K failure
is an element of the claim under applicable law do not
include claims for negligence but do not include claims such
as fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty,
negligent misrepresentation, and interference with contract
or economic advantage.
(c) Control Not Determinative of Liability.--The fact that
a Y2K failure occurred in an entity, facility, system,
product, or component that was sold, leased, rented, or
otherwise within the control of the party against whom a
claim is asserted in a Y2K action shall not constitute the
sole basis for recovery of damages in that action. A claim in
a Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract for such a
failure is governed by the terms of the contract.
(d) Protections of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness
Disclosure Act Apply.--The protections for the exchanges of
information provided by section 4 of the Year 2000
Information and Readiness Disclosure Act (Public Law 105-271)
shall apply to this Act.

SEC. 14. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTERS OR MAGISTRATE JUDGES
FOR Y2K ACTIONS.

Any District Court of the United States in which a Y2K
action is pending may appoint a special master or a
magistrate judge to hear the matter and to make findings of
fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 53 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SEC. 15. Y2K ACTIONS AS CLASS ACTIONS.

(a) Material Defect Requirement.--A Y2K action involving a
claim that a product or service is defective may be
maintained as a class action in Federal or State court as to
that claim only if--
(1) it satisfies all other prerequisites established by
applicable Federal or State law, including applicable rules
of civil procedure; and
(2) the court finds that the defect in a product or service
as alleged would be a material defect for the majority of the
members of the class.
(b) Notification.--In any Y2K action that is maintained as
a class action, the court, in addition to any other notice
required by applicable Federal or State law, shall direct
notice of the action to each member of the class, which shall
include--
(1) a concise and clear description of the nature of the
action;
(2) the jurisdiction where the case is pending; and
(3) the fee arrangements with class counsel, including the
hourly fee being charged, or, if it is a contingency fee, the
percentage of the final award which will be paid, including
an estimate of the total amount that would be paid if the
requested damages were to be granted.
(c) Forum for Y2K Class Actions.--
(1) Jurisdiction.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
Y2K action may be brought as a class action in a United
States District Court or removed to a United States District
Court if the amount in controversy is greater than the sum or
value of $1,000,000 (exclusive of interest and costs),
computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in the
action.
(2) Exception.--A Y2K action may not be brought or removed
as a class action under this section if--
(A)(i) a substantial majority of the members of the
proposed plaintiff class are citizens of a single State;
(ii) the primary defendants are citizens of that State; and
(iii) the claims asserted will be governed primarily by the
law of that State; or
(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials, or
other government entities against whom the United States
District Court may be foreclosed from ordering relief.
(d) Effect on Rules of Civil Procedure.--Except as
otherwise provided in this section, nothing in this section
supersedes any rule of Federal or State civil procedure
applicable to class actions.
Amend the title so as to read: An Act to regulate commerce
between and among the several States by providing for the
orderly resolution of disputes arising out of computer-based
problems related to processing data that includes a 2-digit
expression of the year's date through fostering an incentive
for businesses to continue fixing and testing their systems,
to communicate with other businesses, resolve year-2000
business disputes without litigation, and to settle year 2000
lawsuits that may disrupt significant sectors of the American
economy.
______

ALLARD AMENDMENT NO. 609

Mr. ALLARD proposed an amendment to amendment No. 608 proposed by Mr.
McCain to the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

At the end of the amendment, add the following:

SEC. . APPLICABILITY OF STATE LAW.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the
applicability of any State law that provides greater limits
on damages and liabilities than are provided in this Act.
______

KERRY (AND OTHERS) AMENDMENT NO. 610

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Robb, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Breaux,
Mr. Akaka, and Ms. Mikulski) proposed an amendment to amendment No. 608
proposed by Mr. McCain to the bill, S. 986, supra; as follows:

Strike all after the word ``SECTION'' and insert the
following:

1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF SECTIONS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Y2K Act''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Application of Act.
Sec. 5. Proportionate liability.
Sec. 6. Pre-litigation notice.
Sec. 7. Pleading requirements.
Sec. 8. Duty to mitigate.
Sec. 9. Application of existing impossibility or commercial
impracticability doctrines.

[[Page 12118]]

Sec. 10. Damages limitation by contract.
Sec. 11. Damages in tort claims.
Sec. 12. State of mind; control.
Sec. 13. Appointment of special masters or magistrate judges for Y2K
actions.
Sec. 14. Y2K actions as class actions.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1)(A) Many information technology systems, devices, and
programs are not capable of recognizing certain dates in 1999
and after December 31, 1999, and will read dates in the year
2000 and thereafter as if those dates represent the year 1900
or thereafter or will fail to process dates after December
31, 1999.
(B) If not corrected, the problem described in subparagraph
(A) and resulting failures could incapacitate systems that
are essential to the functioning of markets, commerce,
consumer products, utilities, Government, and safety and
defense systems, in the United States and throughout the
world.
(2) It is in the national interest that producers and users
of technology products concentrate their attention and
resources in the time remaining before January 1, 2000, on
assessing, fixing, testing, and developing contingency plans
to address any and all outstanding year 2000 computer date-
change problems, so as to minimize possible disruptions
associated with computer failures.
(3)(A) Because year 2000 computer date-change problems may
affect virtually all businesses and other users of technology
products to some degree, there is a substantial likelihood
that actual or potential year 2000 failures will prompt a
significant volume of litigation, much of it insubstantial.
(B) The litigation described in subparagraph (A) would have
a range of undesirable effects, including the following:
(i) It would threaten to waste technical and financial
resources that are better devoted to curing year 2000
computer date-change problems and ensuring that systems
remain or become operational.
(ii) It could threaten the network of valued and trusted
business and customer relationships that are important to the
effective functioning of the national economy.
(iii) It would strain the Nation's legal system, causing
particular problems for the small businesses and individuals
who already find that system inaccessible because of its
complexity and expense.
(iv) The delays, expense, uncertainties, loss of control,
adverse publicity, and animosities that frequently accompany
litigation of business disputes could exacerbate the
difficulties associated with the date change and work against
the successful resolution of those difficulties.
(4) It is appropriate for the Congress to enact legislation
to assure that Y2K problems do not unnecessarily disrupt
interstate commerce or create unnecessary caseloads in
Federal courts and to provide initiatives to help businesses
prepare and be in a position to withstand the potentially
devastating economic impact of Y2K.
(5) Resorting to the legal system for resolution of Y2K
problems is not feasible for many businesses and individuals
who already find the legal system inaccessible, particularly
small businesses and individuals who already find the legal
system inaccessible, because of its complexity and expense.
(6) The delays, expense, uncertainties, loss of control,
adverse publicity, and animosities that frequently accompany
litigation of business disputes can only exacerbate the
difficulties associated with the Y2K date change, and work
against the successful resolution of those difficulties.
(7) Concern about the potential for liability--in
particular, concern about the substantial litigation expense
associated with defending against even the most insubstantial
lawsuits--is prompting many persons and businesses with
technical expertise to avoid projects aimed at curing year
2000 computer date-change problems.
(8) A proliferation of frivolous Y2K lawsuits by
opportunistic parties may further limit access to courts by
straining the resources of the legal system and depriving
deserving parties of their legitimate rights to relief.
(9) Congress encourages businesses to approach their Y2K
disputes responsibly, and to avoid unnecessary, time-
consuming and costly litigation about Y2K failures,
particularly those that are not material. Congress supports
good faith negotiations between parties when there is a
dispute over a Y2K problem, and, if necessary, urges the
parties to enter into voluntary, non-binding mediation rather
than litigation.
(b) Purposes.--Based upon the power of the Congress under
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the
United States, the purposes of this Act are--
(1) to establish uniform legal standards that give all
businesses and users of technology products reasonable
incentives to solve Y2K computer date-change problems before
they develop;
(2) to encourage continued Y2K remediation and testing
efforts by providers, suppliers, customers, and other
contracting partners;
(3) to encourage private and public parties alike to
resolve Y2K disputes by alternative dispute mechanisms in
order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, to
initiate those mechanisms as early as possible, and to
encourage the prompt identification and correction of Y2K
problems; and
(4) to lessen the burdens on interstate commerce by
discouraging insubstantial lawsuits while preserving the
ability of individuals and businesses that have suffered real
injury to obtain complete relief.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Y2K action.--The term ``Y2K action''--
(A) means a civil action commenced in any Federal or State
court, or an agency board of contract appeal proceeding, in
which the plaintiff's alleged harm or injury resulted from a
Y2K failure, or a claim or defense is related to a Y2K
failure;
(B) includes a civil action commenced in any Federal or
State court by a governmental entity when acting in a
commercial or contracting capacity; but
(C) does not include an action brought by a governmental
entity acting in a regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement
capacity.
(2) Y2K failure.--The term ``Y2K failure'' means failure
by any device or system (including any computer system and
any microchip or integrated circuit embedded in another
device or product), or any software, firmware, or other set
or collection of processing instructions to process, to
calculate, to compare, to sequence, to display, to store, to
transmit, or to receive year-2000 date-related data,
including failures--
(A) to deal with or account for transitions or comparisons
from, into, and between the years 1999 and 2000 accurately;
(B) to recognize or accurately to process any specific date
in 1999, 2000, or 2001; or
(C) accurately to account for the year 2000's status as a
leap year, including recognition and processing of the
correct date on February 29, 2000.
(3) Government entity.--The term ``government entity''
means an agency, instrumentality, or other entity of Federal,
State, or local government (including multijurisdictional
agencies, instrumentalities, and entities).
(4) Material defect.--The term ``material defect'' means a
defect in any item, whether tangible or intangible, or in the
provision of a service, that substantially prevents the item
or service from operating or functioning as designed or
according to its specifications. The term ``material defect''
does not include a defect that--
(A) has an insignificant or de minimis effect on the
operation or functioning of an item or computer program;
(B) affects only a component of an item or program that, as
a whole, substantially operates or functions as designed; or
(C) has an insignificant or de minimis effect on the
efficacy of the service provided.
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory
or possession of the United States, and any political
subdivision thereof.
(6) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a contract,
tariff, license, or warranty.
(7) Alternative dispute resolution.--The term ``alternative
dispute resolution'' means any process or proceeding, other
than adjudication by a court or in an administrative
proceeding, to assist in the resolution of issues in
controversy, through processes such as early neutral
evaluation, mediation, minitrial, and arbitration.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF ACT.

(a) General Rule.--This Act applies to any Y2K action
brought in a State or Federal court after February 22, 1999,
for a Y2K failure occurring before January 1, 2003, including
any appeal, remand, stay, or other judicial, administrative,
or alternative dispute resolution proceeding in such an
action.
(b) No New Cause of Action Created.--Nothing in this Act
creates a new cause of action, and, except as otherwise
explicitly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act expands
any liability otherwise imposed or limits any defense
otherwise available under Federal or State law.
(c) Application of Act Limited.--Except as otherwise
indicated, this Act applies only to claims for commercial
loss between incorporated or unincorporated businesses,
associations, organizations, and enterprises, including any
sole proprietorship, corporation, company (including any
joint stock company), association, partnership, trust, or
governmental entity.
(d) Contract Preservation.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), in any Y2K
action any written contractual term, including a limitation
or an exclusion of liability, or a disclaimer of warranty,
shall be strictly enforced unless the enforcement of that
term would manifestly and directly contravene applicable
State law in effect on January 1, 1999, specifically
addressing that term.
(2) Interpretation of contract.--In any Y2K action in which
a contract to which paragraph (1) applies is silent as to a
particular issue, the interpretation of the contract as to
that issue shall be determined by applicable law in effect at
the time the contract was executed.
(e) Preemption of State Law.--This Act supersedes State law
to the extent that it establishes a rule of law applicable to
a Y2K

[[Page 12119]]

action that is inconsistent with State law, but nothing in
this Act implicates, alters, or diminishes the ability of a
State to defend itself against any claim on the basis of
sovereign immunity.
(f) Securities Actions Excluded.--This Act does not apply
to a securities claim brought under the securities laws (as
defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)).

SEC. 5. PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(c), a person against whom a final judgment is entered in a
noncontractual Y2K action shall be liable solely for the
portion of the judgment that corresponds to the relative and
proportional responsibility of that person. In determining
the percentage of responsibility of any defendant, the trier
of fact shall determine that percentage as a percentage of
the total fault of all persons, including the plaintiff, who
caused or contributed to the total loss incurred by the
plaintiff.
(b) Proportionate Liability.--
(1) Determination of responsibility.--In any Y2K action,
the court shall instruct the jury to answer special
interrogatories, or, if there is no jury, the court shall
make findings with respect to each defendant, including
defendants who have entered into settlements with the
plaintiff or plaintiffs concerning the percentage of
responsibility, if any, of each defendant, measured as a
percentage of the total fault of all persons who caused or
contributed to the loss incurred by the plaintiff.
(2) Contents of special interrogatories or findings.--The
responses to interrogatories or findings under paragraph (1)
shall specify the total amount of damages that the plaintiff
is entitled to recover and the percentage of responsibility
of each defendant found to have caused or contributed to the
loss incurred by the plaintiff.
(3) Factors for consideration.--In determining the
percentage of responsibility under this subsection, the trier
of fact shall consider--
(A) the nature of the conduct of each person found to have
caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the plaintiff;
and
(B) the nature and extent of the causal relationship
between the conduct of each defendant and the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.
(c) Joint Liability for Intentional Tort or Failure to
Remediate.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
liability of a defendant in a Y2K action is joint and
several--
(A) if the trier of fact specifically determines that the
defendant committed an intentional tort; or
(B) unless the defendant demonstrates by a preponderance of
the evidence both that the defendant--
(i) identified the potential for Y2K failure of the device
or system used or sold by the defendant that experienced the
Y2K failure alleged to have caused the plaintiff's harm; and
(ii) provided information calculated to reach persons
likely to experience Y2K failures of that device or system
concerning reasonable steps to avert or mitigate the
potential Y2K failure.
(2) Intentional Tort.--For purposes of paragraph (1) of
this subsection, reckless conduct by the defendant does not
constitute commission of an intentional tort by the
defendant.
(3) Right to contribution not affected.--Nothing in this
section affects the right, under any other law, of a
defendant to contribution with respect to another defendant
determined under paragraph (1) of this subsection to be
jointly and severally liable.
(d) Special Rules.--
(1) Uncollectible share.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), if, upon
motion made not later than 6 months after a final judgment is
entered in any Y2K action, the court determines that all or
part of the share of the judgment against a defendant for
compensatory damages is not collectible against that
defendant, then each other defendant in the action is liable
for the uncollectible share in proportion to the percentage
of responsibility of that defendant.
(B) Overall limit.--The total payments required under
subparagraph (A) from all defendants may not exceed the
amount of the uncollectible share.
(C) Subject to contribution.--A defendant against whom
judgment is not collectible is subject to contribution and to
any continuing liability to the plaintiff on the judgment.
(2) Special right of contribution.--To the extent that a
defendant is required to make an additional payment under
paragraph (1), that defendant may recover contribution--
(A) from the defendant originally liable to make the
payment;
(B) from any other defendant that is jointly and severally
liable;
(C) from any other defendant held proportionately liable
who is liable to make the same payment and has paid less than
that over defendant's proportionate share of that payment; or
(D) from any other person responsible for the conduct
giving rise to the payment that would have been liable to
make the same payment.
(3) Nondisclosure to jury.--The standard for allocation of
damages under subsection (a) and subsection (b)(1), and the
procedure for reallocation of uncollectible shares under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall not be disclosed to
members of the jury.
(e) Settlement Discharge and General Right of
Contribution.--With the exception of contribution in the case
of an uncollectible share, nothing in this section shall be
construed to preempt or modify any State law or rule
governing discharge of defendants who enter into settlements
or the right of any jointly and severally liable defendant to
seek contribution from any other person.
(f) More Protective State Law Not Preempted.--Nothing in
this section pre-empts or supersedes any provision of State
statutory law that--
(1) limits the liability of a defendant in a Y2K action to
a lesser amount than the amount determined under this
section; or
(2) otherwise affords a greater degree of protection from
joint or several liability than is afforded by this section.

SEC. 6. PRE-LITIGATION NOTICE.

(a) In General.--Before commencing a Y2K action, except an
action that seeks only injunctive relief, a prospective
plaintiff with a Y2K claim shall send a verifiable written
notice by certified mail to each prospective defendant in
that action. The notice shall provide specific and detailed
information about--
(1) the manifestations of any material defect alleged to
have caused harm or loss;
(2) the harm or loss allegedly suffered by the prospective
plaintiff;
(3) how the prospective plaintiff would like the
prospective defendant to remedy the problem;
(4) the basis upon which the prospective plaintiff seeks
that remedy; and
(5) the name, title, address, and telephone number of any
individual who has authority to negotiate a resolution of the
dispute on behalf of the prospective plaintiff.
(b) Person to Whom Notice To Be Sent.--The notice required
by subsection (a) shall be sent--
(1) to the registered agent of the prospective defendant
for service of legal process;
(2) if the prospective defendant does not have a registered
agent, then to the chief executive officer of a corporation,
the managing partner of a partnership, the proprietor of a
sole proprietorship, or to a similarly-situated person for
any other enterprise; or
(3) if the prospective defendant has designated a person to
receive pre-litigation notices on a Year 2000 Internet
Website (as defined in section 3(7) of the Year 2000
Information and Readiness Disclosure Act), to the designated
person, if the prospective plaintiff has reasonable access to
the Internet.
(c) Response to Notice.--
(1) In general.--Within 30 days after receipt of the notice
specified in subsection (a), each prospective defendant shall
send by certified mail with return receipt requested to each
prospective plaintiff a written statement acknowledging
receipt of the notice, and describing the actions it has
taken or will take to address the problem identified by the
prospective plaintiff.
(2) Willingness to engage in adr.--The written statement
shall state whether the prospective defendant is willing to
engage in alternative dispute resolution.
(3) Inadmissability.--A written statement required by this
paragraph is not admissible in evidence, under Rule 408 of
the Federal Rules of Evidence or any analogous rule of
evidence in any State, in any proceeding to prove liability
for, or the invalidity of, a claim or its amount, or
otherwise as evidence of conduct or statements made in
compromise negotiations.
(4) Presumptive time of receipt.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a notice under subsection (a) is presumed to be received
7 days after it was sent.
(d) Failure to Respond.--If a prospective defendant--
(1) fails to respond to a notice provided pursuant to
subsection (a) within the 30 days specified in subsection
(c)(1); or
(2) does not describe the action, if any, the prospective
defendant has taken, or will take, to address the problem
identified by the prospective plaintiff,

the prospective plaintiff may immediately commence a legal
action against that prospective defendant.
(e) Remediation Period.--
(1) In general.--If the prospective defendant responds and
proposes remedial action it will take, or offers to engage in
alternative dispute resolution, then the prospective
plaintiff shall allow the prospective defendant an additional
60 days from the end of the 30-day notice period to complete
the proposed remedial action before commencing a legal action
against that prospective defendant.
(2) Extension by agreement.--The prospective plaintiff and
prospective defendant may change the length of the 60-day
remediation period by written agreement.
(3) Multiple extensions not allowed.--Except as provided in
paragraph (2), a defendant in a Y2K action is entitled to no
more than one 30-day period and one 60-day remediation period
under paragraph (1).

[[Page 12120]]

(4) Statutes of limitation, etc., tolled.--Any applicable
statute of limitations or doctrine of laches in a Y2K action
to which paragraph (1) applies shall be tolled during the
notice and remediation period under that paragraph.
(f) Failure to Provide Notice.--If a defendant determines
that a plaintiff has filed a Y2K action without providing the
notice specified in subsection (a) or without awaiting the
expiration of the appropriate waiting period specified in
subsection (c), the defendant may treat the plaintiff's
complaint as such a notice by so informing the court and the
plaintiff in its initial response to the plaintiff. If any
defendant elects to treat the complaint as such a notice--
(1) the court shall stay all discovery and all other
proceedings in the action for the appropriate period after
filing of the complaint; and
(2) the time for filing answers and all other pleadings
shall be tolled during the appropriate period.
(g) Effect of Contractual or Statutory Waiting Periods.--In
cases in which a contract, or a statute enacted before
January 1, 1999, requires notice of non-performance and
provides for a period of delay prior to the initiation of
suit for breach or repudiation of contract, the period of
delay provided by contract or the statute is controlling over
the waiting period specified in subsections (c) and (d).
(h) State Law Controls Alternative Methods.--Nothing in
this section supersedes or otherwise preempts any State law
or rule of civil procedure with respect to the use of
alternative dispute resolution for Y2K actions.
(i) Provisional Remedies Unaffected.--Nothing in this
section interferes with the right of a litigant to
provisional remedies otherwise available under Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any State rule of civil
procedure providing extraordinary or provisional remedies in
any civil action in which the underlying complaint seeks both
injunctive and monetary relief.
(j) Special Rule for Class Actions.--For the purpose of
applying this section to a Y2K action that is maintained as a
class action in Federal or State court, the requirements of
the preceding subsections of this section apply only to named
plaintiffs in the class action.

SEC. 7. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Application with Rules of Civil Procedure.--This
section applies exclusively to Y2K actions and, except to the
extent that this section requires additional information to
be contained in or attached to pleadings, nothing in this
section is intended to amend or otherwise supersede
applicable rules of Federal or State civil procedure.
(b) Natre and Amount of Damages.--In all Y2K actions in
which damages are requested, there shall be filed with the
complaint a statement of specific information as to the
nature and amount of each element of damages and the factual
basis for the damages calculation.
(c) Material Defects.--In any Y2K action in which the
plaintiff alleges that there is a material defect in a
product or service, there shall be filed with the complaint a
statement of specific information regarding the
manifestations of the material defects and the facts
supporting a conclusion that the defects are material.
(d) Required State of Mind.--In any Y2K action in which a
claim is asserted on which the plaintiff may prevail only on
proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of
mind, there shall be filed with the complaint, with respect
to each element of that claim, a statement of the facts
giving rise to a strong inference that the defendant acted
with the required state of mind.

SEC. 8. DUTY TO MITIGATE.

In addition to any duty to mitigate imposed by State law,
if the defendant has made available to purchasers or users,
as appropriate, of the defendant's product or services
information concerning means of remedying or avoiding the Y2K
failure alleged to have caused plaintiff's damages, damages
awarded in any Y2K action shall exclude compensation for
damages the plaintiff could reasonably have avoided in light
of any such information, whether made available by the
defendant or others, of which the plaintiff was, or
reasonably should have been, aware.

SEC. 9. APPLICATION OF EXISTING IMPOSSIBILITY OR COMMERCIAL
IMPRACTICABILITY DOCTRINES.

In any Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract,
the applicability of the doctrines of impossibility and
commerical impracticability shall be determined by the law in
existence on January 1, 1999. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as limiting or impairing a party's right to assert
defenses based upon such doctrines.

SEC. 10. DAMAGES LIMITATION BY CONTRACT.

In any Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract, no
party may claim, nor be awarded, any category of damages
unless such damages are allowed--
(1) by the express terms of the contract, unless
enforcement of the term in question would manifestly and
directly contravene applicable State law on January 1, 1999,
directly addressing that term; or
(2) by operation of State law at the time the contract was
effective or by operation of Federal law.

SEC. 11. DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.

(a) In General.--A party to a Y2K action making a tort
claim may not recover damages for economic loss involving a
defective device or system or service unless--
(1) the recovery of such losses is provided for in a
contract to which the party seeking to recover such losses is
a party;
(2) such losses result directly from damage to property
caused by the Y2K failure (other than damage to property that
is the subject of the contract between the parties to the Y2K
action or, in the event there is no contract between the
parties, other than damage caused only to the property that
experienced the Y2K failure), and such damages are permitted
under applicable Federal or State law; or
(3) the defendant committed an intentional tort, except
where the tort involves misrepresentation or fraud regarding
the attributes or capabilities of the product that forms the
basis for the underlying claim.
(b) Economic Loss.--For purposes of this section only, and
except as otherwise specifically provided in a valid and
enforceable written contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant in a Y2K action, the term ``economic loss''--
(1) means amounts awarded to compensate an injured party
for any loss other than losses described in subsection
(a)(2); and
(2) includes amounts awarded for damages such as--
(A) lost profits or sales;
(B) business interruption;
(C) losses indirectly suffered as a result of the
defendant's wrongful act or omission;
(D) losses that arise because of the claims of third
parties;
(E) losses that must be plead as special damages; and
(F) consequential damages (as defined in the Uniform
Commercial Code or analogous State commercial law).
(c) Certain Actions Excluded.--This section does not
affect, abrogate, amend, or alter any patent, copyright,
trade-secret, trademark, or service-mark action, or any claim
for defamation or invasion of privacy under Federal or State
law.
(d) Certain Other Actions.--A person liable for damages,
whether by settlement or judgment, in a civil action to which
this Act does not apply because of section 4(c) whose
liability, in whole or in part, is the result of a Y2K
failure may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
pursue any remedy otherwise available under Federal or State
law against the person responsible for that Y2K failure to
the extent of recovering the amount of those damages.
(e) Device or System.--For purposes of subsection (a), a
``device or system'' means any device or system (including
any computer system and any microchip or integrated circuit
embedded in another device or product), or any software,
firmware, or other set or collection of processing
instructions.

SEC. 12. STATE OF MIND; CONTROL.

(a) Defendant's State of Mind.--In a Y2K action other than
a claim for breach or repudiation of contract, and in which
the defendant's actual or constructive awareness of an actual
or potential Y2K failure is an element of the claim, the
defendant is not liable unless the plaintiff establishes that
element of the claim by the standard of evidence under
applicable State law in effect before January 1, 1999.
(b) Control Not Determinative of Liability.--The fact that
a Y2K failure occurred in an entity, facility, system,
product, or component that was sold, leased, rented, or
otherwise within the control of the party against whom a
claim is asserted in a Y2K action shall not constitute the
sole basis for recovery of damages in that action. A claim in
a Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract for such a
failure is governed by the terms of the contract.
(c) Protections of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness
Disclosure Act.--Nothing in this Act shall alter or affect
any of the obligations, protections, or duties established by
the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act.

SEC. 13. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTERS OR MAGISTRATES FOR
Y2K ACTIONS.

Any District Court of the United States in which a Y2K
action is pending may appoint a special master or a
magistrate to hear the matter and to make findings of fact
and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 53 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SEC. 14. Y2K ACTIONS AS CLASS ACTIONS.

(A) Minimum Injury Requirement.--A Y2K class action
involving a claim that a product or service is defective may
be maintained as a class action in Federal or State court as
to that claim only if--
(1) it satisfies all other prerequisites established by
applicable Federal or State law, including applicable rules
of civil procedure; and
(2) the court finds that the defect in a product or service
as alleged would be a material defect for the majority of the
members of the class.
(b) Nature and Amount of Damages.--In any Y2K class action
in which damages are requested, there shall be filed with the
complaint a statement of specific information as to the
nature and amount of each element of damages and the factual
basis for the damages calculation.

[[Page 12121]]

(c) Material Defects.--In any Y2K class action, there shall
be filed with the complaint a statement of specific
information regarding the manifestations of the materials
defects and the facts supporting a conclusion that the
defects are material as to a majority of the members of the
class.
(d) Required State of Mind.--In any Y2K class action in
which a claim is asserted on which the plaintiff class may
prevail only on proof that the defendant acted with a
particular state of mind, there shall be filed with the
complaint, with respect to each element of that claim, a
statement of the facts giving rise to a strong inference that
the defendant acted with the required state of mind.
(e) Application to Individuals and Non-Commercial Loss.--
The provisions of this section shall apply to claims brought
by individuals, to claims by entities described in section
4(c) and to claims for non-commecial as well as commercial
loss; but shall not apply to claims for wrongful death or
personal injury.
______

LEAHY AMENDMENT NO. 611

Mr. LEAHY proposed an amendment to amendment No. 608 proposed by Mr.
McCain to the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. EXCLUSION FOR CONSUMERS.

MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT NO. 612

Mr. BENNETT (for Mr. Murkowski) proposed an amendment to amendment
No. 608 proposed by Mr. McCain to the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT NO. 613

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

At the end of section 5(b)(3), strike ``plaintiff.'' and
insert the following: ``plaintiff or that the defendant sold
the product or service that is the subject of the Y2K action
after the date of enactment of this Act knowing that the
product or service will have a Y2K failure, without a signed
waiver from the plaintiff.''
______

GREGG AMENDMENT NO. 614

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. SUSPENSION OF PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN YEAR 2000
FAILURES BY SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' means any executive agency, as
defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, that
has the authority to impose civil penalties on small business
concerns;
(2) the term ``first-time violation'' means any first-time
violation within the last 3 years, directly resulting from a
Y2K failure, of a Federal rule or regulation; and
(3) the term ``small business concern'' has the meaning
given such term in section 3 of the Small Business Act (25
U.S.C. 632).
(b) Establishment of Liaisons.--Not later than 30 days
after the date of enactment of this section, each agency
shall establish 1 point of contact within the agency to act
as a liaison between the agency and small business concerns
with respect to problems arising out of Y2K failures and
compliance with Federal rules or regulations.
(c) General Rule.--Subject to subsections (d) and (e), no
agency shall impose any civil money penalty on a small
business concern for a first-time violation.
(d) Standards for Waiver.--In order to receive a waiver of
civil money penalties from an agency for a first-time
violation, a small business concern shall demonstrate that--
(1) the small business concern previously made a good faith
effort to effectively remediate Y2K problems;
(2) a first-time violation occurred as a result of the Y2K
system failure of the small business concern or other entity,
which affects the small business concern's ability to comply
with federal regulation;
(3) the first-time violation was unavoidable in the face of
a Y2K system failure or occurred as a result of efforts to
prevent the disruption of critical functions or services that
could result in the harm of life or property;
(4) upon identification of a first-time violation the small
business concern wishing to receive a waiver began immediate
actions to remediate the violation; and
(5) the small business concern submitted notice to the
appropriate agency within a reasonable time not to exceed 7
business days from the time that the small business concern
became aware that a first-time violation had occurred.
(e) Exceptions.--An agency may impose civil penalties
authorized under Federal law on a small business concern for
a first-time violation if the small business concern fails to
correct the violation not later than 6 months after initial
notification to the agency.
______

INHOFE AMENDMENT NO. 615

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

On page __, between lines __ and __, insert the following:
(__) Application to Actions Brought by a Governmental
Entity.--
(1) In general.--To the extent provided in this subsection,
this Act shall apply to an action brought by a governmental
entity described in section 3(1)(C).
(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Defendant.--
(i) In general.--The term ``defendant'' includes a State or
local government.
(ii) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.
(iii) Local government.--The term ``local government''
means--

(I) any county, city, town, township, parish, village, or
other general purpose political subdivision of a State; and
(II) any combination of political subdivisions described in
subclause (I) recognized by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development.

(B) Y2k upset.--The term ``Y2K upset''--
(i) means an exceptional incident involving temporary
noncompliance with applicable federally enforceable
measurement or reporting requirements because of factors
related to a Y2K failure that are beyond the reasonable
control of the defendant charged with compliance; and
(ii) does not include--

(I) noncompliance with applicable federally enforceable
requirements that constitutes or would create an imminent
threat to public health, safety, or the environment;
(II) noncompliance with applicable federally enforceable
requirements that provide for the safety and soundness of the
banking or monetary system, including the protection of
depositors;
(III) noncompliance to the extent caused by operational
error or negligence;
(IV) lack of reasonable preventative maintenance; or
(V) lack of preparedness for Y2K.

(3) Conditions necessary for a demonstration of a y2k
upset.--A defendant who wishes to establish the affirmative
defense of Y2K upset shall demonstrate, through properly
signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant
evidence that--
(A) the defendant previously made a good faith effort to
effectively remediate Y2K problems;
(B) a Y2K upset occurred as a result of a Y2K system
failure or other Y2K emergency;
(C) noncompliance with the applicable federally enforceable
measurement or reporting requirement was unavoidable in the
face of a Y2K emergency or was intended to prevent the
disruption of critical functions or services that could
result in the harm of life or property;
(D) upon identification of noncompliance the defendant
invoking the defense began immediate actions to remediate any
violation of federally enforceable measurement or reporting
requirements; and
(E) the defendant submitted notice to the appropriate
Federal regulatory authority of a Y2K upset within 72 hours
from the time that it became aware of the upset.
(4) Grant of a y2k upset defense.--Subject to the other
provisions of this subsection, the Y2K upset defense shall be
a complete defense to any action brought as a result of
noncompliance with federally enforceable measurement or
reporting requirements for any defendant who establishes by a
preponderance of the evidence that the conditions set forth
in paragraph (3) are met.
(5) Length of y2k upset.--The maximum allowable length of
the Y2K upset shall be not more than 30 days beginning on the
date of the upset unless granted specific relief by the
appropriate regulatory authority.
(6) Violation of a y2k upset.--Fraudulent use of the Y2K
upset defense provided for in this subsection shall be
subject to penalties provided in section 1001 of title 18,
United States Code.

[[Page 12122]]

(7) Expiration of Defense.--The Y2K upset defense may not
be asserted for a Y2K upset occurring after June 30, 2000.
______

SESSIONS AMENDMENTS NOS. 616-617

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. SESSIONS submitted two amendments intended to be proposed by him
to the bill, S. 96, supra; as follows:

Amendment No. 616

At an appropriate place in section 15, add the following
section:

SEC. . ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.

A defendant in any Y2K action shall be entitled to
introduce into evidence communications between the defendant
and its federal and state regulator and the results of any
regulatory review conducted with respect to the defendant's
efforts to prevent a Y2K failure from occurring.
____

Amendment No. 617

At an appropriate place at the end of section 5 add the
following:

SUBSECTION . RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP.

In any action covered by this Act, punitive damages shall
not be awarded unless the amount of the punitive award is
rationally related to the totality of the defendant's
wrongdoing.
______

BOXER AMENDMENT NO. 618

(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to
the bill, S. 618, supra; as follows:

In section 7(e) insert at the end the following:
(5) Special rule.--
(A) In general.--With respect to a defendant that is a
manufacturer of a device or system (including any computer
system and any microchip or integrated circuit embedded in
another device or product), or any software, firmware, or
other set or collection of processing instructions to
process, to calculate, to compare, to sequence, to display,
to store, to transmit, or to receive year-2000 date-related
data that experienced a Y2K failure, the defendant shall,
during the remediation period provided in this subsection--
(i) make available to the plaintiff a repair or
replacement, if available, at the actual cost to the
manufacturer, for a device or other product that was first
introduced for sale after January 1, 1990 and before January
1, 1995; and
(ii) make available at no charge to the plaintiff a repair
or replacement, if available, for a device or other product
that was first introduced for sale after December 31, 1994.
(B) Damages.--If a defendant fails to comply with this
paragraph, the court shall consider that failure in the award
of any damages, including economic loss and punitive damages.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, to conduct a hearing
on ``Financial Privacy.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet
on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on S. 837--Auto Choice Reform
Act of 1999.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Finance

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous
consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, beginning at
10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 3 p.m. to hold a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Government Affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Governmental Affairs Committee be permitted to meet on Wednesday, June
9, 1999, at 10 a.m. for a hearing on oversight of national security
methods and processes relating to the Wen-Ho Lee espionage
investigation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an
oversight hearing on internet gaming. The hearing will be held in room
485, Russell Senate Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on small business

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate for a markup on ``S. 918, Military Reservists Small Business
Relief Act of 1999.'' The markup will be held on Wednesday, June 9,
1999, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Wednesday, June 9, 1999, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on
intelligence matters.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on transportation and infrastructure

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission
to conduct a second hearing on project delivery and streamlining of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Wednesday, June 9, 9:30
a.m., hearing room SD-406.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on water and power

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, June 9, for purposes of conducting a Water & Power
Subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose
of this oversight hearing is to continue the oversight conducted by the
subcommittee at the April 6, 1999, Hood River, on the process to
determine the future of the four lower Snake River dams and conduct
oversight on the Northwest Power Planning Council's Framework Process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

MAXINE WHITNEY

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the mark of a truly great
person may be identified by their generosity, and generosity is the
reason I rise today. I would like to honor Mrs. Maxine Whitney, a long-
time Fairbanks, AK resident, businesswoman and philanthropist, for her
multi-million dollar contribution of Native Alaskan artwork to the
Prince William Sound Community College in Valdez, AK.
For the past 50 years in Alaska, Mrs. Whitney and her husband, Jesse,
have traveled extensively in rural Alaska to gain a deeper
understanding and appreciation of Native people and cultures. During
their travels, Maxine amassed what is reportedly the world's largest
private collection of Native Alaskan art and artifacts.

[[Page 12123]]

Maxine's hobby of collecting Native Alaskan art soon became a much
larger commitment when she purchased a small private museum in
Fairbanks to house her treasures. For nearly 20 years, Maxine's Eskimo
Museum showcased Native Alaskan history and the important contribution
Native culture has had on the formation of Alaskan society. Mrs.
Whitney maintained the museum from 1969 until the late 1980s.
Maxine's dedication to the arts is apparent from her recent donation
of her extensive collection of Native Alaska art to Prince William
Sound Community College, part of the University of Alaska education
system. The collection, known as the Jesse & Maxine Whitney Collection,
is the nucleus of the college's Alaska Cultural Center. This multi-
million dollar donation will provide a means for all visitors to the
center to learn about past and present Native Alaskan cultures as well
as the history of Alaska.
Mrs. Whitney's dedication to keeping the Native Alaskan history alive
should be celebrated. Her generous gift will enhance the knowledge and
appreciation of Native cultures. It is people like Maxine Whitney, a
patron of the arts and education, who enrich our lives with their
gracious gifts.
In donating the Whitney Collection, Maxine has provided a world-
renowned educational gem for all who visit the collection . . . she has
provided a unique legacy for all Alaskans, and for all Americans. Thank
you Maxine Whitney.

____________________

THE HOTEL DOHERTY 75TH ANNIVERSARY

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and
congratulate the Doherty family as they celebrate the 75th Anniversary
of the Hotel Doherty on June 5, in Clare, Michigan.
The Hotel Doherty was established in 1924 by the late Michigan State
Senator A.J. Doherty, Clare's mayor at the time. The Doherty was built
to replace the Caulkins House in 1920, with local people donating the
money to purchase the land.
The Hotel Doherty is one of the last historic landmark hotels in
Michigan. What makes it even more unique is that it has remained as a
single-family owned and operated business during all 75 years.
Clare's downtown business district has remained vibrant with the help
of the Hotel Doherty. The Doherty is an excellent example of how small
businesses are the backbone of Michigan's economy. I commend the
Doherty family on their 75 years of business and I wish them all the
best for future generations.

____________________

JUNE DAIRY MONTH

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, June is a very special month for
this nation's dairy industry. It is the month farmers and consumers
join together to commemorate the contributions and history of our great
dairy industry by celebrating National Dairy Month.
Even before the 1937 inception of National Dairy Month, Wisconsin led
the nation in milk and cheese production. Even today, Wisconsin leads
the nation in cheese volume, processing nearly 90 percent of the more
than 22 billion pounds of milk produced into cheese. More than 350
varieties of cheese are produced in the state, including, Cheddar,
American, Muenster, Brick, Blue and Italian, not to mention the famous
Limburger cheese variety, which is only produced in Wisconsin. Also,
Wisconsin buttermakers produce nearly 25 percent of the America's
butter supply.
National Dairy Month is the American consumer's oldest and largest
celebration of dairy products and the people who have made the industry
the success it is today. During June, Wisconsinities will hold nearly
100 dairy celebrations across our state, including dairy breakfasts,
ice cream socials, cooking demonstrations, festivals and other events.
These events all highlight the quality, variety and great taste of
Wisconsin dairy products and honor the producers who make it all
possible.
June Dairy Month is a time to celebrate America's dairy industry and
Wisconsin dairy's proud tradition and heritage of quality. It provides
Wisconsin's dairy farmers a special time to reflect on their
accomplishments and those of their ancestors, and to look forward to
continued success in the future.
Wisconsin was nicknamed America's Dairyland in the 1930s, but it
became a leader in the industry soon after the first dairy cow came to
Wisconsin in the 1800's. Dairy history and the state's history have
been intertwined from the beginning. Why, before Wisconsin was even
declared a state, Wisconsin's first cheese ``factory'' established when
one clever Wisconsinite combined milk from her cows with milk from her
neighbor's cows and made it into cheese.
Other Wisconsin dairy firsts include: the development of Colby cheese
in 1874, the creation of brick cheese in 1875, the first dairy school
in America--established in 1891 at the University of Wisconsin at
Madison, the first statewide dairy show in the U.S. in 1928, and the
creation of the world-record holding 40,060 pound, Grade-A Cheddar
cheese in 1988. And Wisconsin also can claim one of the best-tasting
inventions in the history of dairy industry: the creation of the first
ice cream sundae in 1881.
Also unique to Wisconsin's dairy industry is the crowing of ``Alice
in Dairyland.'' This lucky young woman serves as the state's dairy
ambassador all over the country, and often in other parts of the world.
Last year's Alice, Jennifer Hasler of Monroe, represented Wisconsin
well as she promoted Wisconsin's agriculture in California, Arizona,
Minnesota and even Japan. She generated millions of dollars in unpaid
advertising for hard working Wisconsin farmers. I congratulate her on
her achievements and her hard work and wish the new Alice good luck in
her year serving Wisconsin agriculture.
I am proud to honor this great American tradition--proud to honor the
dairy producers not only in Wisconsin, but also those across this great
nation.

____________________

GIRL SCOUT TROOP 327 CELEBRATES 25 YEARS OF SERVICE

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 54
participants of Girl Scout Troop 327 from Wayne County, Michigan, as
they celebrate 25 years of continuous service at the Mackinac Island
Scout Camp.
Based in Grosse Pointe, the Troop recruits girls from Livonia,
Dearborn, and the entire east side of Detroit. This combined group from
the Michigan Metro Girl Scout Council will be traveling to Mackinac
Island on Thursday, June 24, 1999 to celebrate their 25th Anniversary
of service to the Island.
While on the Island, the Girl Scouts will continue their commitment
to be better citizens through community service and goodwill deeds. In
cooperation with the Mackinac Island State Park Commission, they plan
to greet visitors in various public buildings, give directions to
tourists, paint dilapidated park benches, and clean up heavily traveled
park trails. The beauty of the Island will undoubtedly be preserved
because of the Girl Scouts' service and dedication.
Past experiences have enabled Troop 327 to gain a wealth of
information about the world around them. As members of Governor
Engler's Honor Guard, the girls have been responsible for raising 26
United States flags over the country's National Cemeteries, Post
Cemetery, and another at the Governor's summer residence. Through their
experiences, the Girl Scouts have become more mature while gaining
valuable life and human relations skills.
Earning the ``Gold Award'' and ``Silver Award'' for their active
participation in community service, members of the Troop continue to
exemplify their self-professed national motto: ``Girl Scouting: where
girls grow strong.''
As individuals, communities and businesses strive to make positive
impacts on the world, our younger community sets an example for every
generation to follow. I urge my colleagues to join me in praising these
girls for their continued efforts. The service provided by Girl Scout
Troop 327 has left a mark on their lives, and in future

[[Page 12124]]

weeks their service will positively affect those who visit Mackinac
Island from around the world.

____________________

EXPRESSING RESPECT AND GRATITUDE TO THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, with a deep sense of humility, I believe
the Senate should close its proceedings today by paying our profound
and deepest respect to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the
United States of America and their comrades in arms from 18 other
nations, NATO, for having taken an enormous risk in performing with a
degree of excellence that by any standard can be judged by all who
understand military operations as in keeping with the finest traditions
of our military and the military of other nations of the world.
Their actions to bring about what appears to be a cessation of
hostilities, certainly in the air, at this time receives our profound
gratitude and our prayers for their safety.
I, moments ago, spoke with the Secretary of Defense to pass on to our
old colleague from the Senate a ``well done.'' I had the opportunity,
as did many here in the Senate, to work with him on a regular basis
throughout this crisis period in Kosovo, and I commend him for
maintaining a very strong hand on this situation, particularly at times
when it became very difficult.
We have discussed the command from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
chiefs of services, down through the CINCs, to the privates, whether
they be in the air, on the sea, on the land. Again, they performed
their job with great professional skill and dedication. It was not an
easy job, because there was a good deal of uncertainty, and that
uncertainty still remains as to exactly how this mission was carried
out and whether it could have been done differently. But nevertheless,
some 3,000-plus sorties were flown by the men and women in the aircraft
of eight nations, supported by ground personnel at bases throughout
that region, 17 bases alone in Italy.
I had the privilege last week, as a matter of fact a week ago today I
was in Albania with General Jackson, who will be heading the ARRC force
and who broke the news of the agreement between the military side with
the representatives from Yugoslavia, General Clark and Admiral Ellis. I
wish to say to these commanders that, again, it was their leadership
which instilled a sense of confidence and conviction in their
subordinates that this job had to be done, that we had to stay the
course, and the professionalism we have witnessed now in the air
operation.
I was asked momentarily, does this represent a victory or how would
you characterize it? I simply said to the press early today, and to my
colleagues I say now, it is far too early to try to make those
judgments. The Senate Armed Services Committee, which I am privileged
to chair, will hold a series of hearings on what went right and what
went wrong and what, most particularly, will be the strategy of our
forces for the future if faced with another situation of the
seriousness and the complexity of this one in Kosovo.
I visited this region last September. As I stood there in Albania and
Macedonia and observed the terrain, which is identical in many ways to
that in Kosovo, I thought back to the refugees at that time huddling in
the hills. I said on the floor of the Senate there would be a need
then, as there is now, for a ground military force to stabilize the
situation, stabilize it so while the ground forces of NATO will go in,
eventually other nongovernmental organizations from all over the world
will come to help these people who were tragically driven from their
homes and villages by a very brutal military force under the direction
of President Milosevic, a man who has conducted himself with complete
disregard of all international law and human rights.
Again, I return to the troops. While the air operation, hopefully,
will be secured, if not already, within hours, we have remaining before
us the challenge on the ground, and the ground forces will now take up
their professional responsibilities. May the hand of God rest upon
their shoulders, because they will be faced with land mines and booby
traps, all types of uncertainty. They will have to perform tasks not
unlike those of a mayor of a village, to the extremes of how to deal
with this hidden weaponry and a tragic situation of returning people to
a devastated homeland.
The KLA will present challenges. In some instances, they fought with
great courage. But now they must reconcile themselves to the fact that
this international force, indeed NATO and the United Nations, must
resolve the situation in a peaceable manner.
So while victory cannot be pronounced now, not until the ground
forces go in and perform their challenging tasks, I say clearly that
NATO has taken another major, significant step in the international
community toward reaching its five basic goals. Those goals have been
stated on this floor and in the press many times.
I salute all. In my discussions with Secretary Cohen, we made
reference to the President. The President is Commander in Chief. The
words that Secretary Cohen used--and I have a great respect for Bill
Cohen, having served with him here some 18 years in the Senate--were
that the President was steady. He stayed steady at every turn in these
events, stayed focused and gave it his attention. In every way, I think
the comments of the Secretary of Defense were very respectful. Clearly,
in the minds of all of us, we have to credit the President with holding
together the 19 nations.
It was essential that that coalition under the NATO charter remain
together throughout this first phase--that is, the air phase--and now
they must remain together throughout an equally difficult and
challenging phase, that of securing the ground.
As I said, when I was there one week ago with General Jackson,
General Clark, Admiral Ellis, and other military commanders, it is
clear that the magnitude of the uncertainty relating to the landmines
and booby traps, and indeed the problems associated with moving the
Serb forces out, pose a challenge that, in many respects, has never
been faced by a U.S. military force. But I have confidence in those
commanders and in the men and women who will boldly undertake this
task.
So I wish to just pay my humble respects, and I will follow this
operation very clearly, in terms of our duties in the Senate and on the
Armed Services Committee and, most assuredly, in our prayers for their
safety and for the safety of those Kosovars who were driven from their
homes and now have hope to once again return.

____________________

NOMINATIONS OF GENERAL SHINSEKI AND GENERAL JONES

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Armed Services Committee met yesterday
under the advise and consent role with respect to General Shinseki to
be Chief of Staff of the United States Army, and General Jones to
become Commandant of the Marine Corps. I want to say with the deepest
personal reverence that in my 21 years in the Senate, I cannot recall
ever being moved as strongly by the remarks of a fellow Senator as I
was yesterday when the senior Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye,
addressed the Armed Services Committee and introduced General Shinseki.
While I would like to read these remarks, it is better that they just
be printed in the Record. I urge all Senators to examine these remarks.
They are extraordinary. They come from the heart of a Senator who has
served his country with the greatest distinction, and his praise for a
fellow Hawaiian who came up under circumstances not unlike his,
although removed by a generation or so.
I ask unanimous consent to have the remarks of Senator Inouye printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Statement of Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator From Hawaii

Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity to say a

[[Page 12125]]

few words in behalf of our President's nominee for the 34th
Chief of Staff of the United States Army. General Shinseki
began his military career as a commissioned officer 34 years
ago, almost exactly, on June 9, 1965. He received his
commission as a Second Lieutenant after receiving a
baccalaureate degree from the United States Military Academy
at West Point.
After a few weeks of preparation, he was sent to Vietnam.
On his first tour of duty there he distinguished himself, and
he received his first purple heart. He was sent back to the
States to be hospitalized, and a few years later he was back
in Vietnam. On his second tour of duty there as a captain he
once again distinguished himself, but he was wounded very
seriously, losing part of his foot.
Notwithstanding that, he applied for a waiver and requested
that he be given the opportunity to continue his service to
our Nation. This was granted, and he continued his
illustrious career, and in 1997 became a four-star General.
As Chairman Warner indicated, in March of 1994 he was made
Commanding General of the First Cavalry Division.
In July 1997 he became Commander-in-Chief of the United
States Army in Europe, and Commander-in-Chief of the Seventh
Army. He was also Commander of the Stabilization Force on
Bosnia.
As indicated by Chairman Warner, there is no question that
General Shinseki is eminently qualified for this, and if I
may at this juncture be a bit more personal, this is a
special day for many of us in the United States. In February
of 1942, the United States Selective Service System, because
of the hysteria of that time, that all Japanese, citizens or
otherwise, be designated 4C. 4C, as you know Mr. Chairman, is
the designation of an enemy alien.
It was a day of shame for many of us, although it was not
deserved, and we petitioned the Government to permit us to
demonstrate ourselves and a year later President Roosevelt
declared that Americanism is a matter of mind and heart.
Americanism is not, and has never been, a matter of racial
color, and authorized the formation of a special Japanese-
American combat unit, and the rest is history.
But what I wish to point out is that this young man sitting
to my right was born in November of 1942. At the time of his
birth he was an enemy alien, and today, to the great glory of
the United States, I have the privilege of presenting him as
the 34th Chief of Staff, Army nominee. This, Mr. Chairman,
can happen only in the United States. I cannot think of any
other place where something of this nature can happen.
He is the grandson of a Japanese laborer from Hiroshima who
arrived in Hawaii in the late 1800's, about 1888, raised his
children, and raised his grandson to love America, and I
believe he succeeded eminently.
Mr. Chairman, on this day the shame that has been on our
shoulders all these years has been clearly washed away by
this one action, and for that I am very grateful to this
Nation. I am grateful to the President, and I believe that we
have before us one of the great illustrious warriors of our
Nation. And I hope that this committee will vote to approve
his nomination as the 34th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army.
It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman, to present to the
Committee, General Shinseki.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this afternoon, the Senate Armed Services
Committee reported out favorably the nominations of General Shinseki
and General Jones, and I anticipate tomorrow the Senate will move on
those nominations.
As chairman, I designated Senator Roberts, a former U.S. Marine, to
place the nomination by the committee, as approved, of General Jones to
the Senate; and Senator Cleland of Georgia, an Army veteran of great
distinction and an officer who served in Vietnam, will place before the
Senate the nomination of General Shinseki.
Once again, I close by saluting the Secretary of Defense, the men and
women of the Armed Forces of the United States, and our allies for
their courage and perception in meeting the challenges proposed in
Kosovo. I wish them well in the future.

____________________

APPOINTMENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair announces, on behalf of the
Democratic Leader, pursuant to Public Law 96-114, as amended, the
appointment of George Gould of Virginia to the Congressional Award
Board.

____________________

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30
a.m. on Thursday, June 10. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately
following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to
date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two
leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate
then resume consideration of S. 96, the Y2K liability legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators,
tomorrow, the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the Y2K
legislation. The Senate hopes to complete action on that legislation
tomorrow afternoon. Following the debate on S. 96, the Senate may begin
consideration of the State Department authorization bill, any
appropriations bills available, or any legislative or executive items
on the calendar. Therefore, Senators can expect votes throughout
tomorrow's session of the Senate.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:35 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, June 10, 1999, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate June 9, 1999:

Department of State

John E. Lange, of Wisconsin, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Botswana.
Delano Eugene Lewis, Sr., of New Mexico, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of South Africa.

in the NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE
GRADES INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTIONS 531 AND 5582:

To be lieutenant commander

SHEILA A.R. ROBBINS

To be lieutenant

VINCE W. BAKER
ROBIN L. BARNES
GERALD A. COOK
KENNETH A. FAULKNER, SR.
JORGE I. MADERAL
PAMELLA A. MYERS
LEE A.C. NEWTON
JAMES D. SANTAMOUR
KATHERINE A. SCHNEIRLA
WILLIAM B. STEVENS
ICHAEL R. TASKER

To be lieutenant (junior grade)

MICHAEL D. APRICENO
JOHN F. BAEHR
GREGORY D. BUCHANAN
DAVID D. CARNAL
ROBERT M. COHEN
MICHAEL A. DAVIS, JR.
KRISTIAN M. DORAN
GEORGE C. ESTRADA
DARREN R. HALE
JOSHUA R. HALL
MOONI JAFAR
PATRICK M. KELLY
MANUEK X. LUGO
JESSE L. MAGGITT
RALPH J. MAINES
CECIL L. MC QUAIN
BERNARD T. MEEHAN II
JOAQUIN J. MOLINA
DAVID M. REED II
JOHN F. WEBB
CAROLYN M. WISNER
CHERYL WOEHR
ALEXANDER Y. WOLDEMARIAM

To be ensign

ROBERT M. ALLEYNE
GREGORY BALLENGER
MATTHEW L. BETIT
ANDREW F. BRACKENRIDGE
KEVIN F. BRAVOFERRER
LEBRON BUTTS II
CHRIS D. CASTLEBERRY
MARK A. CUTLER
MICHAEL W. DAVIDSON
JEFFREY P. DAVIS
DAMON C. DEQUENNE
RICHARD J. DIXON, JR.
MARTIN L. EDMONDS
ASHTON F. FEEHAN
DAVID P. FRIEDLER
JONATHAN GRAY
MICHAEL S. GUILFORD
MICHAEL D. HALTOM, JR.
ALEXANDER F. HARPER
RAIICHON A. HILTS
NICHOLAS H. HONG
ANDREW G. KREMER
ELLEN Y. KWAME
ANDREW J. LEWIS
MIGUEL A. LEYVA
CHRISTIAN M. MAHLER
WILLIAM J. MARTZ
DAVID B. MC KELVY
SEAN A. MENTUS
TROY C. MORSE
JAMES H. MURPHY
VICTOR D. OLIVER
LEE A. PARKER
RICHARD A. PHILLIPS
RICHARD C. PLEASANTS
JEREMY C. POWELL
LYNN J. PRIMEAUX
MICHAEL R. RODMAN
LIAM M. SARACINO
BRIAN S. SCHLICHTING
SALEEM K. TAFISH
DAVID A. TONINI
GEORGE B. TOSH
TAWNYA R. TSCHACHE
JEFFREY W. UTLEY
DANIEL E. WILBURN

[[Page 12126]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

June 9, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, June 9, 1999

The House met at 10 a.m.
The Reverend Samuel Thomas, Jr., Capitol City Seventh Day Adventist
Church, Sacramento, California, offered the following prayer:
Eternal God our Father, we bless Your name this morning and thank You
for the great country that You have given us, and we ask, Lord, that
Your presence would be in this assembly and that You would empower us,
Lord, by Your presence to do that which is right before Thee.
We thank You, Lord, in how You have carved out our country to be
prophetically significant for all times, and we ask, Lord, that as we
consider the things of earth, we would not forget the things of heaven.
This we ask in the blessed name of our Lord Christ. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a
vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the Chair's approval of the Journal.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

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

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

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

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

H.R. 1554. An act to amend the provisions of title 17,
United States Code, and the Communications Act of 1934,
relating to copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast
signals by satellite.

The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendment
to the bill (H.R. 1554) ``An Act to amend the provisions of title 17,
United States Code, and the Communications Act of 1934, relating to
copyright licensing and carriage of broadcast signals by satellite,''
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon, and appoints from the--
Committee on the Judiciary, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Leahy, and Mr. Kohl; and from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, Mr. McCain, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Hollings; to be the
conferees on the part of the Senate.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

The SPEAKER. The Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. Dunn) for 1 minute, and then 15 1-minutes on each side.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF GUEST CHAPLAIN

(Ms. DUNN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I rise today to recognize
Pastor Samuel Thomas, Jr. Pastor Thomas led the Congress in our opening
prayer this morning.
In reflecting on his uplifting words for our country, I would like to
give you a brief glimpse of Pastor Thomas' contribution to our society.
Pastor Thomas was born in Nashville, Tennessee, and raised in
Atlanta, Georgia. He has been a teacher, a student, a broadcaster, a
banker, a husband and, perhaps most importantly, a wonderful father to
his two children, Samuel and Christine.
His life's journey has included teaching new ministerial students at
his alma mater in Huntsville, Alabama and co-producing a television
broadcast that airs around the world. In addition, he serves his
community as senior pastor of Capitol City Seventh Day Adventist Church
in Sacramento, California.
When I met Pastor Thomas, he had flown to Seattle, Washington, to
preside over funeral services for my next-door neighbor and very dear
friend George Erickson. His compelling testimony of his own life and
his kindness and strength at a painful time touched us all. I want not
only to welcome Pastor Samuel Thomas and thank him for his prayer
today, but I also want to thank him for serving as such an exemplary
role model to all of us who seek to be both compassionate and strong.

____________________

PASS GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION

(Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago the U.S. Senate did the right
thing and passed modest gun safety legislation to keep guns out of the
hands of our kids. Now it is time the House of Representatives do the
right thing.
I was saddened to read in the paper this morning that the Republican
leadership is playing games with gun safety legislation. Two weeks ago,
instead of allowing us to vote on the gun safety package passed by the
other body, the Republican leadership told us that they needed more
time for hearings to proceed in the regular order. Now what we have
found out is that what they really needed was more time for the
National Rifle Association to wage a grassroots campaign and to water
down gun safety legislation.
The Republican leadership is pulling a bait and switch on the
American people. It is time to stop playing games with the deadly
serious issue of gun safety for children. We should vote on the Senate
gun safety package, not a watered down, NRA written, loophole filled,
sham bill.
Madam Speaker, this is the people's House, it is not the NRA's House,
and the American people want gun safety legislation. Let us have a fair
and open debate on gun safety legislation.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE 125TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE KATONAH FIRE DEPARTMENT

(Mrs. KELLY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. KELLY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to proudly mark the 125th
anniversary of the Katonah, New York Volunteer Fire Department. It
truly takes

[[Page 12127]]

hard work and dedication by its members to provide quality fire
protection services for over a century.
Formed in 1874, just after a major fire which nearly resulted in the
destruction of the entire town, the Katonah Fire Department has grown
to over 100 active, hardworking volunteer firemen and emergency medical
service personnel.
The history of this incredible organization has turned out to be a
long and illustrious story of bravery and commitment to the residents
of Katonah. They have progressed dramatically over the 125 years of
existence from an old horse and carriage to the firefighting tactics
and equipment of today.
Today, more than ever, all over the country, we need people to
volunteer to serve in our local fire and ambulance corps. The people of
Katonah are proud of our men and women who volunteer to risk their
lives every day to respond to any emergency at a moment's notice.
Congratulations to them. Let us salute them on this auspicious
occasion for the undaunted hard work they do to make Katonah a safer
place.

____________________

FLAG DAY

(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, in America it is illegal to burn trash,
but we can burn the flag. It is illegal to remove a label from a
mattress, but we can literally rip the stars and stripes off our flag.
It is illegal to damage a mailbox, but we can destroy our flag.
Beam me up. A people that does not honor and respect their flag is a
people that does not honor and respect their country nor their
neighbors.
Today is Flag Day. I say if we want to make a political statement, we
can burn our bras, burn our BVDs, but we should leave Old Glory alone.
Every day should be Flag Day.

____________________

TRANSPORTING MINORS ACROSS STATE LINES FOR ABORTION SHOULD BE FEDERAL
MISDEMEANOR

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, yesterday a subcommittee approved a
bill to make it a Federal misdemeanor for strangers to transport minor
girls across State lines in order to avoid State abortion parental
consent or notification laws. My bill is designed to punish those who
take teenagers to other States for a secret abortion, thereby deceiving
parents and avoiding the parental consent laws.
This commonsense legislation, which currently enjoys the support of
almost 130 Members, will prevent our children from falling prey to
strangers. The idea that any nonparent can take one's 13-year-old
daughter to another State for a secret and potentially fatal abortion
should be appalling to any parent and should convince this Congress to
move swiftly on the bill.
I commend the members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the
Committee on the Judiciary for protecting the basic right of parents to
participate in all decisions involving their minor children, and I ask
that the Committee on the Judiciary and the full House do the same as
soon as possible.

____________________

CRA

(Mr. MEEKS of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Madam Speaker, as we seek to provide banks and
other financial companies with an environment that would allow them to
expand their powers and become more competitive globally, it is our
responsibility to make certain that our constituents, the financial
institutions' customers, are also provided with an environment that
would allow them to prosper.
Since 1977, banks and thrifts have made over $1 trillion in loan
pledges to low-income areas. CRA investments have been widely credited
with dramatically increasing home ownership, restoring distressed
communities, and helping small businesses and meeting the unique credit
needs of rural America.
I cosponsored an amendment offered in the Committee on Banking and
Financial Services that would make bank affiliates that sell bank-like
financial products subject to CRA review on those products. If they
want to play on the same ball field they have to play by the same
rules.
If this amendment is enacted in the House, on the House floor, bank
affiliates will be pleasantly surprised to see that the same result
will occur as my banking colleagues did; there is a profit to be made
in low-income rural and minority communities.
CRA has been good for banks and great for our communities.

____________________

VIOLENCE AMONG OUR YOUTH

(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Madam Speaker, school violence and violence in society
concerns all of us. What do we do about it? Well, we have tried gun
control. We have insisted on parental control. We have suggested the
schools could control more.
I do not believe our young people are born violent. It can be
learned. We have found that out in the culture of the Hitler Nazi
regime where he taught his youth, or there may be other ways that we
can learn violence.
In America, we have allowed a culture of violence to promote it,
besides guns, besides lack of parental control. What is that? It is our
movies, our television, our video games.
I would like to see more leadership in addressing the thing that our
students spend more time with. Let us try strict liability with
television, videos and movies.

____________________

BOMBING FOR PEACE

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, bombing for peace. This is the new
strategy from NATO. While engaging in peace negotiations, NATO has
intensified the bombing. Bombing for peace.
During peace talks, B-52s dropped cluster bombs along the Kosovo-
Albania borders. NATO says that as a result about 600 Serb troops in
the field were pulverized by the cluster bombs during peace talks.
Besides those troops killed, there will be countless Kosovars and Serbs
injured by thousands of cluster bombs which will remain unexploded
until discovered by accident, by children playing, by people walking
home to Kosovo.
Peace bombs. There is no such thing as bombing for peace. We bomb for
war; we negotiate for peace. We cannot do both at once and keep
credibility. Let us hope we can finally get a peace agreement and let
us demand an end to the bombing.

____________________

MINORITY LEADER WOULD CUT DEFENSE AND RAISE TAXES

(Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), the House minority leader, was apparently caught off guard
recently and said out loud what he really thinks about defense spending
and about taxes. He said, and I quote, and I have it on this chart,
``You have got to have a combination of taking it out of the defense
budget and raising revenue. We can argue about how to do that, closing
loopholes or even raising taxes to do it.''
That is right. He proposed to raise taxes and cut defense. And then,
even more amazing is that he was given a chance to clarify his remarks
in a letter to the editor of the Washington

[[Page 12128]]

Times. Did he say that he would oppose tax increases? Did he say he
would retract his words? Did he repudiate the notion that what this
country needs is to weaken our military and raise taxes? No. He wrote,
``I have no intention of proposing or supporting any tax increases.''
No intention? The last time we heard that was 1992, only 1 year
before President Clinton gave us the greatest tax increase in our
Nation's history.

____________________

SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT IN NATION'S SCHOOLS

(Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we can no longer ignore the
disparities in our school systems and allow young people to suffer in
crammed, outdated public school buildings.
Daily, Americans are forced to send their children to schools with
leaky roofs and unsafe ventilation. With the classroom enrollment rate
growing, children must endure overcrowding and dangerous conditions.
It is vital that we bring education to the forefront of our
deliberations. We will not be able to meet the Nation's educational
needs with temporary remedies. We must make this a nonpartisan issue
and create permanent solutions. By joining with other Members of
Congress and supporting school construction and modernization, we
secure the welfare of our children.

{time} 1015

It is imperative for the survival of this great Nation to prepare
students to enter the global market and enable them to become
productive members of the community. Reduced classroom size, qualified
teachers, and new technology provide the opportunities students need to
succeed.
Our future depends upon the schooling of the children who sit in
American classrooms today. As a Member of the 106th Congress, I am
duty-bound to protect the interests of the American people. The steps
and directions we choose to take today will decide the future of our
Nation. To meet the impending demands of the 21st century, we must do
everything in our collective power now to ensure the education of our
children.

____________________

OLD HABITS DIE HARD

(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, as we just heard, the House Democrat leader
said something the other day that might give American taxpayers cause
for concern. A lot of people have been fooled by the talk about ``new
Democrats'' and the ``third way'' and other such deceptions that
liberals must use to remain politically viable.
But every once in a while a Democrat leader slips and reveals what
their party actually stands for, the same thing they have always stood
for since the 1960s.
Listen again to this comment by the minority leader: ``You've got to
have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and raising
revenue. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even
raising taxes to do it.''
So there we have it. Cut defense and raise taxes. No wonder all those
flag burners and left-wing activists from the 1960s found a home in the
Democratic Party. It is a party whose leaders, after all these years it
seems, do not support a strong military and simply cannot wait to get
back in power so they can pass another tax hike.
Old habits die hard.

____________________

SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION

(Mrs. NAPOLITANO asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Madam Speaker, I would like to certainly call upon
all my colleagues to join us in bringing the issue of school
construction and modernization up for debate this year.
In my home State of California, we are facing a very critical and
potential crisis in providing adequate school facilities for our
children. With the number of students increasing in grades K through 12
by about 270,000 during the next 5 years, California will need 10,000,
10,000, new classrooms. That is six new classrooms each day for the
next 5 years.
In addition to building new classrooms, more than two-thirds of
existing school buildings are in desperate need of repair. State and
local resources are currently only covering half of these construction
costs and modernization needs.
We, therefore, all of us, owe it to our children from throughout the
United States to address this issue right here in Washington. The
children of my State who are the future of California and the children
of other States are depending on us to take action to build and
renovate our schools.

____________________

FAILED CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICY ON NORTH KOREA

(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, the Clinton administration's policy
on North Korea has failed on several counts.
In exchange for making North Korea the largest recipient of U.S.
assistance in East Asia, Pyongyang promised to terminate its nuclear
weapons program and any efforts to develop or deploy long-range
ballistic missiles.
While there are several indications that the North Koreans have not
kept their end of the bargain, last summer's launch of a three-stage
ballistic missile over Japan is the most egregious example of this
rogue nation's disregard for their commitments.
With Pyongyang calling for further concessions from the U.S., I
believe it is important for Congress to make it clear to the
administration that we will not provide additional money or ease
economic sanctions unless there is clear and convincing evidence that
the North Koreans are living up to the requirements of the 1994 Agreed
Framework.
To do anything less would be a severe abdication of our
responsibility to defend the national security of the United States.

____________________

NATIONAL HOMEOWNERSHIP WEEK

(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I rise to hail National Homeownership Week.
Homeownership is one of the core values we have, I think, as
Americans and one of the most fundamental bases for stability in our
communities. This record homeownership rate of over 67 percent did not
happen without leadership from the Clinton administration, from former
Secretary Cisneros and current Secretary Andrew Cuomo.
I think we all should be very proud of this accomplishment and the
focus that led us to this result. Since 1993, we have nearly 8 million
new homeowners. That is a million more families each year that have
achieved homeownership. That has come about, obviously, because we have
made the right decisions with regards to our budget since then. We have
lower mortgage rates and higher employment, and new policy has helped
in many areas for first-time homeowners, minority homeownership and, of
course, dealing with senior citizens and reverse mortgages contracts.
But we have much work to go before we are done. Many of our cities,
for instance, have less than 50 percent homeownership. And by, of
course, establishing a stake in these communities, we can be very
helpful to changing the success of these urban areas. But we have to
keep programs like CRA and HMDA in place, the FHA program, which has
been so important, to continue the progress with regards to
homeownership. These polices work hand in hand with the partnership
approach involving the private sector, home builders, realtors,
mortgage bankers, title insurers, Fannie Mae,

[[Page 12129]]

and Freddie Mac, and, of course, financial institutions, banks, not for
profit roles like the community reinvestment act and a myriad of
national polices that are tailored to respond in today's marketplace.
I urge my colleagues and citizens across the country to celebrate
this great event, National Homeownership Week, Homeownership the
American dream is alive and well, Madam Speaker.

____________________

820TH RED HORSE COMBAT ENGINEER SQUADRON

(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, the Air Force has a motto of ``service
before self.'' That is a fitting description of the 204 members of the
820th Red Horse Combat Engineer squadron from Nellis Air Force Base,
who will be departing for Albania very soon.
Their mission will be to repair critical roads and bridges to help
prepare the way for a safe and expeditious return of the Kosovar
refugees who were displaced from their homes in this unfortunate
conflict.
Having seen the environment that they will be working in firsthand, I
can tell my colleagues that their work will be challenged. However, I
am very confident that their skills, training, and motivation will be
equal to the task.
As the struggle for a peaceful solution to the Kosovo conflict is
played out on the TV and in our newspapers, it is the soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and Marines who continue to work hard in the
background, focused on accomplishment of their mission.
I want to say thanks to all our troops deployed in support of
Operation Allied Force and to the men and women of the 820th Red Horse
Squadron, their families and loved ones. Good luck in your deployment.
Godspeed. A quick return. But most importantly, thank you for your
service and sacrifice for this nation.

____________________

GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I think in the next couple
of days we will have an opportunity to do what is right for America and
do what is right for our young people.
Although we are not marking up the juvenile justice crime bill in the
House Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am a member of the
Subcommittee on Crime, we will have an opportunity to come to this
floor.
I do not believe that we should pass any juvenile justice crime bill
that does not have provisions for mental health services to enhance and
give to our children the kind of resources they may need. We should not
pass a bill that does not have parental responsibility and parental
education about how to help with raising our children to the extent of
giving them resources when our children are troubled. And we should not
pass a bill that does not have real gun safety, with an ammunition clip
restriction, with a restriction on gun shows, and the instant check and
the waiting period.
We should realize, Madam Speaker, that we now can stand collectively
as Americans and confront this issue not in an attacking mode but a
collaborative mode. We must stand up together to respond to the crisis
of school violence not only in rural America and urban America but the
longstanding concept that this whole country has too many guns.
I do not believe our hunters in the far west or the far east would
argue against gun safety and responsibility.
Let us all stand against the negatives of the National Rifle
Association and collectively as Americans for safety for our children.

____________________

IN APPRECIATION OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF OKLAHOMA STORM

(Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my
heartfelt appreciation to all of the radio and TV stations that
provided around-the-clock coverage during the recent storm that ravaged
the State of Oklahoma.
The advanced emergency weather warnings provided by these stations
and their employees allowed Oklahomans to find safe cover before
tornadoes struck their neighborhoods and communities. This outstanding
service saved countless lives.
Not only did these local broadcasters provide early storm warnings,
but they continued to offer accurate and useful information to their
audiences during the chaos that followed the terrible storm.
I know I speak for all Oklahomans as I thank them for their tireless
efforts during this tragedy.

____________________

WHERE DOES DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP STAND ON TAXES?

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, President Clinton ran on a middle-class
tax cut back in 1992. However, once in office, he raised taxes by a
record amount; in fact, the largest tax increase in American history.
The tax increase would have continued, but in 1994 the American
people elected the first Republican majority in the House of
Representatives in 40 years. Republicans then forced the President to
accept a tax cut, a tax cut he did not want and a tax cut that was
ardently opposed by his folks here in the House, the Democrats.
So where does the Democratic leadership, who so desperately want to
take back the House of Representatives, stand on taxes? Well, on a tour
promoting his new book, A Better Place, just the other day, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democrats in
the House said, and it has been quoted before but I think it bears
hearing it again, ``You've got to have a combination of taking it out
of the defense budget and raising revenue.'' In other words taxes. ``We
can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even raising taxes
to do it.''
Well, there it is: Cut defense and raise taxes. That is not my idea
of a better place.

____________________

PARTY OF THOMAS JEFFERSON IS DEAD

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Madam Speaker, how is it that the party of
Thomas Jefferson, who was a champion of the common man, has become the
enemy of middle-class families? How is it that the party of Jefferson,
champion of freedom from oppressive government, now rushes to embrace
expansion of government and every conceivable encroachment on human
liberty?
Just consider the evidence. ``New Democrat'' Bill Clinton won office
in 1992 by promising a middle-class tax cut. He then promptly passed
the largest tax increase in our history. And now we have the leader of
the Democrat Party in Congress, the distinguished gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) who is on record saying just over a week ago,
and I have the quote here, and since repetition is the soul of learning
and I am an old school teacher, why, it bears repeating: ``You've got
to have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and
raising revenue. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes
or even raising taxes to do it.''
Yes, the party of Thomas Jefferson is dead, long dead, deader than
Elvis. A weaker and weaker military and higher and higher taxes on
average middle-class Americans, that is apparently the Democrat way.

____________________

PATIENT RIGHT TO PEDIATRIC CARE ACT OF 1999

(Mr. SHERWOOD asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)

[[Page 12130]]

Mr. SHERWOOD. Madam Speaker, a long journey must begin with a single
step. I rise to tell my colleagues that we have taken a small but
important first step towards improving health care access for children.
I introduced the Patient Right to Pediatric Care Act this week to
assure parents that they can choose a pediatrician as their child's
primary care provider. I am not a doctor, but I am a father. And one of
the things I have learned as a parent is that the health care needs of
children differ greatly from those of adults.
Some health care groups prudently limit access to certain
specialists. But a pediatrician's skill in caring for children is
unique. I believe that parents must be allowed to decide if their
child's routine health care should be provided by a physician who
specializes in pediatrics.
My legislation is one of several bills which will make up the Health
Care Quality and Access Act, a responsible approach to health care
reform, which Members on both sides of the aisle can and should
support.

____________________

MILITARY IS LOW PRIORITY FOR CLINTON ADMINISTRATION

(Mr. SCHAFFER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCHAFFER. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues look at this chart
which shows the extraordinary decline in defense spending under the
Clinton administration, they might be alarmed at just how low a
priority the military has been given in recent years.
But this chart does not tell the whole story. This chart shows the
cuts in procurement spending, the kind of spending that impacts
military readiness years down the road.
Here we see the very cuts of our military capabilities have been
slashed, especially during the first 2 years of this administration,
when antimilitary Democrats controlled Congress.

{time} 1030

The scary part about these cuts is that future Presidents will have
to worry about them long after the current President is out of office.
Spending on new weapon systems, modernizing old ones and upgrading the
state-of-the-art equipment have all taken a back seat during this
administration to new Washington programs that mainly benefit special
interests.
Republicans want the best military possible. Military strength tends
to guarantee the peace. Weakness invites aggression. When will the
other side learn this lesson?

____________________

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN SUDAN MAKE KOSOVO LOOK LIKE A SUNDAY SCHOOL
PICNIC

(Mr. TANCREDO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday I returned from
the Sudan where I had gone with a group of other congressmen to bring
attention to the plight of the south Sudanese, to bring attention of
the country of the United States to the horrible abuses that are going
on in Sudan. In a nutshell, Madam Speaker, Sudan makes Kosovo look like
a Sunday school picnic in terms of the human rights abuses being
perpetrated in that country.
We have heard from the President for the last several months about
all of the reasons why we had to go into Kosovo, but I assure my
colleagues that for every reason he gave us regarding Kosovo I could
give 10 that pertain to the Sudan. The human rights abuses there are
far greater; 2 million dead so far in their Civil War, true genocide
going on, true slavery being undertaken by the north, raids into the
south.
It is amazing, Madam Speaker, that the attention of the United States
is so easily drawn to Europe and so difficult to draw to the African
continent.

____________________

LET US GET THE COMMUNIST CHINESE OUT OF OUR NUCLEAR LABS

(Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, 2 weeks ago the long-awaited Cox report was
released. I keep this chart because I think it is important for the
American people to realize that while this administration was
drastically cutting our defense budget, we were giving away our nuclear
secrets to the Chinese. This should not, cannot and must not happen as
we begin the debate on the all important defense budget today in that
bill.
Because the administration leaks to the New York Times, we have come
to know one of the most stunning bombshells about theft of our
sensitive nuclear secrets by the Communist Chinese at our nuclear lab.
We also know that the other side of the aisle is in mark contrast to
the statements of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in this
unanimous report. The partisan statements have begun while pleading
with Republicans not to be partisan.
Let us go back to the Vice President's reaction to the loss of our
most sensitive nuclear weapons information. First words out of his
mouth were to blame someone else, Ronald Reagan, and the Secretary of
Energy, Bill Richardson, has cautioned over and over again let us not
over react.
Madam Speaker, let us do react. It is time that we got the Communist
Chinese out of our labs, protected our secrets and protect this
country. We find out the absolute worst possible case has come to pass,
the Communist Chinese penetration of our nuclear laboratories is total.
We knew about it since 1995. We have done virtually nothing about it.
Madam Speaker, let us do something now. Our future is at stake.

____________________

DEMOCRAT LEADERSHIP STILL OUT OF TOUCH AND STILL CLEARLY ANTI-MILITARY

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, today we have before us the defense
reauthorization bill, and it is a very important bill in that it
reverses the trend of massive defense cuts.
Now it is interesting, as we go into the debate, actually on the eve
of the debate, we have the Democrat Majority Leader speaking basically
the Democrat policy on defense which was we have got to have a
combination of taking money, and I am going to paraphrase it, but when
he says taking it out, taking money out of defense and raising revenue,
raising taxes. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or
even raising taxes to do it, but the point is here we have a defense,
and I will show my colleagues another chart which traces defense
spending under the Clinton administration, particularly since 1993, how
it has been cut massively during the period of time that we have had
increased deployments, we have had equipment that lacks spare parts, we
need modernization, and we are losing lots of good soldiers because the
quality of life has gone down so much. But despite this decrease, the
Majority Leader of the Democrat party is saying again we need to
squeeze it out of defense, we need to cut defense spending, and this in
the face of a President who is selling missile technology to China.
Madam Speaker, it does not make sense.
I hope people will support this bill, and I hope that we can get the
Democrats to join us. I believe that we will get a lot of Democrats
with us, but it is too bad that the Democrat leadership is still out of
touch and still clearly anti-military.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule
XX, the pending business is the question of the Speaker's approval of
the Journal of the last day's proceedings.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page 12131]]

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 355,
nays 62, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 178]

YEAS--355

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
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
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NAYS--62

Aderholt
Baird
Baldacci
Bilbray
Bonior
Borski
Brown (OH)
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Crane
Crowley
DeFazio
English
Filner
Gephardt
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Johnson, E.B.
Kucinich
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Markey
Martinez
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Oberstar
Pallone
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Ramstad
Riley
Sabo
Schaffer
Slaughter
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Weller
Wicker

NOT VOTING--17

Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Cummings
Doyle
Gutierrez
Kanjorski
Luther
McCrery
McHugh
Meek (FL)
Pascrell
Paul
Rogan
Stark
Waters
Young (AK)

{time} 1054

So the Journal was approved.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

____________________

ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 204) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

House Resolution 204

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are
hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the
House of Representatives:
Committee on Resources: Mr. Holt of New Jersey;
Committee on Science: Mr. Baird of Washington; Mr. Hoeffel
of Pennsylvania; Mr. Moore of Kansas;
Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Mr. Hill of Indiana; Mr.
Udall of New Mexico.

The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 200 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 200

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2000 and 2001 for military activities of the Department
of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule.
Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
(b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute shall be in order except the amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of
this resolution, the amendment by Representative Cox of
California printed on June 8, 1999, in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8
of rule XVIII, and pro forma amendments offered by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services for the purpose of debate.
(c) Except as specified in section 5 of this resolution,
each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the
report, each amendment printed in the report shall be
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by

[[Page 12132]]

the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to
amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one
pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any
pending amendment).
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
(e) Consideration of the last five amendments in part A of
the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin with an
additional period of general debate, which shall be confined
to the subject of United States policy relating to the
conflict in Kosovo, and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Armed Services.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier disposed
of or germane modifications of any such amendment. Amendments
en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered
as read (except that modifications shall be reported), shall
be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en
bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike
may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment
to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original
proponent of an amendment included in such amendments en bloc
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record
immediately before the disposition of the amendments en bloc.
Sec. 4. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1)
postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
Sec. 5. (a) The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed,
but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
(b) Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be
in order to consider the amendment printed in the
Congressional Record of June 8, 1999, by Representative Cox
of California and described in section 2(b) of this
resolution, if offered by Representative Cox or his designee.
That amendment shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All
points order against that amendment are waived.
Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 7. After passage of H.R. 1401, it shall be in order to
take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1059 and to
consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of order
against the Senate bill and against its consideration are
waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the
enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu
thereof the provisions of H.R. 1401 as passed by the House.
All points of order against that motion are waived.
Sec. 8. House Resolution 195 is laid on the table.

{time} 1100

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
structured rule for H.R. 1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of
Defense Authorization Act. The rule waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided
between the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. The rule makes in order the Committee on Armed Services
amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill, which
shall be considered as read.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The rule makes in order only those amendments
printed in the Committee on Rules report and pro forma amendments
offered by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services for the purposes of debate.
Amendments printed in Part B of the Committee on Rules report may be
offered en bloc. The rule makes in order an amendment by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) printed on June 8, 1999, in the Congressional
Record.
The rule provides that except as specified in section 5 of the
resolution, amendments will be considered only in the order specified
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a
demand for a division of the question.
The rule provides that except as otherwise specified in the report,
each amendment printed in the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and
shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services each may offer one
pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending
amendment.
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in
the Committee on Rules report and those amendments en bloc described in
section 3 of the resolution.
The rule provides an additional period of general debate prior to the
consideration of the last 5 amendments in Part A of the Committee on
Rules report for 1 hour, which shall be confined to the subject of
United States policy relating to the conflict in Kosovo.
The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services
or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments
printed in Part B of the Committee on Rules report or germane
modifications thereto which shall be considered as read, except that
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes,
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services or their designees, and shall not be
subject to amendment or demand for a division of the question.
The rule provides that for the purpose of inclusion in such
amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to
strike may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment to
the text originally proposed to be stricken. The original proponent of
an amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement
in the Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of the
en bloc amendments.
The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote.
The rule permits the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the report out
of order in which printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the
chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces
from the floor a request to that effect.
The rule provides that before consideration of any other amendment,
it will be in order to consider the amendment printed in the
Congressional Record on June 8, 1999, by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox), if offered by the gentleman from California or his designee,
which will be considered as read, debatable for 1 hour,

[[Page 12133]]

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, will
not be subject to amendment, and will not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole,
and waives all points of order against the amendment.
The rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. The rule provides that after passage of H.R. 1401, it
shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table S. 1059 and to
consider the Senate bill in the House.
The rule waives all points of order against the Senate bill and
against its consideration. The rule provides that it shall be in order
to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and
to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 1401 as passed by the
House, and waives all points of order against the motion.
Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 195 is laid upon the
table.
Madam Speaker, this new rule for the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of
Defense Authorization Act differs from the old rule, H.R. 195, in two
important ways. First, it makes in order several amendments relating to
the Kosovo conflict. The old rule self-executed out Section 1006 of the
authorization bill, which would end funding for a war in Kosovo on
October 1.
The new rule permits the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to
offer an amendment that would strike Section 1006, and it permits four
amendments that would make it harder for the President to fund an
extended military operation in the Balkans.
This new rule also includes a bipartisan amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) to implement the Cox report and to crack down on spying at
nuclear labs.
In other words, Madam Speaker, the new rule provides for a full and
fair debate on Kosovo and this whole issue, and allows for a bipartisan
legislative answer to security lapses at our weapons facilities. This
is something that all Members should support.
The underlying legislation, H.R. 1401, is a good bill. It is a bill
that would allow us all to rest a little easier at night knowing that
our national defense is stronger and that our troops are being taken
care of.
We now know that China has stolen our nuclear technology, something
that the Soviet Union could not do during the entire Cold War. We live
in a dangerous world, but Congress is doing something about it. We are
working to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies
abroad.
We are helping to take some of our enlisted men off of food stamps by
giving them a 4.8 percent raise, and we are providing for a national
missile defense system so we can stop a warhead from China, if that day
ever comes. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and
ammunition, and we are tightening security at our nuclear labs, doing
something to stop the wholesale loss of our military secrets.
Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules received more than 90
amendments to this bill. We did our best to be fair and to make as many
amendments in order as we could. We made over half of them in order.
The rule allows for a full and open debate on all the major sources
of controversy, including publicly funded abortions and nuclear lab
security. It allows for a debate on a lot of smaller issues, too. So I
urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying
bill, because now more than ever we must provide for our national
security.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues bring us another rule for the
Department of Defense authorization. This rule I feel safe in saying
will pass, and thus this morning the Republican leadership will not be
faced with the embarrassing prospect of having to pull yet another rule
from the floor.
I will support the rule, Madam Speaker, but I do so only because of
my support for the DOD authorization and the importance of getting on
with the business of the House. That being said, I must point out that
this new rule presents us with yet another prospect of embarrassment.
This time the embarrassment will fall on the entire House of
Representatives, if not on our country.
In Cologne, the nations of Western Europe, the United States, and
Russia have finally managed to negotiate a peace settlement with the
regime which has systematically carried out horrifically bloody and
brutal acts in Kosovo.
The terms of the actual troop withdrawal are still a matter of
negotiation between the military forces of NATO and Yugoslavia. But
Madam Speaker, however fragile the prospect, the nations of the world
who subscribe to the rule of law are on the verge of accomplishing the
goal of removing the brutish oppressors from Kosovo.
So in the midst of the peace negotiations, the House now has under
consideration a rule which holds out the prospect of cutting off
support for the operations in Kosovo on September 30, and the Fowler
amendment, which would prohibit ground troops in Yugoslavia unless
authorized by Congress.

{time} 1115

Now, Madam Speaker, I am among those who pray fervently that this
conflict has come to an end. But I am also among those who believe that
dictating the terms of a peace can only be conducted from a position of
strength and resolve.
What kind of message are we about to send to Milosevic and his band
of thugs and murderers? Now is not the time to have this particular
debate. This rule and the debate it permits, as reported by the
Republican majority, is inappropriate and ill-advised.
Today's rule, authored by the Republican majority, is a travesty. By
authorizing votes to cut off spending in Kosovo while we are on the
verge of a dramatic victory, the majority makes the House of
Representatives a laughing stock and demonstrates to the entire world
that we are irrelevant. Let me repeat, the majority has chosen
irrelevance. This is a sad day for this institution.
There are those among the Republican majority who contend that the
last rule for this bill failed because of lack of Democratic support. I
would answer with two points. First, it is the obligation of the
majority to lead, not to lay blame. Second, the Republican majority
gave many Democratic Members no choice but to oppose the meager
offerings handed to them 2 weeks ago.
For example, this rule, unlike its predecessor, makes in order an
amendment which has the support of the ranking member of the China
Select Committee. Two weeks ago, the Republican majority summarily cut
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) out of the process. This rule
will allow the House to consider recommendations of the Cox-Dicks
committee matters that are of the utmost importance to our national
security. Accordingly, many Democrats who opposed the last rule will
see this one in a different light.
Every year, this body debates our role in NATO, the cost associated
with our continued military presence in Europe, and the expectations we
as a NATO partner should have for the other nations in the alliance.
Yet, surprisingly, the last rule precluded such a debate, thus
generating a great deal of opposition in certain quarters in the
Democratic Caucus. The rule before us today will allow debate on this
issue, again perhaps reducing opposition to the rule.
But, Madam Speaker, this rule does not provide the opportunity for
the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce to offer an amendment
he presented to the Committee on Rules along with his chairman and the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Science. The Dingell
amendment speaks directly to a matter of jurisdiction of both the
Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science that has been included
in the Committee on Armed Services' bill. Yet, the House has once again
been precluded from considering this matter.

[[Page 12134]]

Madam Speaker, amendments offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business,
as well as similar amendments offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), relating to business opportunities for
minority and other disadvantaged small businesses, have been shut out
of the process.
These are issues of importance to the Democratic Members of this
body, Madam Speaker, and it would not be much of a surprise if Members
supporting those positions were to vote against the rule.
Madam Speaker, it is time for the House to move on this vitally
important proposal. In spite of the substantial shortcomings of this
rule, I will support it and urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost). He talks about embarrassment of the leadership in
pulling a rule from the floor. As one of the Members on this side of
the aisle who had concern about the rule last week, I want to respond
to this and explain what I think leadership means.
I think that leaders listen. I think that leaders build consensus. I
think that leaders reach out to others, of whatever party or whatever
persuasion or whatever part of the country, to pull people together. I
think leaders recognize when they have made little mistakes and make
corrections of those mistakes.
I think we have a pretty good coach on this side of the aisle. He
coached wrestling, but most of us watch football. When the quarterback
sees a broken play, a good quarterback will call a time-out and pull
things back together. That is what leadership means, and that is why I
am proud to be a part of this great House.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentlewoman
from Charlotte, North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), who, as I said at the
close of last night's Committee on Rules hearing, that she did a superb
job of managing this rule when it came up 2 weeks ago tomorrow, and she
is doing an even better job today, as I am sure. So I thank her for her
fine work.
This is a very important piece of legislation, and I believe that we
have been able to successfully work in a bipartisan way to address many
of the concerns that are there.
Contrary to the remarks that were just made by the gentleman from
Dallas, Texas (Mr. Frost), we did make 47 amendments in order; and that
is an awful lot of amendments. There are a lot of Democratic amendments
that have been made in order. We have got lots of amendments that are
done in a bipartisan way here. We will have, I suspect, 20 hours of
debate that will take place on this very important piece of
legislation.
So it is true that we were not able to satisfy every single concern
out there, either on the Democratic side or on the Republican side. But
I think that what we have got is a very, very reasonable balanced
approach. It is an important piece of legislation, one of the most
important issues that we can possibly address.
We as Republicans have made a strong commitment that we are going to
focus on the issues of improving public education, providing tax relief
for working Americans, preserving Social Security and Medicare, and the
very important issue of our national security.
Frankly, this administration, as we all know, has deployed 265,000
troops to 139 countries, obviously interested in security around the
world, I guess; but when it has come to a strong commitment to make
sure that our forces are equipped and ready to go, we have not seen the
kind of support that is necessary. This measure which the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) will be managing will help us address
that challenge.
We also are dealing with a very important report that has come out on
China and the transfer of technology. Again that is done in a
bipartisan way.
So I think that we have got a very good measure here, and I encourage
both Democrats and Republicans alike to support what is a balanced
rule.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I came to the floor 2 weeks ago when this
bill was first offered to this House, thanking the Republican
leadership for striking language in the Committee on Rules that would
have prohibited any funds from this bill being used in operations in
Yugoslavia. I am very disappointed today to note that when this bill
comes back to the floor, it once again includes that objectionable
language.
Here we are at a critical point in time in the peacekeeping
operations, the peacekeeping negotiations, and we find that our
Republican leadership desires to cut off funding for all operations in
Yugoslavia on September 30.
This House passed on March 11 a resolution authorizing the use of
ground troops for a peacekeeping operation. I offered at that time an
amendment to that bill which provided that the troops of the United
States would be limited to 15 percent of the total force. This House,
by agreement in an amendment crafted at the conclusion of that debate,
accepted that language along with other reporting requirements. That
was a sound and reasonable thing to do.
I am advised by Mr. Berger this morning that the negotiations now
regarding peacekeeping would limit the U.S. troop participation again
to 15 percent of the total force. It is totally irresponsible for this
House to be considering legislation that would ban the use of any
funds, as of September 30, for peacekeeping operations in the Republic
of Yugoslavia.
We have come a long way in this battle of trying to save a million
and a half refugees who have been left homeless by this conflict. It is
my hope that this House will stand together in its resolve and with the
international community that has said no to Milosevic, that has said no
to genocide, that has said no to murder and rape, and has said yes to
peace. It is my hope that the House will adopt the Skelton amendment,
which will strike this objectionable language from the bill, the only
provision, by the way, that I have heard the White House say would
cause a veto of this legislation.
Now is the time to stand for peace. Now is the time to stand with the
international community that has stood with us in the NATO effort to
end the bloodshed and the slaughter and the genocide in Yugoslavia. At
the end of the 20th century, we must send a clear message to the world
that the United States and its allies will stand for peace and stand
against the kind of campaign that President Milosevic has waged against
his own people.
For 78 days, our bombing campaign has continued. We must see it
through to a successful conclusion. I urge my colleagues to accept the
Skelton amendment when it is brought to the floor.
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. GOSS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this
complicated but fair rule and this very important Department of Defense
authorization bill that the gentlewoman is bringing forward for our
attention so capably today.
First, with respect to the rule, Members know that this has been an
extraordinarily challenging process. I think that this rule is now ripe
for Members' consideration. I congratulate the gentleman from
California (Chairman Dreier) and our committee for persistence in
navigating what obviously would be described as complex waters,
bringing this bill to the floor,

[[Page 12135]]

particularly the role of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) that has been helpful.
We did the best we could to ensure that the most important areas of
debate were covered and to ensure that Members had options to vote on
with regard to those major issues. So there will be plenty of debate on
these subjects.
As for the underlying bill, Madam Speaker, I applaud our colleagues,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for bringing forward a bill that helps chart the
future of our Nation's defenses as we embark on the next century. I
would point out there is one from each side of the aisle in that
combination; in other words, bipartisan.
We have repeatedly emphasized the fact that our military has been
systematically underfunded and stretched well beyond its means for the
past years under the Clinton-Gore administration. As a result, our
armed services today have been provided with too little while being
asked to do too much. We all know that.
Now, with the engagements in Kosovo, Iraq, ongoing missions on the
Korean peninsula and a host of other unresolved missions underway, such
as perhaps Haiti and Bosnia, we are seeing all too clearly the cracks
and strains of a fighting force whose readiness is threatened, whose
morale is eroded, and whose training and equipment have declined
dangerously.
This legislation falls upon the commitment that this House made just
a few weeks ago in the supplemental funding bill that such harmful and
pennywise shortsightedness should be brought to an end.
Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I know too well about the very real consequences we face
because of poor planning and lack of long-term commitment on the part
of policymakers to investing in a robust and modern defense capability.
My committee shares jurisdiction with the Committee on Armed Services
over a host of important military intelligence programs obviously.
I am happy to say we have always worked in very close concert to
ensure that the oversight of those programs is seamless, and I am very
pleased with the product before us today. Eyes, ears, and brains are
among the most important elements of a strong, smart, and effective
defense. That is what good intelligence is all about: force protection,
force enhancement. I am grateful for the support that this bill
provides.
Madam Speaker, America's attention in recent weeks has been riveted
by the events of Kosovo and by those disturbing revelations closer to
home about foreign penetration of our labs and failure of the Clinton-
Gore administration to provide proper protection of our most important
national secrets.
If there is a silver lining to those two significant front-page
matters is that they have helped galvanize public opinion about the
imperative of protecting our national security. It is not only
protecting our men and women in the Armed Forces and our interests here
and overseas, but also protecting the security of our most important
national secrets. They matter.
This legislation will provide the vehicle for important debate on how
we can best accomplish these crucial goals. I urge all Members and all
Americans to pay close attention. There really is nothing more
important that this Federal Government can or should be doing than
providing for the national defense. I believe Americans are counting on
this Congress to make up for the shortfalls in the Clinton-Gore
administration that have lead us to the situation we find today in our
defense. I urge support.
I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my
friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, and say simply that I
think it would be a huge embarrassment in not serving the public
properly in a representative form of government for us not to discuss
the Kosovo situation when we are talking about the defense
authorization bill.
Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

{time} 1130

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding me this time and allowing me to speak on this rule.
As the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, I fully
endorse this rule. I fully endorse the provisions that have been made
therein. The rule, as my colleagues know, was pulled some several days
ago. The Committee on Rules went back, rewrote the rule, allowed
several amendments, and I think that they did the right thing and I
thank them for it.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), and
the others on that committee, I think, wrote a proper rule, which I do
support, with the proper amendments.
The second thing I wish to mention is that this is an excellent bill.
I have been on the Committee on Armed Services for a number of years
and, in my opinion, in looking at the legislation, in light of the fact
that we have won the Cold War and there is an uncertain future and
there are those in uniform today that are questioning whether they stay
in or whether they make a career of it, this bill gives great incentive
for them to reconsider and consider making a career of the military,
because we are doing some very good things for them in the pay, in the
pension and for their families.
In my opinion, this bill is the best that we have had since the early
1980s. I am very, very pleased and I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence) for his leadership as the chairman, and it is a
privilege to work with him and others on the committee that have been
excellent to work with. It is a bipartisan committee. We sent this bill
out of committee with a 55 to 1 vote.
I see my friendless gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman
of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the Committee on Armed
Services. He and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) work so
well. As a matter of fact, they did such good work there are no major
amendments touching the procurement part of this legislation. It is a
tribute to them, and to all of those who worked very, very, hard on
this legislation. Of course, the staff did a wonderful job, and I
cannot brag about them enough, a bipartisan staff, and I thank them.
But I must say, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, this bill has a wart
on it. It is a major wart. We can cut it off by an amendment that I am
offering, or I will offer sometime during this debate. It is
interesting to note that we are winning or we have won, NATO and
America, the battle of Kosovo of 1999, and yet there are those, sadly,
with great melancholy in my heart, I see that they want to pull defeat
from victory by cutting off funds for those wonderful young men and
young women and what they are doing to secure peace in Europe, which
has a direct effect not only in the rest of Europe but on the United
States.
So with that, I will vote for the rule, and I urge support on my
amendment when that comes to pass.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for bringing this rule forward, and I urge all Members to
support the rule and particularly several amendments, one being the
Cox-Dicks amendment, the Spence amendment. Both have suggestions on
dealing with the nuclear labs and the theft of nuclear properties from
the United States.
We had an expression in the restaurant business, too many cooks and
not enough bottlewashers. Well, in pre-1974, we had the Atomic Energy
Commission; in 1974, we then initiated the Energy Reorg Act; and in
1977, President Carter had the idea to create the Department of Energy
and we transferred the functions of the Energy Research Development
Administration into the lab. And we know now from the testimony of the
Cox report that that was the period in time in which

[[Page 12136]]

the nuclear secrets were starting to be stolen.
So I would suggest to my colleagues the best remedy is what is
suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and that
requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a plan to transfer from
the DOE the national security functions. In the amendment of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) they ask the President to review and come back to Congress
and potentially recommend a similar type scenario.
My colleagues, over the next several weeks we will hear a lot of
bellyaching from this body about blaming the Chinese. Let us get even.
Let us blame them for stealing our secrets. But my colleagues, the
United States Congress, the United States Government, invited them into
our labs. Shame on us. Shame on us for having lax security, shame on us
for not protecting, shame on us for not having things like the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) recommends today,
counterintelligence clarifications, security practices, polygraph tests
to make sure people are not walking home with their briefcases full of
our own technology. So in the next several weeks, rather than pointing
fingers at the Chinese Government, let us look inwardly at the problems
we have created ourselves.
Let us also focus on some underlying amendments such as the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Goss) recommends on Haiti and removal of troops. The
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) and myself have an amendment on troop removal and troop
reduction in Europe. We cannot be everywhere for everyone, and the
American taxpayers cannot afford it. So I urge support of the rule and
urge support of the bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. This rule
has many reasons for being opposed, but I confine myself to one glaring
defect. The rule would prohibit the House from considering a very
important and ill-considered provision of the bill. The provision would
require the Secretary of Energy to assign all national security
functions, including safeguards, security, health, safety, and
environment to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs.
This is not putting the fox in charge of the chicken house, this is
putting an imbecile in charge of an important national function and
major national concerns. It is this secretary, in his many incarnations
and in many diverse identities, that has been a major part of the
problems that we have confronted over the years.
When I was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the Committee on Commerce, we investigated a
continuous series of lapses on security. We brought them constantly to
the attention of the administration, and nothing was done because it
was all handled by the institutional holder of this particular office.
The practical result of this is to assure the people that if we are
concerned with the security of the national labs and other aspects of
our activities within the Department of Energy, we are entrusting that
responsibility to probably, institutionally, the most incapable
individual in that particular place.
I have submitted an amendment to strike this section. It was a
bipartisan amendment which had the support of the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce;
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the
Committee on Science; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown),
the ranking member. The amendment also had the strong support of Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson, who, being aware of the situation there, has
recommended that the bill be vetoed if that provision is left in the
bill.
Despite the bipartisan nature of this amendment and the fact that the
bill could face a veto over the provision, the rule will not even allow
the House to decide the issue. That is an action of extraordinary
arrogance and high-handedness on the part of the Republican leadership
and on the part of the Committee on Rules. And I say that if we really
want to continue jeopardizing the well-being and the security of these
labs and of important national secrets, continuing to trust this
responsibility to this part of the Department of Energy is a major
mistake, one on which, having made our choice of fools, we can be
absolutely assured that we will now reap the whirlwind.
This is something which should not be done because the security of
the United States says otherwise. This is a part of the Department of
Energy, which has continuously presided over failures in security at
the national laboratories and at other parts of the Department of
Energy. So to continue this kind of folly is simply to assure that a
major calamity follows.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. This rule is high-handed
arrogance on the part of the Committee on Rules, the Republican
leadership, and also on the part of the Committee on Armed Services,
which is now taking care of one of their buddies and all of his special
interest lobbyists that have been cutting a fat hog at the expense of
the security of the United States.
Let me give just a brief background on what this provision is all
about. Currently, the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs is
responsible for our national security programs, such as weapons
production and management of the nuclear stockpile. However, over time,
certain oversight functions have been given to independent offices
within the Department, because Secretaries have concluded that the
program offices were giving too little priority to needs such as
safeguards, security, safety, and the environment.
For example, during the Bush Administration, then-Secretary James
Watkins established an independent Office of Safeguards and Security,
after security lapses were documented at Rocky Flats and other
facilities. Similarly, after asking independent ``tiger teams'' to
assess the safety of our weapons facilities, Secretary Watkins was so
concerned that he was forced to close many of them for repairs. This
ultimately led to a Defense Facilities Safety Board, and an independent
office of Health, Safety, and the Environment. This office also assumed
responsibility for the clean up of weapons sites, such as Hanford,
where decades of neglect had left thousands of gallons of nuclear waste
seeping into the environment.
Now we are facing yet further evidence of an erosion of safeguards
and security at our DOE labs. Once again we are finding that those in
charge of those facilities are still failing to give these matters
proper attention. This can be expected when program managers have
competing priorities. Secretary Richardson has proposed creating a
senior officer reporting directly to the Secretary with the single
responsibility of ensuring security.
Instead, the bill would do the exact opposite, and return us to the
sixties and seventies, where there was no independent oversight of
security, safeguards, health, safety, and the environment.
I do not want to suggest that reorganizations alone can ever solve
the problems of safeguards and security. However, requiring the
Secretary to assign responsibility for these functions to the same
program managers with competing priorities is certainly the wrong
answer. That was the organization of the 60's, 70's and 80's. Those
were the years when these facilities went into unsafe disrepair, when
neighboring communities were polluted in the air and in the water, and
when secrets were stolen. Obviously, more needs to be done to beef up
our safeguards and security, but returning responsibility to those who
created the problem is not the answer.
My attached letter to Warren Rudman underscores my view that
independent assessments of security are required, and I ask unanimous
consent to insert it at this point.
Responsible reforms are needed at the Energy Department, but this
bill contains one poorly conceived change. Because this rule does not
allow us even to vote on this change, the rule should be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I also provide for the Record documentation which
relates to my comments about this very serious matter.

Committee on Commerce,

Washington, DC, March 24, 1999.
Hon. Warren Rudman,
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Washington,
DC.
Dear Warren: First, let me congratulate you on your recent
appointment to lead the bipartisan review of security threats
to the

[[Page 12137]]

U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories over the last twenty years.
I am hopeful that your review will finally focus appropriate
attention on a very serious and longstanding problem that has
been ignored, mismanaged, and/or covered up during several
Administrations. Unfortunately, your effort is only the
latest in a long line of reviews undertaken by, among others,
the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Department of Energy
(DOE) and its Inspector General, the U.S. Nuclear Command and
Control System Support Staff, and various Congressional
committees, the results of which have been uniformly ignored
by the responsible officials.
I am also writing to offer you my assistance as you
undertake this review. During my 14-year tenure as chairman,
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce conducted several classified
and unclassified inquiries into this matter. (This letter
discusses the unclassified portion of our work.) We found a
disturbing pattern of security weaknesses in the contractor-
run national weapons laboratories, along with extraordinary
lax oversight by the Department of Energy (DOE). As you may
already know, these problems included: laboratories refusing
to implement basic security precautions; DOE Secretaries and
other officials ignoring repeated warnings of security
problems; and bureaucratic obfuscation of the problems that
meant that even the National Security Council and the
President received inaccurate, misleading information.
Although our main focus initially was terrorism and physical
security, our concerns soon broadened to encompass other
significant security deficiencies and the system's management
problems.
The Subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, sought
continuously to bring these problems to light, and to fix the
underlying weaknesses, such as the lack of independent
security oversight, that allowed problems to persist. This
work required a sustained effort over several years, work
made more difficult because of the recalcitrance of the
contractors running the national laboratories. You should
expect significant difficulties in arriving at a full
understanding of the problems, particularly if, given your
right deadline, you are forced to rely on those contractors
and government officials responsible for managing the
laboratories over the last twenty years.
The Subcommittee's work on this matter began in 1981 in
response to efforts to undermine independent review of
security threats. The Department of Energy's Assistant
Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs had become concerned
in 1979 about the level of security at the weapons
laboratories. As recommended by the General Accounting Office
(GAO) in 1977, and also the Inspector General, he established
an independent, inter-agency group that reported directly to
him on the adequacy of safeguards at these facilities. This
program employed some of the best experts in the country in
terrorism, sabotage, protection of classified material and
related activities. This group found that the safeguards at
the most critical facilities--which included Los Alamos--were
in shambles while, at the same time, DOE's Office of
Safeguards and Security was giving the facilities a clean
bill of health.
However, in 1981, when a new Administration took over, the
Assistant Secretary was replaced by a high-ranking official
from Los Alamos National Laboratory who immediately shut down
the independent assessment program. In 1982, in a classified
report to the Subcommittee, GAO strongly recommended (in part
because DOE was submitting misleading reports to the National
Security Council) the reinstitution of an independent
assessment program which would report directly to the Under
Secretary of the DOE. Two hearings by the Subcommittee in
1982 and 1983 focused on the organizational problems at DOE
and the GAO recommendation. In 1983, the Committee adopted,
with strong bipartisan support, an amendment to the DOE
Defense Authorization bill establishing an independent Office
of Safeguards Evaluation reporting directly to the Secretary.
Unfortunately, the bill never received floor consideration.
Attempts by the Subcommittee and others in 1983-84 to
establish an independent evaluations office within DOE were
turned down by the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for
Defense Programs, who wanted the evaluations program under
his control. Independence was critical because, during the
Subcommittee's work, top officials misled the Subcommittee
and harassed a DOE whistleblower. In 1984, the Subcommittee
held a hearing on the Department's attempts to strip the
employee's security clearance and issued a report. The
Department rewarded the harassers with promotions, bonuses
and medals. In 1984, the Department also terminated an
investigation by its Inspector General into management
adequacy in the safeguards and security program.
The Subcommittee also attempted to alert President Reagan
to its concerns. In 1984, however, DOE officials told the
President there was nothing to be concerned about. In January
1986, prior to his briefing by DOE on the status of
safeguards and security, I wrote a letter to President Reagan
listing general problem areas. These included: credibility of
the inspection and evaluation program; inadequately trained
guard forces; inadequate protection against insider threats;
inability to track and recover special nuclear materials and
weapons if they were stolen; inadequate protection of
classified information; inverse reward and punishment system
for the contractors; and lack of funding for safeguards and
security upgrades. (A copy of that letter is enclosed.) In
response, based on information provided by the national
laboratories and DOE officials, Secretary of Energy
Herrington wrote of ``significant progress'' and
``improvements,'' and Admiral Poindexter said he was
``impressed with the progress being made.''
The Subcommittee continued its work during President Bush's
Administration. Among other matters, it looked at inadequate
personnel security clearance practices at the laboratories
where it was immediately clear that there were inadequate
resources to do an effective job. That situation has not
changed to this day. The Subcommittee also began to review
the foreign visitors program--as did Senator Glenn, then
chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee--and the
mysterious shutdown of an investigation into drug problems
and property controls at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
At the same time, Secretary Watkins' Safeguards and
Security Task Force recommended establishing independent
oversight functions which would report directly to the Under
Secretary. Once again, the recommendation was not
implemented, although Secretary Watkins did move the Office
of Security Evaluation out from under Defense Programs.
In 1991, the Subcommittee also reviewed the role the
Department may have played in allowing Iraq to augment its
nuclear capability. In May of 1989, DOE employees attempted
to alert Secretary Watkins to the fact that Iraq was shopping
for strategic nuclear technologies. They were not allowed to
brief the Secretary. But in August of 1989, three Iraqi
scientists attended the ``Ninth Symposium (International) on
Detonation'' sponsored by the three weapons labs, the Army,
Navy, and the Air Force. It was described by a DOE official
as the place to be ``if you were a potential nuclear weapons
proliferant.'' At the time, DOE didn't even have a
nonproliferation policy nuclear weapons proliferant.'' At the
time, DOE didn't even have a nonproliferation policy, and
Secretary Watkins was not briefed on the Iraqi threat until
May of 1990.
In 1991 and 1992, the Subcommittee received six GAO reports
critical of DOE's safeguards and security efforts. These
covered weaknesses in correcting discovered deficiencies,
incomplete safeguards and security plans, weak internal
controls, unreliable data on remedial efforts, inadequate
accountability for classified documents, and security force
weaknesses. Two other GAO reports noted that even basic
control measures for non-classified property were not in
place at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, nor was
DOE oversight adequate.
Subcommittee staff met with Secretary O'Leary and her
senior staff in 1993 to outline these concerns. At the time
of the Republican takeover of the House in January 1995, when
my chairmanship ended, the problems had not gone away, and
recent GAO reports find little, if any, improvements. In
March of 1998, the U.S. Nuclear Command and Control System
Support Staff, an independent, federal-level organization
chartered by Presidential Directive to assess and monitor all
equipment, facilities, communications, personnel and
procedures used by the federal government in support of
nuclear weapons operations, recommended once again a high-
level, independent office to review safeguards and security
at DOE.
Many of us in the Congress have tried for years to address
the chronic problems at DOE's national laboratories. You now
have the opportunity to take an independent, comprehensive,
and bipartisan look at these security weaknesses.
Independence from those who have failed to solve these
problems--which includes officials at DOE and representatives
of the laboratory contractors who implement and establish
policies at the labs as if they are academic researchers, not
the guardians of our weapons secrets--is essential for your
review to accomplish more than the prior reviews. Similarly,
the independence of any future evaluations office will be
essential to any lasting progress.
Your review will not be easy work, but I stand ready to
help.
With every good wish.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member.
Enclosures.
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 28, 1986.
Hon. Ronald W. Reagan,
President of the United States,
The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations understands that you will soon be briefed by
senior officials of the Department of Energy (DOE) on

[[Page 12138]]

the adequacy of safeguards and security at DOE nuclear
weapons facilities. The Subcommittee has been conducting an
extensive review into the adequacy of DOE's safeguards and
security program since mid-1982. On several occasions, I have
written to you about the Subcommittee's concerns. The
Subcommittee staff has also briefed the staff of the National
Security Council and several members of the Council's staff
have attended our closed hearings.
While many improvements have been made, serious
vulnerabilities remain. Compounding this problem are
unresolved management issues and a lack of confidence in the
Department's Inspection and Evaluation function, which is
supposed to provide independent, credible assurances as to
the adequacy of safeguards and security. The Subcommittee
will be holding a closed hearing in the near future
concerning these issues and others. We will notify the
National Security Council of the date of our upcoming
hearing.
You have said many times that America will not be held
hostage to terrorism. You advocate strong actions to curb
this threat to the safety of not only the American people,
but to this international community as well. While strong
measures against terrorism are absolutely essential, we
should also be doing the best job possible to protect our
domestic nuclear weapons production facilities from the
catastrophic consequences of a terrorist attack.
Unfortunately, the Subcommittee has found that serious
safeguards and security vulnerabilities continue to exist at
some DOE nuclear weapons sites. The DOE's own internal
inspection reports show that plutonium and highly enriched
uranium are still highly vulnerable to theft and sabotage at
these locations. In meetings with the Subcommittee staff, DOE
officials seemed unaware of many of these vulnerabilities.
The Subcommittee will continue its vigorous oversight over
this critical program until the Department is doing an
adequate job to protect the nation's nuclear weapons complex.
The following are several generic problem areas that the
subcommittee believes must be resolved in order to have an
effective safeguards and security program and which you may
want to insure are addressed in your DOE briefing:
Credibility of the DOE's Inspection and Evaluation
program--The Subcommittee has evidence that Inspection and
Evaluation personnel altered ratings on inspections of
safeguards and security interests having important national
security significance. The rating system which is used is
highly misleading.
Guards forces are inadequately trained--In one exercise
using sophisticated testing apparatus known as MILES
equipment, the mock terrorists were able to steal plutonium
because of a bizarre sequence of blunders on the part of the
guard force. One machine gunner had not been trained to load
his weapon. Another guard's machine gun jammed and he was not
able to unjam it because he had not been trained adequately.
A helicopter was dispatched to chase the escaping terrorists.
The guards, however, were unable to fire on the terrorists
because they had forgotten to bring their weapons. The
terrorists disappeared into the woods. This is a contractor
guard force that is paid $40 million to guard this critical
site. This same guard force has lost M-16 rifles, has refused
to allow guards to carry loaded M-16 rifles and shotguns, and
has even defied DOE authority, yet received $762,400 in an
award fee in 1985 for ``excellent'' performance.
Inadequate protection against insider threat--During a
recent exercise at one of our most critical facilities, an
insider was able to smuggle a pistol, with a silencer, and
explosives into the facility to be used several days later in
a successful attempt to steal bomb parts containing
plutonium.
Use of deadly force by security guards--There is a conflict
with state law in some states over whether deadly force can
be used to prevent the theft of Special Nuclear Materials.
The DOE has been ``studying'' this matter since it was raised
in our September 1982 hearing. It is not resolved and,
therefore, is a continuing serious weakness.
Lack of coordination with the military; other Federal
agencies and local law enforcement for external assistance in
the event of an attack--At a Subcommittee hearing in
September 1982, concern was raised over the failure of the
DOE to provide for proper outside assistance. This issue is
far from resolved.
Inability to track and recover Special Nuclear Material and
nuclear weapons in the event they are stolen from the DOE--
The Subcommittee believes major problems exist. In a recent
test, the mock terrorists successfully stole plutonium bomb
parts and disappeared. DOE officials admit they would have
had a very low probability of locating the terrorists or the
bomb parts. To our knowledge, this capability has never been
adequately tested.
The Department's inverse rewards and punishment system--The
DOE continues to promote and reward officials who have been
responsible for safeguards and security problems, including
the misleading of the President and the Congress, while
holding back the careers of those employees who have tried to
improve safeguards and security and to insure that the
President and Congress are properly advised of major
safeguards and security deficiencies.
Inadequate protection of classified information--The DOE
has lost seven sensitive TOP SECRET documents that, to our
knowledge, have not been located. Computer systems are
vulnerable to compromising highly sensitive, classified data
in some DOE locations.
Reduction of funds for safeguards and security upgrades--
While the DOE has historically thrown money at its problems,
there are essential safeguards and security programs that
must be funded adequately. It is important that safeguards
and security effectiveness not be hurt due to lack of
adequate funding.
We both want adequate protection at these critical
facilities. I hope that these concerns will be helpful in
your efforts to insure that proper security throughout the
nuclear weapons complex does indeed become a reality. Please
inform the Subcommittee of your observations after receiving
your briefing.
The Subcommittee and its staff will be pleased to assist
you and the National Security Council in any way we can.
Sincerely,

John D. Dingell,

Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. But let
me address some of the things my colleague, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost), said about the bill being pulled last week.
First of all, this House had a vote and voted not to let any of the
emergency supplemental spending go for the expansion of the war in
Kosovo. When the President heard that we had that vote in the House, he
threatened to veto the bill if that provision was in there.
Many of us feel very, very strongly that emergency spending should
not be used to expand the involvement in Kosovo. We are flying 86
percent of all the sorties in Kosovo. And 90 percent of the weapons
that are being dropped by NATO are from the United States of America.
And when I talked to General Clark, he said, ``Well, Duke, our allies
don't have the standoff weapons.'' Then they need to pay for part of
this war.
With regard to the emergency spending dollars, the Joint Chiefs
testified that we need $148 billion more over several years even to
bring us up to the levels recommended by the QDR, or the bottom-up
review. That is $22 billion a year, and when we add $6 billion more per
year for Kosovo, that is $28 billion. And now let us look where we are.
The President wants to pull away more dollars in the emergency spending
to support Kosovo. Yes, we had a problem with that.
We are still spending $25 million a year in Haiti building
infrastructure and roads. How about the infrastructure of the United
States?
We are going to be lucky to get out of this with a bill of $100
billion to destroy then rebuild Kosovo. And I know the side of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and our side as well, we do not want
money to come out of Social Security. But we cannot spend $100 billion
in Kosovo and take emergency money and put it in there and not touch
Social Security or Medicare or medical research. My friend the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said when we wanted to double
medical research that that was a fallacy. Well, we cannot double
medical research when we spend $100 billion on Kosovo.
The United States and NATO have killed more civilians than Milosevic
killed in the year prior to NATO bombing Kosovo; there were 2,012
people killed before the bombing began. And the liberals say, well,
Milosevic had a plan to ethically kill. Well, we sure implemented that
plan, did we not? We drove out a million Albanians. And when we look at
those kids suffering, that's right we had a problem with the bill and
wanted to kill it, because the President said he would veto it if we
stopped him from expanding Kosovo.
I will not let him be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize to save his
legacy by getting people killed.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 12139]]

It is extraordinary that the majority cannot stand for the fact that
President Clinton has done something right and that we are about to win
a great victory in Yugoslavia. It is absolutely extraordinary. Foreign
policy historically in this country has been conducted on a bipartisan
basis.
We are about to succeed, and yet they stand in the well of the House
and want to say what a terrible policy it was and how we should cut off
funding. That is an extraordinary result.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and I would like to thank
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for their indulgence last
night as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I put the
finishing touches on our bipartisan amendment.
This rule makes in order the Cox-Dicks amendment as the first order
of business this morning. We have a strong bipartisan response to the
security problems at the Department of Energy and the other security
problems identified in the report of our committee. I urge every Member
to support the amendment.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and I worked in good faith to
identify a common ground on these issues. And the amendment, while not
perfect in either of our eyes, is a good compromise. We have agreed to
work on several issues in conference where we have common goals but
where the amendment's language may require perfection and adjustment.
In particular, it was my intention that the amendment would not
affect the nuclear navy, and this is an example of an issue that we
have committed to work out in conference. We have also agreed to
address in conference concerns that by requiring the Department of
Defense to hire security personnel at launch campaigns we may undermine
existing bilateral agreements with China and Russia. The rule makes in
order a range of amendments related to similar security concerns.
Members are right to be concerned about this issue, and I think most of
these amendments attack the right issues.

{time} 1145

In almost every case, our amendment has a very similar or even
identical provision to those being offered by other Members. While I
respect every Member's right to offer their amendment in order under
the rule, I urge those Members to consult our amendment and not offer
it where it duplicates provisions that may have already passed the
House.
In particular, I cannot support the Ryan amendment, number 7, which
largely duplicates the moratorium provision in the Cox-Dicks amendment
but reduces incentive for security improvements at the labs by
extending a punitive moratorium on the labs well after appropriate
security measures are in place. I support the rule and urge Members to
support the Cox-Dicks amendment.
I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from Texas. I think this is one of the most extraordinary situations
where we would be considering cutting off money for the peacekeeping
effort that is going to come after this victory in the air war. And I
think we should be here today congratulating the young men and women
who have flown 30,000 sorties in Kosovo for the tremendous job that
they have done.
We have not lost a single American life in combat. And we have seen
also for the first time the use of the B-2 bomber, the use of JDAMs.
This has been one of the most effective military operations in the
history of the country. And when I go over there and talk to the
personnel, their faces are not dragging. They are proud of what they
are doing. They are proud of what they have been trained to do, and
they are accomplishing it. And they did a tremendous job.
And for this House to be voting on whether we are going to support
this effort at this point is utterly ridiculous, and I hope the
majority will reconsider their position and support the effort.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman
from Texas again. He said the President is doing the right thing.
We do not kill more civilians in Kosovo than the Serbs do and call
that a victory. We do not increase the forced removal of Albanians
faster than the Serbs did and call that a win. We do not cost us a
hundred billion dollars in rebuilding Kosovo and the cost of this war
and cut money out of Social Security, Medicare, education, and medical
research and call that a win. We do not damage our relationship with
Russia and China and call this a win.
Yes, I am very, very proud, I say to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks), of our military. The gentleman knows me by now, and I
support them 100 percent.
But I want my colleague to take a look at this document and apply it.
It says that eighty percent of the people in this country do not trust
the President of the United States. Only 69 percent do not trust
Milosevic.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule, and I call
upon the President of the United States to bring an immediate end to
the illegal and immoral bombing of the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
From the beginning of the bombing campaign, the Clinton
administration has asserted that there are only two alternatives
available to us: either do nothing to end the violent oppression of the
people of Kosovo, or bomb.
That premise is false. And following it, President Clinton set us on
a course that former President Carter correctly described as
counterproductive, senseless, and excessively brutal. I would add also,
entirely avoidable.
NATO made a grievous miscalculation in offering an ultimatum to
Milosevic at Rambouillet that included provisions in Appendix B that
amounted to a NATO military occupation of all of Serbia.
Either by design or miscalculation, we abandoned diplomatic channels
that were still open in favor of ultimatums and brinksmanship. The
result, as we all know, has been the worst humanitarian disaster in
Europe since the end of the Second World War.
For the past 2\1/2\ months, we have seen vivid evidence of man's
capacity for cruelty to his fellow man. Throughout, each side has
engaged in a media bidding war each attributing to the other for
foreign and domestic political consumption the greater aggression, the
greatest atrocity, the most horrific violations of human dignity.
I fear that when this war ends, and I fervently hope that it will end
soon, we will be subjected to another media war, with each side
claiming victory. I do know that our efforts to help the people of
Kosovo have left them a nation of refugees with their civilian
infrastructure destroyed. We have become a military ally of a terrorist
organization, the KLA, and we have effectively destroyed the non-
violent Democratic opposition to Milosevic in Yugoslavia. We have
trampled international law, marginalized the United Nations, ignored
the War Powers Act, and violated the Geneva Convention's prohibition
against targeting civilians.
Closer to home, we have diverted billions of tax dollars from Social
Security and nutrition programs to weapons programs, and our relations
with nuclear powers China and Russia have been set back to the days of
the Cold War.
It is clear to me that there are no winners in this war, no winners,
with the possible exception of the weapons makers and the undertakers.
Mr. Speaker, cluster bombs dropped on civilians are never and will
never be a form of humanitarian intervention. It is time for us to put
aside the egos of men and declare peace for our children. It is time to
end the bombing.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).

[[Page 12140]]

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that today's defense
authorization bill does not address the defense burden which the United
States continues to shoulder for our European allies.
My colleagues, I think we need a history lesson. Lesson number one:
The Second World War ended more than 50 years ago. Lesson number two:
The Cold War ended 8 years ago. And in case we forget, we won.
We defeated fascism and we defeated communism. But the defense bill
completely ignores this reality.
Right now many of our European allies enjoy a higher standard of
living than we do here in America. Somehow these nations can support
education, they can support health care, child care, and vital social
programs because we keep paying their military bills. It appears that
our European allies have gotten used to American taxpayers picking up
the tab for their common defense and they do not feel obligated to
increase their contributions. I do not know about my colleagues, but I
am tired of Uncle Sam acting like Uncle Sucker.
Right now, one U.S. Army division in peaceful Europe costs the United
States taxpayers $2 billion a year. With that money we could fund
50,000 new teachers. With $2 billion we could offer a college
education, including tuition, fees and books to 500,000 students who
could not otherwise afford college.
The time has come. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for our allies to
share the burden of their own defense. The time has come for shared
responsibility. The time has come for the United States to reap the
investment that we have made in our country so that we can invest in
our children, our seniors, and our environment.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Franks
amendment to increase burden sharing.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her excellent
leadership of this very, very important rule.
I want to thank the ranking member and all the members of the
Committee on Rules who did struggle to put together a rule that was
laid against a background of a number of very strong concerns by
Members of the House. They have done an excellent job, and I urge all
Members to vote for this rule.
My colleagues, let us take a look at the state of defense. That is
the situation that this rule and this bill address. The state of
defense is that we have a force structure, meaning an Army, a Navy, an
Air Force and a Marines that are a little more than half the size that
they were just a few years ago.
In 1990, we had 18 army divisions. Today we have been cut down to 10.
We had 24 fighter air wings, active air wings. Today we are down to 13.
We had 546 navy ships. Today we are down to 325 and dropping.
Now, the gentlewoman that just spoke talked about things that we
could do with the money that we could cut from defense. I am here to
tell her we have cut an enormous amount of money in defense. This bill
is roughly $150 billion less in real dollars than the defense bill that
this House passed in 1985. We have slashed defense.
The state of defense is this: We are short on ammunition. Across the
spectrum, starting with cruise missiles and going down to the smallest
M-16 bullets, we are short even after we passed this bill; and
considering the full amount that was put into the supplemental, we will
still be short, by our analysis, about $13 billion dollars below the
two-war requirement that was laid out as the responsibility for this
government to fulfill so that our fighting people would have enough
ammo in their bandoliers should we have to fight a two-contingency or
two-war situation.
With respect to spare parts, we are down on spare parts. And every
time we are told by a member of the Pentagon that spare parts are
looking better, that the accounts are being filled, we go out to the
field and we find that all the services across the board, the Marine
Corps, the Air Force, the Army and the Navy, are down about 10 percent
in mission capability.
That means that if we asked the Navy how many of their fighter
aircraft are able to do the mission, it is a little over 7 out of 10.
That means 3 out of 10 cannot do the mission. With the Marine Corps and
the Navy, actually it is down to about 61 percent mission capability.
That means 4 out of 10 cannot do their mission.
With respect to personnel, we are going to be about 800 pilots short
this year in the Air Force, and that figure is rising. Remember, we do
not have a draft. We cannot force people to join the military and serve
this country.
I know Members of this House and members of the country, our
constituents, are also amazed when they travel abroad or they go to a
military base or they talk to our military, our men and women in
uniform, and they look at the very difficult jobs that they fulfill
every day, jobs that are much less convenient, much less comfortable
than most of the jobs on what they call the outside; that is, the
civilian economy. And yet they do that because they have a dedication
to this country.
We are low on military pay. Since 1980, we have allowed that pay gap
between the civilian and the military sector to widen to 13\1/2\
percent. That means an electronics technician in the Navy gets, on the
average, 13\1/2\ percent less than if he was working on the outside.
And that is one reason why we are 18,000 sailors short right now and
800 pilots short in the Air Force.
And we are short Apache helicopter pilots. And we are seeing a bigger
and bigger separation rate even in Marine aviation, which has also had
the highest retention rate. We have lost a lot of aircraft in the last
year.
One of the best examples of the best reflection of how old our force
is and our equipment is, is how many of them fall down in peacetime and
crash. We lost, by our calculations, in the last 14 months, 55 military
aircraft crashing in peacetime operations, with 55 fatalities involved,
55 men and women in uniform dying as a result of military aircraft
going down in peacetime operations.
We are not replacing aircraft as fast as we are crashing them because
we have an inadequate budget. Well, let us go to the budget and what we
do with this defense bill. We do increase defense spending a very small
amount. We do not come anywhere close to starting to close that $150
billion gap, that cut between what we spent in 1985 and what we spend
today, but we are starting to turn the corner.
We put in more money for ammunition, more money for spare parts. We
are putting in a little more money for modernization. That means
replacing some of those old systems that are crashing on us now with
new systems, with new platforms. We are trying to address this problem
with respect to the national labs.
Let me just say with respect to the Cox report and the Cox-Dicks
package that is going to be put into place, I want to applaud my
colleagues for putting that together.
I do want to say, with respect to the Ryan amendment, that would give
a 2-year moratorium on foreign visitors to the laboratory. I think that
is much more reasonable than the 30-day moratorium that has been
offered in the report. In that sense, I think there has been some
watering down of what I know some of the leaders of the report on both
sides of the aisle would like to see.
I do not see any reason to have Iraqis and Iranian nationals coming
over from their countries and go into laboratories in our nuclear
procurement system, in our nuclear development system, any laboratory
in the U.S.
So we have an excellent bill before us.

{time} 1200

I do commend our colleagues for putting together a package with
respect to lab security with respect to foreign visitors. I think we
need to go with the Ryun amendment. I also see the hand of industry to
some degree in neutralizing a tough supercomputer transfer to China
amendment; that is, we are still going to allow supercomputers to be
transferred to China even though we

[[Page 12141]]

have done no end use verification to speak of in the last couple of
years.
Mr. Speaker, this bill starts to turn the corner on rebuilding
national security. Let us vote for the rule and vote for the bill and
get on with our work.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have a great paradox before us today. As the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat, outlined, this is a good
piece of legislation. It is a terrible rule for a good piece of
legislation, and it is a terrible rule because the majority leadership
has chosen to make in order an amendment which would deny funds and
also to preserve in the bill a provision that they had originally
stricken 2 weeks ago but now they have put back in the bill which would
deny funds for peacekeeping in Kosovo.
The rest of the bill is fundamentally a good bill. But this is truly
extraordinary that as we are on the brink of a great victory and
success that members on the majority cannot acknowledge success, cannot
acknowledge that we have scored a victory but must persist till the
very end in trying to score political points against a President and a
policy that they do not like.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. It is almost as if they just cannot cope with the fact
that Bill Clinton, President of the United States, the Commander in
Chief, the head of the free world and NATO, has put together this
coalition to stop this terrible ethnic cleansing. And I understand some
of the arguments that are made but the bottom line is that it has
worked. We are on the verge of establishing the peace. Yet we are here
voting on whether we are going to cut off the money for the operation.
In my whole career, I have not seen anything more ludicrous than this.
Mr. FROST. It is particularly extraordinary because the gentleman and
I 10 years ago supported President Bush when he was attempting to
succeed against Saddam Hussein and in fact was successful against
Saddam Hussein. We went across party lines and joined with the
Republican President and rejoiced in the success of a Republican
President.
Mr. DICKS. And once the decision was made to go, if the gentleman
will continue to yield, there was no undercutting or backstabbing or
trying to go back and revisit the decision. The decision was made and
then we rallied around the decision and we were proud of our forces
when they did an outstanding job. Instead, we still have these votes
day after day here to try to undermine the policy, which is ridiculous.
We should be supporting this. It is a very successful military
campaign, one of the most successful in the history of this country,
without the loss of a single life. Two kids in a test situation were
killed unfortunately but to execute this air war, it is one of the most
incredible things that I have ever seen in my 21 years on the defense
subcommittee.
Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, as I tried to say throughout this
debate, this is really a sad day for us here in the House of
Representatives, that the majority feels obligated to grab hold of the
President like a dog with a bone and not let go, will not let go in the
face of success. I do not understand it, and I do not think people
watching this and I do not think people reading about this, whether
they are in the United States or whether they are in Europe, will
understand what is being done here today. This is a fundamentally good
bill. There are a lot of very good things in this bill. Yet the
majority spoils this entire consideration today by refusing to accept a
successful military operation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a couple of things in relation to the comments from the gentleman.
I suggest that you ask the Apache crew if there was not a loss of life
and also the Kosovo funding amendment passed overwhelmingly in the
House. It was a bipartisan agreement, too, I might say. So I want to
say that this is not a partisan rule that is being brought to the floor
because we are going to have this discussion. There were 99 amendments
total presented and 47 of them were made in order. I will say based on
the percentages of each Republican and Democrat body that were
presented, the percentages are very, very fair. We will have about 20
hours, anyway, of debate on this over the next couple of days. So it is
very encouraging to me that we are going to be expressing the will of
the House again and the debate that will go on will be very fair and
open and allow us to give great discussion for this very fair rule. I
also urge all of my colleagues to support the rule so we can have this
open and fair debate on the floor.

General Leave

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on the rule under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that over the course of the last
decade the United States' military has been in a constant state of
decline. With the current challenges confronting U.S. armed forces in
the Yugoslav Republic of Kosovo, our ability to meet worldwide
commitments is increasingly strained; our ability to conduct even
smaller military operations is at risk, as well. This rule provides an
answer to these concerns.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff cited the diminished quality of life,
readiness, and modernization requirements that have pervaded the armed
forces. With respect to the National Defense bill, allow me to state
for the record that this bill begins to address each of these flaws.
The bill increases our forces' quality of life by providing $8.6
billion for military construction and family housing, $3.1 billion more
than the administration's request.
The bill specifically addresses the readiness of our military,
providing $106.5 billion for operations and maintenance, $2.8 billion
more than the administration's request.
The bill ensures that the United States will not maintain the status
quo but will continue modernization by providing $3.7 billion for the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, a $417 million more than the
administration's request.
As we near the dawn of a new millennium, the international political
situation is growing increasingly unstable. Our current involvement in
the Balkans reminds us that the end of the Cold War has brought with it
not a more stable world, but an increasingly volatile one. Our only
insurance against future confrontations is a powerful and adept
military; this bill provides the funding to ensure one. Overall, this
bill strengthens our military and ensures the safety of both our troops
and our citizens.
This is a good rule, and I strongly urge you to support our troops by
voting for it.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with
this rule.
First, I am deeply troubled by the continued, misguided attempt to
limit this Nation's ability to execute operation allied force and end
the atrocities in the Balkans.
In addition, two weeks ago, when this authorization bill was first
brought to the House floor, Mr. DeFazio offered an amendment that was
ruled out of order. The DeFazio amendment would have increased funding
for the youth challenge program by eliminating one corporate-style jet
for the military.
Youth Challenge is a program that has been funded through the Army
National Guard since 1993. Youth Challenge reaches out to young people
aged 16 to 18 who have either dropped out of high school or are at risk
for dropping out. Youth Challenge combines academics with physical
fitness, job skills training, community service, counseling and
leadership training. Privileges are earned through hard work, merit and
discipline. Through Youth Challenge, over 12,000 young people received
a G.E.D. who otherwise, very likely, would not have received any
diploma at all.
I had the privilege of visiting the Wisconsin National Guard Youth
Challenge Program last week at Fort McCoy. I was quite impressed by the
dedicated staff of National Guard and civilian employees which includes
certified teachers, counselors and nurses. Students attend from across
the State, and students, parents and community leaders familiar with
the program praise its results.
Youth Challenge helps kids who are at the ends of their ropes but who
haven't yet fallen. In the wake of recent school shootings, we are all
beginning to realize that we must reach out

[[Page 12142]]

to young people who have become alienated from their peers and
estranged from their communities. Youth Challenge works to build self-
esteem in its students, and its focus on teamwork, leadership, and
public service help reconnect students to their families and
communities.
However, Youth Challenge programs nationwide receives many more
requests for admission than they can accept given current funding
levels. The DeFazio amendment would have helped get this program to
more kids in more States.
Mr. Speaker, I tend to be skeptical of military authorizations and
appropriations bills, not because I doubt the needs of our men and
women in service, but because I doubt that Congress will sincerely act
to meet those needs without loading-in special interest and pork barrel
projects.
Youth Challenge is the opposite of pork barrel politics. It is a
program that could be available nationwide. It enhances the stature and
presence of the National Guard in local communities and provides
ongoing leadership training to Guard members and gives them a chance to
interact with the country's youth.
I understand that an agreement may be worked out to fully-fund Youth
Challenge between now and the time we debate defense appropriations. I
applaud the efforts of Mr. DeFazio, as well as those of Mr. Skelton and
Senators Stevens and Inouye in working hard to see that this excellent
program is continued.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate planes, ships, bombs and
bullets. Youth Challenge is the kind of defense program that truly
increases Americans' faith in their government and those entrusted with
national security. I hope Members don't lose sight of this in their
zeal for political pork and maneuvering.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 354,
nays 75, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 179]

YEAS--354

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--75

Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bonior
Capuano
Cardin
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Hooley
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Martinez
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller, George
Minge
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rangel
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schakowsky
Sherman
Stabenow
Stark
Stupak
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--6

Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Luther
McHugh
Moran (VA)
Waters

{time} 1225

Mr. TOWNS and Mr. FATTAH changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
House Resolution 195 was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 179, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Pursuant to House
Resolution 200 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 1401.

{time} 1228

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Nethercutt in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and
the

[[Page 12143]]

gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).

{time} 1230

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Chairman, on May 19, the Committee on Armed Services reported
H.R. 1401 on a bipartisan vote of 55 to 1. Despite the strong vote on
what I believe is a very good bill, our military is still confronting
its most serious problem since the hollow military days of the 1970s.
The committee's approach to this and previous bills has been shaped by
long-standing concerns over the risk America's Armed Forces face today.
Although public perception is that the post Cold War world is stable,
three basic trends ought to give every American cause for concern.
First, the level of resources that the United States devotes to
national defense remains at historical lows. Not since before World War
II has defense spending represented such a small proportion of the
Nation's Gross Domestic Product as it does today. Despite being the
world's wealthiest Nation, a Nation with important interests all over
the world and the world's only remaining superpower, we devote only 3
cents out of every dollar of the Nation's GDP to national defense.
Second, our Armed Forces are being tasked at a record pace with an
average expanding list of peacekeeping, peacemaking and other
contingency missions. From Panama to the Persian Gulf, to Somalia,
Rwanda, Haiti, the Balkans, Korea and the Taiwan Straits, our troops
are over-extended and operate at levels that simply cannot be sustained
over time.
Third, the world is an increasingly dangerous place, especially in
regard to the proliferation of ballistic missiles, weapons of mass
destruction and other high technology capabilities through our
potential adversaries. Many of our theater commanders have told us
quite frankly that if we had to fight a large scale war today, we
should expect higher casualties among our forces, our allied forces,
and civilians.
As a result, it has become increasingly difficult for our military to
protect and promote our national security interests around the world.
That is why over the past nine months the Joint Chiefs of Staff have
concluded that the ability of our Armed Forces to execute the national
military strategy involves moderate to high risk, and this disturbing
risk assessment was made before the operation in the Balkans began
several months ago. Operation Allied Force now qualifies as a third
major theater war, entirely separate from any threat or conflict in the
Persian Gulf or in Korea. As we continue to read in the media reports,
the air war in the Balkans might easily change to a peacekeeping
operation on the ground.
The committee has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the
declining defense budgets, increasing missions and rising threats for
years. With the Joint Chiefs speaking more openly over the past year
about these significant risks and problems and shortfalls, the
administration seems to be turning the corner on the issue of America's
national defense needs.
In his State of the Union speech earlier this year, President Clinton
spoke of the need for a ``Sustained increase over the next 6 years for
readiness, for modernization and for pay and benefits for our troops
and their families.''
In fact, the President's three themes, quality of life, readiness and
modernization, have been the focus of the Committee on Armed Services'
efforts for years now. Unfortunately, the reality of the President's
defense budget request has fallen short of the rhetoric. The
President's defense budget request was riddled with overly optimistic
economic assumptions and budget gimmicks, all of it directly linked,
even held hostage, to the President's domestic political agenda on
Social Security.
But even with all of the political linkages, gamesmanship and
gimmicks, the President's fiscal year 2000 defense budget request
provided only about one-half of the funding necessary to meet the
unfunded requirements identified by the Chiefs of Staff and only about
one-half of the unfunded requirements identified over the 6-year budget
plan.
It is in this context that the committee has added, consistent with
the budget resolution, more than $8 billion to the President's request
and has targeted crucial additional funding for a variety of badly
needed quality of life, readiness and equipment modernization needs.
But despite the committee's best efforts, we are only managing the
growing risk to our national security, not eliminating them.
In my view, a high risk strategy is an unacceptable strategy and
certainly unworthy of the United States of America. Absent a long term
sustained commitment to revitalizing America's Armed Forces, we will
continue to run the inevitable risk that comes from asking our troops
to do more with less.
As Secretary of Defense Cohen recently said, ``We have a situation
where we have a smaller force and we have more missions, and so we are
wearing out systems, wearing out our people.''
Mr. Chairman, in this increasingly dangerous world, there is no such
thing as acceptable risk. Unless the Nation fields the forces and
provides the resources necessary to execute the national military
strategy, the inevitable alternative is for our country to retreat from
its responsibilities and interests. This ought to be unacceptable to
all Members and to all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I will leave a discussion of the many specific
initiatives contained in this bill to my colleagues on the committee
who have worked very hard since February to get us to the point we are
at today. However, I would like to recognize the hard work of the
subcommittee and panel chairmen and ranking members. Their leadership
and bipartisan approach to issues has permitted our committee to
significantly improve upon the administration's request in this bill.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the staff.
Without their expertise and tireless efforts, we would not be here
today.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of H.R. 1401, the
National Defense Authorization Act. For some time now I have been
saying that we must make this the year of the troops. This bill goes a
long way towards showing the men and women in our military that we are
committed to taking care of them and committed to taking care of their
families. This is an excellent bill, the best defense bill that we have
had in this Chamber since the early 1980s. It deserves support from
every Member in this House.
Let me commend our colleague and friend, the Chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), and thank him, as well as the subcommittee chairmen and the
ranking members of our committee, for their leadership and diligence in
putting this legislation together. The overwhelming committee support,
a vote of 55 to 1, approved this bill, demonstrates that we on our
committee were successful in the efforts in drafting a truly bipartisan
measure.
This bill is a very strong bill for our United States national
security, which builds upon the President's proposal to increase
defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. But, most
important, Mr. Chairman, the bill addresses the quality of life issues
that are at the top of the agenda for the service members and their
families. This is the year of the troops.
The compensation package, which includes a 4.8 percent pay raise, pay
table reform, and reform of the retirement system, will help address
the problems in our Armed Forces. Other provisions will help in
recruiting and retention, which is very, very important. Improvements
in the Tricare military healthcare system and an increase in funding
for military family housing, all of these go toward quality of life and
helping to make life better for those who work in uniform as well as
their families.
In addition to quality of life improvements, I am pleased this bill
includes

[[Page 12144]]

increases for funding for procurement of weapons, for ammunition, for
equipment, for research and development and for operations and
maintenance. This will enable us to modernize our forces to where they
should be.
Mr. Chairman, the only reservation about this concerns problems
relating to issues about the Federal Republic of Yugoslovia. In
particular, section 1006 of this bill prohibits the use of funds
authorized from this legislation for the conduct of either combat or
peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslovia. It is
way too restrictive. It could result in funds being cut off while our
troops are in the field.
As we speak, we, America, the NATO forces, are on the one foot line
and they are there nearing a victory. We do not walk away from the ball
game with a victory well in hand. Moreover, it sends the wrong message
to our troops, to the President of Yugoslovia, Mr. Milosevic. If this
language remains in the DOD authorization bill, it will be subject to a
veto by the President.
Therefore, I urge all Members to support an amendment which I will
have which requires a striking of section 1006.
Mr. Chairman, there are other amendments that I would oppose of the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Fowler), both relating to Yugoslovia. I would urge people to
support the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor),
which outlines the goals for our operations in Yugoslovia.
Basically, Mr. Chairman, this is an excellent bill, with the one wart
which I spoke about. Let us pass this bill, but let us also pass the
amendment I offer to strike that section which really does not belong
here.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Readiness.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I too rise today in strong support of this
bill. I believe the committee has done a superb job in fulfilling its
role and has done its best to provide the necessary funding and
direction to support the readiness of our military forces. Is this
enough to fix all of the readiness problems? Unfortunately, no. Is it
in the right direction? Absolutely.
For too many years now, the readiness for our military forces has
been marred by an ever increasing number of contingency operations
without any additional funding to accompany those operations. This
pattern has led to the decline of our military readiness which we are
all now too familiar with.
At hearings in Washington and in the field, the committee repeatedly
heard concerns and pleas for help to address readiness and quality of
life problems in our military forces. As in previous years, these
concerns focused on lack of spare parts, backlog of maintenance and
repair of aging equipment and facilities, and a force that continues to
do more with less.
The committee also heard disturbing testimony on the shortfalls and
problems at the services major combat training centers. These concerns
are not new to us. Stories of back-to-back deployment, cannibalizing
combat equipment for spare parts and personnel shortages are not new to
me or to anyone else on my subcommittee.
I am happy to report this year that such stories are finally reaching
and affecting the administration. Leaders within the Department of
Defense, the military services, have at last come forward to express
their own concerns with the status of readiness. This year the
President's budget did increase the level of spending for operation and
maintenance. However, an analysis of the budget quickly revealed that
the touted increase in funding was much more than a mirage. Behind the
smoke and mirrors, the committee could not find the increases needed to
do more than slow down the decline in readiness. Nevertheless, the
administration's recognition of the problem is a positive and welcome
step forward.
I would like to quickly outline the areas in which the committee is
most concerned and was able to increase the level of funding beyond the
President's request.

{time} 1245

The bill recommends an increase of $271 million for aircraft spare
parts, $340 million for depot maintenance, $112 million to improve
training center operations, equipment, and facilities, and finally,
$1.6 billion to address the backlog of facilities maintenance and
shortfalls in base operation funding.
The bill also provides funding to improve the day-to-day life of our
military men and women, such as providing additional funding for cold
weather gear, maintenance and corrosion control of aging equipment.
As I stated earlier, this bill will not fix all the readiness and
quality of life problems of our military forces, but it will go a long
way to putting them on the road to recovery.
I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee for their
commitment to this area of our national defense. I particularly want to
thank the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness, my
good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz). His leadership and
knowledge of the issues has enabled the subcommittee to deal with
several difficult issues that have transcended political lines.
I also rise to express my strong support for the recommendations of
the Merchant Marine Panel, which I also chair. They are contained in
this legislation, as well. The Merchant Marine Panel's recommendation
consists of two parts. The first is the annual authorization for the
United States Maritime Administration. This bill fully funds the
Administration's request for the Maritime Administration, and provides
a much needed increase of $7.6 million for the United States Maritime
Academy. This money will begin to address the Academy's most serious
capital maintenance problems.
In addition, the bill includes a $25 million increase to Title XI
shipbuilding loan guarantee programs in order to address the expected
shortfall of available shipbuilding loan guarantees.
H.R. 1401 also contains the panel's recommendations for the Panama
Canal Commission. I should note that this will be the final
authorization for expenditures for the Panama Canal Commission. Since
the canal began operations on August 15, 1914, the United States
Congress has overseen the operations of this critical waterway. This
bill funds the Commission through the first quarter of Fiscal Year
2000, and includes several administrative provisions related to the
transfer of the canal from the jurisdiction of the United States to the
Republic of Panama on December 31, 1999.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1401 is a responsible, meaningful bill that will
provide adequate resources for the improvement of readiness in our
armed forces, and provides the necessary funding for the United States
Maritime Administration and the Panama Canal Commission.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important measure.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I ask all of my colleagues to support the FY 2000
defense authorization bill. As the ranking member on the Subcommittee
on Military Procurement, I think we have produced a balanced bill that
begins to reverse the downward spiral of procurement budgets over the
last few years.
One of the strong points of the procurement section is that we have
authorized multiyear procurements for a number of key programs. They
include the Navy's F18-E and F, the Javelin missile, Bradley fighting
vehicles, the Army Apache Longbow helicopter and Abrams tank upgrades.
Multiyear procurement is a good way to stabilize production while
reducing costs for the taxpayer. I congratulate the gentleman from
California (Chairman Hunter) on deciding to do it. It makes good sense.
I also want to thank him for his leadership in other areas. One in
particular is laying out the plan to use alternate

[[Page 12145]]

technology in the orderly and systematic and safe destruction of
chemical weapons.
We have also tried to lay out a plan for the systematic review and
oversight of the F-22 program. We all worry about the projected costs
of this program, and this bill requires the United States Air Force to
inform Congress early about any potential problems. We do this without
prejudice, and the one thing we have learned in Yugoslavia is that we
need to keep the technical edge.
Another thing I want to mention is that even with what we had, and we
had a limited amount of money, that said, I will affirm that the
consideration given to all members in matching their interest with the
services' unfunded requirement list was fair and evenhanded. We did the
best we could under the circumstances in a way that achieves everyone's
goal of building a stronger national defense.
For those reasons, I ask all of my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of our Subcommittee on
Military Procurement.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by thanking our chairman,
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Floyd Spence) for his great
leadership. The gentleman is a very interesting person and a very
unique person. He is a guy who has us put together this defense bill
without ever making requests for his own district, only giving to us
the direction that we do what is right for America. I think under his
leadership we have done that in this particular bill. I thank the
gentleman from South Carolina for all his friendship and leadership.
I want to thank my friend, too, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Sisisky), my compadre and partner in putting this bill together, along
with the rest of the members of the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement. The gentleman from Virginia is a person with a lot of
wisdom. He has a great service background of his own, and he
understands the military, he understands people, and he understands
systems, and most importantly, business practices. He has injected a
lot of those business practices and that philosophy into his work. I
want to thank him for that.
I would also thank my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Ike Skelton), who has fought long and hard especially to give this
country long-range air power capability. That challenge is still before
us with respect to stealth capability, and I want to thank the
gentleman. I know he has been monitoring the success of the B-2 bomber
in its recent flights. I know it has done only a fraction of the
sorties, yet it has knocked out a very large percentage of the targets.
That stealth capability, married up with precision weapons, is a very
important thing.
Mr. Chairman, we had a couple of themes a couple of years ago when we
realized that we were not going to be building more B-2 bombers. We
decided to try to arm as best we could the ones that we have. We put a
lot of money, additional money, up against this challenge of arming the
B-2 bombers, giving our long-range air wing what it would take to
strike targets and to return safely.
We have another theme that we have embarked upon. That is to build
and buy as many precision weapons as this country needs, and hopefully
actually to produce a margin, a safety margin in our weapons bin so we
do not run out of these precision weapons, and especially precision
standoff weapons.
Now, everybody knows that for those standoff weapons, they are
weapons you can launch from an aircraft. For example, if you are
talking about an air launch cruise missile, hundreds of miles before
you reach that heavily protected target with your aircraft and put your
crew and your pilots in jeopardy you can launch that missile, you can
turn around and go back without having to enter that area of jeopardy.
That saves pilot's lives, it saves equipment.
We can only do that when we have a sufficient number of long-range
standoff systems that are precision systems. I am here to inform my
colleagues regretfully that we do not have enough of those systems
today.
Similarly, with the Tomahawk cruise missile, which can also launch
from many hundreds of miles away and save that pilot that otherwise
would have to fly directly over a target and drop an atom bomb. We are
restarting that Tomahawk line. That will give us the power hopefully to
maintain a standoff capability.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all my colleagues who helped to put
this bill together, and urge everyone in the House to vote for it. It
is a turnaround for defense, it is a turnaround for rebuilding our
weapons systems.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I might add just a footnote to what my friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) said regarding the B-2. An
article was written not long ago about the success of that weapons
system, and that it was a great surprise in this conflict regarding
Yugoslavia.
However, to those of us that did work hard and long, it is not a
surprise that it is working just as planned. We are very, very pleased
with those at Whiteman Air Force Base and those pilots and the ground
crew who operate the B-2 system.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Ortiz).
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo what my good friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Hunter) just stated, for the leadership provided
to this committee by our chairman and our good friend, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and, of course, the ranking member,
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and the rest of the
subcommittee chairmen and committee chairmen for the leadership they
have given to us.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1401, the defense
authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2000. The committee and particularly
the Subcommittee on Military Readiness had a very challenging
assignment this session. We not only spent time here gathering
information, but we had the opportunity of visiting our forces in the
field, both here in the United States and in Europe, witnessing
firsthand readiness as seen by those brave soldiers, sailors, and
airmen who shoulder the responsibility of carrying out our military
strategy. For their effort, we can all be proud.
It is personally satisfying to see that some improvements are being
made in the readiness posture of the total force, but I do not believe
that any of us would agree that we are out of the woods yet. The
readiness of the first-to-deploy forces comes at a price of reduced
support for deploying future forces and for vital infrastructure
support.
I remain concerned that the Department's budget is built on
assumptions about savings from efficiencies, outsourcing, and
privatization activities that have not materialized in the past and
probably would not in the future. Migration of critical maintenance
dollars remains a problem.
I will say to my colleagues that this is a good bill. The committee
has worked hard. We can be proud of our soldiers who are stationed all
around the world. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Construction.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 1401. As the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to
draw the attention of the House to the important provisions in this
legislation concerning the military construction and family housing
programs for the coming fiscal year.
On a bipartisan basis, we have found the budget request inadequate to
address the scope of the need identified by the military services. This
has been

[[Page 12146]]

a problem with the President's budget request for some time.
The administration compounded the deficiencies in its budget proposal
while building its fiscal year 2000 MILCON program on a risky fiscal
foundation. The incremental funding of the military construction
program on an outlay rate basis would surely lead to an increase in
costs and delays in the delivery of facilities.
H.R. 1401 would reject this proposal on most projects. The leadership
of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman
Spence) and our ranking Democrat member, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Ike Skelton) worked closely with the subcommittee to try to find a
solution that would address the needs of the military services.
H.R. 1401 would restore $3.1 billion in budget authority for military
construction. That seems like a lot of money even in this town, and
certainly there are a lot of competing demands for these funds.
However, we felt very strongly that endorsing the incremental funding
concept across-the-board would be shirking our responsibility to the
taxpayer. No Member of the committee, Republican or Democrat, was
willing to do that.
With these funds, we set out first to fix the broken program left to
us by the Department. Nowhere was the need to do this more apparent
than in the area of military housing. The administration proposed to
construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing and
begin the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories, and
BEQs for the single enlisted. That requirement will cost nearly $1.4
billion for the coming fiscal year.
However, the administration asked for only $313 million, 22 cents on
the dollar, to meet the fiscal year 2000 requirement. The legislation
reported by the Committee on Armed Services would add nearly $1.1
billion to the budget to ensure that this housing is built and occupied
as soon as possible. In addition, our recommendations would fund an
additional $75 million in military housing projects.
Similarly, we have funded the training, readiness, and other
requirements of the active and reserve components at the level required
to get the job done, for the most part.
As just one example, the administration funded a $251 million MILCON
requirement for the Guard and Reserve at $78 million. This legislation
would provide the additional $173 million in funding necessary to move
forward on these requirements, and would also provide an additional
$187 million in support of the reserve components.
Regrettably, H.R. 1401 will not fix all of the problems in the
President's budget request nor could the committee address adequately,
in my judgment, the unfunded requirements that continue to pile up due
to the broad inattention of the Department to critical infrastructure
upgrades. I believe, however, we have done the prudent thing.
With this legislation, we will minimize risk to the most essential
military construction projects and programs of the military services.
We will dedicate limited, additional resources to meeting the unfunded
needs of the military services. We will also continue to urge the
Department of Defense to exercise appropriate stewardship on behalf of
the taxpayer in the military infrastructure and facilities that serve
as the platform for the defense of the Nation. The soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines who serve every day deserve no less than that.
In closing, I want to express again my appreciation to the members of
the subcommittee I chair, especially the ranking Democratic member,
Gene Taylor, for their contributions to this bill as well as their
patience, understanding, and cooperation as we worked through a
difficult budget request. The subcommittee's recommendations were
adopted by voice vote in the full committee. This is truly bipartisan
legislation and I urge all members to support H.R. 1401.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this
bill overwhelmingly.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Pickett).

{time} 1300

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee chairman and the
Members and staff for the balanced and responsive bill we have before
us that has been thoughtfully and carefully put together within the
constraints of a defense budget that continues to decline in purchasing
power. In any undertaking of this kind, the defining of and the
adherence to a system of priorities is essential for realistic and
responsive program.
My comments will relate primarily to the research and development
part of the bill. The investment for basic research and for science and
technology programs has been maintained at last year's level. It is
widely acknowledged that these basic research and technology programs
have been the crucial components in developing and fielding
technologically superior weapon systems that have given our military
forces a decided advantage over their adversaries.
In spite of the success realized in developing and fielding improved
weapons systems and weapon system upgrades, there is a constant
struggle to appropriately and adequately prepare our forces for the
unpredictable and speculative battlefield of the 21st century.
The Army is continuing development of its top-priority new weapons
systems, the Crusader Self-Propelled Howitzer and the Comanche
helicopter. The Navy is moving ahead with the DD-21 Destroyer, the
follow-on to the Nimitz aircraft carrier, and a new class of attack
submarine. The Air Force is reaching the end of its development of the
F-22 and is moving forward, along with the Navy and Marine Corps, in
the development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
These visible priority programs point the way to the military of the
future. Nevertheless, the pursuit of lighter and more lethal weapons,
the development of speedier and more stealthy equipment, and the quest
for successful leap-ahead technologies continues.
The Department of Defense has said many times that, if our forces are
called into combat, we do not want a ``fair'' fight. We want our forces
to have a clearly superior capability both in weapon systems and
technology. That is the direction in which this bill continues to move
our defense program, although I must say that the move is at a slower
pace than I believe desirable.
The committee and committee staff have been alert and diligent in
reallocating resources to higher priority and more timely projects.
Additional support has been provided to missile defense programs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support this bill because I think that
it moves that program in the right direction.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate the chairman of
the committee on his usual fine job.
Mr. Chairman, just before Secretary Cheney was due to leave office
the better part of a decade ago, he said that we needed a smaller, more
mobile force. He may have had in mind that we needed fewer Army
divisions and fewer ships in our Navy and perhaps fewer fighter wings;
but I am sure he did not have in mind at the time to hear statements
like the ones that have been accurately stated here today relative to
back-to-back deployments, relative to lack of spare parts, relative to
aging, old aging equipment, relative to the effect on military
personnel and decline of readiness. These were not issues that were in
Secretary Cheney's mind when he talked about a smaller, more mobile
force.
I think that H.R. 1401 is a beginning point to change what we have
done to create a more efficient, mobile, smaller force that will meet
our readiness needs.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, the bill in front of us takes important
steps to address the national security resources that are being
seriously neglected, our Nation's arsenals.
Our arsenals are an insurance policy that allow us to mobilize for
war, produce special weapons on a moment's

[[Page 12147]]

notice, as well as bringing technical improvements to current future
weapons systems. These are unique capabilities that cannot be replaced.
Unfortunately, the Pentagon's policy of privatization at any cost has
brought the arsenals to the breaking point. The loss of workload
associated with this policy is draining them of skilled labor. Workers
are either getting pink slips or leaving on their own because of an
uncertain future. Less workload also means rising overhead costs that
make the arsenals less competitive. This has led to a downward spiral,
actively promoted by both DOD and the weapons contractors.
However, we can bring work to these facilities and preserve their
vital capabilities. This bill does that in two significant ways. One,
it extends the pilot program that allows the arsenals to sell
manufactured articles and services without regard for their
availability from commercial services. This provision, which only
applies to defense contracts, will help lower high overhead rates due
to low utilization.
Second, the bill contains important report language that gives the
arsenals challenge contracting authority for components of the 155mm
lightweight Howitzer. This gives the arsenals, who are unsurpassed in
Howitzer technology, a chance to assist this important but troubled
program, which is 2 years behind the date at this point.
While we still need to reverse DOD's policy of privatization at any
cost, these provisions are an important first step in giving our
arsenals the workload they need.
I hope my colleagues will support this bill and its important
measures to assist our arsenals.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of important issues
in this bill that will not be discussed adequately. One of them is how
we can transform our military to deal with the challenges of the
future.
In last year's bill, we required a science board study to look at
that question, and they came back and unanimously agreed there are
compelling reasons for aggressive, urgent transformation instead of
strategic pause. The task force found that ``change or die'' is a more
suitable statement for the current strategic environment.
This bill moves us ahead in some significant ways. It requires us to
take a closer look at the use of space. It is essential for the
operations going on in Kosovo, but we have got to look beyond that.
Operations in space and from space have to be studied.
We put more money into joint experimentation, which is also going to
be essential if we make the most out of the resources that we have
available. We also require an immediate assessment of innovative use of
resources such as whether we should take old Trident submarines and
convert them for more conventional purposes.
Those are just some of the ways that in this bill we tried to move
ahead, making sure that we are able to meet the challenges that
confront us in the future.
I commend the chairman and ranking member on the bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on our side as well as the other side, please?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 17\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 9
minutes remaining.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues today in strong support of H.R.
1401, the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization bill. I want to
congratulate the Chairman and the ranking member for this very strong
bipartisan effort, which is well crafted and will go a long way towards
ensuring that the bedrock of our security, our troops, will be well
looked after at the dawn of the next millennium.
This bill is essential to stemming the decline in readiness and
buttressing the security of the United States and its territories. It
is no secret that our forces are tired after 33 major deployments since
the Persian Gulf War. We are having problems with recruitment and
retention, and we want to make sure that we supply them with the best,
take care of their needs and make sure that the infrastructure that we
provide them is the best available. This bill does exactly all of those
things.
But, Mr. Chairman, on a note of dissent, although H.R. 1401 has a
multitude of good provisions, there is one provision, section 1006,
that has rather serious overtones. This section, as drafted by the
majority, if left unadulterated, will prohibit any funding authorized
under this act from being used for the current NATO operations in
Kosovo. This is impossible to enforce and to monitor and has a serious
and demoralizing effect upon the morale and welfare of our troops
currently engaged in NATO operations.
Paraphrasing my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Taylor), that is a hell of a message to send to our young troops
fighting to save lives in the Balkans.
I urge my colleagues to support the efforts to the contrary of the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and to support his amendment that
strikes this language.
I also would like to point out that there are many amendments that
will be offered today in light of the release of the Cox report. Some
of them are bad policy. Although I support the Cox-Dicks amendment, and
I will try to speak to that later, I want to strongly urge all Members
to exercise caution and restraint when considering all these DOE-
related amendments as they may have some serious, unintended
consequences for Asian and Pacific Americans. Sometimes in the rush to
work hard on security issues, we sometimes stigmatize entire groups of
people.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues today in support of H.R. 1401--the
fiscal year 2000 Defense Authorization Bill. This bi-partisan effort is
well crafted and will go a long way to ensure that the bedrock of our
security--our troops--will be well looked after at the dawn of the next
millennium. This bill is essential to stemming the decline in readiness
and buttressing the security of the United States and its territories.
Mr. Chairman, it appears that the ancient Greek curse--may you live
in interesting times--has come true with a vengeance. Our global
community is reeling from the effects of the post-Cold War order. Our
military forces have been deployed in some 33 operations world-wide
since the Persian Gulf War. At the same time our defense budget has
been squeezed and capped arbitrarily without consideration or
anticipation to the realities of America's security interests.
At the same time, our foreign policy makers have been faced with the
very difficult task of defining the future roles and priorities for our
foreign interests. Indeed this unenviable task has been made all the
more difficult as regional hegemons have challenged the peaceful
balance of power that has been maintained by the United States and its
allies. The Persian Gulf Region, the Korean Peninsula, East Africa,
South and Central Asia and, of course, the Balkans have all been the
most recent scenes of instability or armed strife, thus compelling U.S.
forces to become engaged in one manner or another. America's foreign
policy is not so much like a rudder-less boat; but more like a boat
without navigational aids. Our boat's pilot and crew are well
intentioned and determined but are unsure of the mission. It is in this
environment that we, here in Congress, are charged with building a
military for the 21st Century.
Mr. Chairman, on a note of dissent, although H.R. 1401 has a
multitude of good provisions, there is one such provision--Section
1006--that has rather odious undertones. The section, as drafted by the
Republican majority, if left unadulterated will prohibit any funding
authorized under this act from being used for the current NATO
operations in Kosovo. While almost impossible to enforce and monitor,
this section has a demoralizing effect upon the morale and welfare of
our troops engaged in the NATO operations. Paraphrasing my good friend,
Congressman Gene Taylor, that's a hell of a message to send to our
young troops fighting to save lives in the Balkans. This section is
completely unnecessary and sends the wrong message to Slobodan
Milosevic. I applaud Congressman Skelton's efforts to the

[[Page 12148]]

contrary and urge my colleagues to support his amendment that strikes
this language.
Mr. Chairman, there are many amendments that will be offered today,
in light of the release of the Cox Report, that are just bad policy.
Although I support the bi-partisan Cox/Dicks Amendment, I strongly urge
all members to exercise caution and restraint when considering the DOE
related amendments as they may have some unintended consequences for
Asian-Pacific Americans. Often under the guise of national security,
especially when faced with a crisis, it is too easy to follow the road
of assumptions. Our nation has done this in the past. We can all recall
that during the Oklahoma City bombing that many were too quick to
accuse Arab terrorists and thus Muslim-Americans were forced to suffer
many indignities. In this current debate, we must recall the talent and
dedication toward our national security that Asia-Pacific Americans
have contributed to in great numbers.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, some of the measures that the people of
Guam are concerned about have been included in this bill. In the realm
of military construction, the military facilities located on Guam will
benefit from over $100 million in new construction or improvements.
Most notable are the MILCON projects for the Guam Army Guard Readiness
Center and the U.S. Army Reserve Maintenance Shop--both desperately
needed to maintain readiness and operational capabilities.
Additionally, we were able to secure language that would allow the Guam
Power Authority to upgrade two military transformer substations on
Guam. I would like to thank MILCON subcommittee Chairman Hefley and
Ranking Member Taylor, for their wise counsel and decision in
recognizing the need for these vital military projects on Guam.
I worked closely with Readiness subcommittee Chairman Herb Bateman on
language that would further define the economic reporting requirement
for A-76 completion studies. This language will, I hope, make the
Department of Defense more accountable and thorough in their economic
analyses of communities directly impact by an impending decision to
perform an A-76 study. I also worked closely with several members from
both sides of the isle to prevent the lifting of a moratorium on the
outsourcing of DoD security guards. Additionally, I worked closely with
Congressmen Abercrombie and Young to exempt Guam from any pilot program
for military moving of household goods. This way Guam's small household
moving market will be ensured of robust competition and protection from
mainland conglomerates. Finally, I submitted additional views along
with Messrs. Evans, Sisisky, Abercrombie, Allen and Ortiz voicing our
skepticism over the Department's reliance on A-76 privatization
measures to save money while sacrificing needed jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I fully support Mr. Bereuter amendment to make
permanent the waivers included in the FY 1999 Defense Authorization Act
that allows the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (which is a
component of the Defense Department's U.S. Pacific Command) to accept
foreign gifts and donations to the center, and to allow certain foreign
military officers and civilian officials to attend conferences,
seminars and other educational activities held by the Asia Pacific
Center without reimbursing the Defense Department for the costs of such
activities. This Center, led by retired Marine Corps Lt. General H.C.
Stackpole, is a corner-stone in the engagement program of military-to-
military exchanges through out the Asia-Pacific Region. This endeavor
is a vital component in the goal of strengthening our ties with both
our regional allies and potential allies. I strongly urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, the House Armed Services Committee also manages an
vital oversight function over the Maritime Administration (MARAD). As
ranking member of the Merchant Marine Panel, I worked closely with the
panel's chairman, Congressman Herb Bateman, to include directive report
language that requires MARAD to report on the incidents of overseas
ship repairs of U.S. flagged vessels in the Maritime Security Fleet.
This was in response to the Guam Shipyard's unfair experiences with
subsidized foreign competition in ship repair. This report places the
MARAD on notice that Congress is watching and will respond if
necessary. I worked closely with Chairman Bateman on this initiative
and would like to thank him for his foresight in including this
important provision.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I included additional views detailing Guam's
need for a Weather Reconnaissance Squadron. In the late 1980s, one such
unit on Guam was inactivated when it was deemed too costly to justify.
Defense officials claimed that since there were no aircraft assets
permanently stationed at Andersen, Air Force Base its mission could not
be justified. Furthermore, it was maintained that improved weather
imagery reconnaissance satellites would be adequate to protect the
remaining military assets and the civilian population. The reality of
the situation has proved otherwise. The Western Pacific is naked to
accurate and readily deployable weather reconnaissance. I hope to work
with my colleagues in Congress and the U.S. Air Force to explore this
important resource for Guam and the Western Pacific.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this bill, notwithstanding my
personal reservation over the Kosovo spending limitation language.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this
legislation. Democrats made it a top priority this year to take care of
those in the armed services. And as a member of the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel, I saw firsthand just how we are doing that.
Our servicemen and women make sacrifices to protect our vital
national interests every day. Unfortunately, skilled military personnel
are leaving the armed services and several of our services have had
difficulty meeting their recruitment goals.
This legislation begins to redress numerous quality-of-life and other
problems affecting today's Armed Forces. It restores a basis for the
military pay raise process, and it goes a long way towards restoring
the career incentive value of the military retirement system.
Veterans in my community continue to voice their concern. They
continue to talk about broken promises that our country has made to
them. I want to go back to my district this weekend to let them know
that their voices have been heard and that we are restoring vitality to
the military services.
Let us send a strong message of support to our troops and those men
and women who had the ultimate sacrifice for this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1401.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Personnel.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I compliment the chairman and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.
I rise in strong support and ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1401,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
In all candor, Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill for the troops, one
of the strongest I have seen in the 7 years I have served on the
Committee on Armed Services.
As a matter of fact, I think we would have to put in big bold print
neon lights that this bill says that ``people count.'' It has been an
emphasis for a long time for the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of
the Committee on Armed Services.
A lot of times, the Pentagon liked to focus on buying ships and
planes and all types of other things, and they do not always take care
of those who actually are placed at risk. In fact, this is what this
bill is going to do. It reflects on what we have heard from the field
itself. People have told us what they needed, what needs to be done to
help fix the problems they face.
The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and I, together with
other members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel worked hard at
listening to the troops and their families throughout the country. As a
result, this bill contains first a set of core pay and retirement
reforms that were recommended by the chairman and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the Secretary of Defense; and, second, additional corrective
measures like the $440 million that we added beyond the request of the
present in an effort to reduce housing costs that service members and
their families are paying.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1401 is as strong as it is in part because the
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs spoke out forcefully in
public to advocate for a core set of reforms and initiatives. I commend
them for their effort. I am convinced that without the unanimous

[[Page 12149]]

leadership of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary, the core set of
recruiting and retention initiatives would neither have been included
in the budget request, nor be politically supported in Congress as
strong as it presently is.
That the DOD's senior leadership spoke out so forcefully only
underscores how serious are DOD's recruiting and retention problems.
While we believe that H.R. 1401 will help to address these challenges,
we also know that the services' retention and recruiting problems will
not be solved in 1 year. Rather, several years of efforts at least will
be needed to restore the manpower readiness of the armed services and
to win the two-front war of retention and recruiting.
I believe that the committee will continue its strong, long-term
commitment to national defense, and I urge my colleagues to not only
join in that commitment, but also vote in favor of H.R. 1401. It is a
good bill for America. It is a good bill for the men and women in
uniform who serve this Nation.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie). It was a pleasure to work with him on this bill as we
move forward a host of bipartisan initiatives to address the serious
recruiting, retention, and retirement pay compensation, and other
things to help shore up the readiness of our military. I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 1401.

{time} 1315

Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill with one
reservation. This bill is good for our troops, good for their families
and good for the national security of this country.
For the troops, we have increased readiness accounts to ensure that
they have the equipment and the training that they need to be an
effective fighting force. For their families, we have increased soldier
pay, including even greater increases for experienced midlevel officers
and NCOs, who today are being lured into the private sector with better
paying salaries. We have fixed the retirement system to put all
military personnel in an equal retirement system, and we have increased
the basic housing allowance to help ensure that our soldiers and their
families are not living in substandard homes.
For national security we have increased the procurement accounts to
ensure the current and near-term success of our military, and increased
R&D accounts to ensure we maintain our position as a world leader long
into the future.
Like many of my Democratic colleagues, however, my main concern with
this bill is in the inclusion of the Kosovo language. I intend to
support the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to
remove that language. If that language is eliminated, this, in my
opinion, will be a great bill.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1401.
I want to thank Chairman Spence and ranking member Skelton for their
work in bringing this vital piece of legislation to the floor.
As many of my colleagues follow the military conflict in Kosovo, they
may be surprised to hear that much of our success has been a direct
result of the B-2 stealth bomber and its critical role as a key
strategic component of our armed forces within the US-NATO mission.
Contrary to what opponents have claimed in the past, the B-2 has
proved to be extremely durable and reliable, even after flying through
terrible rain storms and skies filled with dense clouds. In fact, it
was the first manned aircraft to penetrate the Kosovo region at the
outset of the air strikes while other types of aircraft were deterred
from the bad weather conditions.
As the B-2 missions were increased with the progression of the air
strikes, the accuracy and reliability of the B-2 was confirmed. The
incredible success of our most advanced strategic bomber only proves
how critical it is to our national defense strategy.
With our national security at stake, I am very pleased that H.R. 1401
includes almost $500 million for the modernization of our B-2 fleet--
nearly $187 million more than the President had requested. These funds
will be used to improve the B-2 stealth and communications
capabilities, increase its memory capacity, and update targeting
information to support reactive real-time targeting.
Additionally, this critical funding will also provide for a software
upgrade to increase the survivability and flexibility of the B-2 when
attacking the most heavily defended enemy targets.
I am proud to support H.R. 1401 and strongly urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished
chairman for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the
distinguished ranking member and the chairman for their outstanding
work on this bipartisan bill.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Pickett), who I
have the pleasure of working with on the Subcommittee on Military
Research and Development, who is one of the tireless advocates on
behalf of our Nation's national security.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise and state, as I have many times,
the fact that defense in this body has been bipartisan. There are
Democrat and Republican leaders who tirelessly fight for what is right
for our troops. Our battle has not been within the House, it has
actually been between the White House and the Congress. And it has been
a bipartisan effort over the past several years to restore dignity and
support for our troops.
This year in the R&D portion of our budget we had a very severe
problem. The administration, while publicly saying they were going to
increase defense spending, actually took a $3 billion cut out of the
R&D account lines. They shifted that money over to procurement and
called that an increase in defense spending. Now, I still cannot
believe they did that. They cut the R&D account by $3 billion, shifted
it to procurement, and they called that publicly a $3 billion increase
in funding.
They did not talk about what we were doing to those programs that are
the future threats to America: The need to research weapons of mass
destruction and how to deal with them; the need to deal with issues
involving missile defense systems which are an emerging priority for
all of us, both theater and national missile defense; and the need to
deal with the issue of information dominance or what John Hamre calls
cyber terrorism.
So while the administration was talking a good game about refocusing
its priority on national security, their words were not in fact
following their deeds. These cuts were outrageous and they were beyond
what we could live with.
Working with the distinguished chairman and the ranking member of the
full committee, we were able to find an additional $1.4 billion to
restore a portion of that money that this administration proposed
cutting. We could not restore the entire $3 billion, so there are some
programs that we should be funding that will not be funded next year,
but we did in fact find approximately one-half of that money that we
are putting back in.
In fact, in some areas, like information dominance, the supports, the
great work of the services, especially the Army with their LIWA
facility at Ft. Belvoir, we have increased funding by about $40 million
more than what the administration asked for. We have also restored the
only cooperative program with the Russians to build a stable
relationship on the issue of missile defense. The administration
actually proposed canceling the RAMOS project, which would have been
devastating to building confidence. We restore that program in this
bill and the effort to work in a more transparent way with the
Russians.
But let me say this, Mr. Chairman. While we do good things in this
bill, we do not solve the problem. We need to understand that the need
to commit to

[[Page 12150]]

more funding is a long-term commitment, and I hope our colleagues will
work together toward that end.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am a new member of the House Committee on Armed
Services, but I understand the importance of a strong military. I
support this bill because I believe our Armed Forces have urgent
unfunded needs, including the military infrastructure, equipment and
spare parts. Most importantly, I believe that this is the year of the
troops, and I support a pay raise, pay scale reform, and retirement
benefits reform.
I am also glad to see this bill includes $378 million for the Army's
Environmental Restoration Account. The fund in this account benefits
areas such as the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant in Charleston, Indiana.
For many years, the Charleston facility and the men and women who
worked there served our national defense by manufacturing essential
parts of the ammunition used in combat in World War II, Korea and
Vietnam.
Now that our military no longer needs this facility, the Army Corps
of Engineers is cleaning up this land and preparing it for the transfer
to a civilian reuse authority. I am proud of the thousands of Hoosiers
who worked in the ammunition plant over the years, and I am pleased
that the army is helping these communities make the site an engine for
future economic growth.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this legislation.
While I rise in support of this bill, and commend our Chairman for
his diligent leadership, I believe that even he shares my mixed
feelings.
The good news is that for the fifth year in a row we were able to add
billions of dollars to the President's grossly inadequate defense
budget. This year we add some $8 billion to meet our most critical
shortfalls. I sincerely hope that we can keep our word and match this
increase during the appropriations process.
I am proud that we funded a 4.8 percent pay raise for the troops--.4
percent more than the President.
That we added $2 billion to basic readiness accounts to reduce the
maintenance backlog and purchase spare parts.
That we added $300 million to purchase new Tomahawk missiles to
replace the 700 missiles this President has fired in the last year
alone.
The bad news is that with all of the good work we did in this bill--
it is not nearly enough.
Our investment in national security is dangerously inadequate.
We spend less on defense today as a percentage of federal
expenditures than at any time since Pearl Harbor. This trend must be
reversed.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have testified that the President's budget
is short by over $23 billion. I believe that we must commit a minimum
of $40 billion per year to restore our American military preparedness.
When the Air Force has less missiles than bombers to fire them;
When F-16 fighters are falling from the sky in alarming rates;
When Navy warships leave port with hundreds of battle stations
unmanned;
When the Air Force needs to implement a stop-loss for pilots and call
up 2,000 reservists to handle a minor military engagement such as
Kosovo;
When all of the Services face a $13 billion shortage in basic
ammunition, we must begin to act.
The list of casualties in this administration's seven year campaign
of military neglect goes on and on. I am still not sure what effect our
air assault is having on the Serb military but I am sure that it is
further degrading ours.
I commend our Chairman for bringing these issues to our attention and
doing the best job we could under the circumstances. But we need to do
more. We need to do whatever it takes, including lifting the budget
caps to insure America's Armed Forces remain the best equipped, the
best trained and the most effective in the world.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, today we are considering an excellent FY 2000 Defense
Authorization bill, and I thank Chairman Spence for his leadership in
bringing this bill to the floor.
In Committee, we have spent the past several months hearing testimony
from armed services personnel and military experts detailing the
alarming state of our military.
With rapidly growing threats worldwide to our national security, now
is the time to begin to rebuild our military from years of decimation
and escalating deployments. Mr. Chairman, this authorization responds
to these concerns.
As a former navigator and EWO of B-52 bombers, in the Air Force and a
Vietnam veteran, I am particularly excited about the authorizations for
upgrades and procurement of Air Force aircraft, as well as the
replenishment of ammunition and the modernization of military
equipment. Further, the pilot retention reforms contained in the
Authorization are essential. We have the best Air Force in the world--
no country comes close. Yet we have trouble holding on to the best
pilots because we simply do not take care of them.
Most importantly, this Authorization reaches out a hand to military
families. The 4.8 percent across-the-board pay increase and pay table
reform, the major reform in military bonuses, and the implementation of
new housing allowances helps close the pay gap with the private sector
and will enable military personnel to better take care of their
families.
We frequently ask our men and women in the military to leave their
families, fight for our national security, and even die for our freedom
and liberty. Yet, we do not provide our service personnel with the pay
or equipment it takes to get the job done right. It is appalling that
even one of these families must seek welfare just to put food on the
table and buy clothes for their children. I honestly believe that the
authorization we have before us today will go a long way in correcting
this problem.
I urge my colleagues to support this authorization, which will
provide for the dedicated soldiers in our armed services and adequately
fund our military so that American families are safe from hostile
threat.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a bold step toward putting
America's defense funding back on a sound footing. Our military is
currently overextended and underfunded. Right now we have a quarter of
a million American troops serving in 135 countries around the world.
The military is 40 percent smaller than it was during the Persian Gulf
War while operational commitments around the world have increased by
300 percent.
This bill establishes additional quality of life functions for the
members of our Armed Services that are going to be of tremendous
benefit. We also provide for four new Marine Corps KC-130J tankers, a
14th JSTARS aircraft, long-lead funding for a 15th, and the F-22
advanced tactical fighter.
Finally, we reaffirm our belief that depot maintenance capabilities
for critical mission essential systems must be retained organically in
the military depot system. The Air Force has chosen an ill-defined and
unclear policy to support critical weapon systems in the future. This
bill requires the Air Force to report to us on their future sustainment
plans and specifically identify the core logistics requirements for the
C-17 aircraft, a unique military system that has proven its importance
in supporting our deployed forces.
We owe it to our warfighters to ensure that core capabilities will be
there when they are called upon in the future. I urge the support of
this bill.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on both
sides?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) has 12 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this
time. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence),
and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and
all our colleagues on the committee for bringing this bill to the
floor. I support it.

[[Page 12151]]

I support it because it supports the men and women who wear the
uniform of this country with such pride. I do not believe I have ever
seen that strength more on display than I did a few weeks ago when I
visited Fort Dix, which is in the District of my friend and neighbor
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), to visit with the ethnic
Albanian refugees who had come to this country from the horror they had
faced the in the Balkans.
On the first night that they were in that camp, a little girl about
the same age as my oldest daughter, who is 6, saw an American soldier
walking toward her. Her reaction was to scream, to turn around and run
as fast as she could in the other direction, telling her mother and
father and sisters and brothers that they had to run away because the
soldiers were coming. It is understandable why she would have had that
reaction, given where she grew up.
Her mother went over to her and comforted her and said that she did
not have to run away; that here soldiers were different; that this was
a different place; that soldiers could be trusted. And she reacted in a
way that many of us would want to react in expressing support for
people wearing a uniform. She ran in the other direction, she jumped up
in the arms of that American soldier and hugged him around the neck as
fiercely as she could.
Our people are strong not only because of the strength of the weapons
that we give them, of the training that they achieve, but they are
strong because of the strength of their character. The best way that we
can show our respect for that strength is to raise their pay, and this
bill does that; it is to respect their retirement, and this bill does
that; it is to provide better living conditions for their families, and
this bill does that; and, finally, it is to give them the finest
training and the finest weaponry, and this bill does that.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to support it.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
At the present time there are 46,000 women, infants and children who
belong to our military overseas who are not covered by WIC.
Fortunately, thanks to this committee, that will be remedied and we
will not have that imbalance. They will get the same benefits that they
would get if they, as a matter of fact, were stationed in the United
States.
I want to also touch briefly on another area. Some years ago I came
before the committee to indicate that we were buying our buoy chains
from China, and I wondered where we were going to get them if we were
in war, and this committee corrected that. And now we have the military
buying weights for their exercise programs from China because they are
cheap, because, of course, they are made with slave labor. And they
have taken some steps in this legislation to correct that.
So I would hope all would support this effort to make our military
strong and proud once again, because for 4 of the last 6 years it has
not been treated very well.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1401 and
congratulate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their
leadership on this issue.
There is one provision, though, that troubles me, and I respectfully
raise it today. Section 113 concerns the U.S. Army's family of medium
tactical vehicles. They are trucks for the army. Specifically, this
section, 113, allows the U.S. Army to ignore the will of Congress, to
drop a proven volume discount for producing the trucks and pursue a
second source contract award without proving any economic savings to
the government.
Well, that does not make sense. Congress made it clear last year, in
law, that we wanted justification from the Army. Now, they did a report
to justify it, but they will not release it. Now, what does that tell
us?
We should not change the law to allow the Army to go forward on this
because it is bad for the taxpayers and it is going to be proven to be
very ill-advised. It is my sincere hope, Mr. Chairman, that the
distinguished chairman and the ranking member and the Members to be
named on the conference committee will provide the best trucks for the
Army at the best price to the taxpayers.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I want to commend the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for an excellent bill that I think
should get the full support of every Member here.
I also want to especially thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) for rejecting the Clinton administration's flawed and misguided
proposal to gut administration's funding for our military construction
through the Administration's phased funding scheme. Thankfully, that
has been rejected. And I especially want to thank the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the superb work of Phil Grone for including
the super lab for Navy Lakehurst.

{time} 1330

Nothing is launched from our aircraft carriers or recovered, the
catapults and the arresting gear, unless it has first been prototyped
and bugs worked out at Lakehurst.
Lakehurst means safety for our pilots and the likelihood of a
successful mission.
Lakehurst has an impeccable record of success, of providing an
expertise that keeps our aircraft capable. I am just so glad that this
new superlab will be built and provide the synergism and take us into
the next millennium. The superlab will give us that ability to continue
to have a viable aircraft carrier force. The superlab is absolutely
instrumental and important for that endeavor. I want to thank the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for his great service to our
nation. I urge support for it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to this defense
authorization bill. I believe that this budget is counterproductive to
our domestic requirements and goes far beyond our national security
needs.
Today national defense consumes 48 percent of our discretionary
budget. The proposed 2000 budget will consume 51 percent of the
discretionary budget. American cities receive only 25 cents for every
$1 that the Pentagon collects. That 25 cents must be spread thin to
protect our environment, feed and house families, educate our children,
provide health care for the elderly, and to fund other essential
programs.
We must also make sure that our courageous men and women serving in
the armed services are adequately compensated for their very courageous
duty. However, we must stop giving the Pentagon more money than it asks
for or that it requires, to the detriment of our country's basic needs.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this costly bill.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this
opportunity to respond to the previous speaker, who I do have the
greatest respect for, who was elected by just as many people as I was
elected by and represents just as many people.
But I would encourage her to support the bill. Particularly, I would
encourage her to support the bill because I think it is important that
the minority Members of this body support an Armed Forces that has a
more than fair share of minorities on board.

[[Page 12152]]

We have a strange situation in our country where folks are willing to
spend their money but not ask their children to serve. We have another
group of people whose children serve but who say, you cannot have our
money.
We need to correct that. We need to treat those young people who are
serving our country with respect. We need to fund the G.I. bill. We
need to give them a good barracks. We need to see to it that they are
well fed. We need to see to it that there are enough of them that they
do not have to be gone from their families all the time.
To my colleagues who are saying, you can have my money but not my
son, I would encourage their children to enlist.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and I have visited a
corporate board last summer, a company that does 99 percent of its work
with the United States Navy; and we asked that board, ``How many of you
have a young son or young daughter in the Armed Forces?'' Not one hand
went up.
So I do think that what we are doing today is a step in the right
direction. I want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member on
that. I would encourage us to go on to fulfill our promise of lifetime
health care to our military retirees. I do see that as a readiness
problem.
I want to see to it that our young people are able to have their
ailments treated and their children born on a base hospital rather than
to have to go out and put up with the hassle of Tricare. And above all,
we need to start replacing these ancient weapon systems, like the
HUEYs, like the CH-46s and 47s, that endanger the very young people
that all of us care about, and see to it that they are given weapons
worthy of them.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend
for yielding me this time to speak. My statement is in opposition to
the Gilman-Goss amendment that is included here in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Gilman-Goss
amendment because it would mandate the removal of our military support
in Haiti. This amendment undercuts the President's authority as
Commander in Chief to deploy forces abroad for noncombat purposes where
important United States foreign policy and security interests are at
stake.
The withdrawal of our forces from Haiti at this time would send the
wrong message, Mr. Chairman. It would have a serious destabilizing
effect on Haiti at the very time that they approach their legislative
elections. And these legislative elections will lead toward the full
restoration of the Parliament and local governments.
It is so significant that at this time we do our best to assist in
restoring democracy to Haiti and not take troops out of Haiti but to
try, if possible, to add more because this is a very, very crucial
time. The supporters of this amendment speak generally of the need to
evaluate our commitments carefully and the need to get out of something
and not simply accumulate additional constituencies.
All of us agree that we need to evaluate our commitments carefully.
Yet adherence to this general principle has very, very little, Mr.
Chairman, to do with this debate.
It is instructive that none of the military authorities cited in the
``Dear Colleague'' letter sent out about my fellow Floridian in support
of the amendment states that we can or should withdraw all of our
military forces from Haiti at this time. It is also instructive that
none of the supporters of this amendment have offered a standard to be
used in assessing whether to discontinue a military presence.
What is the standard, Mr. Chairman? It has not been stated. Will
there be one standard for Kosovo and one for Haiti? Lots of questions,
Mr. Chairman. And I say that we should not support this part of the
amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to commend some very fine
airmen and women, in particular those at Whiteman Air Force Base who
are flying and working on and maintaining the B-2 stealth bomber.
In this Chamber, for a number of times, we debated the issue as to
whether we would build any such bombers. In this conflict over
Yugoslavia, they have proven themselves, both the planes as well as the
young men and women who work so hard with them and flying them, they
have proved themselves to be invaluable. I am proud of them.
Let me say a special word of thanks and gratitude to the leader,
Brigadier General Leroy Barnidge, who is the Wing Commander of the
509th bomb group at Whiteman Air Force Base. They are certainly today's
heroes, and I thank them for their wonderful efforts for our country.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his
leadership for the great work done at Whiteman Air Force Base, for the
military construction facilities that are there. I know that he worked
hard to make sure that that facility in his district was one of the
finest in the country.
He and I had the great privilege of going out there the first day
that the B-2 flew in combat and to greet the first 4 pilots who had
flown those two planes, 2 pilots per plane. Thirty-one hours round-trip
from Whiteman Air Force Base to Kosovo and back.
I think it is a very important point to pause and think about the
revolutionary impact of having a stealth bomber with precision-guided
weapons. The accuracy, the number of targets that the B-2 hit, is just
extraordinary.
Also, I had a chance, I would tell my colleagues, to go and visit
with our pilots at Fairfort, England, who flew the B-52s and the B-1s.
And we have a small bomber force but a good one.
In this very bill, I want to compliment the gentleman from California
(Mr. Duncan Hunter), the chairman, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Sisisky) for putting in the bomber package of money to enhance all of
our existing bombers.
I think this war has proven that these bombers are much more valuable
than we gave them credit for. And the fact that the B-2 could fly in
all weather, day, night, all weather, when nobody else could, was
absolutely crucial in keeping the momentum of the air war early on.
So, again, it was an honor to go out with my friend from Missouri. He
and I came to Congress the same year. We have fought together four
times on this floor to vote for the B-2. And I only wish that in the
other body we had had the support to keep this program going, because I
think it is one of the historic mistakes of this institution that we
did not keep production of this airplane moving forward.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are very, very
blessed to have the number of planes that we have. As my colleague
knows, 10 are currently at Whiteman Air Force Base and a good number of
them are being used in this effort.
It is interesting to note that only 3 percent of the sorties, the
entire sorties, were flown by B-2 stealth bombers but they did some 20
percent of the strikes. That speaks well for the system, for the young
men and young women at Whiteman Air Force Base.
I thank the gentleman for his kind words about those people in
Missouri who are doing so remarkably well.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of the defense
authorization bill. I commend all of my colleagues, especially the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for a fine bill.
The committee has put forth legislation that signifies the great
support this Congress has for the million and a

[[Page 12153]]

half patriotic Americans who voluntarily defend our freedom.
Mr. Chairman, I recently visited Ft. Bragg in the 8th District of
North Carolina. Over the past 6 months, I have been to Ft. Bragg and
Pope Air Force Base a number of times. My last visit was unique. I went
to the base with my wife, Barbara, to speak with our soldiers and their
spouses about issues important to our military families.
Once again, we came away from our discussions thoroughly impressed by
the quality of men and women who serve in the Armed Forces. After
meeting with three separate groups of personnel, junior enlisted
soldiers, senior commissioned officers, and junior officers, it was
clear that our troops demonstrate a ``can do'' spirit and pride in
their service unrivaled anywhere in the world. They deserve this bill.
Unfortunately, we also heard stories of hardship from our soldiers
and their families that made me ashamed, ashamed that the government of
a Nation so rich in military tradition could be so negligent in meeting
the needs of our military families. I came away convinced we should add
to this budget things that take care of their needs.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that the House Committee on
Armed Services has successfully accomplished its mission and this bill
reflects our efforts. We have included in the bill measures which will
enhance quality of life for our personnel and their families, 4.8
percent increase in pay, reform pay tables, repealed REDUX.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to returning to Bragg and Pope and
telling those wonderful young soldiers that this is indeed the year of
the troops. I thank the committee. Our troops protect us. We must
support them. This bill does that.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss two
recent events in my life; in order to better relate the common concerns
among our troops and veterans. Our veterans and troops are concerned
about military pay and benefits, readiness, and modernization
shortfalls confronting our military services.
Mr. Chairman, it has nearly been a month since I joined a
congressional delegation that traveled to Germany, Albania, Macedonia,
Italy and Belgium. While it was somewhat disheartening to see the
effects of this tragedy up close, it was comforting to see the
courageous spirit that persevered among our troops and the many non-
government organizations aiding in the current crisis in the Balkans.
It is incomprehensible to imagine the scope of this tragedy until you
see it in person. On the ground and among the refugees, I was able to
interact and listen to the stories of this human tragedy. Putting faces
behind tragic accounts, I heard about the killing of innocent men and
boys, the wanton burning of homes, and the brutal rape of Kosovar
women.
In addition to confronting the humanitarian crisis, I had the good
fortune of interacting with our troops. I am pleased to report that our
troops had high spirits and that they remain committed to the NATO
operation. As is customary with U.S. Armed Forces their preparedness,
attention to detail, and commitment to duty and country was very
impressive.
Mr. Chairman, I also had the privilege of joining in the 50th
Anniversary of the Houston Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center. This Medical Center is dedicated to upholding President
Lincoln's call ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' The
men and women of this facility have answered the challenge of their
dedication by providing the best medical care to veterans residing in
the Houston community and southeast Texas.
The common theme from my two experiences has been the unwavering
dedication to our nation's defense and national security interests
displayed by our veterans in the past and by our young men and women
today in the Balkan region and throughout the world. Mr. Speaker, as we
approach the Memorial Day holiday we owe it to our nation to pass a
defense authorization that will provide for a viable and cost effective
defense. We owe it to the young service men and women I met during my
trip to the Balkan region and to the veterans in the Houston Veterans
Affairs Medical Center to address their concerns and issues.
Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes a total of $288.8 billion for
defense programs. This request is approximately $8.3 billion (3%) more
than the administration's request. On May 21, President Clinton signed
H.R. 1141, which included an additional $1.8 billion to pay for
increases in military pay and pensions in fiscal year 2000. Thus, the
total increase over Clinton's defense budget request would be more than
$10 million.
This bill does reflect Congress's continuing efforts to address
systemic quality of life, readiness and modernization shortfalls. The
bill addresses those programs like pay, housing, retirement that have
the most noticeable and direct effect on service personnel and their
families. The bill also addresses other significant areas of military
readiness including meeting the recruitment challenge and the training
of our soldiers.
While this bill addresses significant quality of life issues and
provides significant funds for modernization and procurement of weapons
systems, it fails in three significant aspects. First, this bill
prohibits the use of FY 2000 funds authorized in this bill for ongoing
operations in Yugoslavia, and directs the administration to submit a
supplemental budget in the military operations continue into FY 2000.
Mr. Chairman, if this body adopts this provision we would be sending
the wrong message to the Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. As
negotiations continue and the air campaign inflicts continuing damage
on the Yugoslavian army and police units, this body cannot send mixed
signals. This measure of the defense authorization bill will only
encourage Milosevic to hold out against the NATO terms.
This body must remain committed to NATO's objective of a peaceful
multi-ethnic democratic Kosovo in which all its people live in
security. You know when I was walking among the refugees in that camp
in Albania, I had the chance to ask many of them, if they thought
NATO's action were to blame for their current situation. Mr. Speaker,
every person in that camp placed the responsibility for this crisis
squarely at the feet of Milosevic. The body cannot relent from our
mission of peace and must ensure that Milosevic pays a heavy price for
his present policy of repression.
The second area in which this bill fails, is its failure to eliminate
a provision that interferes with a woman's right of choice. The fiscal
1996 defense authorization law bars female service members or military
dependents stationed overseas from obtaining abortions in U.S. military
hospitals abroad, even if they pay for the procedure, except in cases
where the pregnancy threatens the woman's life.
This bill slightly expands current law by allowing the use of
appropriated funds to support abortions for military beneficiaries
whose pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest--but
only when such incidents have been reported to a law enforcement
agency. Though this change is welcome the law still denies women who
have volunteered to serve their country, their legally protected right
to choose abortion, simply because they are stationed overseas.
Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion
services at overseas military facilities continues to endanger women's
health.
Finally, I oppose the extent of funding increases for defense
programs proposed in H.R. 1401. The democratic alternative provides for
an increase over FY 1999 levels and ensures that critical readiness
needs are met. Our plan allows for weapons modernization and proposes a
generous military compensation package for our service men and women.
But our plan ensures that other critical priorities like education and
agriculture receive sufficient funding.
This bill could be improved in these three areas while still
providing for a viable defense and more importantly addressing the
needs of our service men and women and of our veterans.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Spence and the
members of the House Armed Services Committee for their hard work and
dedication to our nation's armed services. Like many members who spoke
today, I am very concerned about the current state of our military and
the very serious breech of national security information at our
nation's Department of Energy Research laboratories. Once again, the
Republican Congress has done the best we can to provide for our
national defense, but the reality remains that more resources are
needed if the United States is going to remain the world's last
remaining Superpower.
Members who know me, know that I am very supportive of the Marines'
MV-22 ``Osprey'' and I believe--like the Acting Secretary of the Air
Force--that we need many more new F-16s. But, I never forget the number
one asset--and the best weapons--in our armed services: the men and
women who proudly serve our nation.
I have had the opportunity to visit with our servicemen and women
around the world on several occasions since I was elected to Congress.
After each visit I have come away with a greater appreciation for the
dedication and capabilities of our military men and women.

[[Page 12154]]

There is no question they are the best trained and most effective
fighting force in the world. But we cannot take them for granted. We
cannot continue to deploy them at the current rate. We cannot continue
to ask them to do more with very old equipment, in some cases. We
cannot continue to expect to retain our best officers and enlisted
personnel when there is such a substantial pay differential between the
military and civilian jobs.
There has been much discussion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's list of
immediate unfunded requirements--totaling around $20 billion. This is
very serious, but it should come as no surprise when you consider the
way this administration has vastly increased the operations tempo of
our military, while vastly under-funding its personnel, procurement,
R&D, and modernization needs.
That is a nice way of saying the Clinton administration's military
and foreign polices have strained our military to the breaking point,
first by failing to adequately invest in our national security and then
by committing our forces to a disturbing number of missions around the
world.
H.R. 1401 deserves the support of every member of the House of
Representatives because it addresses many of the disturbing long-term
trends in our military, such as: (1) declining service-wide mission
capable rates for aircraft; (2) equipment shortfalls; (3) service-wide
problems with aging equipment; (4) acute shortfalls in basic ammunition
in the Army and the Marine Corps; and (5) personnel shortages.
All of these problems are very serious, but let me talk about aging
equipment for a moment. The Marine Corps' new MV-22 tilt-rotor aircraft
will replace a helicopter that is almost 40 years old, the CH-46. How
many of you would drive a car that is 40 years old?
We're not talking about a vintage car that you take out of the garage
on nice, sunny, spring days. We're talking about a helicopter that we
pack our young marines into and ask them to accomplish missions in
dangerous situations--situations in which there can be no margin for
error!
This is an intolerable situation. While I applaud the Armed Services
Committee's decision to add an additional MV-22 to the president's
request, I strongly urge the House conferees to support the Senate's
decision to add two MV-22s to the administration's FY 2000 budget
request.
I also want to thank the administration and the Armed Services
Committee for recognizing the need for new F-16s, and that current
operations are only increasing the need for new F-16s in the future. I
strongly urge my colleagues on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee
to follow that sentiment of the House today, and the Senate, by fully
funding the F-16 in fiscal year 2000.
In conclusion, it is clear that we cannot continue to willingly send
our troops all over the world when here at home we are unwilling to
give our troops the equipment and the pay they need and deserve. To
those who say we cannot afford to have the best military in the world,
I say we cannot afford not to have it. To those who say we do not need
the best military in the world, I say the events of the last few weeks
show that we do.
I am pleased to support passage of H.R. 1401 and I urge all of my
colleagues to support our armed forces by voting for this very
important legislation.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the United States has long been the
leader in manufacturing. Our ingenuity and efficiency drove our economy
from a largely agrarian society to the pulsing industrial powerhouse
that it is today. However, over the years, many foreign countries with
government controlled economies have steadily cut into our markets
because their subsidized products clearly have an economic advantage in
our open markets.
While I applaud efforts of the United States government to level the
playing field by controlling the flood of subsidized imports, I cannot
condone the actions by our government that facilitate the continued
import of these cheap products. I encountered these troubles during the
103rd Congress when I shepherded legislation through the Congress
requiring the U.S. Coast Guard to purchase buoy chain manufactured in
the United States because an overabundance of their purchases relied on
foreign sources. Today, a similar problem is occurring when the
Department of Defense purchases free weight strength training
equipment.
Despite having quality, domestically manufactured products available
to provide to our troops, various installations of the United States
Armed Services are purchasing free weight strength training equipment
manufactured in foreign countries, predominantly in the Peoples
Republic of China. As a result, many of our troops are training with
equipment that not only is manufactured by a Communist government that
has worked to undermine the national security of the United States, but
also might be manufactured with slave labor.
These cheap, lower-grade Chinese products are imported by American
fitness companies and sold to our government under domestic labels at
the expense of our domestic manufacturers. Consequently, American
producers have suffered.
Buy American legislation was enacted to protect our domestic labor
market by providing a preference for American goods in government
purchases. This Act is critical to protecting the market share of our
domestic producers from foreign government-subsidized manufacturers.
However, the Buy American Act is not always obeyed.
According to an audit conducted last year by the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense, an astonishing 59 percent of the contracts
procuring military clothing and related items did not include the
appropriate clause to implement the Buy American Act. This troubles me
because many of our domestic producers are the ones that feel the blow.
Despite this audit and the subsequent instruction by the Defense
Department to its procurement officials that the Buy American Act must
be adhered to, to date, at least five defense installations provide
predominately foreign made free weight products for their personnel to
weight train. Unfortunately, I believe this may signify a trend in
purchases of foreign manufactured free weights under the Department of
Defense.
For this reason, I have offered an amendment that would prohibit the
Secretary of Defense from procuring free weight equipment used by our
troops for strength training and conditioning if those weights were not
domestically manufactured.
Should Congress not agree with my estimation as to the depth of this
problem and fail to end repeat occurrences, I prepared a second
amendment that would require the Inspector General to further
investigate the Defense Department's compliance with purchases of the
Buy American Act for free weight strength training equipment. However,
I think it is important to note that while this approach could
successfully highlight the problem, it would only delay the process,
thereby, further punishing our domestic producers.
No one can argue that the physical fitness of our troops is vital. It
is well known in the Pentagon that when you're physically fit, you're
also mentally prepared for any conflict. It is the cornerstone of
readiness. In fact, a recent survey of nearly 1,000 Marine Corps
officers, whose results appeared in a May 5 article of the Marine Corps
Times, cited fitness as the number one program offered under the
Morale, Welfare and Recreation program.
In addition, the importance of using free weights to train our
military cannot be understated. The Marine Corps Times article further
demonstrated the need for free weights by explaining the access to free
weights was the number one requested activity by deployed units and the
second most popular request by units about to be deployed; second only
to E-mail access. Clearly, the demand for free weights is present.
However, the fact that some of our troops use Chinese manufactured
weights when a higher quality domestic product is available, I find
remarkable.
Although the Department of Defense may have taken steps to curb Buy
American Act procurement abuses in the aftermath of the Inspector
General's report on clothing procurement, I am concerned that
widespread abuses of foreign free weight procurements may continue
unless Congress acts to end this practice.
I believe Congress needs to protect our domestic interests by
ensuring that U.S. manufacturers are insulated from cheap imports being
sold to the United States government, and that our troops train with a
high quality product manufactured in the United States, not Communist
China. Accordingly, it is my intention to prohibit our military from
spending U.S. tax dollars on free weight strength training products
that are produced by a Communist government that has little respect for
our national security and human rights.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:

H.R. 1401

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 ``National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''.

[[Page 12155]]

SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF
CONTENTS.

(a) Divisions.--This Act is organized into three divisions
as follows:
(1) Division A--Department of Defense Authorizations.
(2) Division B--Military Construction Authorizations.
(3) Division C--Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations and Other Authorizations.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees defined.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 101. Army.
Sec. 102. Navy and Marine Corps.
Sec. 103. Air Force.
Sec. 104. Defense-wide activities.
Sec. 105. Reserve components.
Sec. 106. Defense Inspector General.
Sec. 107. Chemical demilitarization program.
Sec. 108. Defense health programs.
Sec. 109. Defense Export Loan Guarantee program.

Subtitle B--Army Programs

Sec. 111. Multiyear procurement authority for Army programs.
Sec. 112. Extension of pilot program on sales of manufactured articles
and services of certain Army industrial facilities
without regard to availability from domestic sources.
Sec. 113. Revision to conditions for award of a second-source
procurement contract for the Family of Medium Tactical
Vehicles.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

Sec. 121. F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft program.

Subtitle D--Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program

Sec. 141. Destruction of existing stockpile of lethal chemical agents
and munitions.
Sec. 142. Alternative technologies for destruction of assembled
chemical weapons.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 151. Limitation on expenditures for satellite communications.

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 201. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 202. Amount for basic and applied research.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 211. Collaborative program to evaluate and demonstrate advanced
technologies for advanced capability combat vehicles.
Sec. 212. Revisions in manufacturing technology program.

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense

Sec. 231. Additional program elements for ballistic missile defense
programs.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Sec. 241. Designation of Secretary of the Army as executive agent for
high energy laser technologies.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 301. Operation and maintenance funding.
Sec. 302. Working capital funds.
Sec. 303. Armed Forces Retirement Home.
Sec. 304. Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.
Sec. 305. Transfer to Defense Working Capital Funds to support Defense
Commissary Agency.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 311. Reimbursement of Navy Exchange Service Command for relocation
expenses.

Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions

Sec. 321. Remediation of asbestos and lead-based paint.

Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources

Sec. 331. Expansion of annual report on contracting for commercial and
industrial type functions.
Sec. 332. Congressional notification of A-76 cost comparison waivers.
Sec. 333. Improved evaluation of local economic effect of changing
defense functions to private sector performance.
Sec. 334. Annual reports on expenditures for performance of depot-level
maintenance and repair workloads by public and private
sectors.
Sec. 335. Applicability of competition requirement in contracting out
workloads performed by depot-level activities of
Department of Defense.
Sec. 336. Treatment of public sector winning bidders for contracts for
performance of depot-level maintenance and repair
workloads formerly performed at certain military
installations.
Sec. 337. Process for modernization of computer systems at Army
computer centers.
Sec. 338. Evaluation of total system performance responsibility
program.
Sec. 339. Identification of core logistics capability requirements for
maintenance and repair of C-17 aircraft.

Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education

Sec. 341. Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit
dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department
of Defense civilian employees.
Sec. 342. Continuation of enrollment at Department of Defense domestic
dependent elementary and secondary schools.
Sec. 343. Technical amendments to Defense Dependents' Education Act of
1978.

Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues

Sec. 351. Independent study of Department of Defense secondary
inventory and parts shortages.
Sec. 352. Independent study of adequacy of department restructured
sustainment and reengineered logistics product support
practices.
Sec. 353. Independent study of military readiness reporting system.
Sec. 354. Review of real property maintenance and its effect on
readiness.
Sec. 355. Establishment of logistics standards for sustained military
operations.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

Sec. 361. Discretionary authority to install telecommunication
equipment for persons performing voluntary services.
Sec. 362. Contracting authority for defense working capital funded
industrial facilities.
Sec. 363. Clarification of condition on sale of articles and services
of industrial facilities to persons outside Department of
Defense.
Sec. 364. Special authority of disbursing officials regarding automated
teller machines on naval vessels.
Sec. 365. Preservation of historic buildings and grounds at United
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home, District of Columbia.
Sec. 366. Clarification of land conveyance authority, United States
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home.
Sec. 367. Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam in defense household
goods moving programs.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

Sec. 401. End strengths for active forces.
Sec. 402. Revision in permanent end strength minimum levels.
Sec. 403. Appointments to certain senior joint officer positions.

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

Sec. 411. End strengths for Selected Reserve.
Sec. 412. End strengths for Reserves on active duty in support of the
reserves.
Sec. 413. End strengths for military technicians (dual status).
Sec. 414. Increase in number of Army and Air Force members in certain
grades authorized to serve on active duty in support of
the Reserves.
Sec. 415. Selected Reserve end strength flexibility.

Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

Sec. 421. Authorization of appropriations for military personnel.

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

Sec. 501. Recommendations for promotion by selection boards.
Sec. 502. Technical amendments relating to joint duty assignments.

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components

Sec. 511. Continuation on Reserve active status list to complete
disciplinary action.
Sec. 512. Authority to order reserve component members to active duty
to complete a medical evaluation.
Sec. 513. Eligibility for consideration for promotion.
Sec. 514. Retention until completion of 20 years of service for reserve
component majors and lieutenant commanders who twice fail
of selection for promotion.
Sec. 515. Computation of years of service exclusion.
Sec. 516. Authority to retain reserve component chaplains until age 67.
Sec. 517. Expansion and codification of authority for space-required
travel for Reserves.
Sec. 518. Financial assistance program for specially selected members
of the Marine Corps Reserve.
Sec. 519. Options to improve recruiting for the Army Reserve.

Subtitle C--Military Technicians

Sec. 521. Revision to military technician (dual status) law.
Sec. 522. Civil service retirement of technicians.
Sec. 523. Revision to non-dual status technicians statute.

[[Page 12156]]

Sec. 524. Revision to authorities relating to National Guard
technicians.
Sec. 525. Effective date.
Sec. 526. Secretary of Defense review of Army technician costing
process.
Sec. 527. Fiscal year 2000 limitation on number of non-dual status
technicians.

Subtitle D--Service Academies

Sec. 531. Waiver of reimbursement of expenses for instruction at
service academies of persons from foreign countries.
Sec. 532. Compliance by United States Military Academy with statutory
limit on size of Corps of Cadets.
Sec. 533. Dean of Academic Board, United States Military Academy and
Dean of the Faculty, United States Air Force Academy.
Sec. 534. Exclusion from certain general and flag officer grade
strength limitations for the superintendents of the
service academies.

Subtitle E--Education and Training

Sec. 541. Establishment of a Department of Defense international
student program at the senior military colleges.
Sec. 542. Authority for Army War College to award degree of master of
strategic studies.
Sec. 543. Authority for air university to award graduate-level degrees.
Sec. 544. Correction of Reserve credit for participation in health
professional scholarship and financial assistance
program.
Sec. 545. Permanent expansion of ROTC program to include graduate
students.
Sec. 546. Increase in monthly subsistence allowance for senior ROTC
cadets selected for advanced training.
Sec. 547. Contingent funding increase for Junior ROTC program.
Sec. 548. Change from annual to biennial reporting under the Reserve
component Montgomery GI Bill.
Sec. 549. Recodification and consolidation of statutes denying Federal
grants and contracts by certain departments and agencies
to institutions of higher education that prohibit Senior
ROTC units or military recruiting on campus.

Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards

Sec. 551. Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations
to certain persons.
Sec. 552 Sense of Congress concerning Presidential Unit Citation for
crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

Sec. 561. Revision in authority to order retired members to active
duty.
Sec. 562. Temporary authority for recall of retired aviators.
Sec. 563. Service review agencies covered by professional staffing
requirement.
Sec. 564. Conforming amendment to authorize Reserve officers and
retired regular officers to hold a civil office while
serving on active duty for not more than 270 days.
Sec. 565. Revision to requirement for honor guard details at funerals
of veterans.
Sec. 566. Purpose and funding limitations for National Guard Challenge
Program.
Sec. 567. Access to secondary school students for military recruiting
purposes.
Sec. 568. Survey of members leaving military service on attitudes
toward military service.
Sec. 569. Improvement in system for assigning personnel to warfighting
units.
Sec. 570. Requirement for Department of Defense regulations to protect
the confidentiality of communications between dependents
and professionals providing therapeutic or related
services regarding sexual or domestic abuse.

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

Sec. 601. Fiscal year 2000 increase in military basic pay and reform of
basic pay rates.
Sec. 602. Pay increases for fiscal years after fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 603. Additional amount available for fiscal year 2000 increase in
basic allowance for housing inside the United States.

Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

Sec. 611. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for
reserve forces.
Sec. 612. Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for
nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse
anesthetists.
Sec. 613. Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses
and special pays.
Sec. 614. Aviation career incentive pay for air battle managers.
Sec. 615. Expansion of authority to provide special pay to aviation
career officers extending period of active duty.
Sec. 616. Diving duty special pay.
Sec. 617. Reenlistment bonus.
Sec. 618. Enlistment bonus.
Sec. 619. Revised eligibility requirements for reserve component prior
service enlistment bonus.
Sec. 620. Increase in special pay and bonuses for nuclear-qualified
officers.
Sec. 621. Increase in authorized monthly rate of foreign language
proficiency pay.
Sec. 622. Authorization of retention bonus for special warfare officers
extending period of active duty.
Sec. 623. Authorization of surface warfare officer continuation pay.
Sec. 624. Authorization of career enlisted flyer incentive pay.
Sec. 625. Authorization of judge advocate continuation pay.

Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

Sec. 631. Provision of lodging in kind for Reservists performing
training duty and not otherwise entitled to travel and
transportation allowances.
Sec. 632. Payment of temporary lodging expenses for members making
their first permanent change of station.
Sec. 633. Emergency leave travel cost limitations.

Subtitle D--Retired Pay Reform

Sec. 641. Redux retired pay system applicable only to members electing
new 15-year career status bonus.
Sec. 642. Authorization of 15-year career status bonus.
Sec. 643. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 644. Effective date.

Subtitle E--Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefit Matters

Sec. 651. Effective date of disability retirement for members dying in
civilian medical facilities.
Sec. 652. Extension of annuity eligibility for surviving spouses of
certain retirement eligible reserve members.
Sec. 653. Presentation of United States flag to retiring members of the
uniformed services not previously covered.
Sec. 654. Accrual funding for retirement system for commissioned corps
of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

Sec. 671. Payments for unused accrued leave as part of reenlistment.
Sec. 672. Clarification of per diem eligibility for military
technicians serving on active duty without pay outside
the United States.
Sec. 673. Overseas special supplemental food program.
Sec. 674. Special compensation for severely disabled uniformed services
retirees.
Sec. 675. Tuition assistance for members deployed in a ---- contingency
operation.

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS

Subtitle A--Health Care Services

Sec. 701. Provision of health care to members on active duty at certain
remote locations.
Sec. 702. Provision of chiropractic health care.
Sec. 703. Continuation of provision of domiciliary and custodial care
for certain CHAMPUS beneficiaries.
Sec. 704. Removal of restrictions on use of funds for abortions in
certain cases of rape or incest.

Subtitle B--TRICARE Program

Sec. 711. Improvements to claims processing under the TRICARE program.
Sec. 712. Authority to waive certain TRICARE deductibles.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

Sec. 721. Pharmacy benefits program.
Sec. 722. Improvements to third-party payer collection program.
Sec. 723. Authority of Armed Forces medical examiner to conduct
forensic pathology investigations.
Sec. 724. Trauma training center.
Sec. 725. Study on joint operations for the Defense Health Program.

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS

Sec. 801. Sale, exchange, and waiver authority for coal and coke.
Sec. 802. Extension of authority to issue solicitations for purchases
of commercial items in excess of simplified acquisition
threshold.
Sec. 803. Expansion of applicability of requirement to make certain
procurements from small arms production industrial base.
Sec. 804. Repeal of termination of provision of credit towards
subcontracting goals for purchases benefiting severely
handicapped persons.
Sec. 805. Extension of test program for negotiation of comprehensive
small business subcontracting plans.
Sec. 806. Facilitation of national missile defense system.
Sec. 807. Options for accelerated acquisition of precision munitions.
Sec. 808. Program to increase opportunity for small business innovation
in defense acquisition programs.

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 901. Limitation on amount available for contracted advisory and
assistance services.

[[Page 12157]]

Sec. 902. Responsibility for logistics and sustainment functions of the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 903. Management headquarters and headquarters support activities.
Sec. 904. Further reductions in defense acquisition and support
workforce.
Sec. 905. Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs.
Sec. 906. Responsibility within Office of the Secretary of Defense for
monitoring OPTEMPO and PERSTEMPO.
Sec. 907. Report on military space issues.
Sec. 908. Employment and compensation of civilian faculty members of
Department of Defense African Center for Strategic
Studies.
Sec. 909. Additional matters for annual report on joint warfighting
experimentation.

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

Sec. 1001. Transfer authority.
Sec. 1002. Incorporation of classified annex.
Sec. 1003. Authorization of prior emergency military personnel
appropriations.
Sec. 1004. Repeal of requirement for two-year budget cycle for the
Department of Defense.
Sec. 1005. Consolidation of various Department of the Navy trust and
gift funds.
Sec. 1006. Budgeting for operations in Yugoslavia.

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

Sec. 1011. Revision to congressional notice-and-wait period required
before transfer of a vessel stricken from the Naval
Vessel Register.
Sec. 1012. Authority to consent to retransfer of former naval vessel.
Sec. 1013. Report on naval vessel force structure requirements.
Sec. 1014. Auxiliary vessels acquisition program for the Department of
Defense.
Sec. 1015. Authority to provide advance payments for the National
Defense Features program.

Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities

Sec. 1021. Support for detection and monitoring activities in the
eastern Pacific Ocean.
Sec. 1022. Condition on development of forward operating locations for
United States Southern Command counter-drug detection and
monitoring flights.
Sec. 1023. United States military activities in Colombia.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

Sec. 1031. Identification in budget materials of amounts for
declassification activities and limitation on
expenditures for such activities.
Sec. 1032. Notice to congressional committees of compromise of
classified information within defense programs of the
United States.
Sec. 1033. Revision to limitation on retirement or dismantlement of
strategic nuclear delivery systems.
Sec. 1034. Annual report by Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff on the
risks in executing the missions called for under the
National Military Strategy.
Sec. 1035. Requirement to address unit operations tempo and personnel
tempo in Department of Defense annual report.
Sec. 1036. Preservation of certain defense reporting requirements.
Sec. 1037. Technical and clerical amendments.
Sec. 1038. Contributions for Spirit of Hope endowment fund of United
Service Organizations, Incorporated.
Sec. 1039. Chemical defense training facility.

TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

Sec. 1101. Increase of pay cap for nonappropriated fund senior
executive employees.
Sec. 1102. Restoration of leave for certain Department of Defense
employees who deploy to a combat zone outside the United
States.
Sec. 1103. Expansion of Guard-and-Reserve purposes for which leave
under section 6323 of title 5, United States Code, may be
used.

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

Sec. 1201. Report on strategic stability under START III.
Sec. 1202. One-year extension of counterproliferation authorities for
support of United Nations weapons inspection regime in
Iraq.
Sec. 1203. Military-to-military contacts with Chinese People's
Liberation Army.
Sec. 1204. Report on allied capabilities to contribute to major theater
wars.
Sec. 1205. Limitation on funds for Bosnia peacekeeping operations for
fiscal year 2000.

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION

Sec. 1301. Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and
funds.
Sec. 1302. Funding allocations.
Sec. 1303. Prohibition on use of funds for specified purposes.
Sec. 1304. Limitations on use of funds for fissile material storage
facility.
Sec. 1305. Limitation on use of funds for chemical weapons destruction.
Sec. 1306. Limitation on use of funds for biological weapons
proliferation prevention activities.
Sec. 1307. Limitation on use of funds until submission of report and
multiyear plan.
Sec. 1308. Requirement to submit report.
Sec. 1309. Report on Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2001. Short title.

TITLE XXI--ARMY

Sec. 2101. Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2102. Family housing.
Sec. 2103. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2104. Authorization of appropriations, Army.

TITLE XXII--NAVY

Sec. 2201. Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2202. Family housing.
Sec. 2203. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2204. Authorization of appropriations, Navy.
Sec. 2205. Authorization to accept electrical substation improvements,
Guam.
Sec. 2206. Correction in authorized use of funds, Marine Corps Combat
Development Command, Quantico, Virginia.

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

Sec. 2301. Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition
projects.
Sec. 2302. Family housing.
Sec. 2303. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2304. Authorization of appropriations, Air Force.

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

Sec. 2401. Authorized Defense Agencies construction and land
acquisition projects.
Sec. 2402. Improvements to military family housing units.
Sec. 2403. Military housing improvement program.
Sec. 2404. Energy conservation projects.
Sec. 2405. Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies.
Sec. 2406. Increase in fiscal year 1997 authorization for military
construction projects at Pueblo Chemical Activity,
Colorado.
Sec. 2407. Condition on obligation of military construction funds for
drug interdiction and counter-drug activities.

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

Sec. 2501. Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects.
Sec. 2502. Authorization of appropriations, NATO.

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

Sec. 2601. Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land
acquisition projects.

TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 2701. Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be
specified by law.
Sec. 2702. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1997
projects.
Sec. 2703. Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1996
projects.
Sec. 2704. Effective date.

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes

Sec. 2801. Contributions for North Atlantic Treaty Organizations
Security Investment.
Sec. 2802. Development of Ford Island, Hawaii.
Sec. 2803. Restriction on authority to acquire or construct ancillary
supporting facilities for housing units.
Sec. 2804. Planning and design for military construction projects for
reserve components.
Sec. 2805. Limitations on authority to carry out small projects for
acquisition of facilities for reserve components.
Sec. 2806. Expansion of entities eligible to participate in alternative
authority for acquisition and improvement of military
housing.

Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

Sec. 2811. Extension of authority for lease of land for special
operations activities.
Sec. 2812. Utility privatization authority.
Sec. 2813. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses
relating to certain real property transactions.
Sec. 2814. Study and report on impacts to military readiness of
proposed land management changes on public lands in Utah.

[[Page 12158]]

Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Sec. 2821. Continuation of authority to use Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 1990 for activities required to close or
realign military installations.

Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

Part I--Army Conveyances

Sec. 2831. Transfer of jurisdiction, Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Sec. 2832. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Kankakee, Illinois.
Sec. 2833. Land conveyance, Fort Des Moines, Iowa.
Sec. 2834. Land conveyance, Army Maintenance Support Activity (Marine)
Number 84, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania.
Sec. 2835. Land conveyances, Army docks and related property, Alaska.
Sec. 2836. Land conveyance, Fort Huachuca, Arizona.
Sec. 2837. Land conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Cannon Falls,
Minnesota.
Sec. 2838. Land conveyance, Nike Battery 80 family housing site, East
Hanover Township, New Jersey.
Sec. 2839. Land exchange, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois.
Sec. 2840. Modification of land conveyance, Joliet Army Ammunition
Plant, Illinois.
Sec. 2841. Land conveyances, Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,
Minnesota.

Part II--Navy Conveyances

Sec. 2851. Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant No.
387, Dallas, Texas.
Sec. 2852. Land conveyance, Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center,
Orange, Texas.
Sec. 2853. Land conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point,
North Carolina.

Part III--Air Force Conveyances

Sec. 2861. Conveyance of fuel supply line, Pease Air Force Base, New
Hampshire.
Sec. 2862. Land conveyance, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.
Sec. 2863. Land conveyance, Port of Anchorage, Alaska.
Sec. 2864. Land conveyance, Forestport Test Annex, New York.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 2871. Expansion of Arlington National Cemetery.

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

Sec. 3101. Weapons activities.
Sec. 3102. Defense environmental restoration and waste management.
Sec. 3103. Other defense activities.
Sec. 3104. Defense nuclear waste disposal.
Sec. 3105. Defense environmental management privatization.

Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions

Sec. 3121. Reprogramming.
Sec. 3122. Limits on general plant projects.
Sec. 3123. Limits on construction projects.
Sec. 3124. Fund transfer authority.
Sec. 3125. Authority for conceptual and construction design.
Sec. 3126. Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities.
Sec. 3127. Funds available for all national security programs of the
Department of Energy.
Sec. 3128. Availability of funds.
Sec. 3129. Transfers of defense environmental management funds.

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

Sec. 3131. Limitation on use at Department of Energy laboratories of
funds appropriated for the initiatives for proliferation
prevention program.
Sec. 3132. Prohibition on use for payment of Russian Government taxes
and customs duties of funds appropriated for the
initiatives for proliferation prevention program.
Sec. 3133. Modification of laboratory-directed research and development
to provide funds for theater ballistic missile defense.
Sec. 3134. Support of theater ballistic missile defense activities of
the Department of Defense.

Subtitle D--Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management

Sec. 3151. Establishment of commission.
Sec. 3152. Duties of commission.
Sec. 3153. Reports.
Sec. 3154. Powers.
Sec. 3155. Commission procedures.
Sec. 3156. Personnel matters.
Sec. 3157. Miscellaneous administrative provisions.
Sec. 3158. Funding.
Sec. 3159. Termination of the commission.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

Sec. 3161. Procedures for meeting tritium production requirements.
Sec. 3162. Extension of authority of Department of Energy to pay
voluntary separation incentive payments.
Sec. 3163. Fellowship program for development of skills critical to the
Department of Energy nuclear weapons complex.
Sec. 3164. Department of Energy records declassification.
Sec. 3165. Management of nuclear weapons production facilities and
national laboratories.
Sec. 3166. Notice to congressional committees of compromise of
classified information within nuclear energy defense
programs.

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Sec. 3201. Authorization.

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

Sec. 3301. Definitions.
Sec. 3302. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.
Sec. 3303. Elimination of congressionally imposed disposal restrictions
on specific stockpile materials.

TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Sec. 3401. Short title.
Sec. 3402. Authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2000.
Sec. 3403. Amendments to title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936.
Sec. 3404. Extension of war risk insurance authority.
Sec. 3405. Ownership of the JEREMIAH O'BRIEN.

TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

Sec. 3501. Short title.
Sec. 3502. Authorization of expenditures.
Sec. 3503. Purchase of vehicles.
Sec. 3504. Office of Transition Administration.

SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``congressional defense
committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I--PROCUREMENT

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 101. ARMY.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for procurement for the Army as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $1,415,211,000.
(2) For missiles, $1,415,959,000.
(3) For weapons and tracked combat vehicles,
$1,575,096,000.
(4) For ammunition, $1,196,216,000.
(5) For other procurement, $3,799,895,000.

SEC. 102. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS.

(a) Navy.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal year 2000 for procurement for the Navy as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $8,804,051,000.
(2) For weapons, including missiles and torpedoes,
$1,764,655,000.
(3) For shipbuilding and conversion, $6,687,172,000.
(4) For other procurement, $4,260,444,000.
(b) Marine Corps.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 for procurement for the
Marine Corps in the amount of 1,297,463,000.
(c) Navy and Marine Corps Ammunition.--Funds are hereby
authorized to be appropriated for procurement of ammunition
for the Navy and the Marine Corps in the amount of
$612,900,000.

SEC. 103. AIR FORCE.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for procurement for the Air Force as follows:
(1) For aircraft, $9,647,651,000.
(2) For missiles, $2,303,661,000.
(3) For ammunition, $560,537,000.
(4) For other procurement, $7,077,762,000.

SEC. 104. DEFENSE-WIDE ACTIVITIES.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for Defense-wide procurement in the amount of
$2,107,839,000.

SEC. 105. RESERVE COMPONENTS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for procurement of aircraft, vehicles,
communications equipment, and other equipment for the reserve
components of the Armed Forces as follows:
(1) For the Army National Guard, $10,000,000.
(2) For the Air National Guard, $10,000,000.
(3) For the Army Reserve, $10,000,000.
(4) For the Naval Reserve, $10,000,000.
(5) For the Air Force Reserve, $10,000,00.
(6) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $10,000,000.

SEC. 106. DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for procurement for the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense in the amount of $2,100,000.

SEC. 107. CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM.

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 the amount of $1,012,000,000 for--
(1) the destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions
in accordance with section 1412 of the Department of Defense
Authorization Act, 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521); and
(2) the destruction of chemical warfare materiel of the
United States that is not covered by section 1412 of such
Act.

[[Page 12159]]

SEC. 108. DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAMS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for the Department of Defense for procurement for
carrying out health care programs, projects, and activities
of the Department of Defense in the total amount of
$356,970,000.

SEC. 109. DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for the Department of Defense for carrying out the
Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program under section 2540 of
title 10, United States Code, in the total amount of
$1,250,000.

Subtitle B--Army Programs

SEC. 111. MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR ARMY PROGRAMS.

(a) Multiyear Procurement Authority.--Subject to subsection
(b), the Secretary of the Army may, in accordance with
section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, enter into a
multiyear procurement contract beginning with the fiscal year
2000 program year for procurement for each of the following
programs.
(1) The Javelin missile system.
(2) M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles.
(3) AH-64D Longbow Apache attack helicopters.
(4) The M1A2 Abrams main battle tank upgrade program
combined with the Heavy Assault Bridge program.
(b) Required Report.--The Secretary of the Army may not
enter into a multiyear contract under subsection (a) for a
program named in one of the paragraphs of that subsection
until the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees a report with respect to that contract
that provides the following information, shown for each year
in the current future-years defense program and in the
aggregate over the period of the current future-years defense
program:
(1) The amount of total obligational authority under the
contract and the percentage that such amount represents of
(A) the applicable procurement account, and (B) the service
procurement total.
(2) The amount of total obligational authority under all
Army multiyear procurements (determined without regard to the
amount of the multiyear contract) under multiyear contracts
in effect immediately before the contract under subsection
(a) is entered into and the percentage that such amount
represents of (A) the applicable procurement account, and (B)
the service procurement total.
(3) The amount equal to the sum of the amounts under
paragraphs (1) and (2) and the percentage that such amount
represents of (A) the applicable procurement account, and (B)
the service procurement total.
(4) The amount of total obligational authority under all
Department of Defense multiyear procurements (determined
without regard to the amount of the multiyear contract),
including the contract under subsection (a) and each
additional multiyear contract authorized by this Act, and the
percentage that such amount represents of the procurement
accounts of the Department of Defense treated in the
aggregate.
(5) For purposes of this subsection:
(A) The term ``applicable procurement account'' means, with
respect to the multiyear contract under subsection (a), the
Department of the Army procurement account from which funds
to discharge obligations under the contract will be provided.
(B) The term ``service procurement total'' means, with
respect to the multiyear contract under subsection (a), the
procurement accounts of the Army treated in the aggregate.

SEC. 112. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM ON SALES OF MANUFACTURED
ARTICLES AND SERVICES OF CERTAIN ARMY
INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHOUT REGARD TO
AVAILABILITY FROM DOMESTIC SOURCES.

Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 10 U.S.C. 4543 note) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``fiscal years 1998 and
1999'' and inserting ``fiscal years 1998 through 2001'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``fiscal year 1998 or
1999'' and inserting ``the period during which the pilot
program is being conducted''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Update of Report.--Not later March 1, 2001, the
Inspector General of the Department of Defense shall submit
to Congress an update of the report required to be submitted
under subsection (c) and an assessment of the success of the
pilot program.''.

SEC. 113. REVISION TO CONDITIONS FOR AWARD OF A SECOND-SOURCE
PROCUREMENT CONTRACT FOR THE FAMILY OF MEDIUM
TACTICAL VEHICLES.

The text of section 112 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law
105-261; 112 Stat. 1973) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Limitation on Second-Source Award.--The Secretary of
the Army may award a full-rate production contract (known as
a Phase III contract) for production of the Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles to a second source only after the Secretary
submits to the congressional defense committees a
certification in writing of the following:
``(1) That the total quantity of trucks within the Family
of Medium Tactical Vehicles program that the Secretary will
require to be delivered (under all contracts) in any 12-month
period will be sufficient to enable the prime contractor to
maintain a minimum production level of 150 trucks per month.
``(2) That the total cost to the Army of the procurements
under the prime and second-source contracts over the period
of those contracts will be the same as or lower than the
amount that would be the total cost of the procurements if
such a second-source contract were not awarded.
``(3) That the trucks to be produced under those contracts
will be produced with common components that will be
interchangeable among similarly configured models.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `prime contractor' means the contractor
under the production contract for the Family of Medium
Tactical Vehicles program as of the date of the enactment of
this Act.
``(2) The term `second source' means a firm other than the
prime contractor.''.

Subtitle C--Navy Programs

SEC. 121. F/A-18E/F SUPER HORNET AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

(a) Multiyear Procurement Authority.--Subject to subsection
(b) and (c), the Secretary of the Navy may, in accordance
with section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, enter
into a multiyear procurement contract beginning with the
fiscal year 2000 program year for procurement for the F/A-
18E/F aircraft program.
(b) Required Report.--The Secretary of the Navy may not
enter into a multiyear contract under subsection (a) until
the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional defense
committees a report with respect to that contract that
provides the following information, shown for each year in
the current future-years defense program and in the aggregate
over the period of the current future-years defense program:
(1) The amount of total obligational authority under the
contract and the percentage that such amount represents of
(A) the applicable procurement account, and (B) the service
procurement total.
(2) The amount of total obligational authority under all
Navy multiyear procurements (determined without regard to the
amount of the multiyear contract) under multiyear contracts
in effect immediately before the contract under subsection
(a) is entered into and the percentage that such amount
represents of (A) the applicable procurement account, and (B)
the service procurement total.
(3) The amount equal to the sum of the amounts under
paragraphs (1) and (2) and the percentage that such amount
represents of (A) the applicable procurement account, and (B)
the service procurement total.
(4) The amount of total obligational authority under all
Department of Defense multiyear procurements (determined
without regard to the amount of the multiyear contract),
including the contract under subsection (a) and each
additional multiyear contract authorized by this Act, and the
percentage that such amount represents of the procurement
accounts of the Department of Defense treated in the
aggregate.
(5) For purposes of this subsection:
(A) The term ``applicable procurement account'' means, with
respect to the multiyear contract under subsection (a), the
Aircraft Procurement, Navy account.
(B) The term ``service procurement total'' means, with
respect to the multiyear contract under subsection (a), the
procurement accounts of the Navy treated in the aggregate.
(c) Limitation With Respect To Operational Test and
Evaluation.--The Secretary of the Navy may not enter into a
multiyear procurement contract authorized by subsection (a)
until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to the congressional
defense committees a certification described in subsection
(c); and
(2) a period of 30 continuous days of a Congress (as
determined under subsection (d)) elapses after the submission
of that certification.
(d) Required Certification.--A certification referred to in
subsection (c)(1) is a certification by the Secretary of
Defense of each of the following:
(1) That the results of the Operational Test and Evaluation
program for the F/A-18E/F aircraft indicate--
(A) that the aircraft meets the requirements for
operational effectiveness and suitability established by the
Secretary of the Navy; and
(B) that the aircraft meets key performance specifications
established by the Secretary of the Navy.
(2) That the cost of procurement of that aircraft using a
multiyear procurement contract as authorized by subsection
(a), assuming procurement of 222 aircraft, is at least 7.4
percent less than the cost of procurement of the same number
of aircraft through annual contracts.
(e) Continuity of Congress.--For purposes of subsection
(c)(2)--
(1) the continuity of a Congress is broken only by an
adjournment of the Congress sine die at the end of the final
session of the Congress; and
(2) any day on which either House of Congress is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than three days to
a day certain, or because of an adjournment sine die at the
end of the first session of a Congress, shall be excluded in
the computation of such 30-day period.

Subtitle D--Chemical Stockpile Destruction Program

SEC. 141. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS.

(a) Program Assessment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct an assessment of the

[[Page 12160]]

current program for destruction of the United States'
stockpile of chemical agents and munitions, including the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment, for the purpose of
reducing significantly the cost of such program and ensuring
completion of such program in accordance with the obligations
of the United States under the Chemical Weapons Convention
while maintaining maximum protection of the general public,
the personnel involved in the demilitarization program, and
the environment.
(2) Based on the results of the assessment conducted under
paragraph (1), the Secretary may take those actions
identified in the assessment that may be accomplished under
existing law to achieve the purposes of such assessment and
the chemical agents and munitions stockpile destruction
program.
(3) Not later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report on--
(A) those actions taken, or planned to be taken, under
paragraph (2); and
(B) any recommendations for additional legislation that may
be required to achieve the purposes of the assessment
conducted under paragraph (1) and of the chemical agents and
munitions stockpile destruction program.
(b) Changes and Clarifications Regarding Program.--Section
1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986
(Public Law 99-145; 50 U.S.C. 1521) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(2) Facilities constructed to carry out this section
shall, when no longer needed for the purposes for which they
were constructed, be disposed of in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations and mutual agreements between
the Secretary of the Army and the Governor of the State in
which the facility is located.'';
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as amended by
subparagraph (A)) the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) Facilities constructed to carry out this section
may not be used for a purpose other than the destruction of
the stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions that
exists on November 8, 1985.
``(B) The prohibition in subparagraph (A) shall not apply
with respect to items designated by the Secretary of Defense
as lethal chemical agents, munitions, or related materials
after November 8, 1985, if the State in which a destruction
facility is located issues the appropriate permit or permits
for the destruction of such items at the facility.'';
(2) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``(c)(4)'' and
inserting ``(c)(5)''; and
(3) in subsection (g)(2)(B), by striking ``(c)(3)'' and
inserting ``(c)(4)''.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment''
means the pilot program carried out under section 8065 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1997 (section
101(b) of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-101; 50 U.S.C.
1521 note).
(2) The term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their
Destruction, ratified by the United States on April 25, 1997,
and entered into force on April 29, 1997.

SEC. 142. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR DESTRUCTION OF
ASSEMBLED CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

Section 142(a) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261;
50 U.S.C. 1521 note) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Program Management.--(1) The program manager for the
Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program shall manage
the development and testing of technologies for the
destruction of lethal chemical munitions that are potential
or demonstrated alternatives to the baseline incineration
program.
``(2) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall jointly submit
to Congress, not later than December 1, 1999, a plan for the
transfer of oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment program from the Under Secretary to the Secretary.
``(3) Oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Assessment program shall be transferred from the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to the
Secretary of the Army pursuant to the plan submitted under
paragraph (2) not later than 90 days after the date of the
submission of the notice required under section 152(f)(2) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 50 U.S.C. 1521).
``(4) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology and the Secretary of the Army shall ensure
coordination of the activities and plans of the program
manager for the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program
and the program manager for Chemical Demilitarization during
the demonstration and pilot plant facility phase for an
alternative technology.
``(5) For those baseline demilitarization facilities for
which the Secretary decides that implementation of an
alternative technology may be recommended, the Secretary may
take those measures necessary to facilitate the integration
of the alternative technology.''.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 151. LIMITATION ON EXPENDITURES FOR SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 136 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2282. Purchase or lease of communications services:
limitation

``The Secretary of Defense may not obligate any funds after
September 30, 2000, to buy a commercial satellite
communications system or to lease a communications service,
including mobile satellite communications, unless the
Secretary determines that the system or service to be
purchased or leased has been proven through independent
testing--
``(1) not to cause harmful interference to, or to disrupt
the use of, colocated commercial or military Global
Positioning System receivers used by the Department of
Defense; and
``(2) to be safe for use with such receivers in all other
respects.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``2282. Purchase or lease of communications services: limitation.''.

TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for the use of the Department of Defense for
research, development, test, and evaluation as follows:
(1) For the Army, $4,708,194,000.
(2) For the Navy, $8,358,529,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $13,212,671,000.
(4) For Defense-wide activities, $9,556,285,000, of which--
(A) $253,457,000 is authorized for the activities of the
Director, Test and Evaluation; and
(B) $24,434,000 is authorized for the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation.

SEC. 202. AMOUNT FOR BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH.

(a) Fiscal Year 2000.--Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by section 201, $4,248,465,000 shall be
available for basic research and applied research projects.
(b) Basic Research and Applied Research Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``basic research and
applied research'' means work funded in program elements for
defense research and development under Department of Defense
category 6.1 or 6.2.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 211. COLLABORATIVE PROGRAM TO EVALUATE AND DEMONSTRATE
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES FOR ADVANCED CAPABILITY
COMBAT VEHICLES.

(a) Establishment of Program.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish and carry out a program to provide for the
evaluation and competitive demonstration of concepts for
advanced capability combat vehicles for the Army.
(b) Covered Program.--The program under subsection (a)
shall be carried out collaboratively pursuant to a memorandum
of agreement to be entered into between the Secretary of the
Army and the Director of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency. The program shall include the following
activities:
(1) Consideration and evaluation of technologies having the
potential to enable the development of advanced capability
combat vehicles that are significantly superior to the
existing M1 series of tanks in terms of capability for
combat, survival, support, and deployment, including but not
limited to the following technologies:
(A) Weapon systems using electromagnetic power, directed
energy, and kinetic energy.
(B) Propulsion systems using hybrid electric drive.
(C) Mobility systems using active and semi-active
suspension and wheeled vehicle suspension.
(D) Protection systems using signature management,
lightweight materials, and full-spectrum active protection.
(E) Advanced robotics, displays, man-machine interfaces,
and embedded training.
(F) Advanced sensory systems and advanced systems for
combat identification, tactical navigation, communication,
systems status monitoring, and reconnaissance.
(G) Revolutionary methods of manufacturing combat vehicles.
(2) Incorporation of the most promising such technologies
into demonstration models.
(3) Competitive testing and evaluation of such
demonstration models.
(4) Identification of the most promising such demonstration
models within a period of time to enable preparation of a
full development program capable of beginning by fiscal year
2007.
(c) Report.--Not later than January 31, 2000, the Secretary
of the Army and the Director of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a joint report on the implementation of the
program under subsection (a). The report shall include the
following:
(1) A description of the memorandum of agreement referred
to in subsection (b).
(2) A schedule for the program.
(3) An identification of the funding required for fiscal
year 2001 and for the future-years defense program to carry
out the program.
(4) A description and assessment of the acquisition
strategy for combat vehicles planned by the Secretary of the
Army that would sustain the existing force of M1-series
tanks, together with a complete identification of all
operation, support, ownership, and other costs required to
carry out such strategy through the year 2030.
(5) A description and assessment of one or more acquisition
strategies for combat vehicles,

[[Page 12161]]

alternative to the strategy referred to in paragraph (4),
that would develop a force of advanced capability combat
vehicles significantly superior to the existing force of M1-
series tanks and, for each such alternative acquisition
strategy, an estimate of the funding required to carry out
such strategy.
(d) Funds.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated for
Defense-wide activities by section 201(4) for the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency, $56,200,000 shall be
available only to carry out the program under subsection (a).

SEC. 212. REVISIONS IN MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.

(a) Additional Purpose of Program.--Subsection (b) of
section 2525 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as
paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) to address broad defense-related manufacturing
inefficiencies and requirements;''.
(b) Repeal of Cost-Share Goal.--Subsection (d) of such
section is amended by striking paragraph (3).

Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense

SEC. 231. ADDITIONAL PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE
DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

Section 223(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (12) as
paragraphs (6) through (13), respectively;
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph (5):
``(5) Upper Tier.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(14) Space Based Infrared System Low.
``(15) Space Based Infrared System High.''.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 241. DESIGNATION OF SECRETARY OF THE ARMY AS EXECUTIVE
AGENT FOR HIGH ENERGY LASER TECHNOLOGIES.

(a) Designation.--The Secretary of Defense shall designate
the Secretary of the Army as the Department of Defense
executive agent for oversight of research, development, test,
and evaluation of specified high energy laser technologies.
(b) Location for Carrying Out Oversight Functions.--The
functions of the Secretary of the Army as such executive
agent shall be carried out through the Army Space and Missile
Defense Command at the High Energy Laser Systems Test
Facility at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico.
(c) Functions.--The responsibilities of the Secretary of
the Army as such executive agent shall include the following:
(1) Developing policy and overseeing the establishment of,
and adherence to, procedures for ensuring that projects of
the Department of Defense involving specified high energy
laser technologies are initiated and administered
effectively.
(2) Assessing and making recommendations to the Secretary
of Defense regarding the capabilities demonstrated by
specified high energy laser technologies and the potential of
such technologies to meet operational military requirements.
(d) Specified High Energy Laser Technologies.--For purposes
of this section, the term ``specified high energy laser
technologies'' means technologies that--
(1) use lasers of one or more kilowatts; and
(2) have potential weapons applications.

TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 301. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
expenses, not otherwise provided for, for operation and
maintenance, in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $19,476,694,000.
(2) For the Navy, $22,785,215,000.
(3) For the Marine Corps, $2,777,429,000.
(4) For the Air Force, $21,514,958,000.
(5) For Defense-wide activities, $10,968,614,000.
(6) For the Army Reserve, $1,512,513,000.
(7) For the Naval Reserve, $965,847,000.
(8) For the Marine Corps Reserve, $137,266,000.
(9) For the Air Force Reserve, $1,730,937,000.
(10) For the Army National Guard, $3,141,049,000.
(11) For the Air National Guard, $3,185,918,000.
(12) For the Defense Inspector General, $130,744,000.
(13) For the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces, $7,621,000.
(14) For Environmental Restoration, Army, $378,170,000.
(15) For Environmental Restoration, Navy, $284,000,000.
(16) For Environmental Restoration, Air Force,
$376,800,000.
(17) For Environmental Restoration, Defense-wide,
$25,370,000.
(18) For Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense
Sites, $199,214,000.
(19) For Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
programs, $50,000,000.
(20) For Drug Interdiction and Counter-drug Activities,
Defense-wide, $811,700,000.
(21) For the Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Trust Fund, $15,000,000.
(22) For Defense Health Program, $10,496,687,000.
(23) For Cooperative Threat Reduction programs,
$444,100,000.
(24) For Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund,
$2,387,600,000.
(25) For Quality of Life Enhancements, $1,845,370,000.

SEC. 302. WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 for the use of the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense for
providing capital for working capital and revolving funds in
amounts as follows:
(1) For the Defense Working Capital Funds, $90,344,000.
(2) For the National Defense Sealift Fund, $434,700,000.

SEC. 303. ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME.

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
year 2000 from the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund
the sum of $68,295,000 for the operation of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home, including the United States Soldiers' and
Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.

SEC. 304. TRANSFER FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
TRANSACTION FUND.

(a) Transfer Authority.--To the extent provided in
appropriations Acts, not more than $150,000,000 is authorized
to be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund to operation and maintenance accounts for
fiscal year 2000 in amounts as follows:
(1) For the Army, $50,000,000.
(2) For the Navy, $50,000,000.
(3) For the Air Force, $50,000,000.
(b) Treatment of Transfers.--Amounts transferred under this
section--
(1) shall be merged with, and be available for the same
purposes and the same period as, the amounts in the accounts
to which transferred; and
(2) may not be expended for an item that has been denied
authorization of appropriations by Congress.
(c) Relationship to Other Transfer Authority.--The transfer
authority provided in this section is in addition to the
transfer authority provided in section 1001.

SEC. 305. TRANSFER TO DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS TO
SUPPORT DEFENSE COMMISSARY AGENCY.

(a) Army Operation and Maintenance Funds.--The Secretary of
the Army shall transfer $346,154,000 of the amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 301(1) for operation and
maintenance for the Army to the Defense Working Capital Funds
for the purpose of funding operations of the Defense
Commissary Agency.
(b) Navy Operation and Maintenance Funds.--The Secretary of
the Navy shall transfer $263,070,000 of the amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 301(2) for operation and
maintenance for the Navy to the Defense Working Capital Funds
for the purpose of funding operations of the Defense
Commissary Agency.
(c) Marine Corps Operation and Maintenance Funds.--The
Secretary of the Navy shall transfer $90,834,000 of the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301(3) for
operation and maintenance for the Marine Corps to the Defense
Working Capital Funds for the purpose of funding operations
of the Defense Commissary Agency.
(d) Air Force Operation and Maintenance Funds.--The
Secretary of the Air Force shall transfer $309,061,000 of the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 301(4) for
operation and maintenance for the Air Force to the Defense
Working Capital Funds for the purpose of funding operations
of the Defense Commissary Agency.
(e) Treatment of Transfers.--Amounts transferred under this
section--
(1) shall be merged with, and be available for the same
purposes and the same period as, other amounts in the Defense
Working Capital Funds available for the purpose of funding
operations of the Defense Commissary Agency; and
(2) may not be expended for an item that has been denied
authorization of appropriations by Congress.
(f) Relationship to Other Transfer Authority.--The
transfers required by this section are in addition to the
transfer authority provided in section 1001.

Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 311. REIMBURSEMENT OF NAVY EXCHANGE SERVICE COMMAND FOR
RELOCATION EXPENSES.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide
activities, $8,700,000 shall be available to the Secretary of
Defense for the purpose of reimbursing the Navy Exchange
Service Command for costs incurred by the Navy Exchange
Service Command, and ultimately paid by the Navy Exchange
Service Command using nonappropriated funds, to relocate to
Virginia Beach, Virginia, and to lease headquarters space in
Virginia Beach.

Subtitle C--Environmental Provisions

SEC. 321. REMEDIATION OF ASBESTOS AND LEAD-BASED PAINT.

(a) Use of Certain Contracts.--The Secretary of Defense
shall use Army Corps of Engineers indefinite delivery,
indefinite quantity contracts for the remediation of asbestos
and

[[Page 12162]]

lead-based paint at military installations within the United
States in accordance with all applicable Federal and State
laws and Department of Defense regulations.
(b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may waive
subsection (a) with regard to a military installation that
requires asbestos or lead-based paint remediation if the
military installation is not included in an Army Corps of
Engineers indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract.
The Secretary shall grant any such waiver on a case-by-case
basis.

Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources

SEC. 331. EXPANSION OF ANNUAL REPORT ON CONTRACTING FOR
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS.

Section 2461(g) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before the first sentence;
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ``The Secretary
shall'' and inserting the following:
``(3) The Secretary shall also''; and
(3) by inserting after the first sentence the following new
paragraph:
``(2) The Secretary shall include in each such report a
summary of the number of work year equivalents performed by
employees of private contractors in providing services to the
Department (including both direct and indirect labor
attributable to the provision of the services) and the total
value of the contracted services. The work year equivalents
and total value of the services shall be categorized by
Federal supply class or service code (using the first
character of the code), the appropriation from which the
services were funded, and the major organizational element of
the Department procuring the services.''.

SEC. 332. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF A-76 COST COMPARISON
WAIVERS.

(a) Notification Required.--Section 2467 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(c) Congressional Notification of Cost Comparison
Waiver.--(1) Not later than 10 days after a decision is made
to waive the cost comparison study otherwise required under
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 as part of the
process to convert to contractor performance any commercial
activity of the Department of Defense, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the
commercial activity subject to the waiver and the rationale
for the waiver.
``(2) The report shall also include the following:
``(A) The total number of civilian employees or military
personnel adversely affected by the decision to waive the
cost comparison study and convert the commercial activity to
contractor performance.
``(B) An explanation of whether the contractor was
selected, or will be selected, on a competitive basis or sole
source basis.
``(C) The anticipated savings to result from the waiver and
resulting conversion to contractor performance.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs;
consultation with employees; waiver of comparison''.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 146
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 2467 and inserting the following new item:

``2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation
with employees; waiver of comparison.''.

SEC. 333. IMPROVED EVALUATION OF LOCAL ECONOMIC EFFECT OF
CHANGING DEFENSE FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE SECTOR
PERFORMANCE.

Section 2461(b)(3)(B) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking clause (ii) and inserting the following
new clause (ii):
``(ii) The local community and the local economy,
identifying and taking into consideration any unique
circumstances affecting the local community or the local
economy, if more than 50 employees of the Department of
Defense perform the function.''.

SEC. 334. ANNUAL REPORTS ON EXPENDITURES FOR PERFORMANCE OF
DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORKLOADS BY
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS.

Subsection (e) of section 2466 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(e) Annual Reports.--(1) Not later than February 1 of
each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress
a report identifying, for each of the armed forces (other
than the Coast Guard) and each Defense Agency, the percentage
of the funds referred to in subsection (a) that were expended
during the preceding two fiscal years for performance of
depot-level maintenance and repair workloads by the public
and private sectors, as required by this section.
``(2) Not later than April 1 of each year, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report identifying, for
each of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) and
each Defense Agency, the percentage of the funds referred to
in subsection (a) that are projected to be expended during
each of the next five fiscal years for performance of depot-
level maintenance and repair workloads by the public and
private sectors, as required by this section.
``(3) Not later than 60 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits a report under this subsection, the
Comptroller General shall submit to Congress the Comptroller
General's views on whether--
``(A) in the case of a report under paragraph (1), the
Department of Defense has complied with the requirements of
subsection (a) for the fiscal years covered by the report;
and
``(B) in the case of a report under paragraph (2), the
expenditure projections for future fiscal years are
reasonable.''.

SEC. 335. APPLICABILITY OF COMPETITION REQUIREMENT IN
CONTRACTING OUT WORKLOADS PERFORMED BY DEPOT-
LEVEL ACTIVITIES OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 2469(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``(including the cost of labor and materials)''
after ``$3,000,000''.

SEC. 336. TREATMENT OF PUBLIC SECTOR WINNING BIDDERS FOR
CONTRACTS FOR PERFORMANCE OF DEPOT-LEVEL
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WORKLOADS FORMERLY
PERFORMED AT CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

Section 2469a of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) Oversight of Contracts Awarded Public Entities.--The
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not
impose on a public sector entity awarded a contract for the
performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair
workload described in subsection (b) any requirements
regarding management systems, reviews, oversight, or
reporting different from the requirements used in the
performance and management of other depot-level maintenance
and repair workloads by the entity, unless specifically
provided in the solicitation for the contract.''.

SEC. 337. PROCESS FOR MODERNIZATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS AT
ARMY COMPUTER CENTERS.

(a) Covered Army Computer Centers.--This section applies
with respect to the following computer centers of the of the
Army Communications Electronics Command of the Army Material
Command:
(1) Logistics Systems Support Center in St. Louis,
Missouri.
(2) Industrial Logistics System Center in Chambersburg,
Pennsylvania.
(b) Development of Most Efficient Organization.--Before
selecting any entity to develop and implement a new computer
system for the Army Material Command to perform the functions
currently performed by the Army computer centers specified in
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Army shall provide the
computer centers with an opportunity to establish their most
efficient organization. The most efficient organization shall
be in place not later than May 31, 2001.
(c) Modernization Process.--After the most efficient
organization is in place at the Army computer centers
specified in subsection (a), civilian employees of the
Department of Defense at these centers shall work in
partnership with the entity selected to develop and implement
a new computer system to perform the functions currently
performed by these centers to--
(1) ensure that the current computer system remains
operational to meet the needs of the Army Material Command
until the replacement computer system is fully operational
and successfully evaluated; and
(2) to provide transition assistance to the entity for the
duration of the transition from the current computer system
to the replacement computer system.

SEC. 338. EVALUATION OF TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAM.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than February 1, 2000, the
Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to Congress a report
identifying all Air Force programs that--
(1) are currently managed under the Total System
Performance Responsibility Program or similar programs; or
(2) are presently planned to be managed using the Total
System Performance Responsibility Program or a similar
program.
(b) Evaluation.--As part of the report required by
subsection (a), the Secretary of the Air Force shall include
an evaluation of the following:
(1) The manner in which the Total System Performance
Responsibility Program and similar programs support the
readiness and warfighting capability of the Armed Forces and
complement the support of the logistics depots.
(2) The effect of the Total System Performance
Responsibility Program and similar programs on the long-term
viability of core Government logistics management skills.
(3) The process and criteria used by the Air Force to
determine whether or not Government employees can perform
sustainment management functions more cost effectively than
the private sector.
(c) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than 30 days
after the date on which the report required by subsection (a)
is submitted to Congress, the Comptroller General shall
review the report and submit to Congress a briefing
evaluating the report.

SEC. 339. IDENTIFICATION OF CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITY
REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF C-17
AIRCRAFT.

(a) Identification Report Required.--Building upon the plan
required by section 351 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law

[[Page 12163]]

105-261), the Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to
Congress a report identifying the core logistics capability
requirements for depot-level maintenance and repair for the
C-17 aircraft. To identify such requirements, the Secretary
shall comply with section 2464 of title 10, United States
Code. The Secretary shall submit the report to Congress not
later than February 1, 2000.
(b) Effect on Existing Contract.--After February 1, 2000,
the Secretary of the Air Force may not extend the Interim
Contract for the C-17 Flexible Sustainment Program before the
end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the
report required by subsection (a) is received by Congress.
(c) Comptroller General Review.--During the period
specified in subsection (b), the Comptroller General shall
review the report submitted under subsection (a) and submit
to Congress a report evaluating the following:
(1) The merits of the report submitted under subsection
(a).
(2) The extent to which the Air Force is relying on systems
for core logistics capability where the workload of
Government-owned and Government-operated depots is phasing
down because the systems are phasing out of the inventory.
(3) The cost effectiveness of the C-17 Flexible Sustainment
Program--
(A) by identifying depot maintenance and materiel costs for
contractor support; and
(B) by comparing those costs to the costs originally
estimated by the Air Force and to the cost of similar work in
an Air Force Logistics Center.

Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education

SEC. 341. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT
BENEFIT DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES.

(a) Modified Department of Defense Program for Fiscal Year
2000.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide
activities, $35,000,000 shall be available only for the
purpose of providing educational agencies assistance (as
defined in subsection (d)(1)) to local educational agencies.
(b) Notification.--Not later than June 30, 2000, the
Secretary of Defense shall notify each local educational
agency that is eligible for educational agencies assistance
for fiscal year 2000 of--
(1) that agency's eligibility for educational agencies
assistance; and
(2) the amount of the educational agencies assistance for
which that agency is eligible.
(c) Disbursement of Funds.--The Secretary of Defense shall
disburse funds made available under subsection (a) not later
than 30 days after the date on which notification to the
eligible local educational agencies is provided pursuant to
subsection (b).
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``educational agencies assistance'' means
assistance authorized under section 386(b) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law
102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703 note).
(2) The term ``local educational agency'' has the meaning
given that term in section 8013(9) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)).
(e) Determination of Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--
Section 386(c)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 20 U.S.C. 7703
note) is amended by striking ``in that fiscal year are'' and
inserting ``during the preceding school year were''.

SEC. 342. CONTINUATION OF ENROLLMENT AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DOMESTIC DEPENDENT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOLS.

Section 2164 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Continuation of Enrollment Despite Change in
Status.--(1) A dependent of a member of the armed forces or a
dependent of a Federal employee may continue enrollment in an
educational program provided by the Secretary of Defense
pursuant to subsection (a) for the remainder of a school year
notwithstanding a change during such school year in the
status of the member or Federal employee that, except for
this paragraph, would otherwise terminate the eligibility of
the dependent to be enrolled in the program.
``(2) A dependent of a member of the armed forces, or a
dependent of a Federal employee, who was enrolled in an
educational program provided by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (a) while a junior in that program may be enrolled
as a senior in that program in the next school year,
notwithstanding a change in the enrollment eligibility status
of the dependent that, except for this paragraph, would
otherwise terminate the eligibility of the dependent to be
enrolled in the program.
``(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) do not limit the authority of
the Secretary to remove a dependent from enrollment in an
educational program provided by the Secretary pursuant to
subsection (a) at any time for good cause determined by the
Secretary.''.

SEC. 343. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO DEFENSE DEPENDENTS'
EDUCATION ACT OF 1978.

The Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (title XIV of
Public Law 95-561) is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1402(b)(1) (20 U.S.C. 921(b)(1)) is amended by
striking ``recieve'' and inserting ``receive''.
(2) Section 1403 (20 U.S.C. 922) is amended--
(A) by striking the matter in that section preceding
subsection (b) and inserting the following:

``administration of defense dependents' education system

``Sec. 1403. (a) The defense dependents' education system
is operated through the field activity of the Department of
Defense known as the Department of Defense Education
Activity. That activity is headed by a Director, who is a
civilian and is selected by the Secretary of Defense. The
Director reports to an Assistant Secretary of Defense
designated by the Secretary of Defense for purposes of this
title.'';
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``this Act'' and
inserting ``this title'';
(C) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``(20 U.S.C. 901 et
seq.)'' after ``Personnel Practices Act'';
(D) in subsection (c)(2), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a comma;
(E) in subsection (c)(6), by striking ``Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics'' and
inserting ``the Assistant Secretary of Defense designated
under subsection (a)'';
(F) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``for the Office of
Dependents' Education'';
(G) in subsection (d)(2)--
(i) by striking the first sentence;
(ii) by striking ``Whenever the Office of Dependents'
Education'' and inserting ``Whenever the Department of
Defense Education Activity'';
(iii) by striking ``after the submission of the report
required under the preceding sentence'' and inserting ``in a
manner that affects the defense dependents' education
system''; and
(iv) by striking ``an additional report'' and inserting ``a
report''; and
(H) in subsection (d)(3), by striking ``the Office of
Dependents' Education'' and inserting ``the Department of
Defense Education Activity''.
(3) Section 1409 (20 U.S.C. 927) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking ``Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in accordance with section 431 of the
General Education Provisions Act'' and inserting ``Secretary
of Education in accordance with section 437 of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232)'';
(B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``by academic year
1993-1994''; and
(C) in subsection (c)(3)--
(i) by striking ``Implementation timelines.--In carrying
out'' and all that follows through ``a comprehensive'' and
inserting ``Implementation.--In carrying out paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall have in effect a comprehensive'';
(ii) by striking the semicolon after ``such individuals''
and inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C).
(4) Section 1411(d) (20 U.S.C. 929(d)) is amended by
striking ``grade GS-18 in section 5332 of title 5, United
States Code'' and inserting ``level IV of the Executive
Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code''.
(5) Section 1412 (20 U.S.C. 930) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by striking ``As soon as'' and all that follows through
``shall provide for'' and inserting ``The Director may from
time to time, but not more frequently than once a year,
provide for''; and
(ii) by striking ``system, which'' and inserting ``system.
Any such study'';
(B) in subsection (a)(2)--
(i) by striking ``The study required by this subsection''
and inserting ``Any study under paragraph (1)''; and
(ii) by striking ``not later than two years after the
effective date of this title'';
(C) in subsection (b), by striking ``the study'' and
inserting ``any study'';
(D) in subsection (c)--
(i) by striking ``not later than one year after the
effective date of this title the report'' and inserting ``any
report''; and
(ii) by striking ``the study'' and inserting ``a study'';
and
(E) by striking subsection (d).
(6) Section 1413 (20 U.S.C. 931) is amended by striking
``Not later than 180 days after the effective date of this
title, the'' and inserting ``The''.
(7) Section 1414 (20 U.S.C. 932) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) The term `Director' means the Director of the
Department of Defense Education Activity.''.

Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues

SEC. 351. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SECONDARY INVENTORY AND PARTS SHORTAGES.

(a) Independent Study Required.--In accordance with this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall provide for an
independent study of--
(1) current levels of Department of Defense inventories of
spare parts and other supplies, known as secondary inventory
items, including wholesale and retail inventories; and
(2) reports and evidence of Department of Defense inventory
shortages adversely affecting readiness.
(b) Performance by Independent Entity.--To conduct the
study under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall
select a private sector entity or other entity outside the
Department of Defense that has experience in parts and
secondary inventory management.
(c) Matters To Be Included in Study.--The Secretary of
Defense shall require the entity

[[Page 12164]]

conducting the study under this section to specifically
evaluate the following:
(1) How much of the secondary inventory retained by the
Department of Defense for economic, contingency, and
potential reutilization during the five-year period ending
December 31, 1998, was actually used during each year of the
period.
(2) How much of the retained secondary inventory currently
held by the Department could be declared to be excess.
(3) Alternative methods for the disposal or other
disposition of excess inventory and the cost to the
Department to dispose of excess inventory under each
alternative.
(4) The total cost per year of storing secondary inventory,
to be determined using traditional private sector cost
calculation models.
(d) Timetable for Elimination of Excess Inventory.--As part
of the consideration of alternative methods to dispose of
excess secondary inventory, as required by subsection (c)(3),
the entity conducting the study under this section shall
prepare a timetable for disposal of the excess inventory over
a period of time not to exceed three years.
(e) Report on Results of Study.--The Secretary of Defense
shall require the entity conducting the study under this
section to submit to the Secretary and to the Comptroller
General a report containing the results of the study,
including the entity's findings and conclusions concerning
each of the matters specified in subsection (c), and the
disposal timetable required by subsection (d). The entity
shall submit the report at such time as to permit the
Secretary to comply with subsection (f).
(f) Review and Comments of the Secretary of Defense.--Not
later than September 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report containing the following:
(1) The report submitted under subsection (d), together
with the Secretary's comments and recommendations regarding
the report.
(2) A plan to address the issues of excess and excessive
inactive inventory and part shortages and a timetable to
implement the plan throughout the Department.
(g) GAO Evaluation.--Not later than 180 days after the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the report under
subsection (f), the Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress an evaluation of the report submitted by the
independent entity under subsection (e) and the report
submitted by the Secretary under subsection (f).

SEC. 352. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF ADEQUACY OF DEPARTMENT
RESTRUCTURED SUSTAINMENT AND REENGINEERED
LOGISTICS PRODUCT SUPPORT PRACTICES.

(a) Independent Study Required.--In accordance with this
section, the Secretary of Defense shall provide for an
independent study of restructured sustainment and
reengineered logistics product support practices within the
Department of Defense, which are designed to provide spare
parts and other supplies to military units and installations
as needed during a transition to war fighting rather than
relying on large stockpiles of such spare parts and supplies.
The purpose of the study is to determine whether restructured
sustainment and reengineered logistics product support
practices would be able to provide adequate sustainment
supplies to military units and installations should it ever
be necessary to execute the National Military Strategy
prescribed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(b) Performance by Independent Entity.--The Secretary of
Defense shall select an experienced private sector entity or
other entity outside the Department of Defense to conduct the
study under this section.
(c) Matters To Be Included in Study.--The Secretary of
Defense shall require the entity conducting the study under
this section to specifically evaluate (and recommend
improvements in) the following:
(1) The assumptions that are used to determine required
levels of war reserve and prepositioned stocks.
(2) The adequacy of supplies projected to be available to
support the fighting of two, nearly simultaneous, major
theater wars, as required by the National Military Strategy.
(3) The expected availability through the national
technology and industrial base of spare parts and supplies
not readily available in the Department inventories, such as
parts for aging equipment that no longer have active vendor
support.
(d) Report on Results of Study.--The Secretary of Defense
shall require the entity conducting the study under this
section to submit to the Secretary and to the Comptroller
General a report containing the results of the study,
including the entity's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations concerning each of the matters specified in
subsection (c). The entity shall submit the report at such
time as to permit the Secretary to comply with subsection
(e).
(e) Review and Comments of the Secretary of Defense.--Not
later than March 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report containing the report submitted
under subsection (d), together with the Secretary's comments
and recommendations regarding the report.
(f) GAO Evaluation.--Not later than 180 days after the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the report under
subsection (e), the Comptroller General shall submit to
Congress an evaluation of the report submitted by the
independent entity under subsection (d) and the report
submitted by the Secretary under subsection (e).

SEC. 353. INDEPENDENT STUDY OF MILITARY READINESS REPORTING
SYSTEM.

(a) Independent Study Required.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall provide for an independent study of
requirements for a comprehensive readiness reporting system
for the Department of Defense as provided in section 117 of
title 10, United States Code (as added by section 373 of the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1990).
(2) The Secretary shall provide for the study to be
conducted by the Rand Corporation. The amount of a contract
for the study may not exceed $1,000,000.
(3) The Secretary shall require that all components of the
Department of Defense cooperate fully with the organization
carrying out the study.
(b) Matters To Be Included in Study.--The Secretary shall
require that the organization conducting the study under this
section specifically consider the requirements for providing
an objective, accurate, and timely readiness reporting system
for the Department of Defense meeting the characteristics and
having the capabilities established in section 373 of the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999.
(c) Report.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall require the
organization conducting the study under this section to
submit to the Secretary a report on the study not later than
March 1, 2000. The organization shall include in the report
its findings and conclusions concerning each of the matters
specified in subsection (b).
(2) The Secretary shall submit the report under paragraph
(1), together with the Secretary's comments on the report, to
Congress not later than April 1, 2000.

SEC. 354. REVIEW OF REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND ITS EFFECT
ON READINESS.

(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a review of the impact that the consistent lack of
adequate funding for real property maintenance of military
installations during the five-year period ending December 31,
1998, has had on readiness, the quality of life of members of
the Armed Forces and their dependents, and the infrastructure
on military installations.
(b) Matters To Be Included in Review.--In conducting the
review under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall
specifically consider the following for the Army, Navy,
Marine Corps, and Air Force:
(1) For each year of the covered five-year period, the
extent to which unit training and operating funds were
diverted to meet basic base operations and real property
maintenance needs.
(2) The types of training delayed, canceled, or curtailed
as a result of the diversion of such funds.
(3) The level of funding required to eliminate the real
property maintenance backlog at military installations so
that facilities meet the standards necessary for optimum
utilization during times of mobilization.
(c) Participation of Independent Entity.--(1) As part of
the review conducted under this section, Secretary of Defense
shall select an independent entity--
(A) to review the method of command and management of
military installations for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and
Air Force;
(B) to develop, based on such review, a service-specific
plan for the optimum command structure for military
installations, to have major command status, which is
designed to enhance the development of installations
doctrine, privatization and outsourcing, commercial
activities, environmental compliance programs, installation
restoration, and military construction; and
(C) to recommend a timetable for the implementation of the
plan for each service.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall select an experienced
private sector entity or other entity outside the Department
of Defense to carry out this subsection.
(d) Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
containing the results of the review required under this
section and the plan for an optimum command structure
required by subsection (c), together with the Secretary's
comments and recommendations regarding the plan.

SEC. 355. ESTABLISHMENT OF LOGISTICS STANDARDS FOR SUSTAINED
MILITARY OPERATIONS.

(a) Establishment of Standards.--The Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with senior military commanders and the
Secretaries of the military departments, shall establish
standards for deployable units of the Armed Forces
regarding--
(1) the level of spare parts that the units must have on
hand; and
(2) similar logistics and sustainment needs of the units.
(b) Basis for Standards.--The standards to be established
under subsection (a) shall be based upon the following:
(1) The unit's wartime mission, as reflected in the war-
fighting plans of the relevant combatant commanders.
(2) An assessment of the likely requirement for sustained
operations under each such war-fighting plan.
(3) An assessment of the likely requirement for that unit
to conduct sustained operations in an austere environment,
while drawing exclusively on its own internal logistics
capabilities.

[[Page 12165]]

(c) Sufficiency Capabilities.--The standards to be
established under subsection (a) shall reflect those spare
parts and similar logistics capabilities that the Secretary
of Defense considers sufficient for units of the Armed Forces
to successfully execute their missions under the conditions
described in subsection (b).
(d) Relation to Readiness Reporting System.--The standards
established under subsection (a) shall be taken into account
in designing the comprehensive readiness reporting system for
the Department of Defense required by section 117 of title
10, United States Code, and shall be an element in
determining a unit's readiness status.
(e) Relation to Annual Funding Needs.--The Secretary of
Defense shall consider the standards established under
subsection (a) in establishing the annual funding
requirements for the Department of Defense.
(f) Reporting Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
include in the annual report required by section 113(c) of
title 10, United States Code, an analysis of the then current
spare parts, logistics, and sustainment standards of the
Armed Forces, as described in subsection (a), including any
shortfalls and the cost of addressing these shortfalls.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

SEC. 361. DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY TO INSTALL
TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FOR PERSONS
PERFORMING VOLUNTARY SERVICES.

Section 1588 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Authority To Install Equipment.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may install telephone lines and any necessary
telecommunication equipment in the private residences of
designated persons providing voluntary services accepted
under subsection (a)(3) and pay the charges incurred for the
use of the equipment for authorized purposes.
``(2) Notwithstanding section 1348 of title 31, the
Secretary concerned may use appropriated or nonappropriated
funds of the military department under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary or, with respect to the Coast Guard, the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, to carry
out this subsection.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense and, with respect to the
Coast Guard, the Secretary of the department in which the
Coast Guard is operating, shall prescribe regulations to
carry out this subsection.''.

SEC. 362. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY FOR DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL
FUNDED INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES.

Section 2208(j) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or
remanufacturing'' and inserting ``, remanufacturing, and
engineering'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or a subcontract under
a Department of Defense contract'' before the semicolon; and
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Department of Defense
solicitation for such contract'' and inserting ``solicitation
for the contract or subcontract''.

SEC. 363. CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION ON SALE OF ARTICLES AND
SERVICES OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES TO PERSONS
OUTSIDE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 2553(g) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) The term `not available', with respect to an article
or service proposed to be sold under this section, means that
the article or service is unavailable from a commercial
source in the required quantity and quality, within the time
required, or at prices less than the price available through
an industrial facility of the armed forces.''.

SEC. 364. SPECIAL AUTHORITY OF DISBURSING OFFICIALS REGARDING
AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES ON NAVAL VESSELS.

Section 3342 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) With respect to automated teller machines on naval
vessels of the Navy, the authority of a disbursing official
of the United States Government under subsection (a) also
includes the following:
``(1) The authority to provide operating funds to the
automated teller machines.
``(2) The authority to accept, for safekeeping, deposits
and transfers of funds made through the automated teller
machines.''.

SEC. 365. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS AT
UNITED STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (title XV of
Public Law 101-510; 24 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end of subtitle A the following new section:

``SEC. 1523. PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
AT UNITED STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME

``(a) Historic Nature of Facility.--Congress finds the
following:
``(1) Four buildings located on six acres of the
establishment of the Retirement Home known as the United
States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home are included on the
National Register of Historic Places maintained by the
Secretary of the Interior.
``(2) Amounts in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust
Fund, which consists primarily of deductions from the pay of
members of the Armed Forces, are insufficient to both
maintain and operate the Retirement Home for the benefit of
the residents of the Retirement Home and adequately maintain,
repair, and preserve these historic buildings and grounds.
``(3) Other sources of funding are available to contribute
to the maintenance, repair, and preservation of these
historic buildings and grounds.
``(b) Authority To Accept Assistance.--The Chairman of the
Retirement Home Board and the Director of the United States
Soldiers' and Airmen's Home may apply for and accept a direct
grant from the Secretary of the Interior under section
101(e)(3) of the National Historic Preservation Act (16
U.S.C. 470a(e)(3)) for the purpose of maintaining, repairing,
and preserving the historic buildings and grounds of the
United States Soldiers' and Airmen's Home included on the
National Register of Historic Places.
``(c) Requirements and Limitations.--Amounts received as a
grant under subsection (b) shall be deposited in the Fund,
but shall be kept separate from other amounts in the Fund.
The amounts received may only be used for the purpose
specified in subsection (b).''.

SEC. 366. CLARIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY, UNITED
STATES SOLDIERS' AND AIRMEN'S HOME.

(a) Manner of Conveyance.--Subsection (a)(1) of section
1053 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2650) is amended by
striking ``convey by sale'' and inserting ``convey, by sale
or lease,''.
(b) Time for Conveyance.--Subsection (a)(2) of such section
is amended to read as follows:
``(2) The Armed Forces Retirement Home Board shall sell or
lease the property described in subsection (a) within 12
months after the date of the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.''.
(c) Manner, Terms, and Conditions of Conveyance.--
Subsection (b) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph: ``(1) The Armed Forces Retirement Home Board
shall determine the manner, terms, and conditions for the
sale or lease of the real property under subsection (a),
except as follows:
``(A) Any lease of the real property under subsection (a)
shall include an option to purchase.
``(B) The conveyance may not involve any form of public/
private partnership, but shall be limited to fee-simple sale
or long-term lease.
``(C) Before conveying the property by sale or lease to any
other person or entity, the Board shall provide the Catholic
University of America with the opportunity to match or exceed
the highest bona fide offer otherwise received for the
purchase or lease of the property, as the case may be, and to
acquire the property.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``In no event shall the sale or lease of the
property be for less than the appraised value of the property
in its existing condition and on the basis of its highest and
best use.''.

SEC. 367. TREATMENT OF ALASKA, HAWAII, AND GUAM IN DEFENSE
HOUSEHOLD GOODS MOVING PROGRAMS.

(a) Limitation on Inclusion in Test Programs.--Alaska,
Hawaii, and Guam shall not be included as a point of origin
in any test or demonstration program of the Department of
Defense regarding the moving of household goods of members of
the Armed Forces.
(b) Separate Regions; Destinations.--In any Department of
Defense household goods moving program that is not subject to
the prohibition in subsection (a)--
(1) Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam shall each constitute a
separate region; and
(2) Hawaii and Guam shall be considered international
destinations.

TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A--Active Forces

SEC. 401. END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES.

The Armed Forces are authorized strengths for active duty
personel as of September 30, 2000, as follows:
(1) The Army, 480,000.
(2) The Navy, 372,037.
(3) The Marine Corps, 172,518.
(4) The Air Force, 360,877.

SEC. 402. REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH MINIMUM LEVELS.

(a) Revised End Strength Floors.--Section 691(b) of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``372,696'' and inserting
``371,781'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``172,200'' and inserting
``172,148''; and
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``370,802'' and inserting
``360,877''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

SEC. 403. APPOINTMENTS TO CERTAIN SENIOR JOINT OFFICER
POSITIONS.

(a) Permanent Exemption Authority.--Paragraph (5) of
section 525(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking subparagraph (C).
(b) Permanent Requirement for Military Department
Submissions for Certain Joint 4-Star Duty Assignments.--
Section 604 of such title is amended by striking subsection
(c).
(c) Clarification of Certain Limitations on Number of
Active-Duty Generals and Admirals.--Paragraph (5) of section
525(b) of such

[[Page 12166]]

title is further amended by adding at the end of subparagraph
(A) the following new sentence: ``Any increase by reason of
the preceding sentence in the number of officers of an armed
force serving on active duty in grades above major general or
rear admiral may only be realized by an increase in the
number of lieutenant generals or vice admirals, as the case
may, serving on active duty, and any such increase may not be
construed as authorizing an increase in the limitation on the
total number of general or flag officers for that armed force
under section 526(a) of this title or in the number of
general and flag officers that may be designated under
section 526(b) of this title.''.

Subtitle B--Reserve Forces

SEC. 411. END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE.

(a) In General.--The Armed Forces are authorized strengths
for Selected Reserve personnel of the reserve components as
of September 30, 2000, as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 350,000.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 90,288.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,624.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,678.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 73,708.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 8,000.
(b) Adjustments.--The end strengths prescribed by
subsection (a) for the Selected Reserve of any reserve
component shall be proportionately reduced by--
(1) the total authorized strength of units organized to
serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such component
which are on active duty (other than for training) at the end
of the fiscal year; and
(2) the total number of individual members not in units
organized to serve as units of the Selected Reserve of such
component who are on active duty (other than for training or
for unsatisfactory participation in training) without their
consent at the end of the fiscal year.

Whenever such units or such individual members are released
from active duty during any fiscal year, the end strength
prescribed for such fiscal year for the Selected Reserve of
such reserve component shall be proportionately increased by
the total authorized strengths of such units and by the total
number of such individual members.

SEC. 412. END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN
SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.

Within the end strengths prescribed in section 411(a), the
reserve components of the Armed Forces are authorized, as of
September 30, 2000, the following number of Reserves to be
serving on full-time active duty or full-time duty, in the
case of members of the National Guard, for the purpose of
organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or
training the reserve components:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 22,563.
(2) The Army Reserve, 12,804.
(3) The Naval Reserve, 15,010.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,272.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 11,025.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 1,078.

SEC. 413. END STRENGTHS FOR MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL
STATUS).

The minimum number of military technicians (dual status) as
of the last day of fiscal year 2000 for the reserve
components of the Army and the Air Force (notwithstanding
section 129 of title 10, United States Code) shall be the
following:
(1) For the Army Reserve, 6,474.
(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
23,125.
(3) For the Air Force Reserve, 9,785.
(4) For the Air National Guard of the United States,
22,247.

SEC. 414. INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE MEMBERS IN
CERTAIN GRADES AUTHORIZED TO SERVE ON ACTIVE
DUTY IN SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES.

(a) Officers.--The table in section 12011(a) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major or Lieutenant Commander....... 3,219 1,071 843 140
Lieutenant Colonel or Commander..... 1,595 520 746 90
Colonel or Navy Captain............. 471 188 297 30''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Senior Enlisted Members.--The table in section 12012(a)
of such title is amended to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Marine
Army Navy Force Corps
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-9................................. 645 202 403 20
E-8................................. 2,585 429 1,029 94''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 415. SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH FLEXIBILITY.

Section 115(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) vary the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year for the Selected Reserve
of any of the reserve components by a number equal to not
more than 2 percent of that end strength.''.

Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations

SEC. 421. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY
PERSONNEL.

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year
2000 a total of $72,115,367,000. The authorization in the
preceding sentence supersedes any other authorization of
appropriations (definite or indefinite) for such purpose for
fiscal year 2000.

TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy

SEC. 501. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROMOTION BY SELECTION BOARDS.

Section 575(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``If
the number determined under this subsection within a grade
(or grade and competitive category) is less than one, the
board may recommend one such officer from within that grade
(or grade and competitive category).''.

SEC. 502. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO JOINT DUTY
ASSIGNMENTS.

(a) Joint Duty Assignments for General and Flag Officers.--
Subsection (g) of section 619a of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Limitation for General and Flag Officers Previously
Receiving Joint Duty Assignment Waiver.--A general officer or
flag officer who before January 1, 1999, received a waiver of
subsection (a) under the authority of this subsection (as in
effect before that date) may not be appointed to the grade of
lieutenant general of vice admiral until the officer
completes a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment.''.
(b) Nuclear Propulsion Officers.--Subsection (h) of that
section is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1) Until January 1, 1997, an'' inserting
``An'';
(2) by striking ``may be'' and inserting ``who before
January 1, 1997, is'';
(3) by striking ``. An officer so appointed''; and
(4) by striking paragraph (2).

Subtitle B--Matters Relating to Reserve Components

SEC. 511. CONTINUATION ON RESERVE ACTIVE STATUS LIST TO
COMPLETE DISCIPLINARY ACTION.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1407 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to
complete disciplinary action

``When an action is commenced against a Reserve officer
with a view to trying the officer by court-martial, as
authorized by section 802(d) of this title, the Secretary
concerned may delay the separation or retirement of the
officer under this chapter until the completion of the
disciplinary action under chapter 47 of this title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter 1407 is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:

``14518. Continuation on reserve active status list to complete
disciplinary action.''.

SEC. 512. AUTHORITY TO ORDER RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS TO
ACTIVE DUTY TO COMPLETE A MEDICAL EVALUATION.

Section 12301 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h)(1) When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the military department concerned may order a
member of a reserve component to active duty, with the
consent of that member, to receive authorized medical care,
to be medically evaluated for disability or other purposes,
or to complete a required Department of Defense health care
study, which may include an associated medical evaluation of
the member.
``(2) A member ordered to active duty under this subsection
may be retained with the member's consent, when the Secretary
concerned considers it appropriate, for medical treatment for
a condition associated with the study or evaluation, if that
treatment of the member otherwise is authorized by law.
``(3) A member of the Army National Guard of the United
States or the Air National Guard of the United States may not
be ordered to active duty under this subsection without the
consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the
State concerned.''.

SEC. 513. ELIGIBILITY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR PROMOTION.

(a) Amendment.--Section 14301 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Officers on Educational Delay.--A Reserve officer who
is in an educational delay status for the purpose of
attending an approved institution of higher education for
advanced training, subsidized by the military department

[[Page 12167]]

concerned in the form of a scholarship or stipend, is
ineligible for consideration for promotion while in that
status. The officer shall remain on the Reserve active status
list while in such an educational delay status.''.
(b) Retroactive Effect.--The Secretary concerned, upon
application, shall expunge from the record of any officer a
nonselection for promotion if the nonselection occurred
during a period the officer was serving in an educational
delay status that occurred during the period beginning on
October 1, 1996, and ending on the date of the enactment of
this Act.

SEC. 514. RETENTION UNTIL COMPLETION OF 20 YEARS OF SERVICE
FOR RESERVE COMPONENT MAJORS AND LIEUTENANT
COMMANDERS WHO TWICE FAIL OF SELECTION FOR
PROMOTION.

Section 14506 of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``section 14513'' and all that follows and
inserting ``section 14513 of this title on the later of--
``(1) the first day of the month after the month in which
the officer completes 20 years of commissioned service; or
``(2) the first day of the seventh month after the month in
which the President approves the report of the board which
considered the officer for the second time.''.

SEC. 515. COMPUTATION OF YEARS OF SERVICE EXCLUSION.

The text of section 14706 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``(a) For the purpose of this chapter and chapter 1407 of
this title, a Reserve officer's years of service include all
service of the officer as a commissioned officer of a
uniformed service other than--
``(1) service as a warrant officer;
``(2) constructive service; and
``(3) service after appointment as a commissioned officer
of a reserve component while in a program of advanced
education to obtain the first professional degree required
for appointment, designation, or assignment as an officer in
the Medical Corps, the Dental Corps, the Veterinary Corps,
the Medical Service Corps, the Nurse Corps, the Army Medical
Specialists Corps, or as an officer designated as a chaplain
or judge advocate, provided such service occurs before the
officer commences initial service on active duty or initial
service in the Ready Reserve in the specialty that results
from such a degree.
``(b) The exclusion under subsection (a)(3) does not apply
to service performed by an officer who previously served on
active duty or participated as a member of the Ready Reserve
in other than a student status for the period of service
preceding the member's service in a student status.''.

SEC. 516. AUTHORITY TO RETAIN RESERVE COMPONENT CHAPLAINS
UNTIL AGE 67.

Section 14703(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``(or, in the case of a Reserve officer
of the Army in the Chaplains or a Reserve officer of the Air
Force designated as a chaplain, 60 years of age)''.

SEC. 517. EXPANSION AND CODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR SPACE-
REQUIRED TRAVEL FOR RESERVES.

(a) Codification.--(1) Chapter 1209 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 12323. Space-required travel for Reserves

``A member of a reserve component is authorized to travel
in a space-required status on aircraft of the armed forces
between home and place of inactive duty training, or place of
duty in lieu of unit training assembly, when there is no road
or railroad transportation (or combination of road and
railroad transportation) between those locations. A member
traveling in that status on a military aircraft pursuant to
the authority provided in this section is not authorized to
receive travel, transportation, or per diem allowances in
connection with that travel.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``12323. Space-required travel for Reserves.''.

(b) Effective Date.--Section 12323 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
October 1, 1999.

SEC. 518. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR SPECIALLY SELECTED
MEMBERS OF THE MARINE CORPS RESERVE.

(a) In General.--Chapter 1205 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine
Corps platoon leader's class program

``(a) Program Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may
provide payment of not more than $5,200 per year for a period
not to exceed three consecutive years of educational expenses
(including tuition, fees, books, and laboratory expenses) to
an eligible enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve for
completion of--
``(1) baccalaureate degree requirements in an approved
academic program that requires less than five academic years
to complete; or
``(2) doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree
requirements in an approved academic program which requires
not more than three years to complete.
``(b) Eligible Reservists.--To be eligible for receipt of
educational expenses as authorized by subsection (a), an
enlisted member of the Marine Corps Reserve must--
``(1) either--
``(A) be under 27 years of age on June 30 of the calendar
year in which the member is eligible for appointment as a
second lieutenant in the Marine Corps for such persons in a
baccalaureate degree program described in subsection (a)(1),
except that any such member who has served on active duty in
the armed forces may exceed such age limitation on such date
by a period equal to the period such member served on active
duty, but only if such member will be under 30 years of age
on such date; or
``(B) be under 31 years of age on June 30 of the calendar
year in which the member is eligible for appointment as a
second lieutenant in the Marine Corps for such persons in a
doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree program
described in subsection (a)(2), except that any such member
who has served on active duty in the armed forces may exceed
such age limitation on such date by a period equal to the
period such member served on active duty, but only if such
member will be under 35 years of age on such date;
``(2) be satisfactorily enrolled at any accredited civilian
educational institution authorized to grant baccalaureate,
doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of law degrees;
``(3) be selected as an officer candidate in the Marine
Corps Platoon Leader's Class Program and successfully
complete one increment of military training of not less than
six weeks' duration; and
``(4) agree in writing--
``(A) to accept an appointment as a commissioned officer in
the Marine Corps, if tendered by the President;
``(B) to serve on active duty for a minimum of five years;
and
``(C) under such terms and conditions as shall be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, to serve in the
Marine Corps Reserve until the eighth anniversary of the
receipt of such appointment.
``(c) Appointment.--Upon satisfactorily completing the
academic and military requirements of the Marine Corps
Platoon Leaders Class Program, an officer candidate may be
appointed by the President as a Reserve officer in the Marine
Corps in the grade of second lieutenant.
``(d) Limitation on Number.--Not more than 1,200 officer
candidates may participate in the financial assistance
program authorized by this section at any one time.
``(e) Remedial Authority of Secretary.--An officer
candidate may be ordered to active duty in the Marine Corps
by the Secretary of the Navy to serve in an appropriate
enlisted grade for such period of time as the Secretary
prescribes, but not for more than four years, when such
person--
``(1) accepted financial assistance under this section; and
``(2) either--
``(A) completes the military and academic requirements of
the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program and refuses to
accept a commission when offered;
``(B) fails to complete the military or academic
requirements of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class
Program; or
``(C) is disenrolled from the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders
Class Program for failure to maintain eligibility for an
original appointment as a commissioned officer under section
532 of this title.
``(d) Persons Not Qualified for Appointment.--Except under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, a person
who is not physically qualified for appointment under section
532 of this title and subsequently is determined by the
Secretary of the Navy under section 505 of this title to be
unqualified for service as an enlisted member of the Marine
Corps due to a physical or medical condition that was not the
result of misconduct or grossly negligent conduct may request
a waiver of obligated service of such financial
assistance.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``12216. Financial assistance for members of the Marine Corps platoon
leader's class program.''.

(c) Computation of Service Creditable.--Section 205 of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), a commissioned
officer appointed under sections 12209 and 12216 of title 10
may not count in computing basic pay a period of service
after January 1, 2000, that the officer performed
concurrently as a member of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders
Class Program and the Marine Corps Reserve, except that
service after that date that the officer performed before
commissioning while serving as an enlisted member on active
duty or as a member of the Selected Reserve may be so
counted.''.
(d) Transition Provision.--An enlisted member of the Marine
Corps Reserve selected for training as officer candidates
under section 12209 of title 10, United States Code, before
October 1, 2000 may, upon submitting an appropriate
application, participate in the financial assistance program
established in subsection (a) if--
(1) the member is eligible for financial assistance under
the qualification requirements of subsection (a);
(2) the member submits to the Secretary of the Navy a
request for such financial assistance not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(3) the member agrees in writing to accept an appointment,
if offered in the Marine Corps Reserve, and to comply with
the length of obligated service provisions in subsection
(a)(2)(D) of section 12216 of title 10, United States Code,
as added by subsection (a).

[[Page 12168]]

(e) Limitation on Crediting of Prior Service.--In computing
length of service for any purpose, a person who requests
financial assistance under subsection (d) may not be credited
with service either as an officer candidate or concurrent
enlisted service, other than concurrent enlisted service
while serving on active duty other than for training while a
member of the Marine Corps Reserve.

SEC. 519. OPTIONS TO IMPROVE RECRUITING FOR THE ARMY RESERVE.

(a) Review.--The Secretary of the Army shall conduct a
review of the manner, process, and organization used by the
Army to recruit new members for the Army Reserve. The review
shall seek to determine the reasons for the continuing
inability of the Army to meet recruiting objectives for the
Army Reserve and to identify measures the Secretary could
take to correct that inability.
(b) Reorganization To Be Considered.--Among the possible
corrective measures to be examined by the Secretary of the
Army as part of the review shall be a transfer of the
recruiting function for the Army Reserve from the Army
Recruiting Command to a new, fully resourced recruiting
organization under the command and control of the Chief, Army
Reserve.
(c) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2000, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Service of the House of
Representatives a report setting forth the results of the
review under this section. The report shall include a
description of any corrective measures the Secretary intends
to implement.

Subtitle C--Military Technicians

SEC. 521. REVISION TO MILITARY TECHNICIAN (DUAL STATUS) LAW.

(a) Definition.--Subsection (a)(1) of section 10216 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 709'' and
inserting ``section 709(b)''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``civilian'' after
``is assigned to a''.
(b) Dual Status Requirement.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``(dual status)'' after
``military technician'' the second place it appears; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting ``Except as
otherwise provided by law, the Secretary''; and
(B) by striking ``six months'' and inserting ``up to 12
months''.

SEC. 522. CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT OF TECHNICIANS.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 1007 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians:
conditions for retention; mandatory retirement under civil
service laws

``(a) Separation and Retirement of Military Technicians
(Dual Status).--(1) An individual employed by the Army
Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a military technician
(dual status) who after the date of the enactment of this
section loses dual status is subject to paragraph (2) or (3),
as the case may be.
``(2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is
eligible at the time dual status is lost for an unreduced
annuity, the technician shall be separated, subject to
subsection (e), not later than 30 days after the date on
which dual status is lost.
``(3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not
eligible at the time dual status is lost for an unreduced
annuity, the technician shall be offered the opportunity to--
``(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a
position as a military technician (dual status); or
``(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a
technician position.
``(B) If such a technician continues employment with the
Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician, the technician--
``(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
subsection, to apply for any voluntary personnel action; and
``(ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated or
retired--
``(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a military
technician (dual status) on or before February 10, 1996, not
later than 30 days after becoming eligible for an unreduced
annuity; and
``(II) in the case of a technician first hired as a
military technician (dual status) after February 10, 1996,
not later than one year after the date on which dual status
is lost.
``(4) For purposes of this subsection, a military
technician is considered to lose dual status upon--
``(A) being separated from the Selected Reserve; or
``(B) ceasing to hold the military grade specified by the
Secretary concerned for the position held by the technician.
``(b) Non-Dual Status Technicians.--(1) An individual who
on the date of the enactment of this section is employed by
the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual
status technician and who on that date is eligible for an
unreduced annuity shall, subject to subsection (e), be
separated not later than six months after the date of the
enactment of this section.
``(2)(A) An individual who on the date of the enactment of
this section is employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force
Reserve as a non-dual status technician and who on that date
is not eligible for an unreduced annuity shall be offered the
opportunity to--
``(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a
position as a military technician (dual status); or
``(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a
technician position.
``(B) If such a technician continues employment with the
Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status
technician, the technician--
``(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
subsection, to apply for any voluntary personnel action; and
``(ii) shall, subject to subsection (e), be separated or
retired--
``(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a
technician on or before February 10, 1996, and who on the
date of the enactment of this section is a non-dual status
technician, not later than 30 days after becoming eligible
for an unreduced annuity; and
``(II) in the case of a technician first hired as a
technician after February 10, 1996, and who on the date of
the enactment of this section is a non-dual status
technician, not later than one year after the date on which
dual status is lost.
``(3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air
Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is
ineligible for appointment to a military technician (dual
status) position, or who decides not to apply for appointment
to such a position, or who, within six months of the date of
the enactment of this section is not appointed to such a
position, shall for reduction-in-force purposes be in a
separate competitive category from employees who are military
technicians (dual status).
``(c) Unreduced Annuity Defined.--For purposes of this
section, a technician shall be considered to be eligible for
an unreduced annuity if the technician is eligible for an
annuity under section 8336, 8412, or 8414 of title 5 that is
not subject to a reduction by reason of the age or years of
service of the technician.
``(d) Voluntary Personnel Action Defined.--In this section,
the term `voluntary personnel action', with respect to a non-
dual status technician, means any of the following:
``(1) The hiring, entry, appointment, reassignment,
promotion, or transfer of the technician into a position for
which the Secretary concerned has established a requirement
that the person occupying the position be a military
technician (dual status).
``(2) Promotion to a higher grade if the technician is in a
position for which the Secretary concerned has established a
requirement that the person occupying the position be a
military technician (dual status).
``(e) Annual Limitation on Mandatory Retirements.--Until
October 1, 2004, the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of the Air Force may not during any fiscal year approve a
total of more than 25 mandatory retirements under this
section. A technician who is subject to mandatory separation
under this section in any fiscal year and who, but for this
subsection, would be eligible to be retired with an unreduced
annuity shall, if not sooner separated under some other
provision of law, be eligible to be retained in service until
mandatorily retired consistent with the limitation in this
subsection.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``10218. Army and Air Force Reserve Technicians: conditions for
retention; mandatory retirement under civil service
laws.''.
(3) During the six-month period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act, the provisions of subsections
(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and (b)(2)(B)(ii)(I) of section 10218 of
title 10, United States Code, as added by paragraph (1),
shall be applied by substituting ``six months'' for ``30
days''.
(b) Early Retirement.--Section 8414(c) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1) An employee who was hired as a military reserve
technician on or before February 10, 1996 (under the
provisions of this title in effect before that date), and who
is separated from technician service, after becoming 50 years
of age and completing 25 years of service, by reason of being
separated from the Selected Reserve of the employee's reserve
component or ceasing to hold the military grade specified by
the Secretary concerned for the position held by the employee
is entitled to an annuity.
``(2) An employee who is initially hired as a military
technician (dual status) after February 10, 1996, and who is
separated from the Selected Reserve or ceases to hold the
military grade specified by the Secretary concerned for the
position held by the technician--
``(A) after completing 25 years of service as a military
technician (dual status), or
``(B) after becoming 50 years of age and completing 20
years of service as a military technician (dual status),
is entitled to an annuity.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 8415(g)(2) is amended by striking ``military
reserve technician'' and inserting ``military technician
(dual status)''.
(2) Section 8401(30) is amended to read as follows:
``(30) the term `military technician (dual status)' means
an employee described in section 10216 of title 10;''.
(d) Disability Retirement.--Section 8337(h) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--

[[Page 12169]]

(A) by inserting ``or section 10216 of title 10'' after
``title 32'';
(B) by striking ``such title'' and all that follows through
the period and inserting ``title 32 or section 10216 of title
10, respectively, to be a member of the Selected Reserve.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)(A)(i)--
(A) by inserting ``or section 10216 of title 10'' after
``title 32''; and
(B) by striking ``National Guard or from holding the
military grade required for such employment'' and inserting
``Selected Reserve''; and
(3) in paragraph (3)(C), by inserting ``or section 10216 of
title 10'' after ``title 32''.

SEC. 523. REVISION TO NON-DUAL STATUS TECHNICIANS STATUTE.

(a) Revision.--Section 10217 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``military'' after ``non-dual status'' in
the matter preceding paragraph (1); and
(B) by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the
following:
``(1) was hired as a technician before November 18, 1997,
under any of the authorities specified in subsection (b) and
as of that date is not a member of the Selected Reserve or
after such date has ceased to be a member of the Selected
Reserve; or
``(2) is employed under section 709 of title 32 in a
position designated under subsection (c) of that section and
when hired was not required to maintain membership in the
Selected Reserve.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) Effective
October 1, 2007, the total number of non-dual status
technicians employed by the Army Reserve and Air Force
Reserve may not exceed 175. If at any time after the
preceding sentence takes effect the number of non-dual status
technicians employed by the Army Reserve and Air Force
Reserve exceeds the number specified in the limitation in the
preceding sentence, the Secretary of Defense shall require
that the Secretary of the Army or the Secretary of the Air
Force, or both, take immediate steps to reduce the number of
such technicians in order to comply with such limitation.
``(2) Effective October 1, 2001, the total number of non-
dual status technicians employed by the National Guard may
not exceed 1,950. If at any time after the preceding sentence
takes effect the number of non-dual status technicians
employed by the National Guard exceeds the number specified
in the limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of
Defense shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the
Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to
reduce the number of such technicians in order to comply with
such limitation.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--The heading of such section and
the item relating to such section in the table of sections at
the beginning of chapter 1007 of such title are each amended
by striking the penultimate word.

SEC. 524. REVISION TO AUTHORITIES RELATING TO NATIONAL GUARD
TECHNICIANS.

Section 709 of title 32, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:

``Sec. 709. Technicians: employment, use, status

``(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, as the case may be,
and subject to subsections (b) and (c), persons may be
employed as technicians in--
``(1) the administration and training of the National
Guard; and
``(2) the maintenance and repair of supplies issued to the
National Guard or the armed forces.
``(b) Except as authorized in subsection (c), a person
employed under subsection (a) must meet each of the following
requirements:
``(1) Be a military technician (dual status) as defined in
section 10216(a) of title 10.
``(2) Be a member of the National Guard.
``(3) Hold the military grade specified by the Secretary
concerned for that position.
``(4) While performing duties as a military technician
(dual status), wear the uniform appropriate for the member's
grade and component of the armed forces .
``(c)(1) A person may be employed under subsection (a) as a
non-dual status technician (as defined by section 10217 of
title 10) if the technician position occupied by the person
has been designated by the Secretary concerned to be filled
only by a non-dual status technician.
``(2) The total number of non-dual status technicians in
the National Guard is specified in section 10217(c)(2) of
title 10.
``(d) The Secretary concerned shall designate the adjutants
general referred to in section 314 of this title to employ
and administer the technicians authorized by this section.
``(e) A technician employed under subsection (a) is an
employee of the Department of the Army or the Department of
the Air Force, as the case may be, and an employee of the
United States. However, a position authorized by this section
is outside the competitive service if the technician employed
in that position is required under subsection (b) to be a
member of the National Guard.
``(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned--
``(1) a person employed under subsection (a) who is a
military technician (dual status) and otherwise subject to
the requirements of subsection (b) who--
``(A) is separated from the National Guard or ceases to
hold the military grade specified by the Secretary concerned
for that position shall be promptly separated from military
technician (dual status) employment by the adjutant general
of the jurisdiction concerned; and
``(B) fails to meet the military security standards
established by the Secretary concerned for a member of a
reserve component under his jurisdiction may be separated
from employment as a military technician (dual status) and
concurrently discharged from the National Guard by the
adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned;
``(2) a technician may, at any time, be separated from his
technician employment for cause by the adjutant general of
the jurisdiction concerned;
``(3) a reduction in force, removal, or an adverse action
involving discharge from technician employment, suspension,
furlough without pay, or reduction in rank or compensation
shall be accomplished by the adjutant general of the
jurisdiction concerned;
``(4) a right of appeal which may exist with respect to
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) shall not extend beyond the
adjutant general of the jurisdiction concerned; and
``(5) a technician shall be notified in writing of the
termination of his employment as a technician and, unless the
technician is serving under a temporary appointment, is
serving in a trial or probationary period, or has voluntarily
ceased to be a member of the National Guard when such
membership is a condition of employment, such notification
shall be given at least 30 days before the termination date
of such employment.
``(g) Sections 2108, 3502, 7511, and 7512 of title 5 do not
apply to a person employed under this section.
``(h) Notwithstanding sections 5544(a) and 6101(a) of title
5 or any other provision of law, the Secretary concerned may
prescribe the hours of duty for technicians. Notwithstanding
sections 5542 and 5543 of title 5 or any other provision of
law, such technicians shall be granted an amount of
compensatory time off from their scheduled tour of duty equal
to the amount of any time spent by them in irregular or
overtime work, and shall not be entitled to compensation for
such work.
``(i) The Secretary concerned may not prescribe for
purposes of eligibility for Federal recognition under section
301 of this title a qualification applicable to technicians
employed under subsection (a) that is not applicable pursuant
to that section to the other members of the National Guard in
the same grade, branch, position, and type of unit or
organization involved.''.

SEC. 525. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by sections 523 and 524 shall take
effect 180 days after the date of the receipt by Congress of
the plan required by section 523(d) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1737) or a report by the Secretary of Defense
providing an alternative proposal to the plan required by
that section.

SEC. 526. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE REVIEW OF ARMY TECHNICIAN
COSTING PROCESS.

(a) Review.--The Secretary of Defense shall review the
process used by the Army, including use of the Civilian
Manpower Obligation Resources (CMOR) model, to develop
estimates of the annual authorizations and appropriations
required for civilian personnel of the Department of the Army
generally and for National Guard and Army Reserve technicians
in particular. Based upon the review, the Secretary shall
direct that any appropriate revisions to that process be
implemented.
(b) Purpose of Review.--The purpose of the review shall be
to ensure that the process referred to in subsection (a) does
the following:
(1) Accurately and fully incorporates all the actual cost
factors for such personnel, including particularly those
factors necessary to recruit, train, and sustain a qualified
technician workforce.
(2) Provides estimates of required annual appropriations
required to fully fund all the technicians (both dual status
and non-dual status) requested in the President's budget.
(3) Eliminates inaccuracies in the process that compel both
the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard either (A) to
reduce the number of military technicians (dual status) below
the statutory floors without corresponding force structure
reductions, or (B) to transfer funds from other
appropriations simply to provide the required funding for
military technicians (dual status).
(c) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report
containing the results of the review undertaken under this
section, together with a description of corrective actions
taken and proposed, not later than March 31, 2000.

SEC. 527. FISCAL YEAR 2000 LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF NON-DUAL
STATUS TECHNICIANS.

The number of civilian employees who are non-dual status
technicians of a reserve component of the Army or Air Force
as of September 30, 2000, may not exceed the following:
(1) For the Army Reserve, 1,295.
(2) For the Army National Guard of the United States,
1,800.
(3) For the Air Force Reserve, 0.
(4) For the Air National Guard of the United States, 342.

[[Page 12170]]

Subtitle D--Service Academies

SEC. 531. WAIVER OF REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR INSTRUCTION
AT SERVICE ACADEMIES OF PERSONS FROM FOREIGN
COUNTRIES.

(a) United States Military Academy.--Section 4344(b)(3) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``50
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``five persons'' and inserting ``20
persons''.
(b) Naval Academy.--Section 6957(b)(3) of such title is
amended--
(1) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``50
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``five persons'' and inserting ``20
persons''.
(c) Air Force Academy.--Section 9344(b)(3) of such title is
amended--
(1) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``50
percent''; and
(2) by striking ``five persons'' and inserting ``20
persons''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
apply with respect to students from a foreign country
entering the United States Military Academy, the United
States Naval Academy, or the United States Air Force Academy
on or after May 1, 1999.

SEC. 532. COMPLIANCE BY UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY WITH
STATUTORY LIMIT ON SIZE OF CORPS OF CADETS.

(a) Compliance Required.--(1) The Secretary of the Army
shall take such action as necessary to ensure that the United
States Military Academy is in compliance with the USMA cadet
strength limit not later than the day before the last day of
the 2001-2001 academic year.
(2) The Secretary of the Army may provide for a variance to
the USMA cadet strength limit--
(A) as of the day before the last day of the 1999-2000
academic year of not more than 5 percent; and
(B) as of the day before the last day of the 2000-2001
academic year of not more than 2\1/2\ percent.
(3) For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the USMA cadet strength limit is the maximum of 4,000
cadets established for the Corps of Cadets at the United
States Military Academy by section 511 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993
(Public Law 102-190; 10 U.S.C. 4342 note), reenacted in
section 4342(a) of title 10, United States Code, by the
amendment made by subsection (b)(1); and
(B) the last day of the 2001-2002 academic year is the day
on which the class of 2002 graduates.
(b) Reenactment of Limitation.--
(1) Army.--Section 4342 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``is as follows:'' in
the matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting
``(determined for any year as of the day before the last day
of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation,
cadets are selected as follows:''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a),
the last day of an academic year is graduation day.''.
(2) Navy.--Section 6954 of such title is amended--
(A) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of
the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation,
midshipmen are selected as follows:''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a),
the last day of an academic year is graduation day.''.
(3) Air force.--Section 9342 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``is as follows:'' in
the matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting
``(determined for any year as of the day before the last day
of the academic year) is 4,000. Subject to that limitation,
Air Force Cadets are selected as follows:''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) For purposes of the limitation under subsection (a),
the last day of an academic year is graduation day.''.
(4) Conforming repeal.--Section 511 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law
102-190; 10 U.S.C. 4342 note) is repealed.

SEC. 533. DEAN OF ACADEMIC BOARD, UNITED STATES MILITARY
ACADEMY AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY, UNITED STATES
AIR FORCE ACADEMY.

(a) Dean of the Academic Board, USMA.--Section 4335 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) While serving as Dean of the Academic Board, an
officer of the Army who holds a grade lower than brigadier
general shall hold the grade of brigadier general, if
appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The retirement age of an
officer so appointed is that of a permanent professor of the
Academy. An officer so appointed is counted for purposes of
the limitation in section 526(a) of this title on general
officers of the Army on active duty.''.
(b) Dean of the Faculty, USAFA.--Section 9335 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a)'' at the beginning of the text of
the section; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) While serving as Dean of the Faculty, an officer of
the Air Force who holds a grade lower than brigadier general
shall hold the grade of brigadier general, if appointed to
that grade by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The retirement age of an officer so
appointed is that of a permanent professor of the Academy An
officer so appointed is counted for purposes of the
limitation in section 526(a) of this title on general
officers of the Air Force on active duty.''.

SEC. 534. EXCLUSION FROM CERTAIN GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER
GRADE STRENGTH LIMITATIONS FOR THE
SUPERINTENDENTS OF THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.

Section 525(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) An officer of the Army while serving as
Superintendent of the United States Military Academy, if
serving in the grade of lieutenant general, is in addition to
the number that would otherwise be permitted for the Army for
officers serving on active duty in grades above major general
under paragraph (1). An officer of the Navy or Marine Corps
while serving as Superintendent of the United States Naval
Academy, if serving in the grade of vice admiral or
lieutenant general, is in addition to the number that would
otherwise be permitted for the Navy or Marine Corps,
respectively, for officers serving on active duty in grades
above major general or rear admiral under paragraph (1) or
(2). An officer while serving as Superintendent of the United
Air Force Academy, if serving in the grade of lieutenant
general, is in addition to the number that would otherwise be
permitted for the Air Force for officers serving on active
duty in grades above major general under paragraph (1).''.

Subtitle E--Education and Training

SEC. 541. ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM AT THE SENIOR
MILITARY COLLEGES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 103 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense
international student program

``(a) Program Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a program to facilitate the enrollment and
instruction of persons from foreign countries as
international students at the senior military colleges.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program shall be--
``(1) to provide a high-quality, cost-effective military-
based educational experience for international students in
furtherance of the military-to-military program objectives of
the Department of Defense; and
``(2) to enhance the educational experience and preparation
of future United States military leaders through increased,
extended interaction with highly qualified potential foreign
military leaders.
``(c) Coordination with the Senior Military Colleges.--
Guidelines for implementation of the program shall be
developed in coordination with the senior military colleges.
``(d) Recommendations for Admission of Students Under the
Program.--The Secretary of Defense shall annually identify to
the senior military colleges the international students who,
based on criteria established by the Secretary, the Secretary
recommends be considered for admission under the program. The
Secretary shall identify the recommended international
students to the senior military colleges as early as possible
each year to enable those colleges to consider them in a
timely manner in their respective admissions processes.
``(e) DOD Financial Support.--An international student who
is admitted to a senior military college under the program
under this section is responsible for the cost of instruction
at that college. The Secretary of Defense may, from funds
available to the Department of Defense other than funds
available for financial assistance under section 2107a of
this title, provide some or all of the costs of instruction
for any such student.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2111b. Senior military colleges: Department of Defense international
student program.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The Secretary of Defense shall
implement the program under section 2111b of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), with students
entering the senior military colleges after May 1, 2000.
(c) Repeal of Obsolete Provision.--Section 2111a(e)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking the
second sentence.
(d) Fiscal Year 2000 Funding.--Of the amounts made
available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000
pursuant to section 301, $2,000,000 shall be available for
financial support for international students under section
2111b of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection
(a).

SEC. 542. AUTHORITY FOR ARMY WAR COLLEGE TO AWARD DEGREE OF
MASTER OF STRATEGIC STUDIES.

(a) Authority.--Chapter 401 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

[[Page 12171]]

Sec. 4321. United States Army War College: master of
strategic studies degree

``Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Army, the Commandant of the United States Army War College,
upon the recommendation of the faculty and dean of the
college, may confer the degree of master of strategic studies
upon graduates of the college who have fulfilled the
requirements for that degree.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``4321. United States Army War College: master of strategic studies
degree.''.

SEC. 543. AUTHORITY FOR AIR UNIVERSITY TO AWARD GRADUATE-
LEVEL DEGREES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 9317 of title
10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authority.--Upon recommendation of the faculty of the
appropriate school, the commander of the Air University may
confer--
``(1) the degree of master of strategic studies upon
graduates of the Air War College who fulfill the requirements
for that degree;
``(2) the degree of master of military operational art and
science upon graduates of the Air Command and Staff College
who fulfill the requirements for that degree; and
``(3) the degree of master of airpower art and science upon
graduates of the School of Advanced Air power Studies who
fulfill the requirements for that degree.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading for that section
is amended to read:

``Sec. 9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees''.

(2) The item relating to that section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 901 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``9317. Air University: graduate-level degrees.''.

SEC. 544. CORRECTION OF RESERVE CREDIT FOR PARTICIPATION IN
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOLARSHIP AND FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

Section 2126(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``only for'' and all that follows through
``Award of'' and inserting ``only for the award of''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B);
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ``paragraph (2)(A), a
member'' and inserting ``paragraph (2), a member who
completes a satisfactory year of service in the Selected
Reserve'';
(3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph (5):
``(5) A member of the Selected Reserve who is awarded
points or service credit under this subsection shall not be
considered to have been in an active status, by reason of the
award of the points or credit, while pursuing a course of
study under this subchapter for purposes of any provision of
law other than sections 12732(a) and 12733(3) of this
title.''.

SEC. 545. PERMANENT EXPANSION OF ROTC PROGRAM TO INCLUDE
GRADUATE STUDENTS.

(a) Permanent Authority for the ROTC Graduate Program.--
Paragraph (2) of section 2107(c)(2) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) The Secretary concerned may provide financial
assistance, as described in paragraph (1), to a student
enrolled in an advanced education program beyond the
baccalaureate degree level if the student also is a cadet or
midshipman in an advanced training program. Not more than 15
percent of the total number of scholarships awarded under
this section in any year may be awarded under the program.''.
(b) Authority To Enroll in Advanced Training Program.--
Section 2101(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``students enrolled in an advanced education
program beyond the baccalaureate degree level or to'' after
``instruction offered in the Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps to''.

SEC. 546. INCREASE IN MONTHLY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR
SENIOR ROTC CADETS SELECTED FOR ADVANCED
TRAINING.

(a) Increase.--Section 209(a) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$150 a month'' and inserting
``$200 a month''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

SEC. 547. CONTINGENT FUNDING INCREASE FOR JUNIOR ROTC
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 102 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2033. Contingent funding increase

``If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated for the
National Guard Challenge Program under section 509 of title
32 is in excess of $62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense
shall (notwithstanding any other provision of law) make the
amount in excess of $62,500,000 available for the Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under section 2031
of this title, and such excess amount may not be used for any
other purpose.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2033. Contingent funding increase.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 2033 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply only
with respect to funds appropriated for fiscal years after
fiscal year 1999.

SEC. 548. CHANGE FROM ANNUAL TO BIENNIAL REPORTING UNDER THE
RESERVE COMPONENT MONTGOMERY GI BILL.

(a) In General.--Section 16137 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 16137. Biennial report to Congress

``The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report not later than March 1 of each odd-numbered year
concerning the operation of the educational assistance
program established by this chapter during the preceding two
fiscal years. Each such report shall include the number of
members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each
armed force receiving, and the number entitled to receive,
educational assistance under this chapter during those fiscal
years.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 1606 of such title is amended to read as
follows:

``16137. Biennial report to Congress.''.

SEC. 549. RECODIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF STATUTES
DENYING FEDERAL GRANTS AND CONTRACTS BY CERTAIN
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES TO INSTITUTIONS OF
HIGHER EDUCATION THAT PROHIBIT SENIOR ROTC
UNITS OR MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

(a) Recodification and Consolidation for Limitations on
Federal Grants and Contracts.--(1) Section 983 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 983. Institutions of higher education that prevent
ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of
grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department
of Education, and certain other departments and agencies

``(a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to
Campus.--No funds described in subsection (d) may be provided
by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be
available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if
the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered
educational entity has a policy or practice (regardless of
when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect
prevents--
``(1) the Secretary of a military department from
maintaining, establishing, or operating a unit of the Senior
Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance with section
654 of this title and other applicable Federal laws) at the
covered educational entity; or
``(2) a student at the covered educational entity from
enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training
Corps at another institution of higher education.
``(b) Denial of Funds for Preventing Military Recruiting on
Campus.--No funds described in subsection (d) may be provided
by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds to be
available for student aid) to a covered educational entity if
the Secretary of Defense determines that the covered
educational entity has a policy or practice (regardless of
when implemented) that either prohibits, or in effect
prevents--
``(1) the Secretary of a military department from gaining
entry to campuses, or access to students (who are 17 years of
age or older) on campuses, for purposes of military
recruiting; or
``(2) access by military recruiters for purposes of
military recruiting to the following information pertaining
to students (who are 17 years of age or older) enrolled at
the covered educational entity:
``(A) Names, addresses, and telephone listings.
``(B) Date and place of birth, levels of education,
academic majors, degrees received, and the most recent
educational institution enrolled in by the student.
``(c) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) or (b) shall not apply to a covered educational entity if
the Secretary of Defense determines that--
``(1) the covered educational entity has ceased the policy
or practice described in that subsection; or
``(2) the institution of higher education involved has a
longstanding policy of pacifism based on historical religious
affiliation.
``(d) Covered Funds.--The limitations established in
subsections (a) and (b) apply to the following:
``(1) Any funds made available for the Department of
Defense.
``(2) Any funds made available in a Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act.
``(e) Notice of Determinations.--Whenever the Secretary of
Defense makes a determination under subsection (a), (b), or
(c), the Secretary--
``(1) shall transmit a notice of the determination to the
Secretary of Education and to Congress; and
``(2) shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the
determination and the effect of the determination on the
eligibility of the covered educational entity for contracts
and grants.
``(f) Semiannual Notice in Federal Register.--The Secretary
of Defense shall publish in the Federal Register once every
six months a list of each covered educational entity that is
currently ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a
determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b).
``(g) Covered Educational Entity.--In this section, the
term `covered educational entity' means an institution of
higher education, or a subelement of an institution of higher
education.''.
(2) The item relating to section 983 in the table of
sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended to read
as follows:

[[Page 12172]]

``983. Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or
military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and
contracts from Department of Defense, Department of
Education, and certain other departments and agencies.''.
(b) Repeal of Codified Provisions.--The following
provisions of law are repealed:
(1) Section 558 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 10 U.S.C. 503
note).
(2) Section 514 of the Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1997 (as contained in section 101(e) of
division A of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-270; 10
U.S.C. 503 note).

Subtitle F--Decorations and Awards

SEC. 551. WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF CERTAIN
DECORATIONS TO CERTAIN PERSONS.

(a) Waiver.--Any limitation established by law or policy
for the time within which a recommendation for the award of a
military decoration or award must be submitted shall not
apply to awards of decorations described in this section, the
award of each such decoration having been determined by the
Secretary of the military department concerned to be
warranted in accordance with section 1130 of title 10, United
States Code.
(b) Distinguished Flying Cross.--Subsection (a) applies to
the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross for service
during World War II or Korea (including multiple awards to
the same individual) in the case of each individual
concerning whom the Secretary of the Navy (or an officer of
the Navy acting on behalf of the Secretary) submitted to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, during the
period beginning on October 17, 1998, and ending on the day
before the date of the enactment of this Act, a notice as
provided in section 1130(b) of title 10, United States Code,
that the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross to that
individual is warranted and that a waiver of time
restrictions prescribed by law for recommendation for such
award is recommended.

SEC. 552. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING PRESIDENTIAL UNIT
CITATION FOR CREW OF THE U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS.

(a) Findings.--Congress reaffirms the findings made in
section 1052(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2844) that
the heavy cruiser U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS (CA-35)--
(1) served the people of the United States with valor and
distinction throughout World War II in action against enemy
forces in the Pacific Theater of Operations from December 7,
1941 to July 29, 1945;
(2) with her courageous and capable crew, compiled an
impressive combat record during the war in the Pacific,
receiving in the process 10 battle stars in actions from the
Aleutians to Okinawa;
(3) rendered invaluable service in anti-shipping, shore
bombardment, anti-air, and invasion support roles and serving
as flagship for the Fifth Fleet under Admiral Raymond
Spruance and flagship for the Third Fleet under Admiral
William F. Halsey; and
(4) transported the world's first operational atomic bomb
from the United States to the Island of Tinian, accomplishing
that mission at a record average speed of 29 knots.
(b) Further Findings.--Congress further finds that--
(1) from participation in the earliest offensive actions in
the Pacific during World War II to her pivotal role in
delivering the weapon that brought the war to an end, the
U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS and her crew left an indelible imprint on
the Nation's struggle to eventual victory in the war in the
Pacific; and
(2) the selfless, courageous, and outstanding performance
of duty by that ship and her crew throughout the war in the
Pacific reflects great credit upon the ship and her crew,
thus upholding the very highest traditions of the United
States Navy.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the President should award a Presidential Unit Citation to
the crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS (CA-35) in recognition of
the courage and skill displayed by the members of the crew of
that vessel throughout World War II.
(2) A citation described in paragraph (1) may be awarded
without regard to any provision of law or regulation
prescribing a time limitation that is otherwise applicable
with respect to recommendation for, or the award of, such a
citation.

Subtitle G--Other Matters

SEC. 561. REVISION IN AUTHORITY TO ORDER RETIRED MEMBERS TO
ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Period of Recall Service for Retired Members Ordered To
Active Duty.--Section 688(e) of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``for more than 12 months within 24
months'' and inserting ``for more than 36 months within 48
months''.
(b) Limitation on Number.--Section 690(b)(1) of such title
is amended by striking ``Not more than 25 officers'' and
inserting ``In addition to the officers subject to subsection
(a), not more than 150 officers''.
(c) Exclusion From Limitation of Members of Retiree
Councils.--Section 690(b)(2) of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Any officer assigned to duty as a member of the Army,
Navy, or Air Force Retiree Council for the period of active
duty to which ordered.''.
(d) Exclusion From Limitation of Officers Recalled for 60
Days or Less.--Section 690 of such title is further amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence of subsection (a);
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new
subsection (c):
``(c) Exclusion From Limitations of Officers Recalled for
60 Days or Less.--A retired officer ordered to active duty
for a period of 60 days or less shall not be counted for the
purposes of subsection (a) or (b).''.

SEC. 562. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR RECALL OF RETIRED AVIATORS.

(a) Authority.--During the retired aviator recall period,
the Secretary of a military department may recall to active
duty any retired officer having expertise as an aviator to
fill staff positions normally filled by active duty aviators.
Any such recall may only be with the consent of the officer
recalled.
(b) Limitation.--No more than a total of 500 officers may
be on active duty at any time under subsection (a).
(c) Termination.--Each officer recalled to active duty
under subsection (a) during the retired aviator recall period
shall be released from active duty not later than one year
after the end of such period.
(d) Waivers.--Officers recalled to active duty under
subsection (a) shall not be counted for purposes of section
668 or 690 of title 10, United States Code.
(e) Retired Aviator Recall Period.--For purposes of this
section, the term ``retired aviator recall period'' means the
period beginning on October 1, 1999, and ending on September
30, 2002.
(f) Report.--Not later than March 31, 2002, the Secretary
of Defense submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Service of the House of
Representatives a report on the use of the authority under
this section, together with the Secretary's recommendation
for extension of that authority.

SEC. 563. SERVICE REVIEW AGENCIES COVERED BY PROFESSIONAL
STAFFING REQUIREMENT.

Section 1555(c)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``the Navy Council of Personnel Boards
and'' after ``Department of the Navy,''.

SEC. 564. CONFORMING AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE RESERVE OFFICERS
AND RETIRED REGULAR OFFICERS TO HOLD A CIVIL
OFFICE WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY FOR NOT
MORE THAN 270 DAYS.

Section 973(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``180 days'' and
inserting ``270 days''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``180 days'' and
inserting ``270 days''.

SEC. 565. REVISION TO REQUIREMENT FOR HONOR GUARD DETAILS AT
FUNERALS OF VETERANS.

(a) Composition of Honor Guard Details.--Subsection (b) of
section 1491 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``consists of'' and all that follows through the
period and inserting ``consists of not less than two persons,
who shall, at a minimum, perform a ceremony to fold and
present a United States flag to the deceased veteran's family
and who shall (unless a bugler is part of the detail) have
the capability to play a recorded version of Taps. At least
one member of an honor guard detail provided in response to a
request to the Department of Defense shall be a member of the
same armed force as the deceased veteran.''.
(b) Support for Nongovernmental Organizations.--Such
section is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as
subsections (e), (f), and (h), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection (d):
``(d) Support for Nongovernmental Organizations.--The
Secretary of a military department may provide material,
equipment, and training to support nongovernmental
organizations, as necessary for the support of honor guard
activities.''.
(c) Implementing OSD Regulations.--Subsection (e) of such
section, as redesignated by subsection (b)(1), is amended by
striking the last two sentences and inserting the following:
``The Secretary shall require that procedures be established
by the Secretaries of the military departments for
coordinating and responding to requests for honor guard
details, for establishing standards and protocols for,
responding to requests for and conducting military funeral
honors, and for providing training and quality control.''.
(d) Waiver Authority.--Such section is further amended by
inserting after subsection (f), as redesignated by subsection
(b)(1), the following new subsection:
``(g) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
waive any of the provisions of this section when the
Secretary determines that such a waiver is necessary because
of a contingency operation or when the Secretary otherwise
considers such a waiver to be necessary to meet military
requirements. The authority to make such a waiver may not be
delegated to any official of a military department other than
the Secretary of the military department and may not be
delegated within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to an
official at a level below Under Secretary of Defense.''.
``(2) Whenever a waiver is granted under paragraph (1), the
Secretary of Defense shall

[[Page 12173]]

promptly submit notice of the waiver to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives.''.
(e) Coverage of Certain Reservists.--Such section is
further amended by striking the period at the end of
subsection (h), as redesignated by subsection (b)(1), and
inserting ``and includes a deceased member or former member
of the Selected Reserve described in section 2301(f) of title
38.''.
(f) Authority To Accept Voluntary Services.--Section
1588(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(4) Voluntary services as a member of an honor guard
detail under section 1491 of this title.''.
(g) Effective Date.--(1) Section 1491 of title 10, United
States Code, as amended by this section, shall apply with
respect to funerals of veterans that occur after December 31,
1999.
(2) Subsection (a) of such section is amended by striking
``that occurs after December 31, 1999''.
(h) National Guard Funeral Honors Duty.--(1) Section 114 of
title 32, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``honor guard'' both places it appears and
inserting ``funeral honors''; and
(B) by striking ``otherwise required'' and inserting ``,
but may be performed as funeral honors duty as prescribed in
section 115 of this title''.
(2) Chapter 1 of such title is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``Sec. 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal
function

``(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, a member of the Army National Guard of the United
States or the Air National Guard of the United States may be
ordered to funeral honors duty, with the consent of the
member, to prepare for or perform funeral honors functions at
the funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491 of title
10).
``(b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this
section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours
of such duty in order to receive service credit under section
1273(a)(2)(E) of title 10 and compensation under section 435
of title 37 if authorized by the Secretary concerned.
``(c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from
that duty) under this section shall be treated as the
equivalent of inactive-duty training (and travel directly to
and from that training) for the purposes of this section and
the provisions of title 10, title 37, and title 38, including
provisions relating to the determination of eligibility for
and the receipt of benefits and entitlements provided under
those titles for Reserves performing inactive-duty training
and for their dependents and survivors, except that a member
is not entitled by reason of performance of funeral honors
duty to any pay, allowances, or other compensation provided
for in title 37 other than that provided in section 435 of
that title and in subsection (d).
``(d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this
section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and
transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such
duty as authorized under chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty
is performed at a location 50 miles or more from the member's
residence.''.
(3)(A) The heading of section 114 of such title is amended
to read as follows:

``Sec. 114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for
veterans''.

(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of
such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 114 and inserting the following:

``114. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.
``115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function.''.
(i) Ready Reserve Funeral Honors Duty.--(1)(A) Chapter 1213
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``Sec. 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty

``(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, a member of the Ready Reserve may be ordered to
funeral honors duty, with the consent of the member, in
preparation for or to perform funeral honors functions at the
funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491 of this
title). However, a member of the Army National Guard of the
United States or the Air National Guard of the United States
may not be ordered to perform funeral honors functions under
this section without the consent of the Governor or other
appropriate authority of the State concerned.
``(b) A member ordered to funeral honors duty under this
section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours
of such duty in order to receive service credit under section
12732(a)(2)(E) of this title and compensation under section
435 of title 37 if authorized by the Secretary concerned.
``(c) Funeral honors duty (and travel directly to and from
that duty) under this section shall be treated as the
equivalent of inactive-duty training (and travel directly to
and from that training) for the purposes of this title, title
37, and title 38, including provisions relating to the
determination of eligibility for and receipt of benefits and
entitlements provided under those titles for Reserves
performing inactive-duty training and for their dependents
and survivors, except that a member is not entitled by reason
of performance of funeral honors duty to any pay, allowances,
or other compensation provided for in title 37 other than
that provided in section 435 of that title and in subsection
(d).
``(d) A member who performs funeral honors duty under this
section is entitled to reimbursement for travel and
transportation expenses incurred in conjunction with such
duty as authorized under chapter 7 of title 37, if such duty
is performed at a location 50 miles or more from the member's
residence.''.
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty.''.
(2)(A) Section 12552 of such title is amended to read as
follows:

``Sec. 12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for
veterans

``Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at
the funeral of a veteran (as defined in section 1491 of this
title) may not be considered to be a period of drill or
training, but may be performed as funeral honors duty under
section 12503 of this title.''.
(B) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 1215 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans.''.
(j) Crediting for Retirement Purposes.--Paragraph (2) of
section 12732(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following new
subparagraph:
``(E) One point for each day in which funeral honors
functions were performed under section 12503 of this title or
section 115 of title 32.''; and
(2) by striking ``and (D)'' in the last sentence of such
paragraph and inserting ``(D), and (E)''.
(k) Allowance for Funeral Honors Duty.--(1) Chapter 7 of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:

``Sec. 435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance

``(a) Allowance Authorized.--Under uniform regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of the Ready
Reserve of an armed force may be paid an allowance of $50, at
the discretion of the Secretary concerned, for funeral honors
duty performed pursuant to section 12305 of title 10 or
section 115 of title 32, if the member is engaged in the
performance of that duty for at least two hours.
``(b) Relation to Performance of Funeral Honors Duty.--The
allowance under this section shall constitute the single,
flat-rate monetary allowance authorized for the performance
of funeral honors duty pursuant to section 12503 of title 10
or section 115 of title 32 and shall constitute payment in
full to the member, regardless of grade in which serving.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``435. Funeral honors duty: flat rate allowance.''.

SEC. 566. PURPOSE AND FUNDING LIMITATIONS FOR NATIONAL GUARD
CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--Subsection (a) of
section 509 of title 32, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Program Authority and Purpose.--The Secretary of
Defense, acting through the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau, may use the National Guard to conduct a civilian
youth opportunities program, to be known as the `National
Guard Challenge Program', which shall consist of at least a
22-week residential program and a 12-month post-residential
mentoring period. The National Guard Challenge Program shall
seek to improve life skills and employment potential of
participants by providing military-based training and
supervised work experience, together with the core program
components of assisting participants to receive a high school
diploma or its equivalent, leadership development, promoting
fellowship and community service, developing life coping
skills and job skills, and improving physical fitness and
health and hygiene.''.
(b) Annual Funding Limitation.--Subsection (b) of such
section is amended by striking ``$50,000,000'' and inserting
``$62,500,000''.

SEC. 567. ACCESS TO SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS FOR MILITARY
RECRUITING PURPOSES.

Section 503 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Each local educational agency is requested to provide
to the Department of Defense, upon a request made for
military recruiting purposes, the same access to secondary
school students, and to directory information concerning such
students, as is provided generally to post-secondary
educational institutions or to prospective employers of those
students.''.

SEC. 568. SURVEY OF MEMBERS LEAVING MILITARY SERVICE ON
ATTITUDES TOWARD MILITARY SERVICE.

(a) Exit Survey.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
and implement a survey on attitudes toward military service
to be completed by all members of the Armed Forces who during
the period beginning on January 1, 2000, and ending on June
30, 2000, are discharged or separated from the Armed Forces
or transfer from a regular component to a reserve component.
(b) Matters To Be Covered.--The survey shall, at a minimum,
cover the following subjects:
(1) Reasons for leaving military service.
(2) Command climate.

[[Page 12174]]

(3) Attitude toward civilian and military leadership.
(4) Attitude toward pay and benefits.
(5) Job satisfaction.
(6) Such other matters as the Secretary determines
appropriate to the survey concerning reasons why military
personnel are leaving military service.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than October 1, 2000,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing
the results of the survey under subsection (a). The Secretary
shall compile the information in the report so as to assist
in assessing reasons why military personnel are leaving
military service.

SEC. 569. IMPROVEMENT IN SYSTEM FOR ASSIGNING PERSONNEL TO
WARFIGHTING UNITS.

(a) Review of Personnel Assignment Systems.--The Secretary
of each military department shall review the military
personnel system under that Secretary's jurisdiction in order
to identify those policies that prevent warfighting units
from being fully manned.
(b) Revision to Policies.--Following the review under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall alter the policies
identified in the review with the goal of raising the
priority in the personnel system for the assignment of
personnel to warfighting units.
(c) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on the changes to the military
personnel system under that Secretary's jurisdiction that
have been, or will be, adopted under subsection (b).
(d) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``warfighting unit'' means a battalion, squadron, or vessel
that (1) has a combat, combat support, or combat service
support mission, and (2) is not considered to be in the
supporting establishment for its service.

SEC. 570. REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGULATIONS
TO PROTECT THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN DEPENDENTS AND
PROFESSIONALS PROVIDING THERAPEUTIC OR RELATED
SERVICES REGARDING SEXUAL OR DOMESTIC ABUSE.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 80 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 1562. Confidentiality of communications between
dependents and professionals providing therapeutic or
related services regarding sexual or domestic abuse

``(a) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe in regulations such policies and procedures as the
Secretary considers necessary to provide the maximum possible
protection for the confidentiality of communications
described in subsection (b) relating to misconduct described
in that subsection. Those regulations shall be consistent
with--
``(1) the standards of confidentiality and ethical
standards issued by relevant professional organizations;
``(2) applicable requirements of Federal and State law;
``(3) the best interest of victims of sexual harassment,
sexual assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
``(4) such other factors as the Secretary, in consultation
with the Attorney General, considers appropriate.
``(b) Covered Communications.--Subsection (a) applies to
communications between--
``(1) a dependent of a member of the armed forces who--
``(A) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or
intrafamily abuse; or
``(B) has engaged in such misconduct; and
``(2) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other
professional from whom the dependent seeks professional
services in connection with effects of such misconduct.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1562. Confidentiality of communications between dependents and
professionals providing therapeutic or related services
regarding sexual or domestic abuse.''.
(b) GAO Study.--(1) The Comptroller General shall study the
policies, procedures, and practices of the military
departments for protecting the confidentiality of
communications between--
(A) a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who--
(i) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or
intrafamily abuse; or
(ii) has engaged in such misconduct; and
(B) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other professional
from whom the dependent seeks professional services in
connection with effects of such misconduct.
(2) The Comptroller General shall conclude the study and
submit to the Secretary of Defense and Congress a report on
the results of the study. The report shall be submitted not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Initial Regulations.--The initial regulations under
section 1562 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), shall be prescribed not later than 90 days
after the date on which the Secretary of Defense receives the
report of the Comptroller General under subsection (b). In
prescribing those regulations, the Secretary shall ensure
that those regulations are consistent with the findings of
the Comptroller General in that report.

TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS

Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances

SEC. 601. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE IN MILITARY BASIC PAY AND
REFORM OF BASIC PAY RATES.

(a) Waiver of Section 1009 Adjustment.--The adjustment to
become effective during fiscal year 2000 required by section
1009 of title 37, United States Code, in the rates of monthly
basic pay authorized members of the uniformed services shall
not be made.
(b) January 1, 2000, Increase in Basic Pay.--Effective on
January 1, 2000, the rates of monthly basic pay for members
of the uniformed services are increased by 4.8 percent.
(c) Reform of Basic Pay Rates.--Effective on July 1, 2000,
the rates of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed
services within each pay grade are as follows:

[[Page 12175]]

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS \1\
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 6,594.30 6,810.30 6,953.10 6,993.30 7,171.80
O-7............. 5,479.50 5,851.80 5,851.50 5,894.40 6,114.60
O-6............. 4,061.10 4,461.60 4,754.40 4,754.40 4,772.40
O-5............. 3,248.40 3,813.90 4,077.90 4,127.70 4,291.80
O-4............. 2,737.80 3,333.90 3,556.20 3,606.04 3,812.40
O-3 \3\......... 2,544.00 2,884.20 3,112.80 3,364.80 3,525.90
O-2 \3\......... 2,218.80 2,527.20 2,910.90 3,000.00 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 1,926.30 2,004.90 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O-9............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O-8............. 7,471.50 7,540.80 7,824.60 7,906.20 8,150.10
O-7............. 6,282.00 6,475.80 6,669.00 6,863.10 7,471.50
O-6............. 4,976.70 5,004.00 5,004.00 5,169.30 5,791.20
O-5............. 4,291.80 4,420.80 4,659.30 4,971.90 5,286.00
O-4............. 3,980.40 4,251.50 4,464.00 4,611.00 4,758.90
O-3 \3\......... 3,702.60 3,850.20 4,040.40 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-10 \2\........ $0.00 $10,655.1 $10,707.6 $10,930.2 $11,318.40
0 0 0
O-9............. 0.00 9,319.50 9,453.60 9,647.70 9,986.40
O-8............. 8,503.80 8,830.20 9,048.00 9,048.00 9,048.00
O-7............. 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 8,025.60
O-6............. 6,086.10 6,381.30 6,549.00 6,719.10 7,049.10
O-5............. 5,436.00 5,583.60 5,751.90 5,751.90 5,751.90
O-4............. 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70
O-3 \3\......... 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10
O-2 \3\......... 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O-1 \3\......... 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual
basic pay for commissioned officers in grades 0-7 through O-10 may not
exceed the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule and the
actual basic pay for all other officers, including warrant officers,
may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Chairman or Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army,
Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant
of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, basic pay for
this grade is calculated to be $12,441.00, regardless of cumulative
years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States
Code.
\3\ This table does not apply to commissioned officers in the grade O-1,
O-2, or O-3 who have been credited with over 4 years of active duty
service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH OVER 4 YEARS OF ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE AS AN
ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT OFFICER
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,364.80 $3,525.90
O-2E............ 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,009.00 3,071.10
O-1E............ 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,423.10 2,588.40
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
-------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $3,702.60 $3,850.20 $4,040.40 $4,200.30 $4,291.80
O-2E............ 3,168.60 3,333.90 3,461.40 3,556.20 3,556.20
O-1E............ 2,683.80 2,781.30 2,877.60 3,009.00 3,009.00
-------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
-------------------------------------------------------
O-3E............ $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90 $4,416.90
O-2E............ 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20 3,556.20
O-1E............ 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00 3,009.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

WARRANT OFFICERS
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4.............. 2,592.00 2,788.50 2,868.60 2,947.50 3,083.40
W-3.............. 2,355.90 2,555.40 2,555.40 2,588.40 2,694.30
W-2.............. 2,063.40 2,232.60 2,232.60 2,305.80 2,423.10
W-1.............. 1,719.00 1,971.00 1,971.00 2,135.70 2,232.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
W-4.............. 3,217.20 3,352.80 3,485.10 3,622.20 3,753.60
W-3.............. 2,814.90 2,974.20 3,071.10 3,177.00 3,298.20
W-2.............. 2,555.40 2,852.60 2,749.80 2,844.30 2,949.00
W-1.............. 2,332.80 2,433.30 2,533.20 2,634.00 2,734.80
------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12176]]

Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
------------------------------------------------------
W-5.............. $0.00 $4,475.10 $4,628.70 $4,782.90 $4,937.40
W-4.............. 3,888.00 4,019.00 4,155.60 4,289.70 4,427.10
W-3.............. 3,418.50 3,539.10 3,659.40 3,780.00 3,900.90
W-2.............. 3,058.40 3,163.80 3,270.90 3,378.30 3,378.30
W-1.............. 2,835.00 2,910.90 2,910.90 2,910.90 2,910.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ENLISTED MEMBERS \1\
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-9 \2\.......... $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
E-8.............. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
E-7.............. 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,147.70
E-6.............. 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.30
E-5.............. 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,714.50
E-4.............. 1,242.90 1,373.10 1,447.20 1,520.10 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,171.50 1,260.60 1,334.10 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1.............. \3\ 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\.......... $0.00 $3,015.30 $3,083.40 $3,169.80 $3,271.50
E-8.............. 2,528.40 2,601.60 2,669.70 2,751.60 2,840.10
E-7.............. 2,220.90 2,294.10 2,367.30 2,439.30 2,514.00
E-6.............. 1,973.10 2,047.20 2,118.60 2,191.50 2,244.60
E-5.............. 1,789.50 1,861.50 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4.............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
E-1.............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
------------------------------------------------------
E-9 \2\.......... $3,373.20 $3,473.40 $3,609.30 $3,744.00 $3,915.80
E-8.............. 2,932.50 3,026.10 3,161.10 3,295.50 3,483.60
E-7.............. 2,588.10 2,660.40 2,787.60 2,926.20 3,134.40
E-6.............. 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,285.70 2,285.70 2,285.70
E-5.............. 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
E-4.............. 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
E-3.............. 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
E-2.............. 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,123.20 1,127.40
E-1.............. 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual
basic pay for enlisted members may not exceed the rate of pay for
level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\ Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Sergeant Major
of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Chief Master
Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this
grade is $4,701.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed
under section 205 of title 37, United States Code.
\3\ In the case of members in the grade E-1 who have served less than 4
months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.

(d) Limitation on Pay Adjustments.--Section 1009(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Whenever''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) On and after April 30, 1999, the actual basic pay for
commissioned officers in grades 0-7 through O-10 may not
exceed the rate of pay for level III of the Executive
Schedule, and the actual basic pay for all other officers and
enlisted members may not exceed the rate of pay for level V
of the Executive Schedule.''.

SEC. 602. PAY INCREASES FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR
2000.

Effective on October 1, 2000, subsection (c) of section
1009 of title 37, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Percentage Increase for All Members.--(1) Subject to
subsection (d), an adjustment taking effect under this
section during a fiscal year shall provide all eligible
members with an increase in the monthly basic pay by the
percentage equal to the sum of--
``(A) 0.5 percent; plus
``(B) the percentage calculated as provided under section
5303(a) of title 5.
``(2) The calculation required by paragraph (1)(B) shall be
made without regard to whether rates of pay under the
statutory pay systems (as defined in section 5302 of title 5)
are actually increased during that fiscal year under section
5303 of such title by the percentage so calculated.''.

SEC. 603. ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
INCREASE IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING INSIDE
THE UNITED STATES.

In addition to the amount determined by the Secretary of
Defense under section 403(b)(3) of title 37, United States
Code, to be the total amount that may be paid during fiscal
year 2000 for the basic allowance for housing for military
housing areas inside the United States, $442,500,000 of the
amount authorized to be appropriated by section 421 for
military personnel shall be used by the Secretary to further
increase the total amount available for the basic allowance
for housing for military housing areas inside the United
States.

Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays

SEC. 611. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAY
AUTHORITIES FOR RESERVE FORCES.

(a) Special Pay for Health Professionals in Critically
Short Wartime Specialties.--Section 302g(f) of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``December 31,
1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(b) Selected Reserve Reenlistment Bonus.--Section 308b(f)
of such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999''
and inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(c) Selected Reserve Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308c(e) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(d) Special Pay for Enlisted Members Assigned to Certain
High Priority Units.--Section 308d(c) of such title is
amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting
``December 31, 2000''.
(e) Selected Reserve Affiliation Bonus.--Section 308e(e) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(f) Ready Reserve Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonus.--
Section 308h(g) of such title is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(g) Prior Service Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308i(f) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(h) Repayment of Education Loans for Certain Health
Professionals Who Serve in the Selected Reserve.--Section
16302(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``January 1, 2000'' and inserting ``January 1,
2001''.

[[Page 12177]]

SEC. 612. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAY
AUTHORITIES FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES,
REGISTERED NURSES, AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS.

(a) Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program.--Section
2130a(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31,
2000''.
(b) Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses.--Section
302d(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31,
2000''.
(c) Incentive Special Pay for Nurse Anesthetists.--Section
302e(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting ``December 31,
2000''.

SEC. 613. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO PAYMENT OF
OTHER BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS.

(a) Aviation Officer Retention Bonus.--Section 301b(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``December 31, 1999,'' and inserting ``December 31, 2000,''.
(b) Reenlistment Bonus for Active Members.--Section 308(g)
of such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999''
and inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(c) Enlistment Bonus for Persons With Critical Skills.--
Section 308a(d) of such title, as redesignated by section
618(b), is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(d) Army Enlistment Bonus.--Section 308f(c) of such title
is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting
``December 31, 2000''.
(e) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending
Period of Active Service.--Section 312(e) of such title is
amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and inserting
``December 31, 2000''.
(f) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(c) of
such title is amended by striking ``December 31, 1999'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2000''.
(g) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonus.--Section 312c(d)
of such title is amended by striking ``October 1, 1998,'' and
all that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``December 31, 2000.''.

SEC. 614. AVIATION CAREER INCENTIVE PAY FOR AIR BATTLE
MANAGERS.

(a) Availability of Incentive Pay.--Section 301a(b) of
title 37, United States Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4) An officer serving as an air battle manager who is
entitled to aviation career incentive pay under this section
and who, before becoming entitled to aviation career
incentive pay, was entitled to incentive pay under section
301(a)(11) of this title, is entitled to monthly incentive
pay at a rate equal to the greater of the following:
``(A) The rate applicable under this subsection.
``(B) The rate at which the member was receiving incentive
pay under section 301(c)(2)(A) of this title immediately
before the member's entitlement to aviation career incentive
pay under this section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 615. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SPECIAL PAY TO
AVIATION CAREER OFFICERS EXTENDING PERIOD OF
ACTIVE DUTY.

(a) Eligibility Criteria.--Subsection (b) of section 301b
of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (5);
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``grade O-6'' and
inserting ``grade O-7'';
(3) by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
(4) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (6) as
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), respectively.
(b) Amount of Bonus.--Subsection (c) of such section is
amended by striking ``than--'' and all that follows through
the period at the end and inserting ``than $25,000 for each
year covered by the written agreement to remain on active
duty.''.
(c) Proration Authority for Coverage of Increased Period of
Eligibility.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by
striking ``14 years of commissioned service'' and inserting
``25 years of aviation service''.
(d) Repeal of Content Requirements for Annual Report.--
Subsection (i)(1) of such section is amended by striking the
second sentence.
(e) Definitions Regarding Aviation Specialty.--Subsection
(j) of such section is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3); and
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (2).
(f) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (g)(3) of such section
if amended by striking the second sentence.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 616. DIVING DUTY SPECIAL PAY.

(a) Increase in Payment Amount.--Subsection (b) of section
304 of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``$200'' and inserting ``$240''; and
(2) by striking ``$300'' and inserting ``$340''.
(b) Relation to Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay.--Subsection
(c) of such section 304 is amended to read as follows:
``(c) If, in addition to diving duty, a member is assigned
by orders to one or more hazardous duties described in
section 301 of this title, the member may be paid, for the
same period of service, special pay under this section and
incentive pay under such section 301 for each hazardous duty
for which the member is qualified.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 617. REENLISTMENT BONUS.

(a) Minimum Months of Active Duty.--Subsection (a)(1)(A) of
section 308 of title 37, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``twenty-one months'' and inserting ``17 months''.
(b) Amount of Bonus.--Subsection (a)(2) of such section is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``ten'' and
inserting ``15''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$45,000'' and
inserting ``$60,000''.

SEC. 618. ENLISTMENT BONUS.

(a) Increase in Bonus Amount.--Subsection (a) of section
308a of title 37, United States Code, is amended by striking
``$12,000'' and inserting ``$20,000''.
(b) Payment Methods.--Such section is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence;
(2) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection:
``(b) Payment Methods.--A bonus under this section may be
paid in a single lump sum, or in periodic installments, to
provide an extra incentive for a member to successfully
complete the training necessary for the member to be
technically qualified in the skill for which the bonus is
paid.''.
(c) Stylistic Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``Bonus Authorized;
Bonus Amount.--'' after ``(a)'';
(2) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subsection (b)(2)
of this section, by inserting ``Repayment of Bonus.--'' after
``(c)''; and
(3) in subsection (d), as redesignated by subsection (b)(2)
of this section, by inserting ``Termination of Authority.--''
after ``(d)''.

SEC. 619. REVISED ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR RESERVE
COMPONENT PRIOR SERVICE ENLISTMENT BONUS.

Paragraph (2) of section 308i(a) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) A bonus may only be paid under this section to a
person who meets each of the following requirements:
``(A) The person has completed a military service
obligation, but has less than 14 years of total military
service, and received an honorable discharge at the
conclusion of that military service obligation.
``(B) The person was not released, or is not being
released, from active service for the purpose of enlistment
in a reserve component.
``(C) The person is projected to occupy, or is occupying, a
position as a member of the Selected Reserve in a specialty
in which the person--
``(i) successfully served while a member on active duty and
attained a level of qualification while on active duty
commensurate with the grade and years of service of the
member; or
``(ii) has completed training or retraining in the
specialty skill that is designated as critically short and
attained a level of qualification in the specialty skill that
is commensurate with the grade and years of service of the
member.
``(D) The person has not previously been paid a bonus
(except under this section) for enlistment, reenlistment, or
extension of enlistment in a reserve component.''.

SEC. 620. INCREASE IN SPECIAL PAY AND BONUSES FOR NUCLEAR-
QUALIFIED OFFICERS.

(a) Special Pay for Nuclear-Qualified Officers Extending
Period of Active Service.--Section 312(a) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``$15,000'' and inserting
``$25,000''.
(b) Nuclear Career Accession Bonus.--Section 312b(a)(1) of
such title is amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting
``$20,000''.
(c) Nuclear Career Annual Incentive Bonuses.--Section 312c
of such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``$12,000'' and
inserting ``$22,000''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``$5,500'' and
inserting ``$10,000''.
(d) Effective Date.--(1) The amendments made by this
section shall take effect on October 1, 1999.
(2) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall
apply with respect to agreements accepted under section
312(a) and 312b(a), respectively, of title 37, United States
Code, on or after October 1, 1999.
(3) The amendments made by subsection (c) shall apply with
respect to nuclear service years beginning on or after
October 1, 1999.

SEC. 621. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED MONTHLY RATE OF FOREIGN
LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY PAY.

(a) Increase.--Section 316(b) of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``$100'' and inserting ``$300''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the first day of the first month that
begins on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[[Page 12178]]

SEC. 622. AUTHORIZATION OF RETENTION BONUS FOR SPECIAL
WARFARE OFFICERS EXTENDING PERIODS OF ACTIVE
DUTY.

(a) Bonus Authorized.--Chapter 5 of title 37, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending
period of active duty

``(a) Special Warfare Officer Defined.--In this section,
the term `special warfare officer' means an officer of a
uniformed service who--
``(1) is qualified for a military occupational specialty or
designator identified by the Secretary concerned as a special
warfare military occupational specialty or designator; and
``(2) is serving in a position for which that specialty or
designator is authorized.
``(b) Retention Bonus Authorized.--A special warfare
officer who meets the eligibility requirements specified in
subsection (c) and who executes a written agreement, on or
after October 1, 1999, to remain on active duty in special
warfare service for at least one year may, upon the
acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be
paid a retention bonus as provided in this section.
``(c) Eligible Officers.--A special warfare officer may
apply to enter into an agreement referred to in subsection
(b) if the officer--
``(1) is in pay grade O-3, or is in pay grade O-4 and is
not on a list of officers recommended for promotion, at the
time the officer applies to enter into the agreement;
``(2) has completed at least 6, but not more than 14, years
of active commissioned service; and
``(3) has completed any service commitment incurred to be
commissioned as an officer.
``(d) Amount of Bonus.--The amount of a retention bonus
paid under this section may not be more than $15,000 for each
year covered by the agreement.
``(e) Proration.--The term of an agreement under subsection
(b) and the amount of the retention bonus payable under
subsection (d) may be prorated as long as the agreement does
not extend beyond the date on which the officer executing the
agreement would complete 14 years of active commissioned
service.
``(f) Payment Methods.--(1) Upon acceptance of an agreement
under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned, the total
amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes fixed.
``(2) The amount of the retention bonus may be paid as
follows:
``(A) At the time the agreement is accepted by the
Secretary concerned, the Secretary may make a lump sum
payment equal to half the total amount payable under the
agreement. The balance of the bonus amount shall be paid in
equal annual installments on the anniversary of the
acceptance of the agreement.
``(B) The Secretary concerned may make graduated annual
payments under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, with
the first payment being payable at the time the agreement is
accepted by the Secretary and subsequent payments being
payable on the anniversary of the acceptance of the
agreement.
``(g) Additional Pay.--A retention bonus paid under this
section is in addition to any other pay and allowances to
which an officer is entitled.
``(h) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into an
agreement under subsection (b) and has received all or part
of a retention bonus under this section fails to complete the
total period of active duty in special warfare service as
specified in the agreement, the Secretary concerned may
require the officer to repay the United States, on a pro rata
basis and to the extent that the Secretary determines
conditions and circumstances warrant, all sums paid the
officer under this section.
``(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the
United States.
``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of an
agreement entered into under subsection (a) does not
discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt
arising under such agreement or under paragraph (1).
``(i) Regulations.--The Secretaries concerned shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this section, including
the definition of the term `special warfare service' for
purposes of this section. Regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of a military department under this section shall
be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period of active
duty.''.

SEC. 623. AUTHORIZATION OF SURFACE WARFARE OFFICER
CONTINUATION PAY.

(a) Incentive Pay Authorized.--Chapter 5 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
318, as added by section 622, the following new section:

``Sec. 319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation
pay

``(a) Eligible Surface Warfare Officer Defined.--In this
section, the term `eligible surface warfare officer' means an
officer of the Regular Navy or Naval Reserve on active duty
who--
``(1) is qualified and serving as a surface warfare
officer;
``(2) has been selected for assignment as a department head
on a surface vessel; and
``(3) has completed any service commitment incurred through
the officer's original commissioning program.
``(b) Special Pay Authorized.--An eligible surface warfare
officer who executes a written agreement, on or after October
1, 1999, to remain on active duty to complete one or more
tours of duty to which the officer may be ordered as a
department head on a surface ship may, upon the acceptance of
the agreement by the Secretary of the Navy, be paid an amount
not to exceed $50,000.
``(c) Proration.--The term of the written agreement under
subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may
be prorated.
``(d) Payment Methods.--Upon acceptance of the written
agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary of the Navy,
the total amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes
fixed. The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan
specifying the amount of each installment payment under the
agreement and the times for payment of the installments.
``(e) Additional Pay.--Any amount paid under this section
is in addition to any other pay and allowances to which an
officer is entitled.
``(f) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a
written agreement under subsection (b) and has received all
or part of the amount payable under the agreement fails to
complete the total period of active duty as a department head
on a surface ship specified in the agreement, the Secretary
of the Navy may require the officer to repay the United
States, to the extent that the Secretary of the Navy
determines conditions and circumstances warrant, any or all
sums paid under this section.
``(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the
United States.
``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of an
agreement entered into under subsection (b) does not
discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt
arising under such agreement or under paragraph (1).
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this section.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 318
the following new item:

``319. Special pay: surface warfare officer continuation pay''.

SEC. 624. AUTHORIZATION OF CAREER ENLISTED FLYER INCENTIVE
PAY.

(a) Incentive Pay Authorized.--Chapter 5 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
319, as added by section 623, the following new section:

``Sec. 320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers

``(a) Eligible Career Enlisted Flyer Defined.--In this
section, the term `eligible career enlisted flyer' means an
enlisted member of the armed forces who--
``(1) is entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this
title, or is entitled to pay under section 206 of this title
as described in subsection (e) of this section;
``(2) holds an enlisted military occupational specialty or
enlisted military rating designated as a career enlisted
flyer specialty or rating by the Secretary concerned,
performs duty as a dropsonde system operator, or is in
training leading to qualification and designation of such a
specialty or rating or the performance of such duty;
``(3) is qualified for aviation service under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned; and
``(4) satisfies the operational flying duty requirements
applicable under subsection (c).
``(b) Incentive Pay Authorized.--(1) The Secretary
concerned may pay monthly incentive pay to an eligible career
enlisted flyer in an amount not to exceed the monthly maximum
amounts specified in subsection (d). The incentive pay may be
paid as continuous monthly incentive pay or on a month-to-
month basis, dependent upon the operational flying duty
performed by the eligible career enlisted flyer as prescribed
in subsection (c).
``(2) Continuous monthly incentive pay may not be paid to
an eligible career enlisted flyer after the member completes
25 years of aviation service. Thereafter, an eligible career
enlisted flyer may still receive incentive pay on a month-to-
month basis under subsection (c)(4) for the frequent and
regular performance of operational flying duty.
``(c) Operational Flying Duty Requirements.--(1) An
eligible career enlisted flyer must perform operational
flying duties for 6 of the first 10, 9 of the first 15, and
14 of the first 20 years of aviation service, to be eligible
for continuous monthly incentive pay under this section.
``(2) Upon completion of 10, 15, or 20 years of aviation
service, an enlisted member who has not performed the minimum
required operational flying duties specified in paragraph (1)
during the prescribed period, although otherwise meeting the
definition in subsection (a), may no longer be paid
continuous monthly incentive pay except as provided in
paragraph (3). Payment of continuous monthly incentive pay if
the member meets the minimum operational flying duty
requirement upon completion of the next established period of
aviation service.
``(3) For the needs of the service, the Secretary concerned
may permit, on a case-by-case basis, a member to continue to
receive continuous monthly incentive pay despite the member's
failure to perform the operational flying duty required
during the first 10, 15, or 20 years of

[[Page 12179]]

aviation service, but only if the member otherwise meets the
definition in subsection (a) and has performed at least 5
years of operational flying duties during the first 10 years
of aviation service, 8 years of operational flying duties
during the first 15 years of aviation service, or 12 years of
operational flying duty during the first 20 years of aviation
service. The authority of the Secretary concerned under this
paragraph may not be delegated below the level of the Service
Personnel Chief.
``(4) If the eligibility of an eligible career enlisted
flyer to continuous monthly incentive pay ceases under
subsection (b)(2) or paragraph (2), the member may still
receive month-to-month incentive pay for subsequent frequent
and regular performance of operational flying duty. The rate
payable is the same rate authorized by the Secretary
concerned under subsection (d) for a member of corresponding
years of aviation service.
``(d) Monthly Maximum Incentive Pay.--The monthly rate for
incentive pay under this section may not exceed the amounts
specified in the following table for the applicable years of
aviation service:
Monthly
``Years of aviation service: rate
4 or less...................................................$150 ....

Over 4......................................................$225 ....

Over 8......................................................$350 ....

Over 14.....................................................$400 ....

``(e) Eligibility of Reserve Component Members When
Performing Inactive Duty Training.--Under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary concerned, when a member of a
reserve component or the National Guard, who is entitled to
compensation under section 206 of this title, meets the
definition of eligible career enlisted flyer, the Secretary
concerned may increase the member's compensation by an amount
equal to \1/30\ of the monthly incentive pay authorized by
the Secretary concerned under subsection (d) for a member of
corresponding years of aviation service who is entitled to
basic pay under section 204 of this title. The reserve
component member may receive the increase for as long as the
member is qualified for it, for each regular period of
instruction or period of appropriate duty, at which the
member is engaged for at least two hours, or for the
performance of such other equivalent training, instruction,
duty or appropriate duties, as the Secretary may prescribe
under section 206(a) of this title.
``(f) Relation to Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay or Diving
Duty Special Pay.--A member receiving special pay under
section 301(a) or 304 of this title may not be paid incentive
pay under this section for the same period of service.
``(g) Save Pay Provision.--If, immediately before a member
receives incentive pay under this section, the member was
entitled to incentive pay under section 301(a) of this title,
the rate at which the member is paid incentive pay under this
section shall be equal to the higher of the monthly amount
applicable under subsection (d) or the rate of incentive pay
the member was receiving under subsection (b) or (c)(2)(A) of
section 301 of this title.
``(h) Specialty Code of Dropsonde System Operators.--Within
the Air Force, the Secretary of the Air Force shall assign to
members who are dropsonde system operators a specialty code
that identifies such members as serving in a weather
specialty.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `aviation service' means participation in
aerial flight performed, under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary concerned, by an eligible career enlisted flyer.
``(2) The term `operational flying duty' means flying
performed under competent orders while serving in
assignments, including an assignment as a dropsonde system
operator, in which basic flying skills normally are
maintained in the performance of assigned duties as
determined by the Secretary concerned, and flying duty
performed by members in training that leads to the award of
an enlisted aviation rating or military occupational
specialty designated as a career enlisted flyer rating or
specialty by the Secretary concerned.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 319
the following new item:

``320. Incentive pay: career enlisted flyers.''.

SEC. 625. AUTHORIZATION OF JUDGE ADVOCATE CONTINUATION PAY.

(a) Incentive Pay Authorized.--(1) Chapter 5 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after section
320, as added by section 624, the following new section:

``Sec. 321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay

``(a) Eligible Judge Advocate Defined.--In this section,
the term `eligible judge advocate' means an officer of the
armed forces on full-time active duty who--
``(1) is qualified and serving as a judge advocate, as
defined in section 801 of title 10; and
``(2) has completed any service commitment incurred through
the officer's original commissioning program.
``(b) Special Pay Authorized.--An eligible judge advocate
who executes a written agreement, on or after October 1,
1999, to remain on active duty for a period of obligated
service specified in the agreement may, upon the acceptance
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
amount not to exceed $60,000.
``(c) Proration.--The term of the written agreement under
subsection (b) and the amount payable under the agreement may
be prorated.
``(d) Payment Methods.--Upon acceptance of the written
agreement under subsection (b) by the Secretary concerned,
the total amount payable pursuant to the agreement becomes
fixed. The Secretary shall prepare an implementation plan
specifying the amount of each installment payment under the
agreement and the times for payment of the installments.
``(e) Additional Pay.--Any amount paid under this section
is in addition to any other pay and allowances to which an
officer is entitled.
``(f) Repayment.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a
written agreement under subsection (b) and has received all
or part of the amount payable under the agreement fails to
complete the total period of active duty specified in the
agreement, the Secretary concerned may require the officer to
repay the United States, to the extent that the Secretary
determines conditions and circumstances warrant, any or all
sums paid under this section.
``(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed
under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owned to the
United States.
``(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of an
agreement entered into under subsection (b) does not
discharge the officer signing the agreement from a debt
arising under such agreement or under paragraph (1).
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary concerned shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.''
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 5 of
title 37, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 320 the following new item:

``321. Special pay: judge advocate continuation pay.''.

(b) Study and Report on Additional Recruitment and
Retention Initiatives.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a study regarding the need for additional incentives
to improve the recruitment and retention of judge advocates
for the Armed Forces. At a minimum, the Secretary shall
consider as possible incentives constructive service credit
for basic pay, educational loan repayment, and Federal
student loan relief.
(2) Not later than March 31, 2000, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report containing the findings and
recommendations resulting from the study.

Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances

SEC. 631. PROVISION OF LODGING IN KIND FOR RESERVISTS
PERFORMING TRAINING DUTY AND NOT OTHERWISE
ENTITLED TO TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION
ALLOWANCES.

Section 404(i) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following
new sentence: ``If transient government housing is
unavailable, the Secretary concerned may provide the member
with lodging in kind in the same manner as members entitled
to such allowances under subsection (a).''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting after ``paragraph (1)'' the following:
``and expenses of providing lodging in kind under such
paragraph''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Use
of Government charge cards is authorized for payment of these
expenses.''.

SEC. 632. PAYMENT OF TEMPORARY LODGING EXPENSES FOR MEMBERS
MAKING THEIR FIRST PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION.

(a) Authority to Pay or Reimburse.--Section 404a(a) of
title 37, United States Code, is amended
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph:
``(3) in the case of an enlisted member who is reporting to
the member's first permanent duty station, from the member's
home of record or initial technical school to that first
permanent duty station;''.
(b) Duration.--Such section is further amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``clause (1)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (1) or (3)''; and
(2) in the third sentence, by striking ``clause (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (2)''.

SEC. 633. EMERGENCY LEAVE TRAVEL COST LIMITATIONS.

Section 411d(b)(1) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new
subparagraph:
``(B) to any airport in the continental United States to
which travel can be arranged at the same or a lower cost as
travel obtained under subparagraph (A); or''.

Subtitle D--Retired Pay Reform

SEC. 641. REDUX RETIRED PAY SYSTEM APPLICABLE ONLY TO MEMBERS
ELECTING NEW 15-YEAR CAREER STATUS BONUS.

(a) Retired Pay Multiplier.--Paragraph (2) of section
1409(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``has elected to receive a bonus under section 321
of title 37,'' after ``July 31, 1986,''.

[[Page 12180]]

(b) Cost-of-Living Adjustments.--Paragraph (3) of section
1401a(b) of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Post-august 1, 1986 members.--
``(A) Members electing 15-year career status bonus.--In the
case of a member or former member who first became a member
on or after August 1, 1986, and who elected to receive a
bonus under section 321 of title 37, the Secretary shall
increase the retired pay of the member or former member
(unless the percent determined under paragraph (2) is less
than 1 percent) by the difference between--
``(i) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
``(ii) 1 percent.
``(B) Members not electing 15-year career status bonus.--In
the case of a member or former member who first became a
member on or after August 1, 1986, and who did not elect to
receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the Secretary
shall increase the retired pay of the member or former
member--
``(i) if the percent determined under paragraph (2) is
equal to or greater than 3 percent, by the difference
between--

``(I) the percent determined under paragraph (2); and
``(II) 1 percent; and

``(ii) if the percent determined under paragraph (2) is
less than 3 percent, by the lesser of--

``(I) the percent determined under paragraph (2); or
``(II) 2 percent.''.

(c) Recomputation of Retired Pay At Age 62.--Section 1410
of such title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In the case
of'';
(2) by inserting after ``62 years of age,'' the following:
``in accordance with subsection (b) or (c), as applicable.
``(b) Members Receiving Career Status Bonus.--In the case
of a member or former member described in subsection (a) who
received a bonus under section 321 of title 37, the retired
pay of the member or former member shall be recomputed under
subsection (a)'';
(3) by striking ``that date'' and inserting ``the effective
date of the recomputation''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Members Not Receiving Career Status Bonus.--In the
case of a member or former member described in subsection (a)
who did not receive a bonus under section 321 of title 37,
the retired pay of the member or former member shall be
recomputed under subsection (a) so as to be the amount equal
to the amount of retired pay to which the member or former
member would be entitled on the effective date of the
recomputation if increases in the retired pay of the member
or former member under section 1401a(b) of this title had
been computed as provided in paragraph (2) of that section
(rather than under paragraph (3)(B) of that section).''.

SEC. 642. AUTHORIZATION OF 15-YEAR CAREER STATUS BONUS.

(a) Career Service Bonus.--Chapter 5 of title 37, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 321, as
added by section 625, the following new section:

``Sec. 322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for
members entering service on or after August 1, 1986

``(a) Eligible Career Bonus Member Defined.--In this
section, the term `eligible career bonus member' means a
member of a uniformed service serving on active duty who--
``(1) first became a member on or after August 1, 1986; and
``(2) has completed 15 years of active duty in the
uniformed services (or has received notification under
subsection (e) that the member is about to complete that
duty).
``(b) Availability of Bonus.--The Secretary concerned shall
pay a bonus under this section to an eligible career bonus
member if the member--
``(1) elects to receive the bonus under this section; and
``(2) executes a written agreement (prescribed by the
Secretary concerned) to remain continuously on active duty
until the member has completed 20 years of active-duty
service creditable under section 1405 of title 10, if the
member is not already obligated to remain on active duty for
a period that would result in at least 20 years of active-
duty service.
``(c) Election Method.--The election under subsection
(b)(1) shall be made in such form and within such period as
the Secretary concerned may prescribe. An election under such
subsection is irrevocable.
``(d) Amount of Bonus; Payment.--(1) A bonus under this
section shall be paid in one lump sum of $30,000.
``(2) The bonus shall be paid to an eligible career bonus
member not later than the first month that begins on or after
the date that is 60 days after the date on which the
Secretary concerned receives from the member the election
required under subsection (b)(1) and the written agreement
required under subsection (b)(2), if applicable.
``(e) Notification of Eligibility.--(1) The Secretary
concerned shall transmit to each member who satisfies the
definition of eligible career bonus member a written
notification of the opportunity of the member to elect to
receive a bonus under this section. The Secretary shall
provide the notification not later than 180 days before the
date on which the member will complete 15 years of active
duty.
``(2) The notification shall include the following:
``(A) The procedures for electing to receive the bonus.
``(B) An explanation of the effects under sections 1401a,
1409, and 1410 of title 10 that such an election has on the
computation of any retired or retainer pay that the member
may become eligible to receive.
``(f) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If a person paid a bonus
under this section fails to complete the total period of
active duty specified in subsection (b)(2), the person shall
refund to the United States the amount that bears the same
ratio to the amount of the bonus payment as the unserved part
of that total period bears to the total period.
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), an obligation to reimburse
the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all
purposes a debt owed to the United States.
``(3) The Secretary concerned may waive, in whole or in
part, a refund required under paragraph (1) if the Secretary
concerned determines that recovery would be against equity
and good conscience or would be contrary to the best
interests of the United States.
``(4) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is
entered less than five years after the termination of an
agreement under this section does not discharge the member
signing such agreement from a debt arising under the
agreement or this subsection.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 321 the following new item:

``322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members entering
service on or after August 1, 1986.''.

SEC. 643. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Conforming Amendment to Survivor Benefit Plan
Provision.--Section 1451(h)(3) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``of certain members'' after
``retirement''.
(b) Related Technical Amendments.--Chapter 71 of such title
is amended as follows:
(1) Section 1401a(b) is amended by striking the heading for
paragraph (1) and inserting ``Increase required.--''.
(2) Section 1409(b)(2) is amended by inserting ``certain''
in the paragraph heading after ``Reduction applicable to''.

SEC. 644. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by sections 641, 642, and 643 shall
take effect on October 1, 1999.

Subtitle E--Other Retired Pay and Survivor Benefit Matters

SEC. 651. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT FOR MEMBERS
DYING IN CIVILIAN MEDICAL FACILITIES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 61 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1219 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities:
authority for determination of later time of death to allow
disability retirement

``(a) Authority for Later Time-of-Death Determination To
Allow Disability Retirement.--In the case of a member of the
armed forces who dies in a civilian medical facility in a
State, the Secretary concerned may, solely for the purpose of
allowing retirement of the member under section 1201 or 1204
of this title and subject to subsection (b), specify a date
and time of death of the member later than the date and time
of death determined by the attending physician in that
civilian medical facility.
``(b) Limitations.--A date and time of death may be
determined by the Secretary concerned under subsection (a)
only if that date and time--
``(1) are consistent with the date and time of death that
reasonably could have been determined by an attending
physician in a military medical facility if the member had
died in a military medical facility in the same State as the
civilian medical facility; and
``(2) are not more than 48 hours later than the date and
time of death determined by the attending physician in the
civilian medical facility.
``(c) State Defined.--In this section, the term `State'
includes the District of Columbia and any Commonwealth or
possession of the United States.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1219 the following new item:

``1220. Members dying in civilian medical facilities: authority for
determination of later time of death to allow disability
retirement.''.
(b) Effective Date.--(1) Section 1220 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with
respect to any member of the Armed Forces dying in a civilian
medical facility on or after January 1, 1998.
(2) In the case of any such member dying on or after such
date and before the date of the enactment of this Act, any
specification by the Secretary concerned under such section
with respect to the date and time of death of such member
shall be made not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 652. EXTENSION OF ANNUITY ELIGIBILITY FOR SURVIVING
SPOUSES OF CERTAIN RETIREMENT ELIGIBLE RESERVE
MEMBERS.

(a) Coverage of Surviving Spouses of All Gray Area
Retirees.--Section 644(a)(1)(B) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1800) is amended by striking ``during the period
beginning on September 21, 1972, and ending on'' and
inserting ``before''.

[[Page 12181]]

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to annuities payable for months
beginning after September 30, 1999.

SEC. 653. PRESENTATION OF UNITED STATES FLAG TO RETIRING
MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES NOT
PREVIOUSLY COVERED.

(a) Nonregular Service Military Retirees.--(1) Chapter 1217
of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new section:

``Sec. 12605. Presentation of United States flag: members
transferred from an active status or discharged after
completion of eligibility for retired pay

``(a) Presentation of Flag.--Upon the transfer from an
active status or discharge of a Reserve who has completed the
years of service required for eligibility for retired pay
under chapter 1223 of this title, the Secretary concerned
shall present a United States flag to the member.
``(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--A member is
not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a)
if the member has previously been presented a flag under this
section or any provision of law providing for the
presentation of a United States flag incident to release from
active service for retirement.
``(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag
under this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``12605. Presentation of United States flag: members transferred from
an active status or discharged after completion of
eligibility for retired pay.''.

(b) Public Health Service.--Title II of the Public Health
Service Act is amended by inserting after section 212 (42
U.S.C. 213) the following new section:

``presentation of united states flag upon retirement

``Sec. 213. (a) Upon the release of an officer of the
commissioned corps of the Service from active commissioned
service for retirement, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall present a United States flag to the officer.
``(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--An officer is
not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a)
if the officer has previously been presented a flag under
this section or any other provision of law providing for the
presentation of a United States flag incident to release from
active service for retirement.
``(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag
under this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.''.
(c) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--The
Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948
is amended by inserting after section 24 (33 U.S.C. 853u) the
following new section:
``Sec. 25. (a) Upon the release of a commissioned officer
from active commissioned service for retirement, the
Secretary of Commerce shall present a United States flag to
the officer.
``(b) Multiple Presentations Not Authorized.--An officer is
not eligible for presentation of a flag under subsection (a)
if the officer has previously been presented a flag under
this section or any other provision of law providing for the
presentation of a United States flag incident to release from
active service for retirement.
``(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag
under this section shall be at no cost to the recipient.''.
(d) Effective Date.--Section 12605 of title 10, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)), section 413 of the
Public Health Service Act (as added by subsection (b)), and
section 25 of the Coast and Geodetic Survey Commissioned
Officers' Act of 1948 (as added by subsection (c)) shall
apply with respect to releases from service described in
those sections on or after October 1, 1999.
(e) Conforming Amendments to Prior Law.--Sections 3681(b),
6141(b), and 8681(b) of title 10, United States Code, and
section 516(b) of title 14, United States Code, are each
amended by striking ``under this section'' and all that
follows through the period and inserting ``under this section
or any other provision of law providing for the presentation
of a United States flag incident to release from active
service for retirement.''.

SEC. 654. ACCRUAL FUNDING FOR RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR
COMMISSIONED CORPS OF NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Inclusion of NOAA Officers in DOD Military Retirement
Fund.--Section 1461 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and the Department of
Commerce'' after ``Department of Defense'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``and the Coast and Geodetic Survey
Commissioned Officers' Act of 1948 (33 U.S.C. 853a et seq.)''
in paragraph (1) after ``this title'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) the programs under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Commerce providing annuities for survivors of members and
former members of the NOAA Corps.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) In this chapter, the term `NOAA Corps' means the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned
Corps and its predecessors.''.
(b) Payments From the Fund.--Section 1463(a) of such title
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and Marine Corps'' and
inserting ``Marine Corps, and the NOAA Corps''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``and the Department of Commerce'' after
``Department of Defense''; and
(B) by striking ``armed forces'' and inserting ``uniformed
services''.
(c) Reports by Board of Actuaries.--Section 1464(b) of such
title is amended by inserting ``and the Secretary of Commerce
with respect to the NOAA Corps'' after ``Secretary of
Defense''.
(d) Department of Commerce Contributions to the Fund.--
Section 1465 of such title is amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Not later than January 1, 2000, the Secretary of
Commerce shall provide to the Board the amount that is the
present value (as of October 1, 1999) of future benefits
payable from the Fund that are attributable to service in the
NOAA Corps performed before October 1, 1999. That amount is
the NOAA Corps original unfunded liability of the Fund. The
Board shall determine the period of time over which that
unfunded liability should be liquidated and shall determine
an amortization schedule for the liquidation of such
liability over that period. Contributions to the Fund for the
liquidation of the original unfunded liability in accordance
with that schedule shall be made as provided in section
1466(b) of this title.''.
(2) Subsection (b) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``and the Secretary of Commerce'' after
``Secretary of Defense'' in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A);
(ii) by inserting ``and the Department of Commerce
contributions with respect to the NOAA Corps'' after
``Department of Defense contributions'' in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A); and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) The product of--
``(i) the current estimate of the value of the single level
percentage of basic pay to be determined under subsection
(c)(1)(C) at the time of the next actuarial valuation under
subsection (c); and
``(ii) the total amount of basic pay expected to be paid
during that fiscal year to members of the NOAA Corps.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by inserting ``and the Department of Commerce'' after
``Department of Defense''; and
(ii) by inserting ``and shall include separate amounts for
the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce''
after ``section 1105 of title 31''.
(3) Subsection (c)(1) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``and the Secretary of Commerce with
respect to the NOAA Corps'' in the first sentence after
``Secretary of Defense'';
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(C) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new
subparagraph:
``(C) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age normal
cost method) of a single level percentage of basic pay for
members of the NOAA Corps.''.
(e) Payments Into the Fund.--Section 1466 of such title is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``and the Secretary of Commerce with
respect to the NOAA Corps'' after ``Secretary of Defense'';
(B) by striking ``Department of Defense'' after ``each
month as the'';
(C) by inserting ``and 1465(c)(1)(C)'' in paragraph (1)(A)
after ``section 1465(c)(1)(A)'';
(D) by inserting ``and by members of the NOAA Corps'' in
paragraph (1)(B) before the period; and
(E) by inserting ``or members of the NOAA Corps'' before
the period at the end of the last sentence of that
subsection;
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by inserting ``and the NOAA
original unfunded liability'' after ``original unfunded
liability''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) The Secretary of Transportation shall process, on
behalf of the Fund, payments under section 1463 of this title
to members on the retired list of the NOAA Corps and to
survivors of members and former members of the NOAA Corps.
``(2) Payments made by the Secretary of Transportation
under paragraph (1) shall be charged against the Fund.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 1999.

Subtitle F--Other Matters

SEC. 671. PAYMENTS FOR UNUSED ACCRUED LEAVE AS PART OF
REENLISTMENT.

Section 501 of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``conditions or'' and inserting
``conditions,''; and
(B) by adding before the semicolon the following: ``, or a
reenlistment of the member (regardless of when the
reenlistment occurs)''; and

[[Page 12182]]

(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``, or entering into
an enlistment,''.

SEC. 672. CLARIFICATION OF PER DIEM ELIGIBILITY FOR MILITARY
TECHNICIANS SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY WITHOUT PAY
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Authority to Provide Per Diem Allowance.--Section
1002(b) of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) If a military technician (dual status), as described
in section 10216 of title 10, is performing active duty
without pay while on leave from technician employment, as
authorized by section 6323(d) of title 5, the Secretary
concerned may authorize the payment of a per diem allowance
to the military technician in lieu of commutation for
subsistence and quarters under paragraph (1).''.
(b) Types of Overseas Operations.--Section 6323(d)(1) of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``noncombat''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall be effective as of February 10, 1996, as if included in
section 1039 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat.432).

SEC. 673. OVERSEAS SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

(a) Program Required.--Subsection (a) of section 1060a of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may'' and inserting
``Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall''.
(b) Funding Source.--Subsection (b) of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Funding Mechanism.--The Secretary of Defense shall
use funds available for the Department of Defense to carry
out the program under subsection (a).''.
(c) Program Administration.--Subsection (c) of such section
is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) In determining income eligibility standards for
families of individuals participating in the program under
this section, the Secretary of Defense shall, to the extent
practicable, use the criterion described in subparagraph (A).
The Secretary shall also consider the value of housing in
kind provided to the individual when determining program
eligibility.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding before the period at the
end the following: ``, particularly with respect to nutrition
education and counseling''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by
the Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the
program under subsection (a).''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(q) The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide technical
assistance to the Secretary of Defense, if so requested by
the Secretary of Defense, for the purpose of carrying out the
overseas special supplemental food program established under
section 1060a(a) of title 10, United States Code.''.

SEC. 674. SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR SEVERELY DISABLED
UNIFORMED SERVICES RETIREES.

(a) Authority.--(1) Chapter 71 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 1413. Special compensation for certain severely
disabled uniformed services retirees

``(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned shall, subject to
the availability of appropriations for such purpose, pay to
each eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly
amount determined under subsection (b).
``(b) Amount.--The amount to be paid (subject to the
availability of appropriations) to an eligible disabled
uniformed services retiree in accordance with subsection (a)
is the following:
``(1) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying
service-connected disability rated as total, $300.
``(2) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying
service-connected disability rated as 90 percent, $200.
``(3) For any month for which the retiree has a qualifying
service-connected disability rated as 80 percent or 70
percent, $100.
``(c) Eligible Disabled Uniformed Services Retiree
Defined.--In this section, the term `eligible disabled
military retiree' means a member of the uniformed services in
a retired status (who is retired under a provision of law
other than chapter 61 of this title) who--
``(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the
uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of
computing the amount of retired pay to which the member is
entitled; and
``(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.
``(d) Qualifying Service-Connected Disability Defined.--In
this section, the term `qualifying service-connected
disability' means a service-connected disability that--
``(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of duty
as a member of a uniformed service, as determined by the
Secretary concerned; and
``(2) is rated as not less than 70 percent disabling--
``(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the date on which
the member is retired from the uniformed services; or
``(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs within four
years following the date on which the member is retired from
the uniformed services.
``(e) Status of Payments.--Payments under this section are
not retired pay.
``(f) Source of Funds.--(1) Payments under this section for
any fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for
pay and allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for
that fiscal year.
``(2) If the amount of funds available to the Secretary
concerned for any fiscal year for payments under this section
is less than the amount required to make such payments to all
eligible disabled uniformed services retirees for that year,
the Secretary shall make such payments first to retirees
described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b), then (to the
extent funds are available) to retirees described in
paragraph (2) of that subsection, and then (to the extent
funds are available) to retirees described in paragraph (3)
of that subsection.
``(g) Other Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The terms `compensation' and `service-connected' have
the meanings given those terms in section 101 of title 38.
``(2) The term `disability rated as total' means--
``(A) a disability that is rated as total under the
standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the
Department of Veterans Affairs; or
``(B) a disability for which the schedular rating is less
than total but for which a rating of total is assigned by
reason of inability of the disabled person concerned to
secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a
result of service-connected disabilities.
``(3) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed
services retirees.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Section 1413 of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on
October 1, 1999, and shall apply to months that begin on or
after that date. No benefit may be paid to any person by
reason of that section for any period before that date.

SEC. 675. TUITION ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS DEPLOYED IN A ----
CONTINGENCY OPERATION.

Section 2007(a) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) in the case of a member serving in a contingency
operation or similar operational mission (other than for
training) designated by the Secretary concerned, all of the
charges may be paid.''.

TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS

Subtitle A--Health Care Services

SEC. 701. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE TO MEMBERS ON ACTIVE DUTY
AT CERTAIN REMOTE LOCATIONS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall enter into
agreements with designated providers under which such
providers will provide health care services in or through
managed care plans to an eligible member of the Armed Forces
who resides within the service area of the designated
provider. The provisions in section 722(b)(2) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law
104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note) shall apply with respect to
such agreements.
(b) Adherence to TRICARE Prime Remote Program Policies.--A
designated provider who provides health care to an eligible
member described in subsection (a) shall, in providing such
care, adhere to policies of the Department of Defense with
respect to the TRICARE Prime Remote program, including
policies regarding coordination with appropriate military
medical authorities for specialty referrals and
hospitalization.
(c) Reimbursement Rates.--The Secretary shall negotiate
with each designated provider reimbursement rates that do not
exceed reimbursement rates allowable under TRICARE Standard.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``eligible member'' has the meaning given that
term in section 731(c) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 10 U.S.C. 1074
note).
(1) The term ``designated provider'' has the meaning given
that term in section 721(5) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201;
10 U.S.C. 1073 note).

SEC. 702. PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE.

(a) In General.--Section 731 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103-337;
10 U.S.C. 1092 note) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``demonstration program'';
(2) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(4) During fiscal year 2000, the Secretary shall continue
to furnish the same chiropractic care in the military medical
treatment facilities

[[Page 12183]]

designated pursuant to paragraph (2)(A) as the chiropractic
care furnished during the demonstration program.'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security
of the House of Representatives'' and inserting ``Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``May 1, 2000'' and
inserting ``January 31, 2000'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``; and'' at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting a semicolon;
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) if the Secretary submits an implementation plan
pursuant to subsection (e), the preparation of such plan.'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) The Secretary shall--
``(A) make full use of the oversight advisory committee in
preparing--
``(i) the final report on the demonstration program
conducted under this section; and
``(ii) the implementation plan described in subsection (e);
and
``(B) provide opportunities for members of the committee to
provide views as part of such final report and plan.'';
(5) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
(6) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e) Implementation Plan.--If the Secretary of Defense
recommends in the final report submitted under subsection (c)
that chiropractic health care services should be offered in
medical care facilities of the Armed Forces or as a health
care service covered under the TRICARE program, the Secretary
shall, not later than March 31, 2000, submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the Senate an implementation plan for the full
integration of chiropractic health care services into the
military health care system of the Department of Defense,
including the TRICARE program. Such implementation plan shall
include--
``(1) a detailed analysis of the projected costs of fully
integrating chiropractic health care services into the
military health care system;
``(2) the proposed scope of practice for chiropractors who
would provide services to covered beneficiaries under chapter
55 of title 10, United States Code;
``(3) the proposed military medical treatment facilities at
which such services would be provided;
``(4) the military readiness requirements for chiropractors
who would provide services to such covered beneficiaries; and
``(5) any other relevant factors that the Secretary
considers appropriate.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 731
in the table of contents at the beginning of such Act is
amended to read as follows:

``731. Chiropractic health care.''

SEC. 703. CONTINUATION OF PROVISION OF DOMICILIARY AND
CUSTODIAL CARE FOR CERTAIN CHAMPUS
BENEFICIARIES.

(a) Continuation of Care.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
may, in any case in which the Secretary makes the
determination described in paragraph (2), continue to provide
payment under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services (as defined in section 1072 of title 10,
United States Code), for domiciliary or custodial care
services provided to an eligible beneficiary that would
otherwise be excluded from coverage under regulations
implementing section 1077(b)(1) of such title.
(2) A determination under this paragraph is a determination
that discontinuation of payment for domiciliary or custodial
care services or transition to provision of care under the
individual case management program authorized by section
1079(a)(17) of such title would be--
(A) inadequate to meet the needs of the eligible
beneficiary; and
(B) unjust to such beneficiary.
(b) Eligible Beneficiary Defined.--As used in this section,
the term ``eligible beneficiary'' means a covered beneficiary
(as that term is defined in section 1072 of title 10, United
States Code) who, before the effective date of final
regulations to implement the individual case management
program authorized by section 1079(a)(17) of such title, were
provided domiciliary or custodial care services for which the
Secretary provided payment.

SEC. 704. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR
ABORTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES OF RAPE OR INCEST.

Section 1093(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting ``or in a case in which the pregnancy is the
result of an act of forcible rape or incest which has been
reported to a law enforcement agency'' before the period.

Subtitle B--TRICARE Program

SEC. 711. IMPROVEMENTS TO CLAIMS PROCESSING UNDER THE TRICARE
PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1095b the
following new section:

``Sec. 1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of
claims

``(a) Reduction of Processing Time.--(1) With respect to
claims for payment for medical care provided under the
TRICARE program, the Secretary of Defense shall implement a
system for processing of claims under which--
``(A) 95 percent of all mistake-free claims must be
processed not later than 30 days after the date that such
claims are submitted to the claims processor; and
``(B) 100 percent of all mistake-free claims must be
processed not later than 100 days after the date that such
claims are submitted to the claims processor.
``(2) The Secretary may, under the system required by
paragraph (1) and consistent with the provisions in chapter
39 of title 31, United States Code (commonly referred to as
the `Prompt Payment Act'), require that interest be paid on
claims that are not processed within 30 days.
``(b) Requirement to Provide Start-up Time For Certain
Contractors.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall not require
that a contractor described in paragraph (2) begin to provide
managed care support pursuant to a contract to provide such
support under the TRICARE program until at least nine months
after the date of the award of the contract. In such case the
contractor may begin to provide managed care support pursuant
to the contract as soon as practicable after the award of the
contract, but in no case later than one year after the date
of such award.
``(2) A contractor under this paragraph is a contractor who
is awarded a contract to provide managed care support under
the TRICARE program--
``(A) who has not previously been awarded such a contract
by the Department of Defense; or
``(B) who has previously been awarded such a contract by
the Department of Defense but for whom the subcontractors
have not previously been awarded the subcontracts for such a
contract.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1095b the following new item:

``1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of claims.''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report on--
(1) the status of claims processing backlogs in each
TRICARE region;
(2) the estimated time frame for resolution of such
backlogs;
(3) efforts to reduce the number of change orders with
respect to contracts to provide managed care support under
the TRICARE program and to make such change orders in groups
on a quarterly basis rather than one at a time;
(4) the extent of success in simplifying claims processing
procedures through reduction of reliance of the Department of
Defense on, and the complexity of, the health care service
record;
(5) application of best industry practices with respect to
claims processing, including electronic claims processing;
and
(6) any other initiatives of the Department of Defense to
improve claims processing procedures.
(c) Deadline For Implementation.--The system for processing
claims required under section 1095c(a) of title 10, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall be
implemented not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(d) Applicability.--Section 1095c(b) of title 10, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)), shall apply with
respect to any contract to provide managed care support under
the TRICARE program negotiated after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 712. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE CERTAIN TRICARE DEDUCTIBLES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1095c (as added
by section 711) the following new section:

``Sec. 1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles

``(a) Waiver Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may
waive the deductible payable for medical care provided under
the TRICARE program to an eligible dependent of--
``(1) a member of a reserve component on active duty
pursuant to a call or order to active duty for a period of
less than one year; or
``(2) a member of the National Guard on full-time National
Guard duty pursuant to a call or order to full-time National
Guard duty for a period of less than one year.
``(b) Eligible Dependent.--As used in this section, the
term `eligible dependent' means a dependent described
subparagraphs (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this
title.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 1095c the following new item:

``1095d. TRICARE: program waiver of certain deductibles.''.

Subtitle C--Other Matters

SEC. 721. PHARMACY BENEFITS PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 55 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1074f the
following new section:

``Sec. 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program

``(a) Pharmacy Benefits.--(1) The Secretary of Defense,
after consultation with the other administering Secretaries,
shall establish an effective, efficient, integrated pharmacy
benefits program under this chapter (hereinafter in this
section referred to as the `pharmacy benefits program').

[[Page 12184]]

``(2)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include a
uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents, which shall
assure the availability of pharmaceutical agents in a
complete range of therapeutic classes. The selection for
inclusion on the uniform formulary of particular
pharmaceutical agents in each therapeutic class shall be
based on the relative clinical and cost effectiveness of the
agents in such class.
``(B) The Secretary shall establish procedures for the
selection of particular pharmaceutical agents for the uniform
formulary, and shall begin to implement the uniform formulary
not later than October 1, 2000.
``(C) Pharmaceutical agents included on the uniform
formulary shall be available to eligible covered
beneficiaries through--
``(i) facilities of the uniformed services, consistent with
the scope of health care services offered in such facilities;
``(ii) retail pharmacies designated or eligible under the
TRICARE program or the Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services to provide pharmaceutical agents to
eligible covered beneficiaries; or
``(iii) the national mail order pharmacy program.
``(3) The pharmacy benefits program shall assure the
availability of clinically appropriate pharmaceutical agents
to members of the armed forces, including, if appropriate,
agents not included on the uniform formulary described in
paragraph (2).
``(4) The pharmacy benefits program may provide that prior
authorization be required for certain categories of
pharmaceutical agents to assure that the use of such agents
is clinically appropriate. Such categories shall be the
following:
``(A) High-cost injectable agents.
``(B) High-cost biotechnology agents.
``(C) Pharmaceutical agents with high potential for
inappropriate use.
``(D) Pharmaceutical agents otherwise determined by the
Secretary to require prior authorization.
``(5)(A) The pharmacy benefits program shall include
procedures for eligible covered beneficiaries to receive
pharmaceutical agents not included on the uniform formulary.
Such procedures shall include peer review procedures under
which the Secretary may determine that there is a clinical
justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent that is
not on the uniform formulary, in which case the
pharmaceutical agent shall be provided under the same terms
and conditions as an agent on the uniform formulary.
``(B) If the Secretary determines that there is not a
clinical justification for the use of a pharmaceutical agent
that is not on the uniform formulary under the procedures
established pursuant to subparagraph (A), such pharmaceutical
agent shall be available through at least one of the means
described in paragraph (2)(C) under terms and conditions that
may include cost sharing by the eligible covered beneficiary
in addition to any such cost sharing applicable to agents on
the uniform formulary.
``(6) The Secretary of Defense shall, after consultation
with the other administering Secretaries, promulgate
regulations to carry out this subsection.
``(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
authorizing a contractor to penalize an eligible covered
beneficiary with respect to, or decline coverage for, a
maintenance pharmaceutical that is not on the list of
preferred pharmaceuticals of the contractor and that was
prescribed for the beneficiary before the date of the
enactment of this section and stabilized the medical
condition of the beneficiary.
``(b) Establishment of Committee.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of the
military departments, establish a pharmaceutical and
therapeutics committee for the purpose of developing the
uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents required by
subsection (a), reviewing such formulary on a periodic basis,
and making additional recommendations regarding the formulary
as the committee determines necessary and appropriate. The
committee shall include representatives of pharmacies of the
uniformed services facilities, contractors responsible for
the TRICARE retail pharmacy program, contractors responsible
for the national mail order pharmacy program, providers in
facilities of the uniformed services, and TRICARE network
providers. Committee members shall have expertise in treating
the medical needs of the populations served through such
entities and in the range of pharmaceutical and biological
medicines available for treating such populations.
``(2) Not later than 90 days after the establishment of the
pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee by the Secretary,
the committee shall submit a proposed uniform formulary to
the Secretary .
``(c) Advisory Panel.--(1) Concurrent with the
establishment of the pharmaceutical and therapeutics
committee under subsection (b), the Secretary shall establish
a Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel to review and
comment on the development of the uniform formulary. The
Secretary shall consider the comments of the panel before
implementing the uniform formulary or implementing changes to
the uniform formulary.
``(2) The Secretary shall determine the size and membership
of the panel established under paragraph (1), which shall
include members that represent nongovernmental organizations
and associations that represent the views and interests of a
large number of eligible covered beneficiaries.
``(d) Procedures.--In the operation of the pharmacy
benefits program under subsection (a), the Secretary of
Defense shall assure through management and new contractual
arrangements that financial resources are aligned such that
the cost of prescriptions is borne by the organization that
is financially responsible for the health care of the
eligible covered beneficiary.
``(e) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service.--Not later than
April 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall implement the
use of the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service in all fixed
facilities of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary, the TRICARE network retail pharmacy
program, and the national mail order pharmacy program.
``(f) Definition of Eligible Covered Beneficiary.--As used
in this section, the term `eligible covered beneficiary'
means a covered beneficiary for whom eligibility to receive
pharmacy benefits through the means described in subsection
(a)(2)(C) is established under this chapter or another
provision of law.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
1074f the following new item:

``1074g. Pharmacy benefits program.''.
(b) Deadline For Establishment of Committee.--The Secretary
shall establish the pharmaceutical and therapeutics committee
required under section 1074g(b) of title 10, United States
Code, not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(c) Reports Required.--Not later than April 1 and October 1
of fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to Congress a report on--
(1) implementation of the uniform formulary required under
subsection (a) of section 1074g of title 10, United States
Code (as added by subsection (a));
(2) the results of a confidential survey conducted by the
Secretary of prescribers for military medical treatment
facilities and TRICARE contractors to determine--
(A) during the most recent fiscal year, how often
prescribers attempted to prescribe non-formulary or non-
preferred prescription drugs, how often such prescribers were
able to do so, and whether covered beneficiaries were able to
fill such prescriptions without undue delay;
(B) the understanding by prescribers of the reasons that
military medical treatment facilities or civilian contractors
preferred certain pharmaceuticals to others; and
(C) the impact of any restrictions on access to non-
formulary prescriptions on the clinical decisions of the
prescribers and the aggregate cost, quality, and
accessibility of health care provided to covered
beneficiaries;
(3) the operation of the Pharmacy Data Transaction Service
required by subsection (e) of such section 1074g; and
(4) any other actions taken by the Secretary to improve
management of the pharmacy benefits program under such
section.
(d) Study for Design of Pharmacy Benefit for Certain
Covered Beneficiaries.--(1) Not later than April 15, 2001,
the Secretary of Defense shall prepare and submit to
Congress--
(A) a study on a design for a comprehensive pharmacy
benefit for covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title
10, United States Code, who are entitled to benefits under
part A, and enrolled under part B, of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act; and
(B) an estimate of the costs of implementing and operating
such design.
(2) The design described in paragraph (1)(A) shall
incorporate the elements of the pharmacy benefits program
required to be established under section 1074g of title 10,
United States Code (as added by subsection (a)).

SEC. 722. IMPROVEMENTS TO THIRD-PARTY PAYER COLLECTION
PROGRAM.

Section 1095 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``the reasonable costs of'' and inserting
``reasonable charges for'';
(B) by striking ``such costs'' and inserting ``such
charges''; and
(C) by striking ``the reasonable cost of'' and inserting
``a reasonable charge for'';
(2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
``(f) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations
for the administration of this section. Such regulations
shall provide for the computation of reasonable charges for
inpatient services, outpatient services, and other health
care services. Computation of such reasonable charges may be
based on--
``(1) per diem rates;
``(2) all-inclusive per visit rates;
``(3) diagnosis-related groups;
``(4) rates prescribed under the regulations prescribed to
implement sections 1079 and 1086 of this title; or
``(5) such other method as may be appropriate.'';
(3) in subsection (g), by striking ``the costs of''; and
(4) in subsection (h)(1), by striking the first sentence
and inserting ``The term `third-party payer' means an entity
that provides an insurance, medical service, or health plan
by contract or agreement, including an automobile liability
insurance or no fault insurance carrier, and any other plan
or program that is designed to provide compensation or
coverage for expenses incurred by a beneficiary for health
care services or products.''.

[[Page 12185]]

SEC. 723. AUTHORITY OF ARMED FORCES MEDICAL EXAMINER TO
CONDUCT FORENSIC PATHOLOGY INVESTIGATIONS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to
conduct forensic pathology investigations

``(a) In General.--The Armed Forces Medical Examiner may
conduct a forensic pathology investigation, including an
autopsy, to determine the cause or manner of death of an
individual in any case in which--
``(1) the individual was killed, or from any cause died an
unnatural death;
``(2) the cause or manner of death is unknown;
``(3) there is reasonable suspicion that the death was by
unlawful means;
``(4) the death appears to be from an infectious disease or
the result of the effects of a hazardous material that may
have an adverse effect on the installation or community in
which the individual died or was found dead; or
``(5) the identity of the deceased individual is unknown.
``(b) Limitations on Authority.--(1) The authority provided
under subsection (a) may only be exercised with respect to an
individual in a case in which--
``(A) the individual died or is found dead at an
installation garrisoned by units of the armed forces and
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;
``(B) the individual was, at the time of death, a member of
the armed forces on active duty or inactive duty for training
or a member of the armed forces who recently retired under
chapter 61 of this title and died as a result of an injury or
illness incurred while on active duty;
``(C) the individual was a civilian dependent of a member
of the armed forces and died or was found dead at a location
outside the United States;
``(D) the Armed Forces Medical Examiner determines,
pursuant to an authorized investigation by the Department of
Defense of matters involving the death of an individual or
individuals, that a factual determination of the cause or
manner of the death of the individual is necessary; or
``(E) pursuant to an authorized investigation being
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
National Transportation Safety Board, or other Federal
agency, an official of such agency with authority to direct a
forensic pathology investigation requests that an
investigation be conducted by the Armed Forces Medical
Examiner.
``(2) The authority provided in subsection (a) shall be
subject to the primary jurisdiction, to the extent exercised,
of a State or local government with respect to the conduct of
an investigation or, if outside the United States, of
authority exercised under any applicable Status-of-Forces or
other international agreement between the United States and
the country in which the individual died or was found dead.
``(c) Designation of Pathologist.--The Armed Forces Medical
Examiner may designate any qualified pathologist to carry out
the authority provided in subsection (a).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``130b. Authority of armed forces medical examiner to conduct forensic
pathology investigations.''.

SEC. 724. TRAUMA TRAINING CENTER.

(a) Start-up Costs.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated in section 301(22) for the Defense Health
Program, $4,000,000, shall be used for startup costs for a
Trauma Training Center to enhance the capability of the Army
to train forward surgical teams.
(b) Amendment to Existing Authority.--Section 742 of the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2074) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 742. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A TRAUMA TRAINING
CENTER.

``The Secretary of the Army is hereby authorized to
establish a Trauma Training Center in order to provide the
Army with a trauma center capable of training forward
surgical teams.''.

SEC. 725. STUDY ON JOINT OPERATIONS FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH
PROGRAM.

Not later than October 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense
shall prepare and submit to Congress a study identifying
areas with respect to the Defense Health Program for which
joint operations might be increased, including organization,
training, patient care, hospital management, and budgeting.
The study shall include a discussion of the merits and
feasibility of--
(1) establishing a joint command for the Defense Health
Program as a military counterpart to the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Health Affairs;
(2) establishing a joint training curriculum for the
Defense Health Program; and
(3) creating a unified chain of command and budgeting
authority for the Defense Health Program.

TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS

SEC. 801. SALE, EXCHANGE, AND WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR COAL AND
COKE.

(a) In General.--Section 2404 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``petroleum or natural gas'' and inserting ``a defined fuel
source'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``petroleum market conditions or natural
gas market conditions, as the case may be,'' and inserting
``market conditions for the defined fuel source''; and
(ii) by striking ``acquisition of petroleum or acquisition
of natural gas, respectively,'' and inserting ``acquisition
of that defined fuel source''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``petroleum or natural
gas, as the case may be,'' and inserting ``that defined fuel
source'';
(3) in subsection (b), by striking ``petroleum or natural
gas'' in the second sentence and inserting ``a defined fuel
source'';
(4) in subsection (c), by striking ``petroleum'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``a defined
fuel source or services related to a defined fuel source by
exchange of a defined fuel source or services related to a
defined fuel source.'';
(5) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``petroleum or natural gas'' in the first
sentence and inserting ``a defined fuel source''; and
(B) by striking ``petroleum'' in the second sentence and
all that follows through the period and inserting ``a defined
fuel source or services related to a defined fuel source.'';
and
(6) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Defined Fuel Sources.--In this section, the term
`defined fuel source' means any of the following:
``(1) Petroleum.
``(2) Natural gas.
``(3) Coal.
``(4) Coke.''.
(b) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of such section
is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority
to waive contract procedures; acquisition by exchange;
sales authority''.

(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 141 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``2404. Acquisition of certain fuel sources: authority to waive
contract procedures; acquisition by exchange; sales
authority.''.

SEC. 802. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO ISSUE SOLICITATIONS FOR
PURCHASES OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS IN EXCESS OF
SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION THRESHOLD.

Section 4202(e) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (divisions
D and E of Public Law 104-106; 10 U.S.C. 2304 note) is
amended by striking ``three years after the date on which
such amendments take effect pursuant to section 4401(b)'' and
inserting ``January 1, 2002''.

SEC. 803. EXPANSION OF APPLICABILITY OF REQUIREMENT TO MAKE
CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS FROM SMALL ARMS PRODUCTION
INDUSTRIAL BASE.

Section 2473(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(6) M2 machine gun.
``(7) M60 machine gun.''.

SEC. 804. REPEAL OF TERMINATION OF PROVISION OF CREDIT
TOWARDS SUBCONTRACTING GOALS FOR PURCHASES
BENEFITING SEVERELY HANDICAPPED PERSONS.

Section 2410d(c) of title 10, United States Code, is
repealed.

SEC. 805. EXTENSION OF TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF
COMPREHENSIVE SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING
PLANS.

Subsection (e) of section 834 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law
101-189; 15 U.S.C. 637 note) is amended by striking ``2000.''
and inserting ``2003''.

SEC. 806. FACILITATION OF NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM.

(a) Authorization of Waiver of Requirement for Completion
of Initial OT&E Before Production Begins.--Notwithstanding
section 2399(a) of title 10, United States Code, the
Secretary of Defense may make a determination to proceed with
production of a national missile defense system without
regard to whether initial operational testing and evaluation
of the system has been completed.
(b) Requirement for Completion of Initial OT&E.--If the
Secretary makes such a determination as provided by
subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that such a
national missile defense system successfully completes an
adequate operational test and evaluation as soon as
practicable following that determination and before the
operational deployment of such system.
(c) Notification to Congressional Committees.--The
Secretary shall promptly notify the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives, in writing, upon making a
determination that production of a national missile defense
system may be carried out before initial operational testing
and evaluation of that system has been completed, as
authorized by subsection (a).

SEC. 807. OPTIONS FOR ACCELERATED ACQUISITION OF PRECISION
MUNITIONS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Current inventories of many precision munitions of the
United States do not meet the requirements of the Department
of Defense for two Major Theater Wars, and with respect to
some precision munitions, such requirements will not be met
even after planned acquisitions are made.

[[Page 12186]]

(2) Production lines for certain critical precision
munitions have been shut down, and the start-up production of
replacement precision munitions leaves a critical gap in
acquisition of follow-on precision munitions.
(3) Shortages of conventional air-launched cruise missiles
and Tomahawk missiles during Operation Allied Force indicate
the critical need to maintain robust inventories of precision
munitions.
(b) Reports.--(1) Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on
the requirements of the Department of Defense for quantities
of precision munitions for two Major Theater Wars, and when
such requirements will be met for each precision munition.
(2) Not later than March 15, 2000, the Secretary shall
submit to the congressional defense committees a report on--
(A) the options recommended by the teams formed under
subsection (c) for acceleration of acquisition of precision
munitions; and
(B) a plan for implementing such options.
(c) Recommendations for Options.--The Secretary of Defense
shall form teams of experts from industry and the military
departments to recommend to the Secretary options for
accelerating the acquisition of precision munitions in order
that, with respect to any such munition for which the
requirements of the Department of Defense for two Major
Theater Wars are not expected to be met by October 1, 2002,
such requirements may be met for such munitions by such date.

SEC. 808. PROGRAM TO INCREASE OPPORTUNITY FOR SMALL BUSINESS
INNOVATION IN DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

(a) Requirement to Implement Program.--The Secretary of
Defense shall implement a program to provide for increased
opportunity for small-business concerns to provide innovative
technology for acquisition programs of the Department of
Defense.
(b) Elements of Program.--The program required by
subsection (a) shall consist of the following elements:
(1) The Secretary shall establish procedures through which
small-business concerns may submit challenge proposals to
existing components of acquisition programs of the Department
of Defense which shall be designed to encourage small-
business concerns to recommend cost-saving and innovative
ideas to acquisition program managers.
(2) The Secretary shall establish a challenge proposal
review board, the purpose of which shall be to review and
make recommendations on the merit and viability of the
challenge proposals submitted under paragraph (1). The
Secretary shall ensure that such recommendations receive
active consideration for incorporation into applicable
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense at the
appropriate point in the acquisition cycle.
(c) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall report to
Congress annually on the implementation of this section and
the progress of providing increased opportunity for small-
business concerns to provide innovative technology for
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense.
(d) Small-Business Concern Defined.--In this section, the
term ``small-business concern'' has the same meaning as the
meaning of such term as used in the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 631 et seq.).

TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 901. LIMITATION ON AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR CONTRACTED
ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES.

(a) Reduction.--From amounts appropriated for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000, the total amount
obligated for contracted advisory and assistance services may
not exceed the amount equal to the sum of the amounts
specified in the President's budget for fiscal year 2000 for
those services for components of the Department of Defense
reduced by $100,000,000.
(b) Limitation Pending Receipt of Required Report.--Not
more than 90 percent of the amount available to the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000 for contracted
advisory and assistance services (taking into account the
limitation under subsection (a)) may be obligated until the
Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the first annual
report under section 2212(c) of title 10, United States Code.

SEC. 902. RESPONSIBILITY FOR LOGISTICS AND SUSTAINMENT
FUNCTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology.--(1) The position of Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology in the Department of Defense
is hereby redesignated as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Any reference in any
law, regulation, document, or other record of the United
States to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology shall be treated as referring to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
(2) Section 133 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in subsections (a), (b), and (e)(1), by striking
``Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology''
and inserting ``Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) by striking ``logistics,'' in paragraph (2);
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(4) and (5), respectively; and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraph (3):
``(3) establishing policies for logistics, maintenance, and
sustainment support for all elements of the Department of
Defense;''.
(b) New Deputy Under Secretary for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness.--(1) Chapter 4 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after section 133a the following new
section:

``Sec. 133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics
and Materiel Readiness

``(a) There is a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Logistics and Materiel Readiness, appointed from civilian
life by the President by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate. The Deputy Under Secretary shall be appointed
from among persons with an extensive background in the
sustainment of major weapon systems and combat support
equipment.
``(b) The Deputy Under Secretary is the principal adviser
to the Secretary and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on logistics and
materiel readiness in the Department of Defense and is the
principal logistics official within the senior management of
the Department of Defense.
``(c) The Deputy Under Secretary shall perform such duties
relating to logistics and materiel readiness as the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics may assign, including--
``(1) prescribing, by authority of the Secretary of
Defense, policies and procedures for the conduct of
logistics, maintenance, materiel readiness, and sustainment
support in the Department of Defense;
``(2) advising and assisting the Secretary of Defense, the
Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and providing
guidance to and consulting with the Secretaries of the
military departments, with respect to logistics, maintenance,
materiel readiness, and sustainment support in the Department
of Defense; and
``(3) monitoring and reviewing all logistics, maintenance,
materiel readiness, and sustainment support programs in the
Department of Defense.''.
(2) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after the paragraph relating to the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology the
following new paragraph:
``Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and
Materiel Readiness.''.
(c) Revisions to Law Providing for Deputy Under Secretary
for Acquisition and Technology.--Section 133a(b) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``his duties'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``the Under Secretary's duties relating to
acquisition and technology''; and
(2) by striking the second sentence.
(d) Conforming Amendments to Chapter 4.-- Chapter 4 of such
title is further amended as follows:
(1) Sections 131(b)(2), 134(c), 137(b), and 139(b) are
amended by striking ``Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics''.
(2) The heading of section 133 is amended to read as
follows:

``Sec. 133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics''.

(3) The table of sections at the beginning of the chapter
is amended--
(A) by striking the item relating to section 133 and
inserting the following:

``133. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.'';
and
(B) by inserting after the item relating to section 133a
the following new item:

``133b. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel
Readiness.''.
(e) Additional Conforming Amendments.--Section 5313 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology'' and
inserting ``Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics''.

SEC. 903. MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT
ACTIVITIES.

(a) Revision to Defense Directive Relating to Management
Headquarters and Headquarters Support Activities.--Not later
than October 1, 2000, the Secretary of Defense shall issue a
revision to Department of Defense Directive 5100.73, entitled
``Department of Defense Management Headquarters and
Headquarters Support Activities'', so as to incorporate in
that directive the following:
(1) A threshold specified by command (or other
organizational element) such that any headquarters activity
below the threshold is not considered for the purpose of the
directive to be a management headquarters or headquarters
support activity.
(2) A definition of the term ``management headquarters and
headquarters support activities'' that (A) is based upon
function (rather than organization), and (B) includes any
activity (other than an operational activity) that reports
directly to such an activity.
(3) Uniform application of those definitions throughout the
Department of Defense.
(b) Technical Amendments to Update Limitation on OSD
Personnel.--Effective October 1, 1999, section 143 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--

[[Page 12187]]

(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Effective October 1, 1999, the'' and
inserting ``The''; and
(B) by striking ``75 percent of the baseline number'' and
inserting ``3,767''.
(2) by striking subsections (b), (c), and (f); and
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively.

SEC. 904. FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND
SUPPORT WORKFORCE.

(a) Reduction of Defense Acquisition and Support
Workforce.--The Secretary of Defense shall accomplish
reductions in defense acquisition and support personnel
positions during fiscal year 2000 so that the total number of
such personnel as of October 1, 2000, is less than the total
number of such personnel as of October 1, 1999, by at least
25,000.
(b) Defense Acquisition and Support Personnel Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``defense acquisition and
support personnel'' means military and civilian personnel
(other than civilian personnel who are employed at a
maintenance depot) who are assigned to, or employed in,
acquisition organizations of the Department of Defense (as
specified in Department of Defense Instruction numbered
5000.58 dated January 14, 1992), and any other organizations
which the Secretary may determine to have a predominantly
acquisition mission.

SEC. 905. CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CHINESE MILITARY AFFAIRS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The strategic relationship between the United States
and the People's Republic of China will be very important for
future peace and security, not only in the Asia-Pacific
region but around the world.
(2) The United States does not view China as an enemy, nor
consider that the coming century necessarily will see a new
great power competition between the two nations.
(3) The end of the cold war has eliminated what had been
the one fundamental common strategic interest of the United
States and China, that of containing the Soviet Union.
(4) The sustained economic rise, stated geopolitical
ambitions, and increasingly confrontational actions of China
cast doubt on whether the United States will be able to form
a satisfactory strategic partnership with the People's
Republic of China and will pose challenges that will require
careful management in order to preserve peace and protect the
national security interests of the United States.
(5) The ability of the Department of Defense, and the
United States Government more generally, to develop sound
security and military strategies is hampered by a limited
understanding of Chinese strategic goals and military
capabilities. The low priority accorded the study of Chinese
strategic and military affairs within the Government and
within the academic community has contributed to this limited
understanding.
(6) There is a need for a United States national institute
for research and assessment of political, strategic, and
military affairs in the People's Republic of China. Such an
institute should be capable of providing analysis for the
purpose of shaping United States military strategy and policy
with regard to China and should be readily accessible to
senior leaders within the Department of Defense, but should
maintain academic and intellectual independence so that that
analysis is not first shaped by policy.
(b) Establishment of Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs.--(1) Chapter 108 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2166. National Defense University: Center for the
Study of Chinese Military Affairs

``(a) Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the `Center') as
part of the National Defense University. The Center shall be
organized as an independent institute under the University.
``(2) The Director of the Center shall be appointed by the
Secretary of Defense. The Secretary shall appoint as the
Director an individual who is a distinguished scholar of
proven academic, management, and leadership credentials with
a superior record of achievement and publication regarding
Chinese political, strategic, and military affairs.
``(b) Mission.--The mission of the Center is to study the
national goals and strategic posture of the People's Republic
of China and the ability of that nation to develop, field,
and deploy an effective military instrument in support of its
national strategic objectives.
``(c) Areas of Study.--The Center shall conduct research
relating to the People's Republic of China as follows:
``(1) To assess the potential of that nation to act as a
global great power, the Center shall conduct research that
considers the policies and capabilities of that nation in a
regional and world-wide context, including Central Asia,
Southwest Asia, Europe, and Latin America, as well as the
Asia-Pacific region.
``(2) To provide a fuller assessment of the areas of study
referred to in paragraph (1), the Center shall conduct
research on--
``(A) economic trends relative to strategic goals and
military capabilities;
``(B) strengths and weaknesses in the scientific and
technological sector; and
``(C) relevant demographic and human resource factors on
progress in the military sphere.
``(3) The Center shall conduct research on the armed forces
of the People's Republic of China, taking into account the
character of those armed forces and their role in Chinese
society and economy, the degree of their technological
sophistication, and their organizational and doctrinal
concepts. That research shall include inquiry into the
following matters:
``(A) Concepts concerning national interests, objectives,
and strategic culture.
``(B) Grand strategy, military strategy, military
operations, and tactics.
``(C) Doctrinal concepts at each of the four levels
specified in subparagraph (B).
``(D) The impact of doctrine on China's force structure
choices.
``(E) The interaction of doctrine and force structure at
each level to create an integrated system of military
capabilities through procurement, officer education,
training, and practice and other similar factors.
``(d) Faculty of the Center.--(1) The core faculty of the
Center should comprise scholars capable of providing diverse
perspectives on Chinese political, strategic, and military
thought. Center scholars shall demonstrate the following
competencies and capabilities:
``(A) Analysis of national strategy, military strategy, and
doctrine.
``(B) Analysis of force structure and military
capabilities.
``(C) Analysis of--
``(i) issues relating to weapons of mass destruction,
military intelligence, defense economics, trade, and
international economics; and
``(ii) the relationship between those issues and grand
strategy, science and technology, the sociology of human
resources and demography, and political science.
``(2) A substantial number of Center scholars shall be
competent in the Chinese language. The Center shall include a
core of junior scholars capable of providing linguistics and
translation support to the Center.
``(e) Activities of the Center.--The activities of the
Center shall include other elements appropriate to its
mission, including the following:
``(1) The Center should include an active conference
program with an international reach.
``(2) The Center should conduct an international
competition for a Visiting Fellowship in Chinese Military
Affairs and Chinese Security Issues. The term of the
fellowship should be for one year, renewable for a second.
``(3) The Center shall provide funds to support at least
one trip per analyst per year to China and the region and to
support visits of Chinese military leaders to the Center.
``(4) The Center shall support well defined, distinguished,
signature publications.
``(5) Center scholars shall have appropriate access to
intelligence community assessments of Chinese military
affairs.
``(f) Studies and Reports.--The Director may contract for
studies and reports from the private sector to supplement the
work of the Center.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2166. National Defense University: Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs.''.
(c) Implementation Report.--Not later than January 1, 2000,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
stating the timetable and organizational plan for
establishing the Center for the Study of Chinese Military
Affairs under section 2166 of title 10, United States Code,
as added by subsection (b).
(d) Startup of Center.--The Secretary shall establish the
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs under
section 2166 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (b), not later than March 1, 2000, and shall
appoint the first Director of the Center not later than June
1, 2000.

SEC. 906. RESPONSIBILITY WITHIN OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR MONITORING OPTEMPO AND PERSTEMPO.

Section 136 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness is responsible, subject to the authority,
direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, for the
monitoring of the operations tempo and personnel tempo of the
armed forces. The Under Secretary shall establish, to the
extent practicable, uniform standards within the Department
of Defense for terminology and policies relating to
deployment of units and personnel away from their assigned
duty stations (including the length of time units or
personnel may be away for such a deployment) and shall
establish uniform reporting systems for tracking
deployments.''.

SEC. 907. REPORT ON MILITARY SPACE ISSUES.

(a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on
United States military space policy. The report shall address
current and projected United States efforts to fully exploit
space in preparation for possible conflicts in 2010 and
beyond. The report shall specifically address the following:
(1) The general organization of the Department of Defense
for addressing space issues, the functions of the various
Department of Defense and military agencies, components, and
elements with responsibility for military space issues, the
practical effect of creating a new

[[Page 12188]]

military service with responsibility for military operations
in space, and the advisability of establishing an Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Space.
(2) The manner in which current national military space
policy is incorporated into overall United States national
space policy.
(3) The manner in which the Department of Defense is
organized to develop doctrine for the military use of space.
(4) The manner in which military space issues are addressed
by professional military education institutions, to include a
listing of specific courses offered at those institutions
that focuses on military space policy.
(5) The manner in which space control issues are
incorporated into current and planned experiments and
exercises.
(6) The manner in which military space assets are being
fully exploited to provide support for United States
contingency operations.
(7) United States policy toward the use of commercial
launch vehicles and facilities for the launch of military
assets.
(8) The current interagency coordination process regarding
the operation of military space assets, including
identification of interoperability and communications issues.
(9) Policies and procedures for sharing missile launch
early warning data with United States allies and friendly
countries.
(10) Issues regarding the capability to detect threats to
United States space assets.
(11) The manner in which the presence of space debris is
expected to affect United States military space launch policy
and the future design of military spacecraft.
(12) Whether military space programs should be funded
separately from other service programs and whether the Global
Positioning System should be funded through a Defense-wide
appropriation account.
(b) Classification and Deadline for Report.--The report
required by subsection (a) shall be prepared in both
classified and unclassified form and shall be submitted not
later than March 1, 2000.

SEC. 908. EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION OF CIVILIAN FACULTY
MEMBERS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AFRICAN CENTER
FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES.

(a) Faculty.--Subsection (c) of section 1595 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) The African Center for Strategic Studies.''.
(b) Director and Deputy Director.--Subsection (e) of such
section is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) The African Center for Strategic Studies.''.

SEC. 909. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR ANNUAL REPORT ON JOINT
WARFIGHTING EXPERIMENTATION.

Section 485(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) With respect to interoperability of equipment and
forces, any recommendations that the commander considers
appropriate, developed on the basis of joint warfighting
experimentation, for reducing unnecessary redundancy of
equipment and forces, including guidance regarding the
synchronization of the fielding of advanced technologies
among the armed forces to enable the development and
execution of joint operational concepts.
``(6) Recommendations for mission needs statements and
operational requirements related to the joint experimentation
and evaluation process.
``(7) Recommendations based on the results of joint
experimentation for the relative priorities for acquisition
programs to meet joint requirements.''.

TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Financial Matters

SEC. 1001. TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

(a) Authority To Transfer Authorizations.--(1) Upon
determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is
necessary in the national interest, the Secretary may
transfer amounts of authorizations made available to the
Department of Defense in this division for fiscal year 2000
between any such authorizations for that fiscal year (or any
subdivisions thereof). Amounts of authorizations so
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes as the authorization to which transferred.
(2) The total amount of authorizations that the Secretary
may transfer under the authority of this section may not
exceed $2,000,000,000.
(b) Limitations.--The authority provided by this section to
transfer authorizations--
(1) may only be used to provide authority for items that
have a higher priority than the items from which authority is
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide authority for an item that
has been denied authorization by Congress.
(c) Effect on Authorization Amounts.--A transfer made from
one account to another under the authority of this section
shall be deemed to increase the amount authorized for the
account to which the amount is transferred by an amount equal
to the amount transferred.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary shall promptly
notify Congress of each transfer made under subsection (a).

SEC. 1002. INCORPORATION OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX.

(a) Status of Classified Annex.--The Classified Annex
prepared by the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives to accompany its report on the bill H.R. 1401
of the One Hundred Sixth Congress and transmitted to the
President is hereby incorporated into this Act.
(b) Construction With Other Provisions of Act.--The amounts
specified in the Classified Annex are not in addition to
amounts authorized to be appropriated by other provisions of
this Act.
(c) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Funds appropriated
pursuant to an authorization contained in this Act that are
made available for a program, project, or activity referred
to in the Classified Annex may only be expended for such
program, project, or activity in accordance with such terms,
conditions, limitations, restrictions, and requirements as
are set out for that program, project, or activity in the
Classified Annex.
(d) Distribution of Classified Annex.--The President shall
provide for appropriate distribution of the Classified Annex,
or of appropriate portions of the annex, within the executive
branch of the Government.

SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF PRIOR EMERGENCY MILITARY
PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated the amount of
$1,838,426,000 appropriated to the Department of Defense for
military personnel accounts in section 2012 of the 1999
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.

SEC. 1004. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR TWO-YEAR BUDGET CYCLE
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Section 1405 of the Department of Defense Authorization
Act, 1986 (31 U.S.C. 1105 note), is repealed.

SEC. 1005. CONSOLIDATION OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
TRUST AND GIFT FUNDS.

(a) Consolidation of Naval Academy General Gift Fund and
Museum Fund.--(1) Subsection (a) of section 6973 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may accept, hold,
administer, and spend gifts and bequests of personal
property, and loans of personal property other than money,
made on the condition that the personal property be used for
the benefit of, or in connection with, the Naval Academy or
the Naval Academy Museum, its collection, or its services.
``(2) Gifts or bequests of money, and the proceeds from the
sales of property received as a gift or bequest, shall be
deposited in the Treasury in the fund called `United States
Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund'. The Secretary may
disburse funds deposited under this paragraph for the benefit
or use of the Naval Academy or the Naval Academy Museum
subject to the terms of the gift or bequest.''.
(2) Subsection (c) of such section is amended by striking
``United States Naval Academy general gift fund'' both places
it appears and inserting ``United States Naval Academy Gift
and Museum Fund''.
(3) Such section is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(d) The Secretary shall develop written guidelines to be
used in determining whether the acceptance of money, personal
property, or loans of personal property under subsection (a)
would--
``(1) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of the
Department of the Navy to carry out its responsibilities in a
fair and objective manner;
``(2) reflect unfavorably upon the ability of any employee
of the Department of the Navy to carry out the employee's
official duties in a fair and objective manner; or
``(3) compromise the integrity, or the appearance of the
integrity, of Navy programs or any employee involved in such
programs.''.
(b) Repeal of Naval Academy Museum Fund.--Section 6974 of
title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(c) Repeal of Naval Historical Center Fund.--Section 7222
of such title is repealed.
(d) Transfer of Funds.--The Secretary of the Navy shall
transfer--
(1) all funds in the United States Naval Academy Museum
Fund as of the date of the enactment of this Act to the
United States Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund established
by section 6973(a) of title 10, United States Code, as
amended by subsection (a); and
(2) all funds in the Naval Historical Center Fund as of the
date of the enactment of this Act to the Department of the
Navy General Gift Fund established by section 2601(b)(2) of
such title.
(e) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 603 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 6974.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 631
of such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 7222.

SEC. 1006. BUDGETING FOR OPERATIONS IN YUGOSLAVIA.

(a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated pursuant to
the authorizations of appropriations in this Act may be used
for the conduct of combat or peacekeeping operations in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
(b) Supplemental Appropriations Request for Operations in
Yugoslavia.--If the President determines that it is in the
national security interest of the United States to conduct
combat or peacekeeping operations in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia during fiscal year 2000, the President shall
transmit to the Congress a supplemental appropriations
request for the Department of Defense for such amounts as are
necessary for the costs of any such operation.

[[Page 12189]]

Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards

SEC. 1011. REVISION TO CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE-AND-WAIT PERIOD
REQUIRED BEFORE TRANSFER OF A VESSEL STRICKEN
FROM THE NAVAL VESSEL REGISTER.

Section 7306(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(d) Congressional Notice-and-Wait Period.--(1) A transfer
under this section may not take effect until--
``(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notice of the
proposed transfer; and
``(B) 30 days of session of Congress have expired following
the date on which the notice is sent to Congress.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)--
``(A) the period of a session of Congress is broken only by
an adjournment of Congress sine die at the end of the final
session of a Congress; and
``(B) any day on which either House of Congress is not in
session because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a
day certain, or because of an adjournment sine die at the end
of the first session of a Congress, shall be excluded in the
computation of such 30-day period.''.

SEC. 1012. AUTHORITY TO CONSENT TO RETRANSFER OF FORMER NAVAL
VESSEL.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the President
may consent to the retransfer by the Government of Greece of
HS Rodos (ex-USS BOWMAN COUNTY (LST 391)) to the USS LST Ship
Memorial, Inc., a not-for-profit organization operating under
the laws of the State of Pennsylvania.
(b) Conditions for Consent.--The President should not
exercise the authority under subsection (a) unless the USS
LST Memorial, Inc. agrees--
(1) to use the vessel for public, nonprofit, museum-related
purposes; and
(2) to comply with applicable law with respect to the
vessel, including those requirements related to facilitating
monitoring by the United States of, and mitigating potential
environmental hazards associated with, aging vessels, and has
a demonstrated financial capability to so comply.

SEC. 1013. REPORT ON NAVAL VESSEL FORCE STRUCTURE
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Requirement.--Not later than February, 1, 2000, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Service of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives a report on naval vessel force
structure requirements.
(b) Matters To Be Included.-- The report shall provide--
(1) a statement of the naval vessel force structure
required to carry out the National Military Strategy,
including that structure required to meet joint and combined
warfighting requirements and missions relating to crisis
response, overseas presence, and support to contingency
operations; and
(2) a statement of the naval vessel force structure that is
supported and funded in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2001 and in the current future-years defense program.

SEC. 1014. AUXILIARY VESSELS ACQUISITION PROGRAM FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Program Authorization.--(1) Chapter 631 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``Sec. 7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority

``(a) Authorized Contracts.--After September 30, 1999, the
Secretary of the Navy, subject to subsection (b), may enter
into contracts with private United States shipyards for the
construction of new surface vessels to be long-term leased by
the United States from the shipyard or other private person
for any of the following:
``(1) The combat logistics force of the Navy.
``(2) The strategic sealift force of the Navy.
``(3) Other auxiliary support vessels for the Department of
Defense.
``(b) Contracts Required To Be Authorized by Law.--A
contract may be entered into under subsection (a) with
respect to a specific vessel only if the Secretary is
specifically authorized by law to enter into such a contract
with respect to that vessel.
``(c) Funds for Contract Payments.--The Secretary may make
payments for contracts entered into under subsection (a) and
under subsection (g) using funds available for obligation
from operation and maintenance accounts during the fiscal
year for which the payments are required to be made. Any such
contract shall provide that the United States is not required
to make a payment under the contract (other than a
termination payment, if required) before October 1, 2001.
``(d) Term of Contract.--In this section, the term `long-
term lease' means a lease, bareboat charter, or conditional
sale agreement with respect to a vessel the term of which
(including any option period) is for a period of 20 years or
more.
``(e) Option To Buy.--A contract entered into under
subsection (a) may include options for the United States to
purchase one or more of the vessels covered by the contract
at any time during, or at the end of, the contract period
(including any option period) upon payment of an amount equal
to the lesser of (1) the unamortized portion of the cost of
the vessel plus amounts incurred in connection with the
termination of the financing arrangements associated with the
vessel, or (2) the fair market value of the vessel.
``(f) Domestic Construction.--The Secretary shall require
in any contract entered into under this section that each
vessel to which the contract applies--
``(1) shall have been constructed in a shipyard within the
United States; and
``(2) upon delivery, shall be documented under the laws of
the United States.
``(g) Vessel Operation.--(1) The Secretary shall operate a
vessel held by the Secretary under a long-term lease under
this section through a contract with a United States
domiciled corporation with experience in the operation of
vessels for the United States. Any such contract shall be for
a term as determined by the Secretary.
``(2) The Secretary may provide a crew for any such vessel
using civil service mariners only after an evaluation and
competition taking into account--
``(A) the fully burdened cost of a civil service crew over
the expected useful life of the vessel;
``(B) the effect on the private sector manpower pool; and
``(C) the operational requirements of the Department of the
Navy.
``(h) Contingent Waiver of Other Provisions of Law.--A
contract authorized by this section may be entered into
without regard to section 2401 or 2401a of this title if the
Secretary of Defense makes the following findings with
respect to that contract:
``(1) The need for the vessels or services to be provided
under the contract is expected to remain substantially
unchanged during the contemplated contract or option period.
``(2) There is a reasonable expectation that throughout the
contemplated contract or option period the Secretary of the
Navy (or, if the contract is for services to be provided to,
and funded by, another military department, the Secretary of
that military department) will request funding for the
contract at the level required to avoid contract
cancellation.
``(3) The use of such contract or the exercise of such
option is in the interest of the national defense.
``(i) Source of Funds for Termination Liability.--If a
contract entered into under this section is terminated, the
costs of such termination may be paid from--
``(1) amounts originally made available for performance of
the contract;
``(2) amounts currently available for operation and
maintenance of the type of vessels or services concerned and
not otherwise obligated; or
``(3) funds appropriated for those costs.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``7233. Auxiliary vessels: extended lease authority.''.
(b) Definition of Department of Defense Sealift Vessel.--
Section 2218(k)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``that is--'' in the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) and inserting ``that is any of the
following:'';
(2) by striking ``a'' at the beginning of subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (E) and inserting ``A'';
(3) by striking ``an'' at the beginning of subparagraphs
(C) and (D) and inserting ``An'';
(4) by striking the semicolon at the end of subparagraphs
(A), (B), and (C) and inserting a period;
(5) by striking ``; or'' at the end of subparagraph (D) and
inserting a period; and
(6) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(F) A large medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ship.
``(G) A combat logistics force ship.
``(H) Any other auxiliary support vessel.''.

SEC. 1015. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR THE
NATIONAL DEFENSE FEATURES PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 2218 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (k) as subsection (l); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following new
subsection (k):
``(k)(1) The Secretary of Defense, after making a
determination of economic soundness for any proposed offer,
may provide advance payments to a contractor by lump sum or
annual payments (or a combination thereof) for the following
costs associated with inclusion or incorporation of defense
features in a commercial vessel:
``(A) Costs to build, procure, and install the defense
features in the vessel.
``(B) Costs to periodically maintain and test the defense
features on the vessel.
``(C) Any increased costs of operation or any loss of
revenue attributable to the inclusion or incorporation of the
defense feature on the vessel.
``(D) Any additional costs associated with the terms and
conditions of the contract to install and incorporate defense
features.
``(2) For any contract under which the United States
provides advance payments under paragraph (1) for the costs
associated with incorporation or inclusion of defense
features in a commercial vessel, the contractor shall provide
to the United States such security interests, which may
include a preferred mortgage under section 31322 of title 46,
on the vessel as the Secretary may prescribe to project the
interests of the United States relating to all costs
associated with incorporation or inclusion of defense
features in such vessel or vessels.
``(3) The functions of the Secretary under this subsection
may not be delegated to an officer or

[[Page 12190]]

employee in a position below the head of the procuring
activity, as defined in section 2304(f)(6)(A) of this
title.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (j) of section 2218 of
title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall apply to contracts entered into after September 30,
1999.

Subtitle C--Matters Relating to Counter Drug Activities

SEC. 1021. SUPPORT FOR DETECTION AND MONITORING ACTIVITIES IN
THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN.

(a) Operation Caper Focus.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 301(20) for drug interdiction and
counter-drug activities, $6,000,000 shall be available for
the purpose of conducting the counter-drug operation known as
Caper Focus, which targets the maritime movement of cocaine
on vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
(b) Funds for Conversion of Wide Aperture Radar Facility to
Operational Status.--Of the amount authorized to be
appropriated by such section, $17,500,000 shall be available
for the purpose of--
(1) converting the Over-The-Horizon Radar facility known as
the Wide Aperture Radar Facility in southern California from
a research to operational status; and
(2) using the facility on a full-time basis to detect and
track both air and maritime drug traffic in the eastern
Pacific Ocean and to monitor the international border in the
southwestern United States.
(c) Contribution of Assets.--The Secretary of the Air Force
shall make available for use at the Wide Aperture Radar
Facility described in subsection (b) two OTH-B Continental
100 KW transmitters and necessary spare parts to ensure the
conversion of the facility to operational status.
(d) Test Against Go-Fast Boats.--As part of the conversion
of the Wide Aperture Radar Facility described in subsection
(b) to operational status, the Secretary of Defense shall
evaluate the ability of the facility to detect and track the
high-speed maritime vessels typically used in the
transportation of illegal drugs by water.
(e) Progress Report.--Not later than April 15, 2000, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to Congress
evaluating the effectiveness of the Wide Aperture Radar
Facility described in subsection (b) in counter-drug
detection monitoring and border surveillance.

SEC. 1022. CONDITION ON DEVELOPMENT OF FORWARD OPERATING
LOCATIONS FOR UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND
COUNTER-DRUG DETECTION AND MONITORING FLIGHTS.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
to the Department of Defense for any fiscal year may be
obligated or expended for the purpose of improving the
physical infrastructure at any proposed forward operating
location outside the United States from which the United
States Southern Command may conduct counter-drug detection
and monitoring flights until a formal agreement regarding the
extent and use of, and host nation support for, the forward
operating location is executed by both the host nation and
the United States.

SEC. 1023. UNITED STATES MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN COLOMBIA.

Section 1033(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 U.S.C. 1881) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and, in
such paragraph, by striking ``National Security'' and
inserting ``Armed Services''; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Not later than January 1 of each year, the Secretary
shall submit to the congressional committees a report
detailing the number of United States military personnel
deployed or otherwise assigned to duty in Colombia at any
time during the preceding year, the length and purpose of the
deployment or assignment, and the costs and force protection
risks associated with such deployments and assignments.''.

Subtitle D--Other Matters

SEC. 1031. IDENTIFICATION IN BUDGET MATERIALS OF AMOUNTS FOR
DECLASSIFICATION ACTIVITIES AND LIMITATION ON
EXPENDITURES FOR SUCH ACTIVITIES.

(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 9 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 229. Amounts for declassification of records

``(a) Specific Identification in Budget.--The Secretary of
Defense shall include in the budget justification materials
submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense
budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of
the President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific
identification, as a budgetary line item, of the amounts
required to carry out programmed activities during that
fiscal year to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order
12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive order,
or to comply with any statutory requirement to declassify
Government records.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``229. Amounts for declassification of records.''.
(b) Limitation on Expenditures.--The total amount expended
by the Department of Defense during fiscal year 2000 to carry
out activities to declassify records pursuant to Executive
Order 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive
order, or to comply with any statutory requirement to
declassify Government records may not exceed $20,000,000.

SEC. 1032. NOTICE TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES OF COMPROMISE
OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITHIN DEFENSE
PROGRAMS OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall notify the
committees specified in subsection (c) of any information,
regardless of its origin, that the Secretary receives that
indicates that classified information relating to any defense
operation, system, or technology of the United States is
being, or may have been, disclosed in an unauthorized manner
to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
(b) Manner of Notification.--A notification under
subsection (a) shall be provided, in writing, not later than
30 days after the date of the initial receipt of such
information by the Department of Defense.
(c) Specified Committees.--The committees referred to in
subsection (a) are the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Service of the House of
Representatives.
(d) Foreign Power.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``foreign power'' and ``agent of a foreign power'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 101 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

SEC. 1033. REVISION TO LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR
DISMANTLEMENT OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY
SYSTEMS.

(a) Revised Limitation.--Subsections (a) and (b) of section
1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) are amended to read as follows:
``(a) Funding Limitation.--(1) Except as provided in
paragraph (2), funds available to the Department of Defense
may not be obligated or expended for retiring or dismantling,
or for preparing to retire or dismantle, any of the following
strategic nuclear delivery systems below the specified
levels:
``(A) 76 B-52H bomber aircraft.
``(B) 18 Trident ballistic missile submarines.
``(C) 500 Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic
missiles.
``(D) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.
``(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) shall cease to apply
upon a certification by the President to Congress of the
following:
``(A) That the effectiveness of the United States strategic
deterrent will not be decreased by reductions in strategic
nuclear delivery systems.
``(B) That the requirements of the Single Integrated
Operational Plan can be met with a reduced number of
strategic nuclear delivery systems.
``(C) That reducing the number of strategic nuclear
delivery systems will not, in the judgment of the President,
provide a disincentive for Russia to ratify the START II
treaty or serve to undermine future arms control
negotiations.
``(3) If the Presidents submits the certification described
in paragraph (2), then effective upon the submission of that
certification, funds available to the Department of Defense
may not be obligated or expended to maintain a United States
force structure of strategic nuclear delivery systems with a
total capacity in warheads that is less than 98 percent of
the 6,000 warhead limitation applicable to the United States
and in effect under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
``(b) Waiver Authority.--If the START II treaty enters into
force, the President may waive the application of the
limitation in effect under paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection
(a), as the case may be, to the extent that the President
determines such a waiver to be necessary in order to
implement the treaty.''.
(b) Covered Systems.--(1) Subsection (e) of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``(e) Strategic Nuclear Delivery Systems Defined.--For
purposes of this section, the term `strategic nuclear
delivery systems' means the following:
``(1) B-52H bomber aircraft.
``(2) Trident ballistic missile submarines.
``(3) Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles.
``(4) Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.''.
(2) Subsection (c)(2) of such section is amended by
striking ``specified in subsection (a)''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``during the
strategic delivery systems retirement limitation period'' and
inserting ``during the fiscal year during which the START II
Treaty enters into force''; and
(2) by striking subsection (g).

SEC. 1034. ANNUAL REPORT BY CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
ON THE RISKS IN EXECUTING THE MISSIONS CALLED
FOR UNDER THE NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY.

Section 153 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Risks Under National Military Strategy.--(1) Not
later than January 1 each year, the Chairman shall submit to
the Secretary of Defense a report providing the Chairman's
assessment of the nature and magnitude of the strategic and
military risks associated with executing the missions called
for under the current National Military Strategy.
``(2) The Secretary shall forward the report received under
paragraph (1) in any year, with the Secretary's comments
thereon (if any), to Congress with the Secretary's next
transmission

[[Page 12191]]

to Congress of the annual Department of Defense budget
justification materials in support of the Department of
Defense component of the budget of the President submitted
under section 1105 of title 31 for the next fiscal year. If
the Chairman's assessment in such report in any year is that
risk associated with executing the missions called for under
the National Military Strategy is significant, the Secretary
shall include with the report as submitted to Congress the
Secretary's plan for mitigating that risk.''.

SEC. 1035. REQUIREMENT TO ADDRESS UNIT OPERATIONS TEMPO AND
PERSONNEL TEMPO IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANNUAL
REPORT.

(a) Reporting Requirements.--Chapter 23 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:

``Sec. 486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual
report

``(a) Inclusion in Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense
shall include in the annual report required by section 113(c)
of this title a description of the operations tempo and
personnel tempo of the armed forces.
``(b) Specific Reporting Requirements.--To satisfy
subsection (a), the report shall include the following:
``(1) A description of the methods by which each of the
armed forces measures operations tempo and personnel tempo.
``(2) A description of the personnel tempo policies of each
of the armed forces and any changes to these policies since
the preceding report.
``(3) A table depicting the active duty end strength for
each of the armed forces for each of the preceding five years
and also depicting the number of members of each of the armed
forces deployed over the same period, as determined by the
Secretary concerned.
``(4) An identification of the active and reserve component
units of the armed forces participating at the battalion,
squadron, or an equivalent level (or a higher level) in
contingency operations, major training events, and other
exercises and contingencies of such a scale that the
exercises and contingencies receive an official designation,
that were conducted during the period covered by the report
and the duration of their participation.
``(5) For each of the armed forces, the average number of
days a member of that armed force was deployed away from the
member's home station during the period covered by the report
as compared to recent previous years for which such
information is available.
``(6) For each of the armed forces, the number of days that
high demand, low density units (as defined by the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were deployed during the period
covered by the report, and whether these units met the force
goals for limiting deployments, as described in the personnel
tempo policies applicable to that armed force.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `operations tempo' means the rate at which
units of the armed forces are involved in all military
activities, including contingency operations, exercises, and
training deployments.
``(2) The term `personnel tempo' means the amount of time
members of the armed forces are engaged in their official
duties, including the rate at which members are required, as
a result of these duties, to spend nights away from home.
``(3) The term `armed forces' does not include the Coast
Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Department
of the Navy.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:

``486. Unit operations tempo and personnel tempo: annual report.''.

SEC. 1036. PRESERVATION OF CERTAIN DEFENSE REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.

Section 3003(a)(1) of the Federal Reports Elimination and
Sunset Act of 1995 (31 U.S.C. 1113 note) does not apply to
any report required to be submitted under any of the
following provisions of law:
(1) The following sections of title 10, United States Code:
sections 113, 115a, 116, 139(f), 221, 226, 401(d), 667,
2011(e), 2391(c), 2431(a), 2432, 2457(d), 2537, 2662(b),
2706(b), 2861, 2902(g)(2), 4542(g)(2), 7424(b), 7425(b),
10541, 10542, and 12302(d).
(2) Sections 301a(f) and 1008 of title 37, United States
Code.
(3) Sections 11 and 14 of the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h-2, 98h-5).
(4) Section 4(a) of Public Law 85-804 (50 U.S.C. 1434(a)).
(5) Section 10(g) of the Military Selective Service Act (50
U.S.C. App. 460(g)).
(6) Section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act,
Fiscal Year 1991 (42 U.S.C. 7274c).
(7) Section 822(b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (42 U.S.C. 6687(b)).
(8) Section 1097 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2751 note).
(9) Sections 208, 901(b)(2), and 1211 of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1118, 1241(b)(2), 1291).
(10) Section 12 of the Act of March 9, 1920 (popularly
known as the ``Suits in Admiralty Act'') (46 App. U.S.C.
752).

SEC. 1037. TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Title 10, United States Code.--Title 10, United States
Code, is amended as follows:
(1) Section 136(a) is amended by inserting ``advice and''
after ``by and with the''.
(2) Section 180(d) is amended by striking ``grade GS-18 of
the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5'' and
inserting ``Executive Schedule Level IV under section 5376 of
title 5''.
(3) Section 192(d) is amended by striking ``the date of the
enactment of this subsection'' and inserting ``October 17,
1998''.
(4) Section 374(b) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by aligning subparagraphs (C) and (D)
with subparagraphs (A) and (B); and
(B) in paragraph (2)(F), by striking the second semicolon
at the end of clause (i).
(5) Section 664(i)(2)(A) is amended by striking ``the date
of the enactment of this subsection'' and inserting
``February 10, 1996''.
(6) Section 777(d)(1) is amended by striking ``may not
exceed'' and all that follows and inserting ``may not exceed
35.''.
(7) Section 977(d)(2) is amended by striking ``the lesser
of'' and all that follows through ``(B)''.
(8) Section 1073 is amended by inserting ``(42 U.S.C. 14401
et seq.)'' before the period at the end of the second
sentence.
(9) Section 1076a(j)(2) is amended by striking ``1 year''
and inserting ``one year''.
(10) Section 1370(d) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``chapter 1225'' and
inserting ``chapter 1223''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``the date of the
enactment of this paragraph'' and inserting ``October 17,
1998,''.
(11) Section 1401a(b)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking ``members'' and all that follows through
``The Secretary shall'' and inserting ``members.--The
Secretary shall'';
(B) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
(C) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subparagraphs
(A) and (B) and realigning those subparagraphs, as so
redesignated, so as to be indented four ems from the left
margin.
(12) Section 1406(i)(2) is amended by striking ``on or
after the date of the enactment of the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999'' and
inserting ``after October 16, 1998''.
(13) Section 1448(b)(3)(E)(ii) is amended by striking ``on
or after the date of the enactment of the subparagraph'' and
inserting ``after October 16, 1998,''.
(14) Section 1501(d) is amended by striking ``prescribed''
in the first sentence and inserting ``described''.
(15) Section 1509(a)(2) is amended by striking ``the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998'' in subparagraphs (A) and (B) and
inserting ``November 18, 1997,''.
(16) Section 1513(1) is amended by striking ``, under the
circumstances specified in the last sentence of section
1509(a) of this title'' and inserting ``who is required by
section 1509(a)(1) of this title to be considered a missing
person''.
(17) Section 2208(l)(2)(A) is amended by inserting ``of''
after ``during a period''.
(18) Section 2212(f) is amended--
(A) in paragraphs (2) and (3), by striking ``after the date
of the enactment of this section'' and inserting ``after
October 17, 1998,''; and
(B) in paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), by striking ``as of the
date of the enactment of this section'' and inserting ``as of
October 17, 1998''.
(19) Section 2302c(b) is amended by striking ``section
2303'' and inserting ``section 2303(a)''.
(20) Section 2325(a)(1) is amended by inserting ``that
occurs after November 18, 1997,'' after ``of the contractor''
in the matter that precedes subparagraph (A).
(21) Section 2469a(c)(3) is amended by striking ``the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998'' and inserting ``November 18, 1997''.
(22) Section 2486(c) is amended by striking ``the date of
the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998,'' in the second sentence and inserting
``November 18, 1997,''.
(23) Section 2492(b) is amended by striking ``the date of
the enactment of this section'' and inserting ``October 17,
1998''.
(24) Section 2539b(a) is amended by striking ``secretaries
of the military departments'' and inserting ``Secretaries of
the military departments''.
(25) Section 2641a is amended--
(A) by striking ``, United States Code,'' in subsection
(b)(2); and
(B) by striking subsection (d).
(26) Section 2692(b) is amended--
(A) by striking ``apply to--'' in the matter preceding
paragraph (1) and inserting ``apply to the following:'';
(B) by striking ``the'' at the beginning of each of
paragraphs (1) through (11) and inserting ``The'';
(C) by striking the semicolon at the end of each of
paragraphs (1) through (9) and inserting a period; and
(D) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (10) and
inserting a period.
(27) Section 2696 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by inserting ``enacted after
December 31, 1997,'' after ``any provision of law'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``required by
paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``referred to in subsection
(a)''; and
(C) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``the date of
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998'' and inserting ``November 18, 1997''.
(28) Section 2703(c) is amended by striking ``United States
Code,''.

[[Page 12192]]

(29) Section 2837(d)(2)(C) is amended by striking ``the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996'' and
inserting ``this section''.
(30) Section 7315(d)(2) is amended by striking ``the date
of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998'' and inserting ``November 18, 1997,''.
(31) Section 7902(e)(5) is amended by striking ``, United
States Code,''.
(32) The item relating to section 12003 in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 1201 is amended by
inserting ``in an'' after ``officers''.
(33) Section 14301(g) is amended by striking ``1 year''
both places it appears and inserting ``one year''.
(34) Section 16131(b)(1) is amended by inserting ``in''
after ``Except as provided''
(b) Public Law 105-261.--Effective as of October 17, 1998,
and as if included therein as enacted, the Strom Thurmond
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 1920 et seq.) is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 402(b) (112 Stat. 1996) is amended by striking
the third comma in the first quoted matter and inserting a
period.
(2) Section 511(b)(2) (112 Stat. 2007) is amended by
striking ``section 1411'' and inserting ``section 1402''.
(3) Section 513(a) (112 Stat. 2007) is amended by striking
``section 511'' and inserting ``section 512(a)''.
(4) Section 525(b) (112 Stat. 2014) is amended by striking
``subsection (i)'' and inserting ``subsection (j)''.
(5) Section 568 (112 Stat. 2031) is amended by striking
``1295(c)'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting ``1295b(c)''.
(6) Section 722(c)(1)(D) (112 Stat. 2067) is amended by
striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.
(c) Public Law 105-85.--The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 557(b) (111 Stat. 1750) is amended by inserting
``to'' after ``with respect''.
(2) Section 563(b) (111 Stat. 1754) is amended by striking
``title'' and inserting ``subtitle''.
(3) Section 644(d)(2) (111 Stat. 1801) is amended by
striking ``paragraphs (3) and (4)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (7) and (8)''.
(4) Section 934(b) (111 Stat. 1866) is amended by striking
``of'' after ``matters concerning''.
(d) Other Laws.--
(1) Effective as of April 1, 1996, section 647(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 370) is amended by inserting
``of such title'' after ``Section 1968(a)''.
(2) Section 414 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-190; 10 U.S.C.
12001 note) is amended--
(A) by striking ``pilot'' in subsection (a), ``Pilot'' in
the heading of subsection (a), and ``pilot'' in the section
heading; and
(B) in subsection (c)(1)--
(i) by striking ``2,000'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``5,000''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence.
(3) Sections 8334(c) and 8422(a)(3) of title 5, United
States Code, are each amended in the item for nuclear
materials couriers--
(A) by striking ``to the day before the date of the
enactment of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999'' and inserting ``to
October 16, 1998''; and
(B) by striking ``The date of the enactment of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999'' and inserting ``October 17, 1998''.
(4) Section 113(b)(2) of title 32, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``the date of the enactment of this
subsection'' and inserting ``October 17, 1998''.
(5) Section 1007(b) of title 37, United States Code, is
amended by striking the second sentence.
(6) Section 845(b)(1) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160; 10 U.S.C. 2371
note) is amended by striking ``(e)(2) and (e)(3) of such
section 2371'' and inserting ``(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2) of such
section 2371''.

SEC. 1038. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR SPIRIT OF HOPE ENDOWMENT FUND OF
UNITED SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS, INCORPORATED.

(a) Grants Authorized.--Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary of Defense may make grants to the United Service
Organizations, Incorporated, a federally chartered
corporation under chapter 2201 of title 36, United States
Code, to contribute funds for the USO's Spirit of Hope
Endowment Fund.
(b) Grant Increments.--The amount of the first grant under
subsection (a) may not exceed $2,000,000. The amount of the
second grant under such subsection may not exceed $3,000,000,
and subsequent grants may not exceed $5,000,000.
(c) Matching Requirement.--Each grant under subsection (a)
may not be made until after the United Service Organizations,
Incorporated, certifies to the Secretary of Defense that
sufficient funds have been raised from non-Federal sources
for deposit in the Spirit of Hope Endowment Fund to match, on
a dollar-for-dollar basis, the amount of that grant.
(d) Funding.--Of the amount authorized to be appropriated
by section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-
wide activities, $25,000,000 shall be available to the
Secretary of Defense for the purpose of making grants under
subsection (a).

SEC. 1039. CHEMICAL DEFENSE TRAINING FACILITY.

(a) Authority To Transfer Agents.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense may transfer to the Attorney General quantities of
non-stockpile lethal chemical agents required to support
training at the Chemical Defense Training Facility at the
Center for Domestic Preparedness in Fort McClellan, Alabama.
The quantity of non-stockpile lethal chemical agents that may
be transferred under this section may not exceed that
required to support training for emergency first-response
personnel in addressing the health, safety and law
enforcement concerns associated with potential terrorist
incidents that might involve the use of lethal chemical
weapons or agents, or other training designated by the
Attorney General.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the
Attorney General, shall determine the amount of non-stockpile
lethal chemical agents that shall be transferred under this
section. Such amount shall be transferred from quantities of
non-stockpile lethal chemical agents that are maintained by
the Department of Defense for research, development, test,
and evaluation of chemical defense material and for live-
agent training of chemical defense personnel and other
individuals by the Department of Defense.
(3) The Secretary of Defense may not transfer non-stockpile
lethal chemical agents under this section until--
(A) the Chemical Defense Training Facility referred to in
paragraph (1) is transferred from the Department of Defense
to the Department of Justice; and
(B) the Secretary certifies that the Attorney General is
prepared to receive such agents.
(4) Quantities of non-stockpile lethal chemical agents
transferred under this section shall meet all applicable
requirements for transportation, storage, treatment, and
disposal of such agents and for any resulting hazardous waste
products.
(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with Attorney General and the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall report annually to
Congress regarding the disposition of non-stockpile lethal
chemical agents transferred under this section.
(c) Non-Stockpile Lethal Chemical Agents.--In this section,
the term ``non-stockpile lethal chemical agents'' includes
those chemicals in the possession of the Department of
Defense that are not part of the chemical weapons stockpile
and that are applied to research, medical, pharmaceutical, or
protective purposes in accordance with Article VI of the
Conventional Weapons Convention Treaty.

TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

SEC. 1101. INCREASE OF PAY CAP FOR NONAPPROPRIATED FUND
SENIOR EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES.

Section 5373 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Except as
provided'' and inserting ``(a) Except as provided in
subsection (b) and''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Subsection (a) shall not affect the authority of the
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military
department to fix the pay of a civilian employee paid from
nonappropriated funds, except that the annual rate of basic
pay (including any portion of such pay attributable to
comparability with private-sector pay in a locality) of such
an employee may not be fixed at a rate greater than the rate
for level III of the Executive Schedule.''.

SEC. 1102. RESTORATION OF LEAVE FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE EMPLOYEES WHO DEPLOY TO A COMBAT ZONE
OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

Section 6304(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4)(A) For purposes of this subsection, the deployment of
an emergency essential employee of the Department of Defense
to a combat zone outside the United States shall be deemed an
exigency of the public business, and any leave that is lost
by an employee as a result of such deployment (regardless of
whether such leave was scheduled) shall be--
``(i) restored to the employee; and
``(ii) credited and available in accordance with paragraph
(2).
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `Department
of Defense emergency essential employee'--
``(i) means a civilian employee of the Department of
Defense, including a nonappropriated fund instrumentality
employee (as defined by section 1587(a)(1) of title 10) whose
assigned duties and responsibilities would be necessary
during a period that follows the evacuation of nonessential
personnel during a declared emergency or the outbreak of
combat operations or war; and
``(ii) includes an employee who is hired on a temporary or
permanent basis.''.

SEC. 1103. EXPANSION OF GUARD-AND-RESERVE PURPOSES FOR WHICH
LEAVE UNDER SECTION 6323 OF TITLE 5, UNITED
STATES CODE, MAY BE USED.

(a) In General.--Section 6323 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended in the first sentence by inserting ``,
inactive-duty training (as defined in section 101 of title
37),'' after ``active duty''.
(b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to

[[Page 12193]]

any inactive-duty training (as defined in such amendment)
occurring before the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

SEC. 1201. REPORT ON STRATEGIC STABILITY UNDER START III.

(a) Report.--Not later than September 1, 2000, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Service of
the House of Representatives a report, to be prepared by the
Defense Science Board in consultation with the Director of
Central Intelligence, on the strategic stability of the
future nuclear balance between (1) the United States, and (2)
Russia and other potential nuclear adversaries.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The Secretary shall include in
the report the following:
(1) The policy guidance defining the military-political
objectives of the United States against potential nuclear
adversaries under various nuclear conflict scenarios.
(2) The target sets and damage goals of the United States
against potential nuclear adversaries under various nuclear
conflict scenarios and how those target sets and damage goals
relate to the achievement of the military-political
objectives identified under paragraph (1).
(3) The strategic nuclear force posture of the United
States and of Russia that may emerge under a further
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (referred to as ``START
III'') and how capable the United States forces envisioned
under that posture would be for the achievement of the damage
goals and the military objectives against potential nuclear
adversaries referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) The Secretary's assessment of (A) whether Russian
strategic forces under a START III treaty would, or would
not, likely be smaller, more vulnerable, and less capable of
launch-on-tactical-warning than at present, and (B) in light
of such assessment, whether incentives for Russia to carry
out a first strike against the United States during a future
crisis probably would, or would not, be greater than at
present under a START III treaty.
(5) The Secretary's assessment of (A) whether China and so-
called nuclear rogue states probably will, or will not,
remain incapable in the foreseeable future of carrying out a
launch-on-tactical-warning and be more vulnerable to United
States conventional or nuclear attack than at present, and
(B) in light of such assessment, whether incentives for China
and nuclear rogue states to carry out a first strike against
the United States during a future crisis probably would, or
would not, be greater than at present.
(6) The Secretary's assessment of whether asymmetries
between the United States and Russia that are favorable to
Russia in active and passive defenses may be a significant
strategic advantage to Russia under a START III treaty.
(7) The Secretary's assessment of whether asymmetries
between the United States and Russia that are highly
favorable to Russia in tactical nuclear weapons might erode
strategic stability.
(8) The Secretary's assessment of whether a combination of
Russia and China against the United States in a nuclear
conflict could erode strategic stability under a START III
treaty.
(9) The Secretary's assessment of whether doctrinal
asymmetries between the United States and Russia, such as the
expansion by Russia of the warfighting role of nuclear
weapons while the United States is de-emphasizing the utility
and purpose of nuclear weapons, could erode strategic
stability.
(c) Classification.--The report shall be submitted in
classified form and, to the extent possible, in unclassified
form.

SEC. 1202. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF COUNTERPROLIFERATION
AUTHORITIES FOR SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS
WEAPONS INSPECTION REGIME IN IRAQ.

Effective October 1, 1999, section 1505(f) of the Weapons
of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 (22 U.S.C. 5859a(f))
is amended by striking ``1999'' and inserting ``2000''.

SEC. 1203. MILITARY-TO-MILITARY CONTACTS WITH CHINESE
PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY.

(a) Principles for Military-to-Military Contacts.--(1) It
is the policy of the United States that military-to-military
contacts between the United States Armed Forces and the
People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China
should be based on the principles of reciprocity and
transparency and that those contacts should be managed within
the executive branch by the Department of Defense.
(2) For purposes of this section--
(A) reciprocity is measured by the frequency and purpose of
visits, the size of delegations, and similar measures; and
(B) transparency is measured by the degree of access to
facilities and installations, to military personnel and
units, and to exercises, and similar measures.
(b) Limitations.--The Secretary of Defense shall require
that members of the People's Liberation Army (when
participating in any such military-to-military contact or
otherwise) be excluded from the following:
(1) Inappropriate exposure (as determined by the Secretary)
to the operational capabilities of the Armed Forces,
including the following:
(A) Force projection.
(B) Nuclear operations.
(C) Advanced logistics.
(D) Chemical and biological defense and other capabilities
related to weapons of mass destruction.
(E) Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
operations.
(F) Joint warfighting experiments and other activities
related to a transformation in warfare.
(G) Military space operations.
(H) Other advanced capabilities of the Armed Forces.
(2) Arms sales or military-related technology transfers.
(3) Release of classified or restricted information.
(4) Access to a Department of Defense laboratory.
(c) Certification by Secretary.--The Secretary of Defense
may authorize military-to-military contacts with the People's
Liberation Army during any calendar year only after the
Secretary submits to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Service of the House of
Representatives, not earlier than one month before the
beginning of that year, a certification in writing that such
contacts during that year--
(1) will be conducted in a manner consistent with the
principles of reciprocity and transparency; and
(2) are in the national security interest of the United
States.
(d) Annual Report.--Not later than June 1 each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Service of
the House of Representatives a report providing the
Secretary's assessment of the current state of military-to-
military contacts with the People's Liberation Army. The
report shall include the following:
(1) A summary of all such military-to-military contacts
during the period since the last such report, including a
summary of topics discussed and questions asked by the
Chinese participants in those contacts.
(2) A description of the military-to-military contacts
scheduled for the next 12-month period and a five-year plan
for those contacts.
(3) The Secretary's assessment of the benefits the Chinese
expect to gain from those military-to-military contacts.
(4) The Secretary's assessment of the benefits the
Department of Defense expects to gain from those military-to-
military contacts.
(5) The Secretary's assessment of how military-to-military
contacts with the People's Liberation Army fit into the
larger security relationship between United States and the
People's Republic of China.

SEC. 1204. REPORT ON ALLIED CAPABILITIES TO CONTRIBUTE TO
MAJOR THEATER WARS.

(a) Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare a
report, in both classified and unclassified form, on the
current military capabilities of allied nations to contribute
to the successful conduct of the major theater wars as
anticipated in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report shall set forth the
following:
(1) The identity, size, structure, and capabilities of the
armed forces of the allies expected to participate in the
major theater wars anticipated in the Quadrennial Defense
Review.
(2) The priority accorded in the national military
strategies and defense programs of the anticipated allies to
contributing forces to United States-led coalitions in such
major theater wars.
(3) The missions currently being conducted by the armed
forces of the anticipated allies and the ability of the
allied armed forces to conduct simultaneously their current
missions and those anticipated in the event of major theater
war.
(4) Any Department of Defense assumptions about the ability
of allied armed forces to deploy or redeploy from their
current missions in the event of a major theater war,
including any role United States Armed Forces would play in
assisting and sustaining such a deployment or redeployment.
(5) Any Department of Defense assumptions about the combat
missions to be executed by such allied forces in the event of
major theater war.
(6) The readiness of allied armed forces to execute any
such missions.
(7) Any risks to the successful execution of the military
missions called for under the National Military Strategy of
the United States related to the capabilities of allied armed
forces.
(c) Submission of Report.--The report shall be submitted to
Congress not later than June 1, 2000.

SEC. 1205. LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR BOSNIA PEACEKEEPING
OPERATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000.

(a) Limitation.--(1) Of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated by section 301(24) of this Act for the Overseas
Contingency Operations Transfer Fund, no more than
$1,824,400,000 may be obligated for incremental costs of the
Armed Forces for Bosnia peacekeeping operations.
(2) The President may waive the limitation in paragraph (1)
after submitting to Congress the following:
(A) The President's written certification that the waiver
is necessary in the national security interests of the United
States.
(B) The President's written certification that exercising
the waiver will not adversely affect the readiness of United
States military forces.
(C) A report setting forth the following:
(i) The reasons that the waiver is necessary in the
national security interests of the United States.
(ii) The specific reasons that additional funding is
required for the continued presence of United States military
forces participating in, or

[[Page 12194]]

supporting, Bosnia peacekeeping operations for fiscal year
2000.
(iii) A discussion of the impact on the military readiness
of United States Armed Forces of the continuing deployment of
United States military forces participating in, or
supporting, Bosnia peacekeeping operations.
(D) A supplemental appropriations request for the
Department of Defense for such amounts as are necessary for
the additional fiscal year 2000 costs associated with United
States military forces participating in, or supporting,
Bosnia peacekeeping operations.
(b) Bosnia Peacekeeping Operations Defined.--For the
purposes of this section, the term ``Bosnia peacekeeping
operations'' has the meaning given such term in section
1204(e) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat.
2112).

TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION

SEC. 1301. SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION
PROGRAMS AND FUNDS.

(a) Specification of CTR Programs.--For purposes of section
301 and other provisions of this Act, Cooperative Threat
Reduction programs are the programs specified in section
1501(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2731; 50 U.S.C. 2362
note).
(b) Fiscal Year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction Funds
Defined.--As used in this title, the term ``fiscal year 2000
Cooperative Threat Reduction funds'' means the funds
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 301 for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Funds appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations in section 301, and any
other funds appropriated after the date of the enactment of
this Act, for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs shall be
available for obligation for three fiscal years.

SEC. 1302. FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.

(a) Funding for Specific Purposes.--Of the $444,100,000
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Defense
for fiscal year 2000 in section 301(23) for Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs, not more than the following
amounts may be obligated for the purposes specified:
(1) For strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia,
$177,300,000.
(2) For strategic nuclear arms elimination in Ukraine,
$43,000,000.
(3) For activities to support warhead dismantlement
processing in Russia, $9,300,000.
(4) For security enhancements at chemical weapons storage
sites in Russia, $24,600,000.
(5) For weapons transportation security in Russia,
$15,200,000.
(6) For planning, design, and construction of a storage
facility for Russian fissile material, $60,900,000.
(7) For weapons storage security in Russia, $90,000,000.
(8) For development of a cooperative program with the
Government of Russia to eliminate the production of weapons
grade plutonium at Russian reactors, $20,000,000.
(9) For biological weapons proliferation prevention
activities in Russia, $2,000,000.
(10) For activities designated as Other Assessments/
Administrative Support, $1,800,000.
(b) Report on Obligation or Expenditure of Funds for Other
Purposes.--No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds may be obligated or expended for a purpose other than a
purpose listed in paragraphs (1) through (10) of subsection
(a) until 30 days after the date that the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress a report on the purpose for which
the funds will be obligated or expended and the amount of
funds to be obligated or expended. Nothing in the preceding
sentence shall be construed as authorizing the obligation or
expenditure of fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction
funds for a purpose for which the obligation or expenditure
of such funds is specifically prohibited under this title.
(c) Limited Authority To Vary Individual Amounts.--(1)
Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in any case in which the
Secretary of Defense determines that it is necessary to do so
in the national interest, the Secretary may obligate amounts
appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or any subsequent fiscal
year for a purpose listed in any of the paragraphs in
subsection (a) in excess of the amount specifically
authorized for such purpose. However, the total amount
obligated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for such
fiscal year may not, by reason of the use of the authority
provided in the preceding sentence, exceed the total amount
authorized for such programs for such fiscal year.
(2) An obligation of funds for a purpose stated in any of
the paragraphs in subsection (a) in excess of the specific
amount authorized for such purpose may be made using the
authority provided in paragraph (1) only after--
(A) the Secretary submits to Congress notification of the
intent to do so together with a complete discussion of the
justification for doing so; and
(B) 15 days have elapsed following the date of the
notification.
(3) The Secretary may not, under the authority provided in
paragraph (1), obligate amounts for the purposes stated in
any of paragraphs (3) through (10) of subsection (a) in
excess of 115 percent of the amount specifically authorized
for such purposes.

SEC. 1303. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR SPECIFIED
PURPOSES.

(a) In General.--No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat
Reduction funds, and no funds appropriated for Cooperative
Threat Reduction programs after the date of the enactment of
this Act, may be obligated or expended for any of the
following purposes:
(1) Conducting with Russia any peacekeeping exercise or
other peacekeeping-related activity.
(2) Provision of housing.
(3) Provision of assistance to promote environmental
restoration.
(4) Provision of assistance to promote job retraining.
(b) Limitation With Respect to Defense Conversion
Assistance.--None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act, and no funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
in any other Act enacted after the date of the enactment of
this Act, may be obligated or expended for the provision of
assistance to Russia or any other state of the former Soviet
Union to promote defense conversion.
(c) Limitation With Respect to Conventional Weapons.--No
fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, and no
funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated
or expended for elimination of conventional weapons or the
delivery vehicles of such weapons.

SEC. 1304. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR FISSILE MATERIAL
STORAGE FACILITY.

(a) Limitations on Use of Fiscal Year 2000 Funds.--No
fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be
used--
(1) for construction of a second wing for the storage
facility for Russian fissile material referred to in section
1302(6); or
(2) for design or planning with respect to such facility
until 15 days after the date that the Secretary of Defense
submits to Congress notification that Russia and the United
States have signed a written transparency agreement that
provides that the United States may verify that material
stored at the facility is of weapons origin.
(b) Limitation on Construction.--No funds appropriated for
Cooperative Threat Reduction programs may be used for
construction of the storage facility referred to in
subsection (a) until the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress the following:
(1) A certification that additional capacity is necessary
at such facility for storage of Russian weapons-origin
fissile material.
(2) A detailed cost estimate for a second wing for the
facility.

SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS
DESTRUCTION.

No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, and
no funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be
obligated or expended for planning, design, or construction
of a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia.

SEC. 1306. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
PROLIFERATION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.

No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may
be obligated or expended for biological weapons proliferation
prevention activities in Russia until the Secretary of
Defense submits to the congressional defense committees the
reports described in sections 1305 and 1308 of the Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1999 (Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2164, 2166).

SEC. 1307. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION OF
REPORT AND MULTIYEAR PLAN.

No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may
be obligated or expended until the Secretary of Defense
submits to Congress--
(1) a report describing--
(A) with respect to each purpose listed in section 1302,
whether the Department of Defense is the appropriate
executive agency to carry out Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs for such purpose, and if so, why; and
(B) for any purpose that the Secretary determines is not
appropriately carried out by the Department of Defense, a
plan for migrating responsibility for carrying out such
purpose to the appropriate agency; and
(2) an updated version of the multiyear plan for fiscal
year 2000 required to be submitted under section 1205 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 2883).

SEC. 1308. REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT REPORT.

Not later than December 31, 1999, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report including--
(1) an explanation of the strategy of the Department of
Defense for encouraging states of the former Soviet Union
that receive funds through Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs to contribute financially to the threat reduction
effort;
(2) a prioritization of the projects carried out by the
Department of Defense under Cooperative Threat Reduction
programs; and
(3) an identification of any limitations that the United
States has imposed or will seek to impose, either
unilaterally or through negotiations with recipient states,
on the level of assistance provided by the United States for
each of such projects.

SEC. 1309. REPORT ON EXPANDED THREAT REDUCTION INITIATIVE.

Not later than December 31, 1999, the President shall
submit to Congress a report on the Expanded Threat Reduction
Initiative. Such report shall include a description of the
plans for

[[Page 12195]]

ensuring effective coordination between executive agencies in
carrying out the Expanded Threat Reduction Initiative to
minimize duplication of efforts.

DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.

This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''.

TITLE XXI--ARMY

SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... Redstone Arsenal......... $9,800,000
Alaska....................... Fort Richardson.......... $14,600,000
Fort Wainwright.......... $32,500,000
California................... Fort Irwin............... $32,400,000
Presidio of Monterey..... $7,100,000
Colorado..................... Fort Carson.............. $4,400,000
Peterson Air Force Base.. $25,000,000
District of Columbia......... Fort McNair.............. $1,250,000
Walter Reed Medical $6,800,000
Center.
Georgia...................... Fort Benning............. $48,400,000
Fort Stewart............. $71,700,000
Hawaii....................... Schofield Barracks....... $95,000,000
Kansas....................... Fort Leavenworth......... $34,100,000
Fort Riley............... $3,900,000
Kentucky..................... Blue Grass Army Depot.... $6,000,000
Fort Campbell............ $39,900,000
Fort Knox................ $1,300,000
Louisiana.................... Fort Polk................ $6,700,000
Maryland..................... Fort Meade............... $22,450,000
Massachusetts................ Westover Air Reserve Base $4,000,000
Missouri..................... Fort Leonard Wood........ $27,100,000

New York..................... Fort Drum................ $23,000,000
North Carolina............... Fort Bragg............... $125,400,000
Sunny Point Military $3,800,000
Ocean Terminal..........
Oklahoma..................... Fort Sill................ $33,200,000
McAlester Army Ammunition $16,600,000
Pennsylvania................. Carlisle Barracks........ $5,000,000
Letterkenny Army Depot... $3,650,000
South Carolina............... Fort Jackson............. $7,400,000
Texas........................ Fort Bliss............... $52,350,000
Fort Hood................ $84,500,000
Virginia..................... Fort Belvoir............. $3,850,000
Fort Eustis.............. $43,800,000
Fort Myer................ $2,900,000
Fort Story............... $8,000,000
Washington................... Fort Lewis............... $23,400,000
CONUS Various................ CONUS Various............ $36,400,000
---------------
Total.................. $967,550,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(2), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set
forth in the following table:

Army: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Germany...................... Ansbach.................. $21,000,000
Bamberg.................. $23,200,000
Mannheim................. $4,500,000
Korea........................ Camp Casey............... $31,000,000
Camp Howze............... $3,050,000
Camp Stanley............. $3,650,000
---------------
Total.................. $86,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2102. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Army may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:

Army: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Korea................................. Camp Humphreys........... 60 Units..................... $24,000,000

Virginia.............................. Fort Lee................. 97 Units..................... $16,500,000
---------------
Total...................... $40,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Army may carryout
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of family housing units in an amount not to
exceed $4,300,000.

[[Page 12196]]

SEC. 2103. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in sections 2104(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Army may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $35,400,000.

SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Army in the total amount of $2,384,417,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2101(a), $879,550,000.
(2) For the military construction projects outside the
United States authorized by section 2101(b), $86,400,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $9,500,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $87,205,000.
(5) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$80,200,000.
(B) For support of military family housing (including the
functions described in section 2833 of title 10, United
States Code), $1,089,812,000.
(6) For the construction of the United States Disciplinary
Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, authorized in section
2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat.
1967), $18,800,000.
(7) For the construction of the force XXI soldier
development center, Fort Hood, Texas, authorized in section
2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat.
1966), $14,000,000.
(8) For the construction of the railhead facility, Fort
Hood, Texas, authorized in section 2101(a) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division
B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2182), $14,800,000.
(9) For the construction of the cadet development center,
United States Military Academy, West Point, New York,
authorized in section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2182), $28,500,000.
(10) For the construction of the whole barracks complex
renewal, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, authorized in section
2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat.
2182), $32,000,000.
(11) For the construction of the multi-purpose digital
training range, Fort Knox, Kentucky, authorized in section
2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat.
2182), $16,000,000.
(12) For the construction of the power plant, Roi Namur
Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Kwajalein, authorized in section
2101(b) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat.
2183), $35,400,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
(2) $46,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of the whole barracks
complex renewal at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii);
(3) $22,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of the whole barracks
complex renewal at Fort Bragg, North Carolina);
(4) $10,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of tank trail erosion
mitigation at the Yakima Training Center, Fort Lewis,
Washington); and
(5) $10,100,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2101(a) for the construction of a tactical equipment
shop at Fort Sill, Oklahoma).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (12) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs reduced by $7,750,000, which
represents the combination of project savings in military
construction resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.

TITLE XXII--NAVY

SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Navy: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona...................... Marine Corps Air Station, $24,220,000
Yuma. $7,560,000
Navy Detachment, Camp
Navajo.
California................... Marine Corps Air-Ground $34,760,000
Combat Center,
Twentynine Palms........
Marine Corps Base, Camp $38,460,000
Pendleton.
Marine Corps Logistics $4,670,000
Base, Barstow.
Marine Corps Recruit $3,200,000
Depot, San Diego........
Naval Air Station, $24,020,000
Lemoore.
Naval Air Station, North $54,420,000
Island.
Naval Air Warfare Center, $4,000,000
China Lake.
Naval Air Warfare Center, $7,070,000
Corona.
Naval Air Warfare Center, $6,190,000
Point Magu.
Naval Hospital, San Diego $21,590,000
Naval Hospital, $7,640,000
Twentynine Palms.
Naval Postgraduate School $5,100,000
Florida...................... Naval Air Station, $5,350,000
Whiting Field, Milton...
Naval Station, Mayport... $9,560,000
Georgia...................... Marine Corps Logistics $6,260,000
Base, Albany.
Hawaii....................... Marine Corps Air Station, $5,790,000
Kaneohe Bay.............
Naval Shipyard, Pearl $10,610,000
Harbor.
Naval Station, Pearl $18,600,000
Harbor.
Naval Submarine Base, $29,460,000
Pearl Harbor.
Idaho........................ Naval Surface Warfare $10,040,000
Center, Bayview.........
Illinois..................... Naval Training Center, $57,290,000
Great Lakes.
Indiana...................... Naval Surface Warfare $7,270,000
Center, Crone...........
Maine........................ Naval Air Station, $16,890,000
Brunswick.
Maryland..................... Naval Air Warfare Center, $4,560,000
Patuxent River..........
Naval Surface Warfare $10,070,000
Center, Indian Head.....
Mississippi.................. Naval Air Station, $7,280,000
Meridian................
Naval Construction $19,170,000
Battalion Center
Gulfport................
Nevada....................... Naval Air Station, Fallon $7,000,000
New Jersey................... Naval Air Warfare Center $15,710,000
Aircraft Division,
Lakehurst...............
North Carolina............... Marine Corps Air Station, $5,470,000
New River. $21,380,000
Marine Corps Base, Camp
Lejeune.
Pennsylvania................. Navy Ships Parts Control $2,990,000
Center, Mechanicsburg...
Norfolk Naval Shipyard $13,320,000
Detachment, Philadelphia.
South Carolina............... Naval Weapons Station, $7,640,000
Charleston. $18,290,000
Marine Corps Air Station,
Beaufort.
Texas........................ Naval Station, Ingleside. $11,780,000
Virginia..................... Marine Corps Combat $20,820,000
Development Command,
Quantico................

[[Page 12197]]

Naval Air Station, Oceana $11,490,000
Naval Shipyard, Norfolk.. $17,630,000
Naval Station, Norfolk... $69,550,000
Naval Weapons Station, $25,040,000
Yorktown.
Tactical Training Group $10,310,000
Atlantic, Dam Neck......
Washington................... Naval Ordnance Center $3,440,000
Pacific Division
Detachment, Port Hadlock
Naval Undersea Warfare $6,700,000
Center, Keyport.........
Puget Sound Naval $15,610,000
Shipyard, Bremerton.....
Strategic Weapons $6,300,000
Facility Pacific,
Bremerton...............
---------------
Total.................. $751,570,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(2), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
locations outside the United States, and in the amounts, set
forth in the following table:

Navy: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bahrain...................... Administrative Support $83,090,000
Unit,.
Diego Garcia................. Naval Support Facility, $8,150,000
Diego Garcia.
Greece....................... Naval Support Activity, $6,380,000
Souda Bay.
Italy........................ Naval Support Activity, $26,750,000
Naples.
---------------
Total.................. $124,370,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2202. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:

Navy: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii.................................. Marine Corps Air Station, 100 Units.................. $26,615,000
Kaneohe Bay...............
Naval Base Pearl Harbor.... 133 Units.................. $30,168,000
Naval Base Pearl Harbor.... 96 Units................... $19,167,000
-------------
Total.................... $75,950,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriation in section
2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Navy may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $17,715,000.

SEC. 2203. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2204(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Navy may improve existing military family housing units
in an amount not to exceed $162,350,000.

SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of the
Navy in the total amount of $2,084,107,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2201(a), $737,910,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2201(b), $124,370,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects authorized
by section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $7,342,000.
(4) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $70,010,000.
(5) For military family housing functions:
(A) For construction and acquisition, planning and design
and improvement of military family housing and facilities,
$256,015,000.
(B) For support of military housing (including functions
described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code),
$895,070,000.
(6) For the construction of berthing wharf, Naval Station
Norfolk, Virginia, authorized by section 2201(a) of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(division B of Public Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2189),
$12,690,000.
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section
2853 of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variation authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2201 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a); and
(2) $13,660,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under
section 2201(a) for the construction of a berthing wharf at
Naval Air Station, North Island, California).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (6) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs reduced by $19,300,000, which
represents the combination of project savings in military
construction resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.

SEC. 2205. AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION
IMPROVEMENTS, GUAM.

The Secretary of the Navy may accept from the Guam Power
Authority various improvements to electrical transformers at
the Agana and Harmon Substations in Guam, which are valued at
approximately $610,000 and are to be performed in accordance
with plans and specifications acceptable to the Secretary.

SEC. 2206. CORRECTION IN AUTHORIZED USE OF FUNDS, MARINE
CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, QUANTICO,
VIRGINIA.

The Secretary of the Navy may carry out a military
construction project involving infrastructure development at
the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico,
Virginia, in the amount of $8,900,000, using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2204(a)(1) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public
Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2769) for a military construction
project involving a sanitary landfill at that installation,
as authorized by section 2201(a) of that Act (110 Stat.
2767).

TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE

SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

[[Page 12198]]

Air Force: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... Maxwell Air Force Base... $10,600,000
Alaska....................... Eielson Air Force Base... $24,100,000
Elmendorf Air Force Base. $32,800,000
Arizona...................... Davis-Monthan Air Force $7,800,000
Base.
Arkansas..................... Little Rock Air Force $7,800,000
Base.
California................... Beale Air Force Base..... $8,900,000
Edwards Air Force Base... $5,500,000
Travis Air Force Base.... $11,200,000
Colorado..................... Peterson Air Force Base.. $40,000,000
Schriever Air Force Base. $16,100,000
U.S. Air Force Academy... $17,500,000
CONUS Classified............. Classified Location...... $16,870,000
Florida...................... Eglin Air Force Base..... $18,300,000
Eglin Auxiliary Field 9.. $18,800,000
MacDill Air Force Base... $5,500,000
Patrick Air Force Base... $17,800,000
Tyndall Air Force Base... $10,800,000
Georgia...................... Fort Benning............. $3,900,000
Moody Air Force Base..... $5,950,000
Robins Air Force Base.... $3,350,000
Hawaii....................... Hickam Air Force Base.... $3,300,000
Idaho........................ Mountain Home Air Force $17,000,000
Base.
Kansas....................... McConnell Air Force Base. $9,600,000
Kentucky..................... Fort Campbell............ $6,300,000
Mississippi.................. Columbus Air Force Base.. $5,100,000
Keesler Air Force Base... $27,000,000
Missouri..................... Whiteman Air Force Base.. $24,900,000
Nebraska..................... Offutt Air Force Base.... $8,300,000
Nevada....................... Nellis Air Force Base.... $18,600,000
New Jersey................... McGuire Air Force Base... $11,800,000
New Mexico................... Kirtland Air Force Base.. $14,000,000
North Carolina............... Fort Bragg............... $4,600,000
Pope Air Force Base...... $7,700,000
North Dakota................. Minot Air Force Base..... $3,000,000
Ohio......................... Wright-Patterson Air $35,100,000
Force Base.
Oklahoma..................... Tinker Air Force Base.... $23,800,000
Vance Air Force Base..... $12,600,000
South Carolina............... Charleston Air Force Base $18,200,000
Tennessee.................... Arnold Air Force Base.... $7,800,000
Texas........................ Dyess Air Force Base..... $5,400,000
Lackland Air Force Base.. $13,400,000
Laughlin Air Force Base.. $3,250,000
Randolph Air Force Base.. $3,600,000
Utah......................... Hill Air Force Base...... $4,600,000
Virginia..................... Langley Air Force Base... $6,300,000
Washington................... Fairchild Air Force Base. $15,550,000
McChord Air Force Base... $7,900,000
---------------
Total.................. $632,270,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(2), the Secretary of the Air Force may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Air Force: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guam......................... Andersen Air Force Base.. $8,900,000
Italy........................ Aviano Air Base.......... $3,700,000
Korea........................ Osan Air Base............ $19,600,000
Portugal..................... Lajes Field, Azores...... $1,800,000
United Kingdom............... Ascension Island......... $2,150,000
Royal Air Force Feltwell. $3,000,000
Royal Air Force $18,200,000
Lakenheath. $17,600,000
Royal Air Force $1,700,000
Mildenhall.
Royal Air Force
Molesworth.
---------------
Total.................. $76,650,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2302. FAMILY HOUSING.

(a) Construction and Acquisition.--Using amounts
appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations
in section 2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may
construct or acquire family housing units (including land
acquisition) at the installations, for the purposes, and in
the amounts set forth in the following table:

Air Force: Family Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Purpose Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona............................... Davis-Monthan Air Force 64 Units..................... $10,000,000
Base....................
California............................ Beale Air Force Base..... 60 Units..................... $8,500,000
Edwards Air Force Base... 188 Units.................... $32,790,000
Vandenberg Air Force Base 91 Units..................... $16,800,000
District of Columbia.................. Bolling Air Force Base... 72 Units..................... $9,375,000
Florida............................... Eglin Air Force Base..... 130 Units.................... $14,080,000
MacDill Air Force Base... 54 Units..................... $9,034,000
Kansas................................ McConnell Air Force Base. Safety Improvements.......... $1,363,000
Mississippi........................... Columbus Air Force Base.. 100 Units.................... $12,290,000
Montana............................... Malmstrom Air Force Base. 34 Units..................... $7,570,000

[[Page 12199]]

Nebraska.............................. Offutt Air Force Base.... 72 Units..................... $12,352,000
New Mexico............................ Hollomon Air Force Base.. 76 Units..................... $9,800,000
North Carolina........................ Seymour Johnson Air Force 78 Units..................... $12,187,000
Base....................
North Dakota.......................... Grand Forks Air Force 42 Units..................... $10,050,000
Base....................
Minot Air Force Base..... 72 Units..................... $10,756,000
Texas................................. Lackland Air Force Base.. 48 Units..................... $7,500,000
Portugal.............................. Lajes Field, Azores...... 75 Units..................... $12,964,000
---------------
Total...................... $197,411,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Planning and Design.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of the Air Force may carry out
architectural and engineering services and construction
design activities with respect to the construction or
improvement of military family housing units in an amount not
to exceed $17,093,000.

SEC. 2303. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, Unites States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2304(a)(5)(A), the Secretary of
the Air Force may improve existing military family housing
units in an amount not to exceed $124,492,000.

SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE.

TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2405(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization.... Blue Grass Army Depot, $206,800,000
Kentucky.
Defense Education Activity... Laurel Bay, South $2,874,000
Carolina................
Marine Corps Base, Camp $10,570,000
LeJeune, North Carolina.
Defense Logistics Agency..... Defense Distribution New $5,000,000
Cumberland,Pennsylvania.
Elmendorf Air Force Base, $23,500,000
Alaska..................
Eielson Air Force Base, $26,000,000
Alaska.
Fairchild Air Force Base, $12,400,000
Washington.
Various Locations........ $1,300,000
Defense Manpower Data Center. Presidio, Monterey, $28,000,000
California..............
National Security Agency..... Fort Meade, Maryland..... $2,946,000
Special Operations Command... Fleet Combat Training $4,700,000
Center, Dam Neck,
Virginia................
Fort Benning, Georgia.... $10,200,000
Fort Bragg, North $20,100,000
Carolina.
Mississippi Army $9,600,000
Ammunition Plant,
Mississippi.............
Naval Amphibious Base, $6,000,000
Coronado, California....
TRICARE Management Agency.... Andrews Air Force Base, $3,000,000
Maryland................
Cheatham Annex, Virginia. $1,650,000
Davis-Monthan Air Force $10,000,000
Base, Arizona...........
Fort Lewis, Washington... $5,500,000
Fort Riley, Kansas....... $6,000,000
Fort Sam Houston, Texas.. $5,800,000
Fort Wainwright, Alaska.. $133,000,000
Los Angeles Air Force $13,600,000
Base, California........
Marine Corps Air Station, $3,500,000
Cherry Point, North
Carolina................
Moody Air Force Base, $1,250,000
Georgia.
Naval Air Station, $3,780,000
Jacksonville, Florida...
Naval Air Station, $4,050,000
Norfolk, Virginia.
Naval Air Station, $4,150,000
Patuxent River, Maryland
Naval Air Station, $4,300,000
Pensacola, Florida.
Naval Air Station, $4,700,000
Whidbey Island,
Washington..............
Patrick Air Force Base, $1,750,000
Florida.
Travis Air Force Base, $7,500,000
California.
Wright-Patterson Air $3,900,000
Force Base, Ohio........
---------------
Total.................. $587,420,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Outside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2405(a)(2), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations outside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:

Defense Agencies: Outside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Interdiction and Counter- Manta, Ecuador........... $25,000,000
Drug Activities.............

[[Page 12200]]

Curacao, Netherlands $11,100,000
Antilles................
Defense Education Activity... Andersen Air Force Base, $44,170,000
Guam....................
Naval Station Rota, Spain $17,020,000
Royal Air Force, $4,570,000
Feltwell, United Kingdom
Royal Air Force, $3,770,000
Lakenheath, United
Kingdom.................
Defense Logistics Agency..... Andersen Air Force Base, $24,300,000
Guam.
Moron Air Base, Spain.... $15,200,000
National Security Agency..... Royal Air Force, Menwith $500,000
Hill Station, United
Kingdom.................
Tri-Care Management Agency... Naval Security Group $4,000,000
Activity, Sabana Seca,
Puerto Rico.............
Ramstein Air Force Base, $7,100,000
Germany.
Royal Air Force, $7,100,000
Lakenheath, United
Kingdom.................
Yongsan, Korea........... $41,120,000
---------------
Total.................. $204,950,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2402. IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS.

Subject to section 2825 of title 10, United States Code,
and using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriation in section 2405(a)(8)(A), the Secretary of
Defense may improve existing military family housing units in
an amount not to exceed $50,000.

SEC. 2403. MILITARY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
2405(a)(8)(C), $78,756,000 shall be available for credit to
the Department of Defense Family Housing Fund established by
section 2883(a)(1) of title 10, United States Code.

SEC. 2404. ENERGY CONSERVATION PROJECTS.

Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in section 2405(a)(6), the Secretary of
Defense may carry out energy conservation projects under
section 2865 of title 10, United States Code, in the amount
of $6,558,000.

SEC. 2405. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1999, for military construction, land acquisition, and
military family housing functions of the Department of
Defense (other than the military departments), in the total
amount of $1,618,965,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United
States authorized by section 2401(a), $288,420,000.
(2) For military construction projects outside the United
States authorized by section 2401(b), $204,950,000.
(3) For unspecified minor construction projects under
section 2805 of title 10, United States Code, $18,618,000.
(4) For contingency construction projects of the Secretary
of Defense under section 2804 of title 10, United States
Code, $938,000.
(5) For architectural and engineering services and
construction design under section 2807 of title 10, United
States Code, $49,024,000.
(6) For Energy Conservation projects authorized by section
2404 of this Act, $6,558,000.
(7) For base closure and realignment activities as
authorized by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $705,911,000.
(8) For military family housing functions:
(A) For improvement of military family housing and
facilities, $50,000.
(B) For support of military housing (including functions
described in section 2833 of title 10, United States Code),
$41,440,000 of which not more than $35,639,000 may be
obligated or expended for the leasing of military family
housing units worldwide.
(C) For credit to the Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund as authorized by section 2403 of this Act,
$78,756,000.
(9) For the construction of the Ammunition Demilitarization
Facility, Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, authorized in section
2101(a) of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1991 (division B of Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat.
1758), section 2101(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1992 and 1993 (division B
of Public Law 102-190; 105 Stat. 1508), section 2101(a) of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (division B of Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2586); and
section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public Law 103-337, 108
Stat. 3040), $7,000,000.
(10) For the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility, Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas,
authorized in section 2401 of Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3040), as amended by section 2407 of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 539), section
2408 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat.
1982), and section 2406 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2197), $61,800,000.
(11) For the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility, Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon,
authorized in section 2401 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public
Law 103-337; 108 Stat. 3040), as amended by section 2407 of
the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 539),
section 2408 of the Military Construction Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public Law 105-85; 111
Stat. 1982); and section 2406 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2197), $35,900,000.
(12) For the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,
authorized in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2193), $66,600,000.
(13) For the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility at Newport Army Depot, Indiana,
authorized in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2193), $61,200,000.
(14) For the construction of the Ammunition
Demilitarization Facility, Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado,
authorized in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public
Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2775), as amended by section 2406 of
this Act, $11,800,000.
(b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost
variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects
carried out under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) the total amount authorized to be appropriated under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a);
(2) $115,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized
under section 2401(a) for the construction of a replacement
hospital at Fort Wainwright, Alaska); and
(3) $184,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized
under section 2401(a) for the construction of a chemical
demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot,
Kentucky).
(c) Adjustment.--The total amount authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (14) of
subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts authorized to be
appropriated in such paragraphs reduced by $20,000,000, which
represents the combination of project savings in military
construction resulting from favorable bids, reduced overhead
charges, and cancellations due to force structure changes.

SEC. 2406. INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 1997 AUTHORIZATION FOR
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT PUEBLO
CHEMICAL ACTIVITY, COLORADO.

The table in section 2401(a) of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (division B of Public
Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2775), is amended--
(1) in the item relating to Pueblo Chemical Activity,
Colorado, under the agency heading relating to Chemical
Demilitarization Program by striking ``$179,000,000'' in the
amount column and inserting ``$203,500,000''; and
(2) by striking the amount identified as the total in the
amount column and inserting ``$549,954,000''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2406(b)(2) of that Act
(110 Stat. 2779) is amended by striking ``$179,000,000'' and
inserting ``$203,500,000''.

SEC. 2407. CONDITION ON OBLIGATION OF MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
FUNDS FOR DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG
ACTIVITIES.

In addition to the conditions specified in section 1022 on
the development of forward operating locations for United
States Southern Command counter-drug detection and monitoring
flights, amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization
of appropriations in section 2405(a)(2) for the projects set
forth in the table in section 2401(b) under the heading
``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities'' may not be
obligated until after the end of the 30-day period beginning
on the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to
Congress a report describing in detail the purposes for which
the amounts will be obligated and expended.

TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT
PROGRAM

SEC. 2501. AUTHORIZED NATO CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS.

The Secretary of Defense may make contributions for the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment
program as provided in

[[Page 12201]]

section 2806 of title 10, United States Code, in an amount
not to exceed the sum of the amount authorized to be
appropriated for this purpose in section 2502 and the amount
collected from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a
result of construction previously financed by the United
States.

SEC. 2502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NATO.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 1999, for contributions
by the Secretary of Defense under section 2806 of title 10,
United States Code, for the share of the United States of the
cost of projects for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program authorized by section 2501, in
the amount of $191,000,000.

TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

SEC. 2601. AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years
beginning after September 30, 1999, for the costs of
acquisition, architectural and engineering services, and
construction of facilities for the Guard and Reserve Forces,
and for contributions therefor, under chapter 1803 of title
10, United States Code (including the cost of acquisition of
land for those facilities), the following amounts:
(1) For the Department of the Army--
(A) for the Army National Guard of the United States,
$123,878,000; and
(B) for the Army Reserve, $92,515,000.
(2) For the Department of the Navy, for the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve, $21,574,000.
(3) For the Department of the Air Force--
(A) for the Air National Guard of the United States,
$151,170,000; and
(B) for the Air Force Reserve, $48,564,000.

TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS

SEC. 2701. EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND AMOUNTS REQUIRED
TO BE SPECIFIED BY LAW.

(a) Expiration of Authorizations After Three Years.--Except
as provided in subsection (b), all authorizations contained
in titles XXI through XXVI for military construction
projects, land acquisition, family housing projects and
facilities, and contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment program (and authorizations
of appropriations therefor) shall expire on the later of--
(1) October 1, 2002; or
(2) the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for
military construction for fiscal year 2003.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to
authorizations for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, and
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program (and authorizations of
appropriations therefor), for which appropriated funds have
been obligated before the later of--
(1) October 1, 2002; or
(2) the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds
for fiscal year 2003 for military construction projects, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities, or
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment program.

SEC. 2702. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1997 PROJECTS.

(a) Extensions.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(division B of Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2782),
authorizations for the projects set forth in the tables in
subsection (b), as provided in section 2101, 2201, 2202, or
2601 of that Act and amended by section 2406 of this Act,
shall remain in effect until October 1, 2000, or the date of
enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.
(b) Tables.--The tables referred to in subsection (a) are
as follows:

Army: Extension of 1997 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado.............................. Pueblo Army Depot........ Ammunition Demilitarization $203,500,000
Facility....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Navy: Extension of 1997 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia.............................. Marine Corps Combat Infrastructure Development... $8,900,000
Development Command.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Navy: Extension of 1997 Family Housing Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Family Housing Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida............................... Mayport Naval Station.... 100 units.................... $10,000,000
Maine................................. Brunswick Naval Air 92 units..................... $10,925,000
Station.................
North Carolina........................ Camp Lejuene............. 94 units..................... $10,110,000
South Carolina........................ Beaufort Marine Corps Air 140 units.................... $14,000,000
Station.................
Texas................................. Corpus Christi Naval 104 units.................... $11,675,000
Complex.................
Kingsville Naval Air 48 units..................... $7,550,000
Station.................
Washington............................ Everett Naval Station.... 100 units.................... $15,015,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army National Guard: Extension of 1997 Project Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi........................... Camp Shelby.............. Multi-Purpose Range (Phase $5,000,000
II).........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC. 2703. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
1996 PROJECTS.

(a) Extensions.--Notwithstanding section 2701 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(division B of Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 541),
authorizations for the projects set forth in the tables in
subsection (b), as provided in section 2202 or 2601 of that
Act and extended by section 2702 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public
Law 105-261; 112 Stat. 2199), shall remain in effect until
October 1, 2000, or the date of enactment of an Act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2001, whichever is later.
(b) Tables.--The tables referred to in subsection (a) are
as follows:

Navy: Extension of 1996 Family Housing Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Family Housing Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California............................ Camp Pendleton........... 138 units.................... $20,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army National Guard: Extension of 1996 Project Authorizations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Project Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi........................... Camp Shelby.............. Multipurpose Range Complex $5,000,000
(Phase I)...................
Missouri.............................. National Guard Training Multipurpose Range........... $2,236,000
Site, Jefferson City....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12202]]

SEC. 2704. EFFECTIVE DATE.

Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, and XXVI shall take
effect on the later of--
(1) October 1, 1999; or
(2) the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes

SEC. 2801. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY
ORGANIZATIONS SECURITY INVESTMENT.

Section 2806(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including support for the actual implementation of a military
operations plan approved by the North Atlantic Council''.

SEC. 2802. DEVELOPMENT OF FORD ISLAND, HAWAII.

(a) Conditional Authority To Develop.--(1) Subchapter I of
chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 2814. Special authority for development of Ford
Island, Hawaii

``(a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary of the Navy may exercise any authority or
combination of authorities in this section for the purpose of
developing or facilitating the development of Ford Island,
Hawaii, to the extent that the Secretary determines the
development is compatible with the mission of the Navy.
``(2) The Secretary of the Navy may not exercise any
authority under this section until--
``(A) the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees
of Congress a master plan for the development of Ford Island,
Hawaii; and
``(B) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed following
the date on which the notification is received by those
committees.
``(b) Conveyance Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy
may convey to any public or private person or entity all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to any
real property (including any improvements thereon) or
personal property under the jurisdiction of the Secretary in
the State of Hawaii that the Secretary determines--
``(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the
other armed forces; and
``(B) will promote the purpose of this section.
``(2) A conveyance under this subsection may include such
terms and conditions as the Secretary considers appropriate
to protect the interests of the United States.
``(c) Lease Authority.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy may
lease to any public or private person or entity any real
property or personal property under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary in the State of Hawaii that the Secretary
determines--
``(A) is excess to the needs of the Navy and all of the
other armed forces; and
``(B) will promote the purpose of this section.
``(2) A lease under this subsection shall be subject to
section 2667(b)(1) of this title and may include such others
terms as the Secretary considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
``(3) A lease of real property under this subsection may
provide that, upon termination of the lease term, the lessee
shall have the right of first refusal to acquire the real
property covered by the lease if the property is then
conveyed under subsection (b).
``(4)(A) The Secretary may provide property support
services to or for real property leased under this
subsection.
``(B) To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, any
payment made to the Secretary for services provided under
this paragraph shall be credited to the appropriation,
account, or fund from which the cost of providing the
services was paid.
``(d) Acquisition of Leasehold Interest by Secretary.--(1)
The Secretary of the Navy may acquire a leasehold interest in
any facility constructed under subsection (f) as
consideration for a transaction authorized by this section
upon such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate to
promote the purpose of this section.
``(2) The term of a lease under paragraph (1) may not
exceed 10 years, unless the Secretary of Defense approves a
term in excess of 10 years for purposes of this section.
``(3) A lease under this subsection may provide that, upon
termination of the lease term, the United States shall have
the right of first refusal to acquire the facility covered by
the lease.
``(4) The Secretary of the Navy may enter into a lease
under this subsection only if the lease is specifically
authorized by a law enacted after the date of the enactment
of this section.
``(e) Requirement for Competition.--The Secretary of the
Navy shall use competitive procedures for purposes of
selecting the recipient of real or personal property under
subsection (b) and the lessee of real or personal property
under subsection (c).
``(f) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the
conveyance of real or personal property under subsection (b),
or for the lease of real or personal property under
subsection (c), the Secretary of the Navy shall accept cash,
real property, personal property, or services, or any
combination thereof, in an aggregate amount equal to not less
than the fair market value of the real or personal property
conveyed or leased.
``(2) Subject to subsection (i), the services accepted by
the Secretary under paragraph (1) may include the following:
``(A) The construction or improvement of facilities at Ford
Island.
``(B) The restoration or rehabilitation of real property at
Ford Island.
``(C) The provision of property support services for
property or facilities at Ford Island.
``(g) Notice and Wait Requirements.--The Secretary of the
Navy may not carry out a transaction authorized by this
section until--
``(1) the Secretary submits to the appropriate committees
of Congress a notification of the transaction, including--
``(A) a detailed description of the transaction; and
``(B) a justification for the transaction specifying the
manner in which the transaction will meet the purposes of
this section; and
``(2) a period of 30 calendar days has elapsed following
the date on which the notification is received by those
committees.
``(h) Ford Island Improvement Account.--(1) There is
established on the books of the Treasury an account to be
known as the `Ford Island Improvement Account'.
``(2) There shall be deposited into the account the
following amounts:
``(A) Amounts authorized and appropriated to the account.
``(2) Except as provided in subsection (c)(4)(B), the
amount of any cash payment received by the Secretary for a
transaction under this section.
``(i) Use of Account.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), to the
extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts, funds in
the Ford Island Improvement Account may be used as follows:
``(A) To carry out or facilitate the carrying out of a
transaction authorized by this section.
``(B) To carry out improvements of property or facilities
at Ford Island.
``(C) To obtain property support services for property or
facilities at Ford Island.
``(2) To extent that the authorities provided under
subchapter IV of this chapter are available to the Secretary
of the Navy, the Secretary may not use the authorities in
this section to acquire, construct, or improve family housing
units, military unaccompanied housing units, or ancillary
supporting facilities related to military housing.
``(3)(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford
Island Improvement Account to the following funds:
``(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of this title.
``(ii) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(2) of
this title.
``(B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to a fund
referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in
accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of this title
for activities authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter
at Ford Island.
``(j) Inapplicability of Certain Property Management
Laws.--Except as otherwise provided in this section,
transactions under this section shall not be subject to the
following:
``(1) Sections 2667 and 2696 of this title.
``(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).
``(k) Scoring.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to waive the applicability to any lease entered into under
this section of the budget scorekeeping guidelines used to
measure compliance with the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
``(l) Property Support Service Defined.--In this section,
the term `property support service' means the following:
``(1) Any utility service or other service listed in
section 2686(a) of this title.
``(2) Any other service determined by the Secretary to be a
service that supports the operation and maintenance of real
property, personal property, or facilities.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such
subchapter is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:

``2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2883(c) of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers
to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title,
subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred
amounts specified in that section.''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following
new subparagraph:
``(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy transfers
to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of this title,
subject to the restrictions on the use of the transferred
amounts specified in that section.''.

SEC. 2803. RESTRICTION ON AUTHORITY TO ACQUIRE OR CONSTRUCT
ANCILLARY SUPPORTING FACILITIES FOR HOUSING
UNITS.

Section 2881 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Authority To Acquire or Construct.--
'' before ``Any project''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Restriction.--The ancillary supporting facilities
authorized by subsection (a) may not be in direct competition
with any resale activities provided by the Defense Commissary
Agency or the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the Navy
Exchange Service Command, Marine Corps exchanges, or any
other nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United
States under the jurisdiction of the armed forces which is

[[Page 12203]]

conducted for the morale, welfare and recreation of members
of the armed forces.''.

SEC. 2804. PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS.

Section 18233(f)(1) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``design,'' after ``planning,''.

SEC. 2805. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT SMALL
PROJECTS FOR ACQUISITION OF FACILITIES FOR
RESERVE COMPONENTS.

(a) Unspecified Minor Construction Projects to Correct
Life, Health, or Safety Threats.--Subsection (a)(2) of
section 18233a of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) An unspecified minor construction project intended
solely to correct a deficiency that is life-threatening,
health-threatening, or safety-threatening, except that the
expenditure or contribution for the project may not exceed
$3,000,000.''.
(b) Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds To Correct Life,
Health, or Safety Threats.--Subsection (b) of such section is
amended by inserting after ``or less'' the following: ``(or
$1,000,000 or less if the project is intended solely to
correct a deficiency that is life-threatening, health-
threatening, or safety-threatening).''.

SEC. 2806. EXPANSION OF ENTITIES ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN
ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND
IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING.

(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--Section 2871 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as
paragraphs (6) through (8) respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) The term `eligible entity' means any individual,
corporation, firm, partnership, company, State or local
government, or housing authority of a State or local
government.''.
(b) General Authority.--Section 2872 of such title is
amended by striking ``private persons'' and inserting
``eligible entities''.
(c) Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees.--Section 2873 of such
title is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``persons in the private sector'' and
inserting ``an eligible entity''; and
(B) by striking ``such persons'' and inserting ``the
eligible entity''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by striking ``any person in the private sector'' and
inserting ``an eligible entity''; and
(B) by striking ``the person'' and inserting ``the eligible
entity''.
(d) Investments.--Section 2875 of such title is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``nongovernmental
entities'' and inserting ``an eligible entity'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``a nongovernmental entity'' both places it
appears and inserting ``an eligible entity''; and
(B) by striking ``the entity'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the eligible entity'';
(3) in subsection (d), by striking ``nongovernmental'' and
inserting ``eligible''; and
(4) in subsection (e), by striking ``a nongovernmental
entity'' and inserting ``an eligible entity''.
(e) Rental Guarantees.--Section 2876 of such title is
amended by striking ``private persons'' and inserting
``eligible entities''.
(f) Differential Lease Payments.--Section 2877 of such
title is amended by striking ``private''.
(g) Conveyance or Lease of Existing Property and
Facilities.--Section 2878(a) of such title is amended by
striking ``private persons'' and inserting ``eligible
entities''.
(h) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The heading of section 2875
of such title is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2875. Investments''.

(2) The table of sections at the beginning of subchapter IV
of chapter 169 of such title is amended by striking the item
relating to such section and inserting the following new
item:

``2875. Investments.''.

Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration

SEC. 2811. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR LEASE OF LAND FOR
SPECIAL OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES.

Section 2680(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting ``September
30, 2005''.

SEC. 2812. UTILITY PRIVATIZATION AUTHORITY.

(a) Extended Contracts for Utility Services.--Subsection
(c) of section 2688 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) A contract for the receipt of utility services as
consideration under paragraph (1), or any other contract for
utility services entered into by the Secretary concerned in
connection with the conveyance of a utility system under this
section, may be for a period not to exceed 50 years.''.
(b) Definition of Utility System.--Subsection (g)(2)(B) of
such section is amended by striking ``Easements'' and
inserting ``Real property, easements,''.
(c) Funds To Facilitate Privatization.--Such section is
further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(i) and (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsection:
``(g) Assistance for Construction, Repair, or Replacement
of Utility Systems.--In lieu of carrying out a military
construction project to construct, repair, or replace a
utility system, the Secretary concerned may use funds
authorized and appropriated for the project to facilitate the
conveyance of the utility system under this section by making
a contribution toward the cost of construction, repair, or
replacement of the utility system by the entity to which the
utility system is being conveyed. The Secretary concerned
shall consider any such contribution in the economic analysis
required under subsection (e).''.

SEC. 2813. ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDS TO COVER ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES RELATING TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
TRANSACTIONS.

Section 2695(b) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``involving real property under the
control of the Secretary of a military department'' after
``transactions''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) The disposal of real property of the United States
for which the Secretary will be the disposal agent.''.

SEC. 2814. STUDY AND REPORT ON IMPACTS TO MILITARY READINESS
OF PROPOSED LAND MANAGEMENT CHANGES ON PUBLIC
LANDS IN UTAH.

(a) Utah National Defense Lands Defined.--In this section,
the term ``Utah national defense lands'' means public lands
under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in
the State of Utah that are adjacent to or near the Utah Test
and Training Range and Dugway Proving Ground or beneath the
Military Operating Areas, Restricted Areas, and airspace that
make up the Utah Test and Training Range.
(b) Readiness Impact Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall
conduct a study to evaluate the impact upon military
training, testing, and operational readiness of any proposed
changes in land management of the Utah national defense
lands. In conducting the study, the Secretary of Defense
shall consider the following:
(1) The present military requirements for and missions
conducted at Utah Test and Training Range, as well as
projected requirements for the support of aircraft, unmanned
aerial vehicles, missiles, munitions and other military
requirements.
(2) The future requirements for force structure and
doctrine changes, such as the Expeditionary Aerospace Force
concept, that could require the use of the Utah Test and
Training Range.
(3) All other pertinent issues, such as overflight
requirements, access to electronic tracking and
communications sites, ground access to respond to emergency
or accident locations, munitions safety buffers, noise
requirements, ground safety and encroachment issues.
(c) Cooperation and Coordination.--The Secretary of Defense
shall conduct the study in cooperation with the Secretary of
the Air Force and the Secretary of the Army and coordinate
the study with the Secretary of the Interior.
(d) Effect of Study.--Until the Secretary of Defense
submits to Congress a report containing the results of the
study, the Secretary of the Interior may not proceed with the
amendment of any individual resource management plan for Utah
national defense lands, or any statewide environmental impact
statement or statewide resource management plan amendment
package for such lands, if the statewide environmental impact
statement or statewide resource management plan amendment
addresses wilderness characteristics or wilderness management
issues affecting such lands.

Subtitle C--Defense Base Closure and Realignment

SEC. 2821. CONTINUATION OF AUTHORITY TO USE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE ACCOUNT 1990 FOR
ACTIVITIES REQUIRED TO CLOSE OR REALIGN
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

(a) Duration of Account.--Subsection (a) of section 2906 of
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A
of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Account shall be closed at the time and in the
manner provided for appropriation accounts under section 1555
of title 31, United States Code. Unobligated funds which
remain in the Account upon closure shall be held by the
Secretary of the Treasury until transferred by law after the
congressional defense committees receive the final report
transmitted under subsection (c)(2).''.
(b) Effect of Continuation on Use of Account.--Subsection
(b)(1) of such section is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``After July 13, 2001, the Account
shall be the sole source of Federal funds for environmental
restoration, property management, and other caretaker costs
associated with any real property at military installations
closed or realigned under this part or such title II.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2); and
(B) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2) and, in
such paragraph, by inserting after ``this part'' the
following: ``and no later than 60 days after the closure of
the Account under subsection (a)(3)''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``the termination of the
authority of the Secretary to carry out a closure or
realignment under this part'' and inserting ``the closure of
the Account under subsection (a)(3)''.

[[Page 12204]]

Subtitle D--Land Conveyances

PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2831. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, FORT SAM HOUSTON, TEXAS.

(a) Transfer of Land for Inclusion in National Cemetery.--
The Secretary of the Army may transfer, without
reimbursement, to the administrative jurisdiction of the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs a parcel of real property,
including any improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 152 acres and comprising a portion of Fort Sam
Houston, Texas.
(b) Use of Land.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
include the real property transferred under subsection (a) in
the Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery and use the conveyed
property as a national cemetery under chapter 24 of title 38,
United States Code.
(c) Legal Description.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be transferred under this
section shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary of the Army. The cost of the survey shall be borne
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the
Army may require such additional terms and conditions in
connection with the transfer under this section as the
Secretary of the Army considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.

SEC. 2832. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, KANKAKEE,
ILLINOIS.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the City of Kankakee,
Illinois (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 improvements thereon, that
is located at 1600 Willow Street in Kankakee, Illinois, and
contains the vacant Stefaninch Army Reserve Center for the
purpose of permitting the City to use the parcel for economic
development and other public purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the City.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2833. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT DES MOINES, IOWA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Fort Des Moines Black
Officers Memorial, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized in
the State of Iowa (in this section referred to as the
``Corporation''), all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, located at Fort Des Moines, Iowa, and
containing the post chapel (building #49) and Clayton Hall
(building #46) for the purpose of permitting the Corporation
to develop and use the parcel as a memorial and for
educational purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Corporation.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2834. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY MAINTENANCE SUPPORT ACTIVITY
(MARINE) NUMBER 84, MARCUS HOOK, PENNSYLVANIA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Borough of Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania (in this section referred to as the
``Borough''), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 5 acres
that is located at 7 West Delaware Avenue in Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania, and contains the facility known as the Army
Maintenance Support Activity (Marine) Number 84, for the
purpose of permitting the Borough to develop the parcel for
recreational or economic development purposes.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
Borough--
(1) use the conveyed property, directly or through an
agreement with a public or private entity, for recreational
or economic purposes; or
(2) convey the property to an appropriate public or private
entity for use for such purposes.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines at any time
that the real property conveyed under subsection (a) is not
being used for recreational or economic development purposes,
as required by subsection (b), all right, title, and interest
in and to the property conveyed under subsection (a),
including any improvements thereon, shall revert to the
United States, and the United States shall have the right of
immediate entry thereon. Any determination of the Secretary
under this subsection shall be made on the record after an
opportunity for a hearing.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Borough.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2835. LAND CONVEYANCES, ARMY DOCKS AND RELATED PROPERTY,
ALASKA.

(a) Juneau National Guard Dock.--The Secretary of the Army
may convey, without consideration, to the City of Juneau,
Alaska, all right, title, and interest of the United States
in and to a parcel of real property, including improvements
thereon, located at 1030 Thane Highway in Juneau, Alaska, and
consisting of approximately 0.04 acres and the appurtenant
facility known as the Juneau National Guard Dock.
(b) Whittier Delong Dock.--The Secretary may convey,
without consideration, to the Alaska Railroad Corporation all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including improvements thereon,
located in Whittier, Alaska, and consisting of approximately
6.13 acres and the appurtenant facility known as the DeLong
Dock.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined by surveys
satisfactory to the Secretary. The cost of the surveys shall
be borne by the recipient of the real property.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances under subsection (a) and (b) as the
Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of
the United States.

SEC. 2836. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT HUACHUCA, ARIZONA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Veterans Services
Commission of the State of Arizona (in this section referred
to as the ``Commission''), all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to a parcel of real property,
including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately
130 acres at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, for the purpose of
permitting the Commission to establish a State-run cemetery
for veterans.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Commission.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2837. LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, CANNON
FALLS, MINNESOTA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Cannon Falls Area
Schools, Minnesota Independent School District Number 252 (in
this section referred to as the ``District''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel
of real property, including improvements thereon, that is
located at 710 State Street East in Cannon Falls, Minnesota,
and contains an Army Reserve Center for the purpose of
permitting the District to develop the parcel for educational
purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the District.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2838. LAND CONVEYANCE, NIKE BATTERY 80 FAMILY HOUSING
SITE, EAST HANOVER TOWNSHIP, NEW JERSEY.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey, without consideration, to the Township Council of
East Hanover, New Jersey (in this section referred to as the
``Township''), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 13.88 acres
located near the unincorporated area of Hanover Neck in East
Hanover, New Jersey, and was a former family housing site for
Nike Battery 80, for the purpose of permitting the Township
to develop the parcel for affordable housing and for
recreational purposes.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Township.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2839. LAND EXCHANGE, ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ILLINOIS.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Army may
convey to the City of Moline, Illinois (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 improvements thereon, consisting

[[Page 12205]]

of approximately .3 acres at the Rock Island Arsenal for the
purpose of permitting the City to construct a new entrance
and exit ramp for the bridge that crosses the southeast end
of the island containing the Arsenal.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the City shall convey to the Secretary
all right, title, and interest of the City in and to a parcel
of real property consisting of approximately .2 acres and
located in the vicinity of the parcel to be conveyed under
subsection (a).
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the parcels to be conveyed under this section
shall be determined by a survey satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the City.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2840. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, JOLIET ARMY
AMMUNITION PLANT, ILLINOIS.

Section 2922(c) of the Military Construction Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (division B of Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 605) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The conveyance''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) The landfill established on the real property
conveyed under subsection (a) may contain only waste
generated in the county in which the landfill is established
and waste generated in municipalities located at least in
part in that county. The landfill shall be closed and capped
after 23 years of operation.''.

SEC. 2841. LAND CONVEYANCES, TWIN CITIES ARMY AMMUNITION
PLANT, MINNESOTA.

(a) Conveyance to City Authorized.--The Secretary of the
Army may convey to the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota (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 improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 4 acres at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant, for the purpose of permitting the City to construct a
city hall complex on the parcel.
(b) Conveyance to County Authorized.--The Secretary of the
Army may convey to Ramsey County, Minnesota (in this section
referred to as the ``County''), all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, consisting of
approximately 35 acres at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition
Plant, for the purpose of permitting the County to construct
a maintenance facility on the parcel.
(c) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyances
under this section, the City shall make the city hall complex
available for use by the Minnesota National Guard for public
meetings, and the County shall make the maintenance facility
available for use by the Minnesota National Guard, as
detailed in agreements entered into between the City, County,
and the Commanding General of the Minnesota National Guard.
Use of the city hall complex and maintenance facility by the
Minnesota National Guard shall be without cost to the
Minnesota National Guard.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under this
section shall be determined by surveys satisfactory to the
Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the
recipient of the real property.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyances under this section as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2851. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE
PLANT NO. 387, DALLAS, TEXAS.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary of the Navy
may convey to the City of Dallas, Texas (in this section
referred to as the ``City''), all right, title, and interest
of the United States in and to parcels of real property
consisting of approximately 314 acres and comprising the
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant No. 387, Dallas,
Texas.
(2)(A) As part of the conveyance authorized by paragraph
(1), the Secretary may convey to the City such improvements,
equipment, fixtures, and other personal property located on
the parcels referred to in that paragraph as the Secretary
determines to be not required by the Navy for other purposes.
(B) The Secretary may permit the City to review and inspect
the improvements, equipment, fixtures, and other personal
property located on the parcels referred to in paragraph (1)
for purposes of the conveyance authorized by this paragraph.
(b) Authority To Convey Without Consideration.--The
conveyance authorized by subsection (a) may be made without
consideration if the Secretary determines that the conveyance
on that basis would be in the best interests of the United
States.
(c) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
City--
(1) use the parcels, directly or through an agreement with
a public or private entity, for economic purposes or such
other public purposes as the City determines appropriate; or
(2) convey the parcels to an appropriate public entity for
use for such purposes.
(d) Reversion.--If, during the 5-year period beginning on
the date the Secretary makes the conveyance authorized by
subsection (a), the Secretary 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) Limitation on Certain Subsequent Conveyances.--(1)
Subject to paragraph (2), if at any time after the Secretary
makes the conveyance authorized by subsection (a) the City
conveys any portion of the parcels 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 Secretary) 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 Secretary makes the conveyance
authorized by subsection (a) without consideration.
(3) The Secretary shall cover over into the General Fund of
the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts any amounts paid the
Secretary under this subsection.
(f) Interim Lease.--(1) Until such time as the real
property described in subsection (a) is conveyed by deed
under this section, the Secretary may continue to lease the
property, together with improvements thereon, to the current
tenant under the existing terms and conditions of the lease
for the property.
(2) If good faith negotiations for the conveyance of the
property continue under this section beyond the end of the
third year of the term of the existing lease for the
property, the Secretary shall continue to lease the property
to the current tenant of the property under the terms and
conditions applicable to the first three years of the lease
of the property pursuant to the existing lease for the
property.
(g) Maintenance of Property.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining the real
property to be conveyed under this section in its condition
as of the date of the enactment of this Act until such time
as the property is conveyed by deed under this section.
(2) The current tenant of the property shall be responsible
for any maintenance required under paragraph (1) to the
extent of the activities of that tenant at the property
during the period covered by that paragraph.
(h) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the City.
(i) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2852. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL AND MARINE CORPS RESERVE
CENTER, ORANGE, TEXAS.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
convey, without consideration, to the Orange County
Navigation and Port District of Orange County, Texas (in this
section referred to as the ``District''), all right, title,
and interest of the United States in and to a parcel of real
property, including improvements thereon, at the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve Center in Orange, Texas, which consists
of approximately 2.4 acres and contains the facilities
designated as Buildings 135 and 163, for the purpose of
permitting the District to develop the parcel for economic
development, educational purposes, and the furtherance of
navigation-related commerce.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the District.
(c) Reversionary Interest.--During the five-year period
beginning on the date the Secretary makes the conveyance
authorized under subsection (a), if the Secretary determines
that the conveyed real property is not being used in
accordance with the purpose of the conveyance specified in
such subsection, 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. Any determination of
the Secretary under this subsection shall be made on the
record after an opportunity for a hearing.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2853. LAND CONVEYANCE, MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, CHERRY
POINT, NORTH CAROLINA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may
convey, without consideration, to the State of North Carolina
(in this section referred to as the ``State''), all right,
title, and interest of the United States in and to a parcel
of unimproved real property consisting of approximately 20
acres at the Marine Corps Air

[[Page 12206]]

Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina, for the purpose of
permitting the State to develop the parcel for educational
purposes.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that the
State convey to the United States such easements and rights-
of-way regarding the parcel as the Secretary considers
necessary to ensure use of the parcel by the State is
compatible with the use of the Marine Corps Air Station.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the State.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

PART III--AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2861. CONVEYANCE OF FUEL SUPPLY LINE, PEASE AIR FORCE
BASE, NEW HAMPSHIRE.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--In conjunction with the
disposal of property at former Pease Air Force Base, New
Hampshire, under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10
U.S.C. 2687 note), the Secretary of the Air Force may convey
to the redevelopment authority for Pease Air Force Base all
right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the
deactivated fuel supply line at Pease Air Force Base,
including the approximately 14.87 acres of real property
associated with such supply line.
(b) Condition of Conveyance.--The conveyance authorized by
subsection (a) may only be made if the redevelopment
authority agrees to make the fuel supply line available for
use by the New Hampshire Air National Guard under terms and
conditions acceptable to the Secretary.
(c) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the redevelopment authority.
(d) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2862. LAND CONVEYANCE, TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, FLORIDA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey to Panama City, Florida (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
improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 33.07 acres
in Bay County, Florida, and containing the military family
housing project for Tyndall Air Force Base known as Cove
Garden.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for the conveyance
under subsection (a), the City shall pay to the United States
an amount equal to the fair market value of the real property
to be conveyed, as determined by the Secretary.
(c) Use of Proceeds.--In such amounts as are provided in
advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary may use the
funds paid by the City under subsection (b) to construct or
improve military family housing units at Tyndall Air Force
Base and to improve ancillary supporting facilities related
to such housing.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the City.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

SEC. 2863. LAND CONVEYANCE, PORT OF ANCHORAGE, ALASKA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
and the Secretary of the Interior may convey, without
consideration, to the Port of Anchorage, an entity of the
City of Anchorage, Alaska (in this section referred to as the
``Port''), all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to two parcels of real property, including
improvements thereon, consisting of a total of approximately
14.22 acres located adjacent to the Port of Anchorage Marine
Industrial Park in Anchorage, Alaska, and leased by the Port
from the Department of the Air Force and the Bureau of Land
Management.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the
Interior. The cost of the survey shall be borne by the Port.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the
Air Force and the Secretary of the Interior may require such
additional terms and conditions in connection with the
conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretaries considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.

SEC. 2864. LAND CONVEYANCE, FORESTPORT TEST ANNEX, NEW YORK.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may convey, without consideration, to the Town of Ohio, New
York (in this section referred to as the ``Town''), all
right, title, and interest, of the United States in and to a
parcel of real property, including improvements thereon,
consisting of approximately 164 acres in Herkimer County, New
York, and approximately 18 acres in Oneida County, New York,
and containing the Forestport Test Annex for the purpose of
permitting the Town to develop the parcel for economic
purposes and to further the provision of municipal services.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The cost of the survey shall be borne by
the Town.
(c) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 2871. EXPANSION OF ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.

(a) Land Transfer, Navy Annex, Arlington, Virginia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide for
the transfer to the Secretary of the Army of administrative
jurisdiction over the following parcels of land situated in
Arlington, Virginia:
(A) Certain lands which comprise approximately 26 acres
bounded by Columbia Pike to the south and east, Oak Street to
the west, and the boundary wall of Arlington National
Cemetery to the north including Southgate Road.
(B) Certain lands which comprise approximately 8 acres
bounded by Shirley Memorial Boulevard (Interstate 395) to the
south, property of the Virginia Department of Transportation
to the west, Columbia Pike to the north, and Joyce Street to
the east.
(C) Certain lands which comprise approximately 2.5 acres
bounded by Shirley Memorial Boulevard (Interstate 395) to the
south, Joyce Street to the west, Columbia Pike to the north,
and the cloverleaf interchange of Route 100 and Columbia Pike
to the east.
(2) Use of land.--The Secretary of the Army shall
incorporate the parcels of land transferred under paragraph
(1) into Arlington National Cemetery.
(3) Remediation of land for cemetery use.--Before the
transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the parcels of
land under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall
provide for the removal of any improvements on the parcels of
land and, in consultation with the Superintendent of
Arlington National Cemetery, the preparation of the land for
use for interment of remains of individuals in Arlington
National Cemetery.
(4) Negotiation with local officials.--Before the transfer
of administrative jurisdiction over the parcels of land under
paragraph (1), the Secretary of Defense shall enter into
negotiations with appropriate State and local officials to
acquire any real property, under the jurisdiction of such
officials, that separates such parcels of land from each
other.
(5) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report explaining in detail the measures
required to prepare the land for use as a part of Arlington
National Cemetery.
(6) Deadline.--The Secretary of Defense shall complete the
transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the parcels of
land under this subsection not later than the earlier of--
(A) January 1, 2010; or
(B) the date when those parcels are no longer required (as
determined by the Secretary) for use as temporary office
space due to the renovation of the Pentagon.
(b) Modification of Boundary of Arlington National
Cemetery.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Army shall modify the
boundary of Arlington National Cemetery to include the
following parcels of land situated in Fort Myer, Arlington,
Virginia:
(A) Certain lands which comprise approximately 5 acres
bounded by the Fort Myer Post Traditional Chapel to the
southwest, McNair Road to the northwest, the Vehicle
Maintenance Complex to the northeast, and the masonry wall of
Arlington National Cemetery to the southeast.
(B) Certain lands which comprise approximately 3 acres
bounded by the Vehicle Maintenance Complex to the southwest,
Jackson Avenue to the northwest, the water pumping station to
the northeast, and the masonry wall of Arlington National
Cemetery to the southeast.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit
to Congress a report describing additional parcels of land
located in Fort Myer, Arlington, Virginia, that may be
suitable for use to expand Arlington National Cemetery.
(3) Survey.--The Secretary of the Army may determine the
exact acreage and legal description of the parcels of land
described in paragraph (1) by a survey.

[[Page 12207]]

DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations

SEC. 3101. WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000 for weapons
activities in carrying out programs necessary for national
security in the amount of $4,541,500,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(1) Stockpile stewardship.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2000 for stockpile stewardship in carrying out weapons
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $2,258,700,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For core stockpile stewardship, $1,763,500,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(i) For operation and maintenance, $1,640,355,000.
(ii) For plant projects (including maintenance,
restoration, planning, construction, acquisition,
modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects
authorized in prior years, and land acquisition related
thereto), $123,145,000, to be allocated as follows:

Project 00-D-103, terascale simulation facility, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California,
$8,000,000.
Project 00-D-105, strategic computing complex, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, $26,000,000.
Project 00-D-107, joint computational engineering
laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $1,800,000.
Project 99-D-102, rehabilitation of maintenance facility,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $3,900,000.
Project 99-D-103, isotope sciences facilities, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California,
$2,000,000.
Project 99-D-104, protection of real property (roof
reconstruction, Phase II), Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, California, $2,400,000.
Project 99-D-105, central health physics calibration
facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $1,000,000.
Project 99-D-106, model validation and system certification
test center, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $6,500,000.
Project 99-D-108, renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test
Site, Nevada, $7,005,000.
Project 97-D-102, dual-axis radiographic hydrotest
facility, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $61,000,000.
Project 96-D-102, stockpile stewardship facilities
revitalization, Phase VI, various locations, 2,640,000.
Project 96-D-104, processing and environmental technology
laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, $10,900,000.

(iii) The total amount authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to clause (ii) is the sum of the amounts authorized
to be appropriated in that clause, reduced by $10,000,000.
(B) For inertial fusion, $475,700,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(i) For operation and maintenance, $227,600,000.
(ii) For the following plant project (including
maintenance, restoration, planning, construction,
acquisition, and modification of facilities, and land
acquisition related thereto), $248,100,000, to be allocated
as follows:

Project 96-D-111, national ignition facility, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California,
$248,100,000.

(C) For technology partnership and education, $19,500,000,
to be allocated for technology partnership only.
(2) Stockpile management.--Funds are hereby authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year
2000 for stockpile management in carrying out weapons
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $2,046,300,000, to be allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $1,897,621,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$148,679,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 99-D-122, rapid reactivation, various locations,
$11,700,000.
Project 99-D-127, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri,
$17,000,000.
Project 99-D-128, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Pantex Plant consolidation, Amarillo, Texas,
$3,429,000.
Project 99-D-132, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, nuclear material safeguards and security upgrades
project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, $11,300,000.
Project 98-D-123, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, tritium facility modernization and consolidation,
Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, $21,800,000.
Project 98-D-124, stockpile management restructuring
initiative, Y-12 Plant consolidation, Oak Ridge, Tennessee,
$3,150,000.
Project 98-D-125, tritium extraction facility, Savannah
River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, $33,000,000.
Project 98-D-126, accelerator production of tritium,
various locations, $31,000,000.
Project 97-D-123, structural upgrades, Kansas City Plant,
Kansas City, Missouri, $4,800,000.
Project 95-D-102, chemistry and metallurgy research
upgrades project, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, $18,000,000.
Project 88-D-123, security enhancements, Pantex Plant,
Amarillo, Texas, $3,500,000.
(C) The total amount authorized to be appropriated pursuant
to subparagraph (B) is the sum of the amounts authorized to
be appropriated in that subparagraph, reduced by $10,000,000.
(3) Program direction.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000
for program direction in carrying out weapons activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$236,500,000.

SEC. 3102. DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000
for environmental restoration and waste management in
carrying out programs necessary for national security in the
amount of $5,652,368,000, to be allocated as follows:
(1) Closure projects.--For closure projects carried out in
accordance with section 3143 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201;
110 Stat. 2836; 42 U.S.C. 7274n) in the amount of
$1,092,492,000.
(2) Site project and completion.--For site project and
completion in carrying out environmental restoration and
waste management activities necessary for national security
programs in the amount of $1,006,419,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $918,129,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$88,290,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 99-D-402, tank farm support services, F&H areas,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $3,100,000.
Project 99-D-404, health physics instrumentation
laboratory, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho,
$7,200,000.
Project 98-D-401, H-tank farm storm water systems upgrade,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $2,977,000.
Project 98-D-453, plutonium stabilization and handling
system for plutonium finishing plant, Richland, Washington,
$16,860,000.
Project 98-D-700, road rehabilitation, Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, $2,590,000.
Project 97-D-450, Actinide packaging and storage facility,
Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $4,000,000.
Project 97-D-470, regulatory monitoring and bioassay
laboratory, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina,
$12,220,000.
Project 96-D-406, spent nuclear fuels canister storage and
stabilization facility, Richland, Washington, $24,441,000.
Project 96-D-464, electrical and utility systems upgrade,
Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory, Idaho, $11,971,000.
Project 96-D-471, chlorofluorocarbon heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning and chiller retrofit, Savannah River
Site, Aiken, South Carolina, $931,000.
Project 86-D-103, decontamination and waste treatment
facility, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California, $2,000,000.
(3) Post-2006 completion.--For post-2006 project completion
in carrying out environmental restoration and waste
management activities necessary for national security
programs in the amount of $3,005,848,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $2,951,297,000.
(B) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$54,551,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 00-D-401, spent nuclear fuel treatment and storage
facility, Title I and II, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South
Carolina, $7,000,000.
Project 99-D-403, privatization phase I infrastructure
support, Richland, Washington, $13,988,000.
Project 97-D-402, tank farm restoration and safe
operations, Richland, Washington, $20,516,000.
Project 94-D-407, initial tank retrieval systems, Richland,
Washington, $4,060,000.
Project 93-D-187, high-level waste removal from filled
waste tanks, Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina,
$8,987,000.
(4) Science and technology.--For science and technology in
carrying out environmental restoration and waste management
activities necessary for national security programs in the
amount of $240,500,000.
(5) Program direction.--For program direction in carrying
out environmental restoration and waste management activities
necessary for national security programs in the amount of
$327,109,000.
(b) Explanation of Adjustment.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated in subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated in paragraphs (1) through (5)
of that subsection reduced by $20,000,000, to be

[[Page 12208]]

derived from environmental restoration and waste management,
environment, safety, and health programs.

SEC. 3103. OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000 for other defense
activities in carrying out programs necessary for national
security in the amount of $1,772,459,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(1) Nonproliferation and national security.--For
nonproliferation and national security, $658,200,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For verification and control technology, $454,000,000,
to be allocated as follows:
(i) For nonproliferation and verification research and
development, $221,000,000, to be allocated as follows:

(I) For operation and maintenance, $215,000,000.
(II) For plant projects (including maintenance,
restoration, planning, construction, acquisition,
modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects
authorized in prior years, and land acquisition related
thereto), $6,000,000, to be allocated as follows:

Project 00-D-192, nonproliferation and international
security center, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, $6,000,000.
(ii) For arms control, $233,000,000.
(B) For nuclear safeguards and security, $59,100,000.
(C) For international nuclear safety, $15,300,000.
(D) For security investigations, $10,000,000.
(E) For emergency management, $21,000,000.
(F) For highly enriched uranium transparency
implementation, $15,750,000.
(G) For program direction, $83,050,000.
(2) Intelligence.--For intelligence, $36,059,000.
(3) Counterintelligence.--For counterintelligence,
$31,200,000.
(4) Worker and community transition.--For worker and
community transition, $20,000,000.
(5) Fissile materials control and disposition.--For fissile
materials control and disposition, $239,000,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(A) For operation and maintenance, $168,766,000.
(B) For program direction, $7,343,000.
(C) For plant projects (including maintenance, restoration,
planning, construction, acquisition, modification of
facilities, and the continuation of projects authorized in
prior years, and land acquisition related thereto),
$62,891,000, to be allocated as follows:
Project 00-D-142, immobilization and associated processing
facility, various locations, $21,765,000.
Project 99-D-141, pit disassembly and conversion facility,
various locations, $28,751,000.
Project 99-D-143, mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility,
various locations, $12,375,000.
(6) Environment, safety, and health.--For environment,
safety, and health, defense, $104,000,000, to be allocated as
follows:
(A) For the Office of Environment, Safety, and Health
(Defense), $79,231,000.
(B) For program direction, $24,769,000.
(7) Office of hearings and appeals.--For the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, $3,000,000.
(8) Naval reactors.--For naval reactors, $681,000,000, to
be allocated as follows:
(A) For naval reactors development, $660,400,000, to be
allocated as follows:
(i) For operation and maintenance, $636,400,000.
(ii) For plant projects (including maintenance,
restoration, planning, construction, acquisition,
modification of facilities, and the continuation of projects
authorized in prior years, and land acquisition related
thereto), $24,000,000, to be allocated as follows:

GPN-101 general plant projects, various locations,
$9,000,000.
Project 98-D-200, site laboratory/facility upgrade, various
locations, $3,000,000.
Project 90-N-102, expended core facility dry cell project,
Naval Reactors Facility, Idaho, $12,000,000.

(B) For program direction, $20,600,000.

SEC. 3104. DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000 for payment to the
Nuclear Waste Fund established in section 302(c) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10222(c)) in the
amount of $73,000,000.

SEC. 3105. DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION.

(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be
appropriated to the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2000
for privatization initiatives in carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs in the amount of $228,000,000, to
be allocated as follows:
Project 98-PVT-2, spent nuclear fuel dry storage, Idaho
Falls, Idaho, $5,000,000.
Project 98-PVT-5, environmental management and waste
disposal, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, $20,000,000.
Project 97-PVT-1, tank waste remediation system phase I,
Hanford, Washington, $106,000,000.
Project 97-PVT-2, advanced mixed waste treatment facility,
Idaho Falls, Idaho, $110,000,000.
Project 97-PVT-3, transuranic waste treatment, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee, $12,000,000.
(b) Explanation of Adjustment.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated in subsection (a) is the sum of the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for the projects in that
subsection reduced by $25,000,000 for use of prior year
balances of funds for defense environmental management
privatization.

Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions

SEC. 3121. REPROGRAMMING.

(a) In General.--Until the Secretary of Energy submits to
the congressional defense committees the report referred to
in subsection (b) and a period of 60 days has elapsed after
the date on which such committees receive the report, the
Secretary may not use amounts appropriated pursuant to this
title for any program--
(1) in amounts that exceed, in a fiscal year--
(A) 110 percent of the amount authorized for that program
by this title; or
(B) $1,000,000 more than the amount authorized for that
program by this title; or
(2) which has not been presented to, or requested of,
Congress.
(b) Report.--(1) The report referred to in subsection (a)
is a report containing a full and complete statement of the
action proposed to be taken and the facts and circumstances
relied upon in support of such proposed action.
(2) In the computation of the 60-day period under
subsection (a), there shall be excluded any day on which
either House of Congress is not in session because of an
adjournment of more than 3 days to a day certain.
(c) Limitations.--(1) In no event may the total amount of
funds obligated pursuant to this title exceed the total
amount authorized to be appropriated by this title.
(2) Funds appropriated pursuant to this title may not be
used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied
funds.

SEC. 3122. LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy may carry out any
construction project under the general plant projects
authorized by this title if the total estimated cost of the
construction project does not exceed $5,000,000.
(b) Report to Congress.--If, at any time during the
construction of any general plant project authorized by this
title, the estimated cost of the project is revised because
of unforeseen cost variations and the revised cost of the
project exceeds $5,000,000, the Secretary shall immediately
furnish a complete report to the congressional defense
committees explaining the reasons for the cost variation.

SEC. 3123. LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

(a) In General.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
construction on a construction project may not be started or
additional obligations incurred in connection with the
project above the total estimated cost, whenever the current
estimated cost of the construction project, which is
authorized by section 3101, 3102, or 3103, or which is in
support of national security programs of the Department of
Energy and was authorized by any previous Act, exceeds by
more than 25 percent the higher of--
(A) the amount authorized for the project; or
(B) the amount of the total estimated cost for the project
as shown in the most recent budget justification data
submitted to Congress.
(2) An action described in paragraph (1) may be taken if--
(A) the Secretary of Energy has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the actions and
the circumstances making such action necessary; and
(B) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date on which
the report is received by the committees.
(3) In the computation of the 30-day period under paragraph
(2), there shall be excluded any day on which either House of
Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than 3 days to a day certain.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to any
construction project which has a current estimated cost of
less than $5,000,000.

SEC. 3124. FUND TRANSFER AUTHORITY.

(a) Transfer to Other Federal Agencies.--The Secretary of
Energy may transfer funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy pursuant to this title to other
Federal agencies for the performance of work for which the
funds were authorized. Funds so transferred may be merged
with and be available for the same purposes and for the same
period as the authorizations of the Federal agency to which
the amounts are transferred.
(b) Transfer Within Department of Energy.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the Secretary of Energy may transfer funds
authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Energy
pursuant to this title between any such authorizations.
Amounts of authorizations so transferred may be merged with
and be available for the same purposes and for the same
period as the authorization to which the amounts are
transferred.
(2) Not more than five percent of any such authorization
may be transferred between authorizations under paragraph
(1). No such authorization may be increased or decreased by
more than five percent by a transfer under such paragraph.
(c) Limitation.--The authority provided by this section to
transfer authorizations--
(1) may only be used to provide funds for items relating to
activities necessary for national security programs that have
a higher priority than the items from which the funds are
transferred; and
(2) may not be used to provide funds for an item for which
Congress has specifically denied funds.
(d) Notice to Congress.--The Secretary of Energy shall
promptly notify the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee

[[Page 12209]]

on National Security of the House of Representatives of any
transfer of funds to or from authorizations under this title.

SEC. 3125. AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN.

(a) Requirement for Conceptual Design.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2) and except as provided in paragraph (3), before
submitting to Congress a request for funds for a construction
project that is in support of a national security program of
the Department of Energy, the Secretary of Energy shall
complete a conceptual design for that project.
(2) If the estimated cost of completing a conceptual design
for a construction project exceeds $3,000,000, the Secretary
shall submit to Congress a request for funds for the
conceptual design before submitting a request for funds for
the construction project.
(3) The requirement in paragraph (1) does not apply to a
request for funds--
(A) for a construction project the total estimated cost of
which is less than $5,000,000; or
(B) for emergency planning, design, and construction
activities under section 3126.
(b) Authority for Construction Design.--(1) Within the
amounts authorized by this title, the Secretary of Energy may
carry out construction design (including architectural and
engineering services) in connection with any proposed
construction project if the total estimated cost for such
design does not exceed $600,000.
(2) If the total estimated cost for construction design in
connection with any construction project exceeds $600,000,
funds for such design must be specifically authorized by law.

SEC. 3126. AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING, DESIGN, AND
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.

(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Energy may use any funds
available to the Department of Energy pursuant to an
authorization in this title, including those funds authorized
to be appropriated for advance planning and construction
design under sections 3101, 3102, and 3103, to perform
planning, design, and construction activities for any
Department of Energy national security program construction
project that, as determined by the Secretary, must proceed
expeditiously in order to protect public health and safety,
to meet the needs of national defense, or to protect
property.
(b) Limitation.--The Secretary may not exercise the
authority under subsection (a) in the case of any
construction project until the Secretary has submitted to the
congressional defense committees a report on the activities
that the Secretary intends to carry out under this section
and the circumstances making such activities necessary.
(c) Specific Authority.--The requirement of section
3125(b)(2) does not apply to emergency planning, design, and
construction activities conducted under this section.

SEC. 3127. FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ALL NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

Subject to the provisions of appropriations Acts and
section 3121, amounts appropriated pursuant to this title for
management and support activities and for general plant
projects are available for use, when necessary, in connection
with all national security programs of the Department of
Energy.

SEC. 3128. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), when
so specified in an appropriations Act, amounts appropriated
for operation and maintenance or for plant projects may
remain available until expended.
(b) Exception for Program Direction Funds.--Amounts
appropriated for program direction pursuant to an
authorization of appropriations in subtitle A shall remain
available to be expended only until the end of fiscal year
2001.

SEC. 3129. TRANSFERS OF DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
FUNDS.

(a) Transfer Authority for Defense Environmental Management
Funds.--The Secretary of Energy shall provide the manager of
each field office of the Department of Energy with the
authority to transfer defense environmental management funds
from a program or project under the jurisdiction of the
office to another such program or project.
(b) Limitations.--(1) Only one transfer may be made to or
from any program or project under subsection (a) in a fiscal
year.
(2) The amount transferred to or from a program or project
under subsection (a) may not exceed $5,000,000 in a fiscal
year.
(3) A transfer may not be carried out by a manager of a
field office under subsection (a) unless the manager
determines that the transfer is necessary to address a risk
to health, safety, or the environment or to assure the most
efficient use of defense environmental management funds at
the field office.
(4) Funds transferred pursuant to subsection (a) may not be
used for an item for which Congress has specifically denied
funds or for a new program or project that has not been
authorized by Congress.
(c) Exemption From Reprogramming Requirements.--The
requirements of section 3121 shall not apply to transfers of
funds pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Notification.--The Secretary, acting through the
Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management,
shall notify Congress of any transfer of funds pursuant to
subsection (a) not later than 30 days after such transfer
occurs.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``program or project'' means, with respect to
a field office of the Department of Energy, any of the
following:
(A) A program referred to or a project listed in paragraph
(2) or (3) of section 3102.
(B) A program or project not described in subparagraph (A)
that is for environmental restoration or waste management
activities necessary for national security programs of the
Department, that is being carried out by the office, and for
which defense environmental management funds have been
authorized and appropriated before the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) The term ``defense environmental management funds''
means funds appropriated to the Department of Energy pursuant
to an authorization for carrying out environmental
restoration and waste management activities necessary for
national security programs.
(f) Duration of Authority.--The managers of the field
offices of the Department may exercise the authority provided
under subsection (a) during the period beginning on October
1, 1999, and ending on September 30, 2000.

Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations

SEC. 3131. LIMITATION ON USE AT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
LABORATORIES OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR THE
INITIATIVES FOR PROLIFERATION PREVENTION
PROGRAM.

(a) Limitation.--Not more than 25 percent of the funds
appropriated for any fiscal year for the program of the
Department of Energy known as the Initiatives for
Proliferation Prevention Program may be spent at the
Department of Energy laboratories.
(b) Effective Date.--The limitation in subsection (a)
applies with respect to funds appropriated for any fiscal
year after fiscal year 1999.

SEC. 3132. PROHIBITION ON USE FOR PAYMENT OF RUSSIAN
GOVERNMENT TAXES AND CUSTOMS DUTIES OF FUNDS
APPROPRIATED FOR THE INITIATIVES FOR
PROLIFERATION PREVENTION PROGRAM.

Funds appropriated for the program of the Department of
Energy known as the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention
Program may not be used to pay any tax or customs duty levied
by the government of the Russian Federation.

SEC. 3133. MODIFICATION OF LABORATORY-DIRECTED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THEATER
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE.

(a) Conduct of Programs.--The Secretary of Energy shall
ensure that the national laboratories carry out theater
ballistic missile defense development programs in accordance
with--
(1) the memorandum of understanding between the Secretary
of Energy and the Secretary of Defense required by section
3131(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2034; 10 U.S.C. 2431
note); and
(2) such regulations as the Secretary of Energy may
prescribe.
(b) Funding.--Of the funds provided by the Department of
Energy to the national laboratories for national security
activities, the Secretary of Energy shall provide a specific
amount, equal to 3 percent of such funds, to be used by such
laboratories for theater ballistic missile defense
development programs.
(c) National Laboratories.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``national laboratories'' has the meaning given such
term in section 3131(d) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2034;
10 U.S.C. 2431 note).
(d) Kinetic Energy Warhead Programs.--(1) Notwithstanding
subsection (a), during fiscal year 2000 the Secretary of
Energy shall use the funds required to be made available
pursuant to subsection (b) for theater ballistic missile
defense development programs for the purpose of the
development and test of advanced kinetic energy ballistic
missile defense warheads based on advanced explosive
technology, the designs of which--
(A) are compatible with the Army Theater High-Altitude
Area-Wide Defense (THAAD) system, the Navy Theater Wide
system, the Navy Area Defense system, and the Patriot
Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system; and
(B) will be available for ground lethality testing not
later than one year after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(2) Of the funds made available for purposes of paragraph
(1), one-half shall be made available for work at Los Alamos
National Laboratory and one-half shall be made available for
work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
(3) If the Secretary does not use the full amount referred
to in paragraph (1) for the purposes stated in that
paragraph, the remainder of such amount shall be used in
accordance with subsection (a).
(e) Reduction in Laboratory-Directed Research and
Development Programs.--Subsection (c) of section 3132 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (42
U.S.C. 7257a) is amended by striking ``6 percent'' and
inserting ``3 percent''.

SEC. 3134. SUPPORT OF THEATER BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Funds To Carry Out Certain Ballistic Missile Defense
Activities.--Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy pursuant to section 3101,
$30,000,000 shall be available only for research,
development, and demonstration activities to support the
mission of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization of the
Department of Defense, including the following activities:

[[Page 12210]]

(1) Technology development, concept demonstration, and
integrated testing to improve reliability and reduce risk in
hit-to-kill interceptors for theater ballistic missile
defense.
(2) Support for science and engineering teams to address
technical problems identified by the Director of the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization as critical to
acquisition of a theater ballistic missile defense
capability.
(b) Memorandum of Understanding.--The activities referred
to in subsection (a) shall be carried out under the
memorandum of understanding entered into by the Secretary of
Energy and the Secretary of Defense for the use of national
laboratories for ballistic missile defense programs, as
required by section 3131 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 2034).
(c) Method of Funding.--Funds for activities referred to in
subsection (a) may be provided--
(1) by direct payment from funds available pursuant to
subsection (a); or
(2) in the case of such an activity carried out by a
national laboratory but paid for by the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization, through a method under which the
Secretary of Energy waives any requirement for the Department
of Defense to pay any indirect expenses (including overhead
and federal administrative charges) of the Department of
Energy or its contractors.

Subtitle D--Commission on Nuclear Weapons Management

SEC. 3151. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established a
commission to be known as the ``Commission on Nuclear Weapons
Management'' (hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the
``Commission'').
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of nine
members, appointed as follows:
(1) Two members shall be appointed by the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives.
(2) Two members shall be appointed by the ranking minority
party member of the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives.
(3) Two members shall be appointed by the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(4) Two members shall be appointed by the ranking minority
party member of the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate.
(5) One member, who shall serve as chairman of the
Commission, shall be appointed by the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives
and the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate, acting jointly, in consultation with the ranking
minority party member of the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives and the ranking minority party
member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(c) Qualifications.--Members of the Commission shall be
appointed from among private United States citizens with
knowledge and expertise in nuclear weapons policy,
organization, and management matters.
(d) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the
Commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(e) Initial Organization Requirements.--(1) All
appointments to the Commission shall be made not later than
30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) The Commission shall convene its first meeting not
later than 30 days after the date on which all members of the
Commission have been appointed.
(f) Security Clearances.--The Secretary of Defense shall
expedite the processing of appropriate security clearances
for members of the Commission.

SEC. 3152. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--The Commission shall examine the
organizational and management structures within the
Department of Energy and the Department of Defense that are
responsible for the following, as they pertain to nuclear
weapons:
(1) Development of nuclear weapons policy and standards.
(2) Generation of requirements.
(3) Inspection and certification of the nuclear stockpile.
(4) Research, development, and design.
(5) Manufacture, assembly, disassembly, refurbishment,
surveillance, and storage.
(6) Operation and maintenance.
(7) Construction.
(8) Sustainment and development of high-quality personnel.
(b) Structures.--The organizational and management
structures to be examined under subsection (a) shall include
the following:
(1) The management headquarters of the Department of
Energy, the Department of Defense, the military departments,
and defense agencies.
(2) Headquarters support activities of the Department of
Energy, the Department of Defense, the military departments,
and defense agencies.
(3) The acquisition organizations in the Department of
Energy and the Department of Defense.
(4) The nuclear weapons complex, including the nuclear
weapons laboratories, the nuclear weapons production
facilities, and defense environmental remediation sites.
(5) The Nuclear Weapons Council and its standing committee.
(6) The United States Strategic Command.
(7) The Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
(8) Policy-oriented elements of the Government that affect
the management of nuclear weapons, including the following:
(A) The National Security Council.
(B) The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
(C) The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy.
(D) The office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air
Force for Air and Space Operations.
(E) The office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for
Plans, Policy, and Operations.
(F) The headquarters of each combatant command (in addition
to the United States Strategic Command) that has nuclear
weapons responsibilities.
(G) Such other organizations as the Commission determines
appropriate to include.
(c) Evaluations.--In carrying out its duties, the
Commission shall--
(1) evaluate the rationale for current management and
organization structures, and the relationship among the
entities within those structures;
(2) evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of those
structures; and
(3) propose and evaluate alternative organizational and
management structures, including alternatives that would
transfer authorities of the Department of Energy for the
defense program and defense environmental management to the
Department of Defense.
(d) Cooperation From Government Officials.--In carrying out
its duties, the Commission should receive the full and timely
cooperation of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of
Energy, and any other United States Government official
responsible for providing the Commission with analyses,
briefings, and other information necessary for the
fulfillment of its responsibilities.

SEC. 3153. REPORTS.

The Commission shall submit to Congress an interim report
containing its preliminary findings and conclusions not later
than October 15, 2000, and a final report containing its
findings and conclusions not later than January 1, 2001.

SEC. 3154. POWERS.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
panel or member of the Commission, may, for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of this title, hold hearings, sit
and act at times and places, take testimony, receive
evidence, and administer oaths to the extent that the
Commission or any panel or member considers advisable.
(b) Information.--The Commission may secure directly from
the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and any
other Federal department or agency information that the
Commission considers necessary to enable the Commission to
carry out its responsibilities under this title.

SEC. 3155. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

(a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairman.
(b) Quorum.--(1) Five members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum other than for the purpose of holding
hearings.
(2) The Commission shall act by resolution agreed to by a
majority of the members of the Commission.
(c) Commission.--The Commission may establish panels
composed of less than full membership of the Commission for
the purpose of carrying out the Commission's duties. The
actions of each such panel shall be subject to the review and
control of the Commission. Any findings and determinations
made by such a panel shall not be considered the findings and
determinations of the Commission unless approved by the
Commission.
(d) Authority of Individuals To Act for Commission.--Any
member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the
Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take under this title.

SEC. 3156. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Pay of Members.--Members of the Commission shall serve
without pay by reason of their work on the Commission.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--(1) The chairman of the Commission may, without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, appoint a
staff director and such additional personnel as may be
necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties. The
appointment of a staff director shall be subject to the
approval of the Commission.
(2) The chairman of the Commission may fix the pay of the
staff director and other personnel without regard to the
provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of
title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the
rate of pay fixed under this paragraph for the staff director
may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive
Schedule under section 5316 of such title and the rate of pay
for other personnel may not exceed the maximum rate payable
for grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the
chairman of the Commission, the head of any Federal
department or agency may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis,
any personnel of that department or agency to the Commission
to assist it in carrying out its duties.

[[Page 12211]]

(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of such title.

SEC. 3157. MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Postal and Printing Services.--The Commission may use
the United States mails and obtain printing and binding
services in the same manner and under the same conditions as
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(b) Miscellaneous Administrative and Support Services.--The
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall
furnish the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, any
administrative and support services requested by the
Commission.

SEC. 3158. FUNDING.

(a) Source of Funds.--Funds for activities of the
Commission shall be provided from--
(1) amounts appropriated for the Department of Defense for
operation and maintenance for Defense-wide activities for
fiscal year 2000; and
(2) amounts appropriated for the Department of Energy for
program direction for weapons activities and for defense
environmental restoration and waste management for fiscal
year 2000.
(b) Disbursement.--Upon receipt of a written certification
from the Chairman of the Commission specifying the funds
required for the activities of the Commission, the Secretary
of Defense and the Secretary of Energy shall promptly
disburse to the Commission, from such amounts, the funds
required by the Commission as stated in such certification.

SEC. 3159. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the date of
the submission of its final report under section 3153.

Subtitle E--Other Matters

SEC. 3161. PROCEDURES FOR MEETING TRITIUM PRODUCTION
REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Accelerator Production Plan.--Not later than January
15, 2000, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a plan (in this section
referred to as an ``accelerator production plan'') to meet
the requirements in the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum
relating to tritium production by expediting the completion
of the design and the initiation of the construction of a
particle accelerator for the production of tritium.
(b) Technology for Tritium Production.--If the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission does not grant to the Tennessee Valley
Authority the amended licenses described in subsection (c) by
December 31, 2002, the Secretary of Energy shall on January
1, 2003--
(1) designate particle accelerator technology as the
primary technology for the production of tritium;
(2) designate commercial light water reactor technology as
the backup technology for the production of tritium; and
(3) implement the accelerator production plan.
(c) Amended Licenses.--The amended licenses referred to in
subsection (b) are the amended licenses for the operation of
each of the following commercial light water reactors:
(1) Watts Bar reactor, Spring City, Tennessee.
(2) Sequoya reactor, Daisy, Tennessee.

SEC. 3162. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TO
PAY VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

(a) Extension.--Notwithstanding subsection (c)(2)(D) of
section 663 of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104-208; 110
Stat. 3009-383; 5 U.S.C. 5597 note), the Department of Energy
may pay voluntary separation incentive payments to qualifying
employees who voluntarily separate (whether by retirement or
resignation) before January 1, 2002.
(b) Exercise of Authority.--The Department shall pay
voluntary separation incentive payments under subsection (a)
in accordance with the provisions of such section 663.
(c) Report.--(1) Not later than March 15, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to the recipients specified
in paragraph (3) a report describing how the Department has
used the authority to pay voluntary separation incentive
payments under subsection (a).
(2) The report under paragraph (1) shall include the
occupations and grade levels of each employee paid a
voluntary separation incentive payment under subsection (a)
and shall describe how the use of the authority to pay
voluntary separation incentive payments under such subsection
relates to the restructuring plans of the Department.
(3) The recipients specified in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) The Office of Personnel Management.
(B) The Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
(C) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(D) The Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
(E) The Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

SEC. 3163. FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT OF SKILLS
CRITICAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NUCLEAR
WEAPONS COMPLEX.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 3140 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 621; 42 U.S.C. 2121 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``the Secretary'' in the second sentence
and all that follows through ``provide educational
assistance'' and inserting ``the Secretary shall provide
educational assistance'';
(2) by striking the semicolon after ``complex'' in the
second sentence and inserting a period; and
(3) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).
(b) Eligible Individuals.--Subsection (b) of such section
is amended by inserting ``are United States citizens who'' in
the matter preceding paragraph (1) after ``program''.
(c) Covered Facilities.--Subsection (c) of such section is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California.
``(6) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.
``(7) The Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.''.
(d) Agreement Required.--Subsection (f) of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``(f) Agreement.--(1) The Secretary may allow an individual
to participate in the program only if the individual signs an
agreement described in paragraph (2).
``(2) An agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall be in
writing, shall be signed by the participant, and shall
include the participant's agreement to serve, after
completion of the course of study for which the assistance
was provided, as a full-time employee in a position in the
Department of Energy for a period of time to be established
by the Secretary of Energy of not less than one year, if such
a position is offered to the participant.''.
(e) Plan.--(1) Not later than January 1, 2000, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a plan for the administration of the fellowship
program under section 3140 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
42 U.S.C. 2121 note), as amended by this section.
(2) The plan shall include the criteria for the selection
of individuals for participation in such fellowship program
and a description of the provisions to be included in the
agreement required by subsection (f) of such section (as
amended by this section), including the period of time
established by the Secretary for the participants to serve as
employees.
(f) Funding.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated to
the Department of Energy pursuant to section 3101, $5,000,000
shall be available only to conduct the fellowship program
under section 3140 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 42 U.S.C. 2121
note), as amended by this section.

SEC. 3164. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RECORDS DECLASSIFICATION.

(a) Identification in Budget.--The Secretary of Energy
shall include in the budget justification materials submitted
to Congress in support of the Department of Energy budget for
national security programs for any fiscal year (as submitted
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of
title 31) specific identification, as a budgetary line item,
of the amounts necessary for programmed activities during
that fiscal year to declassify records to carry out Executive
Order 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive
order, or to comply with any statutory requirement to
declassify Government records.
(b) Limitation.--The total amount expended by the
Department of Energy during fiscal year 2000 to carry out
activities to declassify records pursuant to Executive Order
12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note), or any successor Executive order,
or to comply with any statutory requirement to declassify
Government records may not exceed $8,500,000.

SEC. 3165. MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITIES AND NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

(a) Authority and Responsibility of Assistant Secretary for
Defense Programs.--The Secretary of Energy, in assigning
functions under section 203 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7133), shall assign direct
authority over, and responsibility for, the nuclear weapons
production facilities and the national laboratories in all
matters relating to national security to the Assistant
Secretary assigned the functions under section 203(a)(5) of
that Act.
(b) Covered Functions.--The functions assigned to the
Assistant Secretary under subsection (a) shall include, but
not be limited to, authority over, and responsibility for,
the national security functions of those facilities and
laboratories with respect to the following:
(1) Strategic management.
(2) Policy development and guidance.
(3) Budget formulation and guidance.
(4) Resource requirements determination and allocation.
(5) Program direction.
(6) Administration of contracts to manage and operate
nuclear weapons production facilities and national
laboratories.
(7) Environment, safety, and health operations.
(8) Integrated safety management.
(9) Safeguard and security operations.
(10) Oversight.
(11) Relationships within the Department of Energy and with
other Federal agencies, the Congress, State, tribal, and
local governments, and the public.
(c) Reporting of Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities and
National Laboratories.--In all matters relating to national
security, the nuclear weapons production facilities and the
national laboratories shall report

[[Page 12212]]

to, and be accountable to, the Assistant Secretary.
(d) Delegation by Assistant Secretary.--The Assistant
Secretary may delegate functions assigned under subsection
(a) only within the headquarters office of the Assistant
Secretary, except that the Assistant Secretary may delegate
to a head of a specified operations office functions
including, but not limited to, supporting the following
activities at a nuclear weapons production facility or a
national laboratory:
(1) Operational activities.
(2) Program execution.
(3) Personnel.
(4) Contracting and procurement.
(5) Facility operations oversight.
(6) Integration of production and research and development
activities.
(7) Interaction with other Federal agencies, State, tribal,
and local governments, and the public.
(e) Reporting of Operations Offices.--For each delegation
made under subsection (d) to a head of a specified operations
office, that head of that specified operations office shall
shall directly report to, and be accountable to, the
Assistant Secretary.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
(1) The term ``nuclear weapons production facility'' means
any of the following facilities:
(A) The Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri.
(B) The Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas.
(C) The Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
(D) The tritium operations at the Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina.
(E) The Nevada Test Site, Nevada.
(2) The term ``national laboratory'' means any of the
following laboratories:
(A) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.
(B) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California.
(C) The Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and Livermore, California.
(3) The term ``specified operations office'' means any of
the following operations offices of the Department of Energy:
(A) Albuquerque Operations Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
(B) Oak Ridge Operations Office, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
(C) Oakland Operations Office, Oakland, California.
(D) Nevada Operations Office, Nevada Test Site, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
(E) Savannah River Operations Office, Savannah River Site,
Aiken, South Carolina.

SEC. 3166. NOTICE TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES OF COMPROMISE
OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION WITHIN NUCLEAR ENERGY
DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall notify the
committees specified in subsection (c) of any information,
regardless of its origin, that the Secretary receives that
indicates that classified information relating to military
applications of nuclear energy is being, or may have been,
disclosed in an unauthorized manner to a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power.
(b) Manner of Notification.--A notification under
subsection (a) shall be provided, in writing, not later than
30 days after the date of the initial receipt of such
information by the Department of Energy.
(c) Specified Committees.--The committees referred to in
subsection (a) are the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
(d) Foreign Power.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``foreign power'' and ``agent of a foreign power'' have the
meanings given those terms in section 101 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

SEC. 3201. AUTHORIZATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2000, $17,500,000 for the operation of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board under chapter 21 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2286 et seq.).

TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

SEC. 3301. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) The term ``National Defense Stockpile'' means the
stockpile provided for in section 4 of the Strategic and
Critical Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98c).
(2) The term ``National Defense Stockpile Transaction
Fund'' means the fund in the Treasury of the United States
established under section 9(a) of the Strategic and Critical
Materials Stock Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h(a)).

SEC. 3302. AUTHORIZED USES OF STOCKPILE FUNDS.

(a) Obligation of Stockpile Funds.--During fiscal year
2000, the National Defense Stockpile Manager may obligate up
to $78,700,000 of the funds in the National Defense Stockpile
Transaction Fund for the authorized uses of such funds under
section 9(b)(2) of the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock
Piling Act (50 U.S.C. 98h(b)(2)), including the disposal of
hazardous materials that are environmentally sensitive.
(b) Additional Obligations.--The National Defense Stockpile
Manager may obligate amounts in excess of the amount
specified in subsection (a) if the National Defense Stockpile
Manager notifies Congress that extraordinary or emergency
conditions necessitate the additional obligations. The
National Defense Stockpile Manager may make the additional
obligations described in the notification after the end of
the 45-day period beginning on the date on which Congress
receives the notification.
(c) Limitations.--The authorities provided by this section
shall be subject to such limitations as may be provided in
appropriations Acts.

SEC. 3303. ELIMINATION OF CONGRESSIONALLY IMPOSED DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS ON SPECIFIC STOCKPILE MATERIALS.

Sections 3303 and 3304 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106;
110 Stat. 629) are repealed.

TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 3401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Maritime Administration
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''.

SEC. 3402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR
2000.

Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated, to be
available without fiscal year limitation if so provided in
appropriations Acts, for the use of the Department of
Transportation for the Maritime Administration as follows:
(1) For expenses necessary for operations and training
activities, $79,764,000 for fiscal year 2000.
(2) For expenses under the loan guarantee program
authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46
App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), $34,893,000 for fiscal year 2000,
of which--
(A) $31,000,000 is for the cost (as defined in section
502(5) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C.
661a(5))) of loan guarantees under the program; and
(B) $3,893,000 is for administrative expenses related to
loan guarantee commitments under the program.

SEC. 3403. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE XI OF THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT,
1936.

(a) Authority To Hold Obligation Proceeds in Escrow.--
Section 1108(a) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1279a(a)) is amended by striking so much as precedes
``guarantee of an obligation'' and inserting the following:
``(a) Authority To Hold Obligation Proceeds in Escrow.--(1)
If the proceeds of an obligation guaranteed under this title
are to be used to finance the construction, reconstruction,
or reconditioning of a vessel that will serve as security for
the guarantee, the Secretary may accept and hold, in escrow
under an escrow agreement with the obligor--
``(A) the proceeds of that obligation, including such
interest as may be earned thereon; and
``(B) if required by the Secretary, an amount equal to 6
month's interest on the obligation.
``(2) The Secretary may release funds held in escrow under
paragraph (1) only if the Secretary determines that--
``(A) the obligor has paid its portion of the actual cost
of construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning; and
``(B) the funds released are needed--
``(i) to pay, or make reimbursements in connection with
payments previously made for work performed in that
construction, reconstruction, or reconditioning; or
``(ii) to pay for other costs approved by the Secretary,
with respect to the vessel or vessels.
``(3) If the security for the''.
(b) Authority To Hold Obligor's Cash as Collateral.--Title
XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 is amended by inserting
after section 1108 the following:

``SEC. 1109. DEPOSIT FUND.

``(a) Establishment of Deposit Fund.--There is established
in the Treasury a deposit fund for purposes of this section.
The Secretary may, in accordance with an agreement under
subsection (b), deposit into and hold in the deposit fund
cash belonging to an obligor to serve as collateral for a
guarantee under this title made with respect to the obligor.
``(b) Agreement.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary and an obligor shall enter
into a reserve fund or other collateral account agreement to
govern the deposit, withdrawal, retention, use, and
reinvestment of cash of the obligor held in the deposit fund
established by subsection (a).
``(2) Terms.--The agreement shall contain such terms and
conditions as are required under this section and such
additional terms as are considered by the Secretary to be
necessary to protect fully the interests of the United
States.
``(3) Security interest of united states.--The agreement
shall include terms that grant to the United States a
security interest in all amounts deposited into the deposit
fund.
``(c) Investment.--The Secretary may invest and reinvest
any part of the amounts in the deposit fund established by
subsection (a) in obligations of the United States with such
maturities as ensure that amounts in the deposit fund will be
available as required for purposes of agreements under
subsection (b). Cash balances of the deposit fund in excess
of current requirements shall be maintained in a form of
uninvested funds and the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay
interest on these funds.
``(d) Withdrawals.--
``(1) In general.--The cash deposited into the deposit fund
established by subsection (a) may not be withdrawn without
the consent of the Secretary.
``(2) Use of income.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
Secretary may pay any income earned on cash of an obligor
deposited into the deposit fund in accordance with the terms
of the agreement with the obligor under subsection (b).

[[Page 12213]]

``(3) Retention against default.--The Secretary may retain
and offset any or all of the cash of an obligor in the
deposit fund, and any income realized thereon, as part of the
Secretary's recovery against the obligor in case of a default
by the obligor on an obligation.''.

SEC. 3404. EXTENSION OF WAR RISK INSURANCE AUTHORITY.

Section 1214 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1294) is amended by striking ``June 30, 2000'' and
inserting ``June 30, 2005''.

SEC. 3405. OWNERSHIP OF THE JEREMIAH O'BRIEN.

Section 3302(l)(1)(C) of title 46, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``owned by the United States Maritime
Administration'' and inserting ``owned by the National
Liberty Ship Memorial, Inc.''.

TITLE XXXV--PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION

SEC. 3501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Panama Canal Commission
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000''.

SEC. 3502. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Panama
Canal Commission is authorized to use amounts in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund to make such expenditures within the
limits of funds and borrowing authority available to it in
accordance with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments, as may be necessary under the Panama Canal Act
of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.) for the operation,
maintenance, improvement, and administration of the Panama
Canal for fiscal year 2000 until the termination of the
Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
(b) Limitations.--Until noon on December 31, 1999, the
Panama Canal Commission may expend from funds in the Panama
Canal Revolving Fund not more than $100,000 for official
reception and representation expenses, of which--
(1) not more than $28,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Supervisory
Board of the Commission;
(2) not more than $14,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Secretary of the
Commission; and
(3) not more than $58,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses of the Administrator of
the Commission.

SEC. 3503. PURCHASE OF VEHICLES.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the funds
available to the Panama Canal Commission shall be available
for the purchase and transportation to the Republic of Panama
of passenger motor vehicles built in the United States, the
purchase price of which shall not exceed $26,000 per vehicle.

SEC. 3504. OFFICE OF TRANSITION ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Expenditures From Panama Canal Commission Dissolution
Fund.--Section 1305(c)(5) of the Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22
U.S.C. 3714a(c)(5)) is amended by inserting ``(A)'' after
``(5)'' and by adding at the end the following:
``(B) The office established by subsection (b) is
authorized to expend or obligate funds from the Fund for the
purposes enumerated in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph
(2)(A) until October 1, 2004.''.
(b) Operation of the Office of Transition Administration.--
(1) In general.--The Panama Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C.
3601 et seq.) shall continue to govern the Office of
Transition Administration until October 1, 2004.
(2) Procurement.--For purposes of exercising authority
under the procurement laws of the United States, the director
of such office shall have the status of the head of an
agency.
(3) Offices.--The Office of Transition Administration shall
have offices in the Republic of Panama and in the District of
Columbia. Section 1110(b)(1) of the Panama Canal Act of 1973
(22 U.S.C. 3620(b)(1)) does not apply to such office in the
Republic of Panama.
(4) Effective date.--This subsection shall be effective on
and after the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.
(c) Office of Transition Administration Defined.--In this
section the term ``Office of Transition Administration''
means the office established under section 1305 of the Panama
Canal Act of 1979 (22 U.S.C. 3714a) to close out the affairs
of the Panama Canal Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute is in order except amendments printed in House Report
106-175, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution
200, the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) printed
on June 8, 1999, in the appropriate portion of the Congressional
Record, and pro forma amendments offered by the chairman and ranking
minority member.
Except as specified in section 5 of the resolution, each amendment
printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed,
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
Unless otherwise specified in the report, each amendment printed in
the report shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by a proponent and an opponent of the amendment, and shall
not be subject to amendment, except that the chairman and ranking
minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose
of further debate on any pending amendment.
Consideration of the last five amendments in Part A of the report
shall begin with an additional period of general debate, which shall be
confined to the subject of United States policy relating to the
conflict in Kosovo, and shall not exceed one hour, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member.
It shall be in order at any time for the Chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting
of amendments printed in Part B of the report not earlier disposed of
or germane modifications of any such amendment.
The amendments en bloc shall be considered read, except that
modifications shall be reported, shall be debatable for 20 minutes,
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.

{time} 1345

The original proponent of an amendment included in the amendments en
bloc may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately
before disposition of the amendments en bloc.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for
consideration of amendments printed in the report out of the order in
which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee announces from the
floor a request to that effect.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in the Congressional Record of June 8,
1999 by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) described in section
2(b) of the resolution, if offered by Mr. Cox, or his designee. That
amendment shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall
not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for
division of the question.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Cox

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 14 printed in the Congressional Record
offered by Mr. Cox:
TITLE XIV--PROLIFERATION AND EXPORT CONTROL MATTERS

SEC. 1401. REPORT ON COMPLIANCE BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
CHINA AND OTHER COUNTRIES WITH THE MISSILE
TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than October 31, 1999, the
President shall transmit to Congress a report on the
compliance, or lack of compliance (both as to acquiring and
transferring missile technology), by the People's Republic of
China, with the Missile Technology Control Regime, and on any
actual or suspected transfer by Russia or any other country
of missile technology to the People's Republic of China in
violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. The
report shall include a list specifying each actual or
suspected violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime
by the People's Republic of China, Russia, or other country
and, for each such violation, a description of the remedial
action (if any) taken by the United States or any other
country.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection
(a) shall also include information concerning--
(1) actual or suspected use by the People's Republic of
China of United States missile technology;
(2) actual or suspected missile proliferation activities by
the People's Republic of China;
(3) actual or suspected transfer of missile technology by
Russia or other countries to the People's Republic of China:
and

[[Page 12214]]

(4) United States actions to enforce the Missile Technology
Control Regime with respect to the People's Republic of
China, including actions to prevent the transfer of missile
technology from Russia and other countries to the People's
Republic of China.

SEC. 1402. ANNUAL REPORT ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

(a) Annual Report.--The President shall transmit to
Congress an annual report on transfers to the People's
Republic of China by the United States and other countries of
technology with potential military applications, during the
1-year period preceding the transmittal of the report.
(b) Initial Report.--The initial report under this section
shall be transmitted not later than October 31, 1999.

SEC. 1403. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSFER OF SATELLITE
EXPORT CONTROL AUTHORITY.

Not later than August 31, 1999, the President shall
transmit to Congress a report on the implementation of
subsection (a) of section 1513 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law
105-261; 112 Stat. 2174; 22 U.S.C. 2778 note), transferring
satellites and related items from the Commerce Control List
of dual-use items to the United States Munitions List. The
report shall update the information provided in the report
under subsection (d) of that section.

SEC. 1404. SECURITY IN CONNECTION WITH SATELLITE EXPORT
LICENSING.

(a) Security at Foreign Launches.--As a condition of the
export license for any satellite to be launched outside the
jurisdiction of the United States, the Secretary of State
shall require the following:
(1) That the technology transfer control plan required by
section 1514(a)(1) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261;
112 Stat. 2175; 22 U.S.C. 2778 note) be prepared by the
Department of Defense, and agreed to by the licensee, and
that the plan set forth the security arrangements for the
launch of the satellite, both before and during launch
operations, and include enhanced security measures if the
launch site is within the jurisdiction of the People's
Republic of China or any other country that is subject to
section 1514 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.
(2) That each person providing security for the launch of
that satellite--
(A) be employed by, or under a contract with, the
Department of Defense;
(B) have received appropriate training in the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of State known as the
International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (hereafter in
this section referred to as ``ITAR'');
(C) have significant experience and expertise with
satellite launches; and
(D) have been investigated in a manner at least as
comprehensive as the investigation required for the issuance
of a security clearance at the level designated as
``Secret''.
(3) That the number of such persons providing security for
the launch of the satellite shall be sufficient to maintain
24-hour security of the satellite and related launch vehicle
and other sensitive technology.
(4) That the licensee agree to reimburse the Department of
Defense for all costs associated with the provision of
security for the launch of the satellite.
(b) Defense Department Monitors.--The Secretary of Defense
shall--
(1) ensure that persons assigned as space launch campaign
monitors are provided sufficient training and have adequate
experience in the ITAR and have significant experience and
expertise with satellite technology, launch vehicle
technology, and launch operations technology;
(2) ensure that adequate numbers of such monitors are
assigned to space launch campaigns so that 24-hour, 7-day per
week coverage is provided;
(3) take steps to ensure, to the maximum extent possible,
the continuity of service by monitors for the entire space
launch campaign period (from satellite marketing to launch
and, if necessary, completion of a launch failure analysis);
and
(4) adopt measures designed to make service as a space
launch campaign monitor an attractive career opportunity.

SEC. 1405. REPORTING OF TECHNOLOGY PASSED TO PEOPLE'S
REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND OF FOREIGN LAUNCH
SECURITY VIOLATIONS.

(a) Monitoring of Information.--The Secretary of Defense
shall require that space launch monitors of the Department of
Defense assigned to monitor launches in the People's Republic
of China maintain records of all information authorized to be
transmitted to the People's Republic of China, including
copies of any documents authorized for such transmission, and
reports on launch-related activities.
(b) Transmission to Other Agencies.--The Secretary of
Defense shall ensure that records under subsection (a) are
transmitted on a current basis to appropriate elements of the
Department of Defense and to the Department of State, the
Department of Commerce, and the Central Intelligence Agency.
(c) Retention of Records.--Records described in subsection
(a) shall be retained for at least the period of the statute
of limitations for violations of the Arms Export Control Act.
(d) Guidelines.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
guidelines providing space launch monitors of the Department
of Defense with the responsibility and the ability to report
serious security violations, problems, or other issues at an
overseas launch site directly to the headquarters office of
the responsible Department of Defense component.

SEC. 1406. REPORT ON NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF
EXPORTING HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS TO THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

(a) Review.--The Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Secretary of State, in consultation with
other appropriate departments and agencies, shall conduct a
comprehensive review of the national security implications of
exporting high-performance computers to the People's Republic
of China. As part of the review, the Secretary shall conduct
empirical testing of the extent to which national security-
related operations can be performed using clustered,
massively-parallel processing or other combinations of
computers.
(b) Report.--The Secretary of Energy shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the review under
subsection (a). The report shall be submitted not later than
six months after the date of the enactment of this Act and
shall be updated not later than the end of each subsequent 1-
year period.

SEC. 1407. END-USE VERIFICATION FOR USE BY PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA OF HIGH-PERFORMANCE COMPUTERS.

(a) Revised HPC Verification System.--The President shall
seek to enter into an agreement with the People's Republic of
China to revise the existing verification system with the
People's Republic of China with respect to end-use
verification for high-performance computers exported or to be
exported to the People's Republic of China so as to provide
for an open and transparent system providing for effective
end-use verification for such computers and, at a minimum,
providing for on-site inspection of the end-use and end-user
of such computers, without notice, by United States nationals
designated by the United States Government. The President
shall transmit a copy of the agreement to Congress.
(b) Definition.--As used in this section and section 1406,
the term ``high performance computer'' means a computer
which, by virtue of its composite theoretical performance
level, would be subject to section 1211 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C.
App. 2404 note).
(c) Adjustment of Composite Theoretical Performance Levels
for Post-shipment Verification.--Section 1213 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Adjustment of Performance Levels.--Whenever a new
composite theoretical performance level is established under
section 1211(d), that level shall apply for purposes of
subsection (a) of this section in lieu of the level set forth
in that subsection.''.

SEC. 1408. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF EXPORT OF CONTROLLED
TECHNOLOGIES AND ITEMS.

(a) Recommendations for Prioritization of National Security
Concerns.--The President shall submit to Congress the
President's recommendations for the establishment of a
mechanism to identify, on a continuing basis, those
controlled technologies and items the export of which is of
greatest national security concern relative to other
controlled technologies and items.
(b) Recommendations for Executive Department Approvals for
Exports of Greatest National Security Concern.--With respect
to controlled technologies and items identified under
subsection (a), the President shall submit to Congress the
President's recommendations for the establishment of a
mechanism to identify procedures for export of such
technologies and items so as to provide--
(1) that the period for review by an executive department
or agency of a license application for any such export shall
be extended to a period longer than that otherwise required
when such longer period is considered necessary by the head
of that department or agency for national security purposes;
and
(2) that a license for such an export may be approved only
with the agreement of each executive department or agency
that reviewed the application for the license, subject to
appeal procedures to be established by the President.
(c) Recommendations for Streamlined Licensing Procedures
for Other Exports.--With respect to controlled technologies
and items other than those identified under subsection (a),
the President shall submit to Congress the President's
recommendations for modifications to licensing procedures for
export of such technologies and items so as to streamline the
licensing process and provide greater transparency,
predictability, and certainty.

SEC. 1409. NOTICE OF FOREIGN ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES
FIRMS IN NATIONAL SECURITY INDUSTRIES.

Section 721(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. 2170(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The President'';

[[Page 12215]]

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Whenever a person engaged in interstate commerce in
the United States is the subject of a merger, acquisition, or
takeover described in paragraph (1), that person shall
promptly notify the President, or the President's designee,
of such planned merger, acquisition, or takeover. Whenever
any executive department or agency becomes aware of any such
planned merger, acquisition, or takeover, the head of that
department or agency shall promptly notify the President, or
the President's designee, of such planned merger,
acquisition, or takeover.''.

SEC. 1410. FIVE-AGENCY INSPECTORS GENERAL EXAMINATION OF
COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST ACQUISITION BY THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA OF MILITARILY
SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY.

Not later than January 1, 2000, the Inspectors General of
the Departments of State, Defense, the Treasury, and Commerce
and the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency
shall submit to Congress a report on the adequacy of current
export controls and counterintelligence measures to protect
against the acquisition by the People's Republic of China of
militarily sensitive United States technology. Such report
shall include a description of measures taken to address any
deficiencies found in such export controls and
counterintelligence measures.

SEC. 1411. OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY SECURITY IN DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE.

(a) Enhanced Multilateral Export Controls.--
(1) New international controls.--The President shall work
(in the context of the scheduled 1999 review of the Wassenaar
Arrangement and otherwise) to establish new binding
international controls on technology transfers that threaten
international peace and United States national security.
(2) Improved sharing of information.--The President shall
take appropriate actions (in the context of the scheduled
1999 review of the Wassenaar Arrangement and otherwise) to
improve the sharing of information by nations that are major
exporters of technology so that the United States can track
movements of technology and enforce technology controls and
re-export requirements.
(b) Office of Technology Security.--(1) There is hereby
established in the Department of Defense an Office of
Technology Security. The Office shall support United States
Government efforts to--
(1) establish new binding international controls on
technology transfers that threaten international peace and
United States national security; and
(2) improve the sharing of information by nations that are
major exporters of technology so that the United States can
track movements of technology and enforce technology controls
and re-export requirements.
At the end of subtitle A of title XXXI (page 419, after
line 3), insert the following new section:

SEC. 3106. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CYBER
SECURITY PROGRAM.

(a) Increased Funds for Counterintelligence Cyber
Security.--The amounts provided in section 3103 in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) and in paragraph (3) are each hereby
increased by $8,600,000, to be available for
Counterintelligence Cyber Security programs.
(b) Offsetting Reductions Derived From Contractor Travel.--
(1) The amount provided in section 3101 in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) (for weapons activities in carrying
out programs necessary for national security) is hereby
reduced by $4,700,000.
(2) The amount provided in section 3102 in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) of subsection (a) (for environmental
restoration and waste management in carrying out programs
necessary for national security) is hereby reduced by
$1,900,000.
(3) The amount provided in section 3103 in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) is hereby reduced by $2,000,000.
At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert
the following new subtitle:
Subtitle F--Protection of National Security Information

SEC. 3181. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``National Security
Information Protection Improvement Act''.

SEC. 3182. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT BY THE PRESIDENT ON ESPIONAGE
BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

(a) Reports Required.--The President shall transmit to
Congress a report, not less often than every six months, on
the steps being taken by the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Central Intelligence Agency, and all other relevant
executive departments and agencies to respond to espionage
and other intelligence activities by the People's Republic of
China, particularly with respect to the theft of
sophisticated United States nuclear weapons design
information and the targeting by the People's Republic of
China of United States nuclear weapons codes and other
national security information of strategic concern.
(b) Initial Report.--The first report under this section
shall be transmitted not later than January 1, 2000.

SEC. 3183. REPORT ON WHETHER DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SHOULD
CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS
RESPONSIBILITY.

Not later than January 1, 2000, the President shall
transmit to Congress a report regarding the feasibility of
alternatives to the current arrangements for controlling
United States nuclear weapons development, testing, and
maintenance within the Department of Energy, including the
reestablishment of the Atomic Energy Commission as an
independent nuclear agency. The report shall describe the
benefits and shortcomings of each such alternative, as well
as the current system, from the standpoint of protecting such
weapons and related research and technology from theft and
exploitation. The President shall include with such report
the President's recommendation for the appropriate
arrangements for controlling United States nuclear weapons
development, testing, and maintenance outside the Department
of Energy if it should be determined that the Department of
Energy should no longer have that responsibility.

SEC. 3184. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF FOREIGN
INTELLIGENCE AND OFFICE OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE.

(a) In General.--The Department of Energy Organization Act
is amended by inserting after section 212 (42 U.S.C. 7143)
the following new sections:

``office of foreign intelligence

``Sec. 213. (a) There shall be within the Department an
Office of Foreign Intelligence, to be headed by a Director,
who shall report directly to the Secretary.
``(b) The Director shall be responsible for the programs
and activities of the Department relating to the analysis of
intelligence with respect to nuclear weapons and materials,
other nuclear matters, and energy security.
``(c) The Secretary may delegate to the Deputy Secretary of
Energy the day-to-day supervision of the Director.

``office of counterintelligence

``Sec. 214. (a) There shall be within the Department an
Office of Counterintelligence, to be headed by a Director,
who shall report directly to the Secretary.
``(b) The Director shall carry out all counterintelligence
activities in the Department relating to the defense
activities of the Department.
``(c) The Secretary may delegate to the Deputy Secretary of
Energy the day-to-day supervision of the Director.
``(d)(1) The Director shall keep the intelligence
committees fully and currently informed of all significant
security breaches at any of the national laboratories.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term
`intelligence committees' means the Permanent Select
Committee of the House of Representatives and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in the first
section of that Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 212 the following new items:

``Sec. 213. Office of Foreign Intelligence.
``Sec. 214. Office of Counterintelligence.''.

SEC. 3185. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROGRAM AT DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Energy shall
establish and maintain at each national laboratory a
counterintelligence program for the defense-related
activities of the Department of Energy at such laboratory.
(b) Head of Program.--The Secretary shall ensure that, for
each national laboratory, the head of the counterintelligence
program of that laboratory--
(1) has extensive experience in counterintelligence
activities within the Federal Government; and
(2) with respect to the counterintelligence program, is
responsible directly to, and is hired with the concurrence
of, the Director of Counterintelligence of the Department of
Energy and the director of the national laboratory.

SEC. 3186. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AT OTHER DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY FACILITIES.

(a) Assignment of Counterintelligence Personnel.--(1) The
Secretary of Energy shall assign to each Department of Energy
facility, other than a national laboratory, at which
Restricted Data is located an individual who shall assess
security and counterintelligence matters at that facility.
(2) An individual assigned to a facility under this
subsection shall be stationed at the facility.
(b) Supervision.--Each individual assigned under subsection
(a) shall report directly to the Director of the Office of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy.

SEC. 3187. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY POLYGRAPH EXAMINATIONS.

(a) Counterintelligence Polygraph Program Required.--The
Secretary of Energy, acting through the Director of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy, shall carry
out a counterintelligence polygraph program for the defense
activities of the Department of Energy. The program shall
consist of the administration on a regular basis of a
polygraph examination to each covered

[[Page 12216]]

person who has access to a program that the Director of
Counterintelligence and the Assistant Secretary assigned the
functions under section 203(a)(5) of the Department of Energy
Organization Act determine requires special access
restrictions.
(b) Covered Persons.--For purposes of subsection (a), a
covered person is any of the following:
(1) An officer or employee of the Department.
(2) An expert or consultant under contract to the
Department.
(3) An officer or employee of any contractor of the
Department.
(c) Additional Polygraph Examinations.--In addition to the
polygraph examinations administered under subsection (a), the
Secretary, in carrying out the defense activities of the
Department--
(1) may administer a polygraph examination to any employee
of the Department or of any contractor of the Department, for
counterintelligence purposes; and
(2) shall administer a polygraph examination to any such
employee in connection with an investigation of such
employee, if such employee requests the administration of a
polygraph examination for exculpatory purposes.
(d) Regulations.--(1) The Secretary shall prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out this section. Such
regulations shall include procedures, to be developed in
consultation with the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, for identifying and addressing ``false
positive'' results of polygraph examinations.
(2) Notwithstanding section 501 of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7191) or any other provision of
law, the Secretary may, in prescribing regulations under
paragraph (1), waive any requirement for notice or comment if
the Secretary determines that it is in the national security
interest to expedite the implementation of such regulations.
(e) No Change in Other Polygraph Authority.--This section
shall not be construed to affect the authority under any
other provision of law of the Secretary to administer a
polygraph examination.

SEC. 3188. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATIONS RELATING TO
THE SAFEGUARDING AND SECURITY OF RESTRICTED
DATA.

(a) In General.--Chapter 18 of title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 234A the following new section:
``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of
Department of Energy Regulations Regarding Security of
Classified or Sensitive Information or Data.--
``a. Any individual or entity that has entered into a
contract or agreement with the Department of Energy, or a
subcontract or subagreement thereto, and that commits a gross
violation or a pattern of gross violations of any applicable
rule, regulation, or order prescribed or otherwise issued by
the Secretary pursuant to this subtitle relating to the
safeguarding or security of Restricted Data or other
classified or sensitive information shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not to exceed $500,000 for each such
violation.
``b. The Secretary shall include, in each contract entered
into after the date of the enactment of this section with a
contractor of the Department, provisions which provide an
appropriate reduction in the fees or amounts paid to the
contractor under the contract in the event of a violation by
the contractor or contractor employee of any rule,
regulation, or order relating to the safeguarding or security
of Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive
information. The provisions shall specify various degrees of
violations and the amount of the reduction attributable to
each degree of violation.
``c. The powers and limitations applicable to the
assessment of civil penalties under section 234A shall apply
to the assessment of civil penalties under this section.''.
(b) Clarifying Amendment.--The section heading of section
234A of that Act (42 U.S.C. 2282a) is amended by inserting
``Safety'' before ``Regulations''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in the first
section of that Act is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 234 the following new items:

``234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of Energy
Safety Regulations.
``234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of Energy
Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or Sensitive
Information or Data.''.

SEC. 3189. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR MISUSE OF RESTRICTED DATA.

(a) Communication of Restricted Data.--Section 224 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2274) is amended--
(1) in clause a., by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting
``$400,000''; and
(2) in clause b., by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting
``$200,000''.
(b) Receipt of Restricted Data.--Section 225 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 2275) is amended by striking ``$20,000'' and
inserting ``$400,000''.
(c) Disclosure of Restricted Data.--Section 227 of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 2277) is amended by striking ``$2,500'' and
inserting ``$50,000''.

SEC. 3190. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO NATIONAL LABORATORIES BY
FOREIGN VISITORS FROM SENSITIVE COUNTRIES.

(a) Background Review Required.--The Secretary of Energy
may not admit to any facility of a national laboratory any
individual who is a citizen or agent of a nation that is
named on the current sensitive countries list unless the
Secretary first completes a background review with respect to
that individual.
(b) Moratorium Pending Certification.--(1) During the
period described in paragraph (2), the Secretary may not
admit to any facility of a national laboratory any individual
who is a citizen or agent of a nation that is named on the
current sensitive countries list.
(2) The period referred to in paragraph (1) is the period
beginning 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act
and ending on the later of the following:
(A) The date that is 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(B) The date that is 45 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits to Congress a certification described in
paragraph (3).
(3) A certification referred to in paragraph (2) is a
certification by the Director of Counterintelligence of the
Department of Energy, with the concurrence of the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, that all security
measures are in place that are necessary and appropriate to
prevent espionage or intelligence gathering by or for a
sensitive country, including access by individuals referred
to in paragraph (1) to classified information of the national
laboratory.
(c) Waiver of Moratorium.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may
waive the prohibition in subsection (b) on a case-by-case
basis with respect to any specific individual or any specific
delegation of individuals whose admission to a national
laboratory is determined by the Secretary to be in the
interest of the national security of the United States.
(2) Not later than the seventh day of the month following a
month in which a waiver is made, the Secretary shall submit a
report in writing providing notice of each waiver made in
that month to the following:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Each such report shall be in classified form and shall
contain the identity of each individual or delegation for
whom such a waiver was made and, with respect to each such
individual or delegation, the following information:
(A) A detailed justification for the waiver.
(B) For each individual with respect to whom a background
review was conducted, whether the background review
determined that negative information exists with respect to
that individual.
(C) The Secretary's certification that the admission of
that individual or delegation to a national laboratory is in
the interest of the national security of the United States.
(4) The authority of the Secretary under paragraph (1) may
be delegated only to the Director of Counterintelligence of
the Department of Energy.
(d) Exception to Moratorium for Certain Individuals.--The
moratorium under subsection (b) shall not apply to any person
who--
(1) is, on the date of the enactment of this Act, an
employee or assignee of the Department of Energy, or of a
contractor of the Department; and
(2) has undergone a background review in accordance with
subsection (a).
(e) Exception to Moratorium for Certain Programs.--In the
case of a program undertaken pursuant to an international
agreement between the United States and a foreign nation, the
moratorium under subsection (b) shall not apply to the
admittance to a facility that is important to that program of
a citizen of that foreign nation whose admittance is
important to that program.
(f) Sense of Congress Regarding Background Reviews.--It is
the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Energy, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the
Director of Central Intelligence should ensure that
background reviews carried out under this section are
completed in not more than 15 days.
(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``background review'', commonly known as an
indices check, means a review of information provided by the
Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding personal
background, including information relating to any history of
criminal activity or to any evidence of espionage.
(2) The term ``sensitive countries list'' means the list
prescribed by the Secretary of Energy known as the Department
of Energy List of Sensitive Countries.

SEC. 3191. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ACCESS BY FOREIGN
VISITORS AND EMPLOYEES TO DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
FACILITIES ENGAGED IN DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.

(a) Security Clearance Review Required.--The Secretary of
Energy may not

[[Page 12217]]

allow unescorted access to any classified area, or access to
classified information, of any facility of the Department of
Energy engaged in the defense activities of the Department to
any individual who is a citizen of a foreign nation unless--
(1) the Secretary, acting through the Director of
Counterintelligence, first completes a security clearance
investigation with respect to that individual in a manner at
least as comprehensive as the investigation required for the
issuance of a security clearance at the level required for
such access under the rules and regulations of the
Department; or
(2) a foreign government first completes a security
clearance investigation with respect to that individual in a
manner that the Secretary of State, pursuant to an
international agreement between the United States and that
foreign government, determines is equivalent to the
investigation required for the issuance of a security
clearance at the level required for such access under the
rules and regulations of the Department.
(b) Effect on Current Employees.--The Secretary shall
ensure that any individual who, on the date of the enactment
of this Act, is a citizen of a foreign nation and an employee
of the Department or of a contractor of the Department is not
discharged from such employment as a result of this section
before the completion of the security clearance investigation
of such individual under subsection (a) unless the Director
of Counterintelligence determines that such discharge is
necessary for the national security of the United States.

SEC. 3192. ANNUAL REPORT ON SECURITY AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE
STANDARDS AT NATIONAL LABORATORIES AND OTHER
DEFENSE FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.

(a) Report on Security and Counterintelligence Standards at
National Laboratories and Other DOE Defense Facilities.--Not
later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary of Energy,
acting through the Director of Counterintelligence of the
Department of Energy, shall submit a report on the security
and counterintelligence standards at the national
laboratories, and other facilities of the Department of
Energy engaged in the defense activities of the Department,
to the following:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Contents of Report.--The report shall be in classified
form and shall contain, for each such national laboratory or
facility, the following information:
(1) A description of all security measures that are in
place to prevent access by unauthorized individuals to
classified information of the national laboratory or
facility.
(2) A certification by the Director of Counterintelligence
of the Department of Energy as to whether--
(A) all security measures are in place to prevent access by
unauthorized individuals to classified information of the
national laboratory or facility; and
(B) such security measures comply with Presidential
Decision Directives and other applicable Federal requirements
relating to the safeguarding and security of classified
information.
(3) For each admission of an individual under section 3190
not described in a previous report under this section, the
identity of that individual, and whether the background
review required by that section determined that information
relevant to security exists with respect to that individual.

SEC. 3193. REPORT ON SECURITY VULNERABILITIES OF NATIONAL
LABORATORY COMPUTERS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than March 1 of each year,
the National Counterintelligence Policy Board shall prepare a
report, in consultation with the Director of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy, on the
security vulnerabilities of the computers of the national
laboratories.
(b) Preparation of Report.--In preparing the report, the
National Counterintelligence Policy Board shall establish a
so-called ``red team'' of individuals to perform an
operational evaluation of the security vulnerabilities of the
computers of the national laboratories, including by direct
experimentation. Such individuals shall be selected by the
National Counterintelligence Policy Board from among
employees of the Department of Defense, the National Security
Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, and of other agencies, and may be detailed
to the National Counterintelligence Policy Board from such
agencies without reimbursement and without interruption or
loss of civil service status or privilege.
(c) Submission of Report to Secretary of Energy and to FBI
Director.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the report
shall be submitted in classified and unclassified form to the
Secretary of Energy and the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
(d) Forwarding to Congressional Committees.--Not later than
30 days after the report is submitted, the Secretary and the
Director shall each separately forward that report, with the
recommendations in classified and unclassified form of the
Secretary or the Director, as applicable, in response to the
findings of that report, to the following:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services and the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(2) The Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives.

SEC. 3194. GOVERNMENT ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION ON
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE-RELATED COMPUTERS.

(a) Procedures Required.--The Secretary of Energy shall
establish procedures to govern access to classified
information on DOE defense-related computers. Those
procedures shall, at a minimum, provide that each employee of
the Department of Energy who requires access to classified
information shall be required as a condition of such access
to provide to the Secretary written consent which permits
access by an authorized investigative agency to any DOE
defense-related computer used in the performance of the
defense-related duties of such employee during the period of
that employee's access to classified information and for a
period of three years thereafter.
(b) Expectation of Privacy in DOE Defense-Related
Computers.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including any provision of law enacted by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986), no user of a DOE
defense-related computer shall have any expectation of
privacy in the use of that computer.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term `DOE defense-related computer'' means a
computer of the Department of Energy or a Department of
Energy contractor that is used, in whole or in part, for a
Department of Energy defense-related activity.
(2) The term ``computer'' means an electronic, magnetic,
optical, electrochemical, or other high-speed data processing
device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions,
and includes any data storage facility or communications
facility directly related to, or operating in conjunction
with, such device.
(3) The term ``authorized investigative agency'' means an
agency authorized by law or regulation to conduct a
counterintelligence investigation or investigations of
persons who are proposed for access to classified information
to ascertain whether such persons satisfy the criteria for
obtaining and retaining access to such information.
(4) The term ``classified information'' means any
information that has been determined pursuant to Executive
Order No. 12356 of April 2, 1982, or successor orders, or the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to require protection against
unauthorized disclosure and that is so designated.
(5) The term ``employee'' includes any person who receives
a salary or compensation of any kind from the Department of
Energy, is a contractor of the Department of Energy or an
employee thereof, is an unpaid consultant of the Department
of Energy, or otherwise acts for or on behalf of the
Department of Energy.
(d) Establishment of Procedures.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Energy shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary
to implement this section.

SEC. 3195. DEFINITION OF NATIONAL LABORATORY.

For purposes of this subtitle, the term ``national
laboratory'' means any of the following:
(1) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California.
(2) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.
(3) The Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
(4) The Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am delighted that the amendment that the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) and I are offering today has, like the report of our select
committee itself, been brought to the floor in a bipartisan fashion,
endorsed in this case by every Republican and Democratic member of our
select committee. In addition, the amendment is supported by the
representatives of the congressional districts in which our national
weapons laboratories are located: the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs.
Wilson), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher). The amendment is also supported by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman

[[Page 12218]]

from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) of the Committees on International
Relations and Armed Services as well as by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) of the Committee on Rules. All of these people
have contributed in important ways to fashioning the amendment that is
before us.
Last year, this House created the Select Committee on U.S. Security
and Military/Commercial Concerns With the People's Republic of China to
investigate efforts by the PRC to acquire American high technology for
military purposes. It was my privilege to chair that committee and to
serve with leaders on national security and foreign policy from both
sides of the aisle, in particular our ranking Democratic member the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), at the time the ranking
Democratic member also of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. The vice chairman of our select committee was the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), who was then and is now the chairman
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Asia and the Pacific of the Committee on International Relations,
was also a leader on the select committee, as were the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt),
senior members of the Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who on the Committee on Armed Services
is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Research and
Development. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) were strong contributors to our
committee and to the fashioning of this amendment.
I want to pay tribute to these of my colleagues who are hardworking
and patriotic members who spent months on a very difficult and grueling
investigation essentially behind closed doors without any notice by the
rest of our colleagues. During that period of time we heard 150 hours
of testimony from 75 different witnesses and reviewed over half a
million pages of evidentiary material. The amendment that we are
bringing to the floor today is a start on the implementation of the 38
recommendations of this select committee. Most of the legislative
recommendations that our select committee has made fall within the
jurisdiction of standing committees of the House of Representatives and
of the other body, and for that reason are not being offered today,
notwithstanding that we had half a year of hearings on our
recommendations before reaching them. We are deferring at the request
of those committees to their jurisdiction, but we hope and expect
inasmuch as our recommendations were laid at their feet on the 3rd of
January of this year that very shortly we will be back on the floor
with the lion's share of the recommendations that our select committee
has made.
What we have prepared for consideration today as a start on that
process is an amendment that will require the Department of Defense to
prepare the Technology Transfer Control Plans for satellite launches in
the People's Republic of China, a very significant substantive matter
into which the select committee inquired. The amendment will also
require that the Department of Defense have highly trained employees to
provide round-the-clock monitoring and security for these foreign
launches that we have thought was always being provided ever since this
program was adopted a decade ago. The amendment will require improved
controls over information transmitted to the PRC during the course of
launches. It will require the President to report on how he is
implementing a key reform already adopted by the Congress last year,
the transfer of satellite export control authority from the Commerce
Department to the State Department.
Our select committee also recommended an improved intelligence
community focus on the People's Republic of China's intelligence
efforts directed against the United States, including reports to the
Congress on PRC espionage and on technology transfers to the PRC. And
we have recommended and called for in this amendment a five-agency
inspectors general counterintelligence review of countermeasures
against PRC technology acquisition. This amendment directly implements
a recommendation in that respect of the select committee. Our report
also calls for stronger multilateral governance of exports of certain
militarily useful goods and technologies. We found that the United
States should insist on PRC compliance with the MTCR, the Missile
Technology Control Regime, and this amendment calls for follow-up on
that.
We found that the United States should work to revive the strong
multilateral proliferation controls that were dismantled in 1994. Our
amendment responds by requiring the President to submit a full report
on PRC compliance with the Missile Technology Control Regime, including
a list of violations, and any remedial actions that he has taken. We
require the President to work for new binding international controls on
harmful technology transfers, so that when the United States controls
an export, as in many cases we already do, we do not go it alone and we
find that only our producers and our workers are injured with no
national security benefit because someone else is rushing in to make
the sale. We had a system just like this in 1994. It was allowed to
dissipate and we need to show international leadership and put that
system back together.
In furtherance of that goal, this amendment creates a new Office of
Technology Security in the Department of Defense, dedicated exclusively
to support of these efforts. Our report unanimously concluded that no
adequate verification exists that high-powered computers, what used to
be called supercomputers, now high-performance computers, that are
exported to the PRC are being used for civilian rather than military
purposes. We have called for the establishment of an open transparent
system, an effective verification regime in the PRC by September of
this year as a condition for export licensing and the continued sale of
the current speeds of computers and even faster ones in the future.
We have also called for a comprehensive annual assessment of the
national security implications of such exports. We direct the President
in this amendment to revise the existing verification agreement with
the PRC to include real on-site inspections. We have agreed in a
bilateral with the PRC already in principle that this should occur but
that bilateral is shot full of holes and we need to make it work. We
need to have end use verification without notice, on demand, negotiated
simply as a term of trade, not in any way calling into question the
national sovereignty of the PRC. And we further require in this
amendment a comprehensive annual report on the national security
implications of these exports.
These are important improvements, but I want to emphasize this
represents, even after we pass this amendment, unfinished business by
this Congress. We have much work to do. Some additional hearings
undoubtedly will be required but most importantly markups and the
movement of legislation through our standing committees of jurisdiction
to the floor so that we can do the heavy lifting that is called for in
the full 38 of our recommendations, some 26 of which are touched upon
although not implemented in full in the amendment that is before us
today. In that regard, I am very happy that the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) of the Committee on International Relations has assured me
that his committee will move legislation addressing these
recommendations in the immediate future.
Our report found wholesale inexcusable security weaknesses at our
Nation's national weapons laboratories, among the most sensitive
national defense sites in our country. Our report recommended a battery
of urgent reforms, and this amendment comprehensively implements them.
We establish offices of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence
within the Energy Department, reporting directly to the Secretary of
Energy, as well as counterintelligence programs at each national
laboratory. We require a DOE counterintelligence polygraph program,
something that should have been

[[Page 12219]]

in place frankly for a long time. We establish a moratorium on foreign
visitor programs with a national security waiver that the Energy
Secretary can issue until such time as there is certified and in place
a program with adequate security measures. We bar access by foreigners
to classified areas and information at Department of Energy facilities
until they have been cleared, until the foreign visitors have been
cleared for security. And we clarify and confirm that the Federal
Government has every right, has now and in fact always has had every
right to search defense-related computers throughout the DOE complex.
In conclusion, this is a balanced response to an urgent problem. It
is a first of several important steps that we need to take. I want in
closing to thank again the staff of the committees of jurisdiction that
have worked with us in bringing this amendment to the floor and the
staff of our select committee, including in particular our select
committee staff director Dean McGrath, special counsel Mike Sheehy, the
policy committee's executive director Ben Cohen and Jonathan Burks,
Walker Roberts of the Committee on International Relations staff,
Robert Rangel of the Committee on Armed Services staff, Andrew Hunter
with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and Hugh Brady with the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). Their hard work has served
the national interest.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that in
concluding my remarks, my time be handled by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. We had a select committee, and the select committee issued a
report. In that report they stated that the appropriate congressional
committees report legislation. But apparently we have now tried a new
tack. To prevent opposition for this legislation, a lot of the most
important provisions apparently have been removed. We now have nine or
ten reports from the administration. I know we all look forward to
getting more reports from the administration and that will be helpful
to all of us. But I am fearful that the entire process is leading to a
frenzy that will shut down American industry. And if there is anything
that would harm American national security, it is our leadership in
these very high tech fields. When we look at where computers come from
these days, we find that we do not control all the computers.
Approximately 14 of the top 25 manufacturers of workstations are not
U.S. companies but foreign competitors. And even in the most powerful
supercomputers, Hitachi, NEC and Fujitsu manufacture 20 percent of
them. Now, when we look at what supercomputers are, we find that you
can buy the next generation of Intel, which will have a 500 megahertz
system, is what we are used to calling it, but if you put it in MTOPS,
the same numbers the government uses, you will find that this computer
which has a board that you can put eight chips in will operate at
16,000 MTOPS.
Now, when I first got to Congress, the Defense Department and the
State Department prevented the sale of American machine tools, because
our machine tools were so good they did not want the Russians to get
them. We did that for so long that we no longer were the leader in
machine tools. And finally when we caught the Russians getting a
machine tool of the quality they wanted, what they bought was a
Toshiba. If we are not very careful here, we will do little to increase
our security as far as theft of American development, scientific and
defense-related, but we will cripple the industries that give us the
lead.

{time} 1400

If we start trying to block the kind of sales that are commercially
available, countries will not just sit back and say, well, I cannot get
it in the United States, so I am not going to go to Japan, I am not
going to go to Taiwan, I am not going to go to Israel and Moscow and
all the other places these products are available.
So, while we have this great instinct at the moment to respond to
what clearly has been a problem, if we do not do it in a comprehensive
manner, I think we will do more damage to American national security
than we will to those trying to pilfer our secrets.
It is clear that what we need to do is rather than simply broaden our
controls we need to narrow our controls and focus them on choke point
technologies, fissionable material, the things that make weapons and
the technologies we can control. If we try to control a product that is
available in Radio Shack in Beijing, we are kidding ourselves.
Now in the discussions of having the follow on to COCOM to be a more
effective force, we have now been through two administrations, and
COCOM, even when the Soviet Union was at its height, we always had
problem with our allies selling the technologies we wanted to control.
With the end of COCOM, we have barely been able to get them to sit down
in the room to discuss these technologies, but they are certainly not
restricting the sale.
So what I see happening here is in an attempt to create the image of
action we are taking steps that may not be harmful today but certainly
are not, one, the comprehensive solution that we need in the
comprehensive review and certainly violate the committee's own
statement again where the committee stated that the appropriate
congressional committees should report the legislation.
That is not a turf fight; that is about people who look at the entire
issue, balance America's interest, both in security and economic, take
a look at what is doable rather than simply ad hoc adding section after
section.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Connecticut for yielding as this Member needs to start a classified
briefing with Dr. Perry on his North Korea visit.
I wanted to say that I understand the gentleman's concern, for
example, about the potential loss of jurisdiction for the House
International Relations Committee. I had those jurisdiction concerns
myself, and still do to some extent, although part of yesterday was
spent in discussing and negotiating, in effect, on this amendment's
language with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and indirectly
with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Also, I am a member of
the select committee that has done the work leading to this amendment
by the gentleman from California, and I thank the gentleman from
California for his kind remarks.
Sections 1401 through 1411 are, for the most part, with International
Relations jurisdiction. We have seen changes in this amendment, but
also I think it is incumbent on us to recognize that we need to look at
the language of this amendment very closely, clearly before conference
is conducted, to see if, in fact, the amendment might have unintended
consequences that are not visible now. But I also think, as Chairman
Cox suggested that our International Relations Committee needs to
conduct oversight, as several other committees do as we proceed to the
implementation of the recommendations in the Cox Committee's
recommendations. I do understand the desire of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) to have action on his amendment now, and I think
he has made great accommodations to our jurisdictional consensus.
As my colleagues know, the recommendations, the 38, were unanimously
approved by the Cox select committee. Now comes the difficult task of
writing appropriate legislation. So I do understand the concerns of the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut heard here today relating to
jurisdiction. I think we on the International Relations Committee ought
to

[[Page 12220]]

commit ourselves to trying to move quickly on oversight but also to
refine the language of this amendment as necessary in the next several
weeks.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Reclaiming my time, I just add that, as my colleagues
know, giving Members of Congress not even 24 hours to see the language
on amendment of this nature is also problematic. I understand the
negotiations were going on until the very end, but this is too serious
to do on an ad hoc basis with a section here and a section there.
Mr. Chairman, I think if we look at that, at one point televisions
were American. Next thing we know, they did not make them in America
virtually. At one point machine tools, we have the leadership in
manufacturing machine tools; it went to Japan. High tech is easier to
move, cheaper to move and is available in lots of other countries. We
are not careful, we are going to kill the American expertise and
superiority in this area.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Cox-Dicks
amendment. The amendment is bipartisan and represents a good common
ground that members of both parties can support. Most importantly, it
will help to solve the important security problems we have at the
Department of Energy, and before I go any further I want to echo and
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California who
served this House in a very successful and distinguished way as
chairman of the committee, the select committee, and it was about a
year ago that we started down this road, and he has done an excellent
job representing the House, and I am proud to associate myself with
this amendment to start implementing the recommendations of our select
committee. And I, too, want to compliment the staff, particularly the
investigative staff who did a principle amount of the work on this very
important issue.
I am proud that the House has managed to address this problem in a
bipartisan fashion. We have had several bumps and long terms along the
road, but we have arrived in the right place I believe. I commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for working hard to ensure the
bipartisan agreement was possible. The amendment we have crafted, while
not perfect, is a good one. I urge members to vote for this amendment
to help solve the glaring security problems at the Department of
Energy. Our new Secretary, Bill Richardson, is doing a great job there
to solve these problems with the help of Ed Curran who is in charge of
counter intelligence. We can help him, and we should.
This amendment codifies major portions of Presidential Decision
Directive 61, PDD 61, to establish strong, independent Office of
Counter intelligence at DOE with direct access to the Secretary, and I
might point out in fairness the President had made his decision on this
directive in February of 1998, four months before our select committee
was established, and it took awhile to get the recommendations of Mr.
Curran in place, but Secretary Richardson is doing that with great
force and vigor.
This also, this amendment also requires regular polygraphing of
employees handling sensitive nuclear information, greatly increases
civil and criminal penalties for mishandling or release of classified
information, imposes a strong moratorium on foreign visitors to
national labs until strong security measures are in place, re-enforces
prohibitions on giving classified information to foreign nationals,
requires a comprehensive annual report on security and counter
intelligence at all DOE defense facilities, requires a report and red
team analysis of DOE computer vulnerabilities including funding for a
new cyber security program and requires DOE employees to consent to
searches of their work computers used in DOE defense activity as a
condition of receiving security clearance.
Mr. Chairman, these measures are tough but appropriate, and they give
Energy Secretary Richardson the authority he needs to solve the
problem. That should be our goal today. Let us stay away from the blame
game.
As I mentioned, this amendment is not perfect. It will require some
further work in conference on a few issues. In particular it was my
intention that this amendment would not affect the nuclear Navy, and we
have committed to work on this issue in the context of conference
committee, and in fact it is my belief that this amendment does not
reach the nuclear Navy labs.
We have also agreed to address in conference the concerns that we may
undermine existing bilateral agreements with China and Russia and
interfere in launch campaigns with our European allies by requiring the
Department of Defense to hire security personnel at launch campaigns.
By the way, this was one of my recommendations, and I hope that we can
keep it in place. We need to continue to work on it.
Again I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for
working with me on this amendment, and I urge every member to support
it.
I think in addressing what my good friend, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has said earlier, it was our intent and our
hope that each of the committees of Congress that has jurisdiction
would take action, and of course the defense authorization bill gave us
a vehicle working with members of the defense committee, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and others who
are members of the committee in a bipartisan fashion to draft this
amendment. So we are trying our very best to live up not only to our
select committee's recommendation, but also to respect the jurisdiction
of the House and the committees in the House, many of whom were
involved in the drafting of this amendment.
So, again it has been a great pleasure to work with the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) and his staff on drafting this amendment and
working on the select committee report. I think it was good that in a
time of upheaval here in the House, during impeachment that we could
come to a bipartisan agreement on an important national security issue.
Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), Chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Vice Chairman of the Select
Committee.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity in this debate
to restate to the whole House and to the whole world the important work
that was done by the subcommittee of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox). I think it is very fair to say that it was bipartisan, it was
unanimous, and it was extraordinarily significant, and that just did
not happen by circumstance.
I rise in strong support of the bipartisan amendment that we have got
before us today. Obviously the amendment provides reasonable steps to
start the process, to carry out some, not all, of the recommendations
of the Cox committee.
I want to commend very much publicly the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) and ranking member (Mr. Dicks), other members of the
committee, for their excellent work, for their very strong leadership
in what I think is obviously a vital national security matter, and
anybody who reads the report would have to come to that same
conclusion. It was a pleasure to be associated with that effort.
However I speak as Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the Cox Committee on China both today
because I have tried to serve as a bridge between the two
organizations. Obviously the intelligence peace is just one part of
what the Cox committee did, but it is a very important part, and now
that the Cox report has been released, those committee chairmen with
jurisdiction over various aspects of our findings on the Cox committee
can get

[[Page 12221]]

down to the business and will get down to the business of taking
legislative and other steps to implement the recommendations in the
bipartisan undertaking that that committee was. Hence the amendment
today.
With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, I have asked that the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence move forward in 6 specific areas.
First we will examine all manner of Chinese directed espionage against
the United States. That is no small matter. Second, we will examine
Chinese directed covert action type activities conducted against the
United States such as the use of agents of influence and efforts to
subvert or otherwise manipulate the United States political process,
something that is near and dear to our hearts and must not be tampered
with. Third, we will examine counterintelligence programs, past,
present and proposed, for the Department of Energy, Department of
Defense, for the national labs, with the emphasis on the adequacy of
the proposed enhancements and the structural changes meant to manage
them. Fourth, we will investigate the issue of whether the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence was kept properly advised of
developments by the FBI and the Department of Energy. This is important
because there is conflicting testimony, and oversight is a tradition in
this House, but it is also a responsibility in this House. It is built
on trust and candor, and we must have that between the branch of
government. So that is an area that must be cleared up.
Fifth, we will examine issues relating to the role the intelligence
community plays in supporting policymakers in determining U.S. export
and technology transfer policies. Certainly there is an argument that
can be made that we were a little over zealous in selling things that
perhaps we should have been more cautious about. That in no way takes
away from the thought that my friend and colleague from Connecticut has
expressed that we must have access to the international marketplace.
Quality of life in this country, jobs in this country, depend on our
ability to export, but we need to be smart about what we export and
make sure it is always to our advantage. And finally, we will examine
the policy of treating advanced counter intelligence investigations
principally as law enforcement rather than national security matters.

{time} 1415

We have to determine whether it is more important that a spy end up
behind bars, even if it takes years of investigation, than for the
hemorrhaging of the national security data that can be stopped.
In addition, our FY 2000 intelligence authorization included
provisions that respond directly to problems raised in the Cox report
and some of the matters in this amendment. These include new funds for
such things as red teaming CIA's China analysis, improving CIA
information security, background investigations, understanding and
defeating foreign denial and deception techniques which are out there,
and running more and better offensive operations against hostile
foreign intelligence services, which we in fact know are conducting
espionage against the United States of America, its personnel and its
secrets.
We provided funds to improve the Department of Energy's
counterintelligence capabilities, analysis of foreign nuclear programs,
cyber security and other such matters. We are increasing funds for FBI
agent training in counterintelligence and DOD acquisition and
information systems protection. We are funding more linguistic
capabilities across the intelligence community and many more details we
are beefing up. It is important we do this because we have let down.
This amendment helps us. We are in support of it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is worthy of
our support. It is a comprehensive approach put together by experts
after extensive study. Let me commend the committee that took testimony
and studied this issue at length. In particular, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) did
first class work thereon.
There is no doubt that this amendment is prepared by a bipartisan
group, and it is certainly timely, because we recently discovered these
problems. While it might not be perfect, it is a great start for us to
move into the conference with the Senate.
I commend the sponsors and those who worked so hard on this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it. Again, I commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks), and those members of the committee who put so much effort into
it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman I rise in support of the amendment. As a
member of the select committee, I want to congratulate the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks)
for the bipartisan manner in which they handled this very important
national security matter.
I would also like to publicly thank my two colleagues for offering
our committee's recommendations to the defense authorization bill
before us today. I urge Members of this body to support and accept the
bipartisan and unanimous findings and recommendations of the committee
by voting for this amendment.
This language, the language in the amendment, gives Congress the
common ground needed to enhance the Nation's intelligence
infrastructure and prevent our country from repeating many of the
episodes which occurred over the past few years.
Mr. Chairman, we could take the next few hours taking partisan
potshots that criticize this agency or that administration or in fact
any Congress over the last 20 years for not taking any of the perceived
and real espionage threats seriously. However, I believe that this
House can contribute much more to our country today and begin to move
forward by focusing on fixing the problem, rather than casting blame.
This amendment addresses a number of concerns and offers several steps
to strengthen this country's national security. This is a strong
bipartisan constructive effort to solve the national security problems
that our committee examined over the past year, and I urge my
colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment before
us today, and I wanted to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), as well as the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and their
staffs for this hard work on this amendment over the last month. This
is a serious effort by serious people who spent considerable time and
thought on this problem, and I thank them for their efforts to make our
laboratories safe from our Nation's adversaries.
Let me say a word or two about these laboratories. Millions and
millions of people here and abroad now enjoy personal and political
freedom because these labs, employing some of the greatest minds in the
world, have allowed us to defend ourselves against the enemies of
freedom. The list of Nobel Prize winners from America's national labs
is staggering. The number of scientific breakthroughs is breathtaking.
The number of seminal discoveries is unparalleled in any other group of
institutions in the world. These labs are treasures for science and for
freedom. It should not surprise us then that these laboratories have
been the target of systematic, relentless assault by the People's
Republic of China.
Over the last few months, through the investigation of the gentleman

[[Page 12222]]

from California (Mr. Cox) and his committee, we have seen the breakdown
of institutions of government. We have seen one hand of government not
know what the other hand of government was doing. There were errors and
omissions and miscommunications and failures of policy and procedure.
In all of this, one fact remains: With only one exception that we
know about, the employees of the laboratories remained loyal Americans,
putting the Nation's interests above their own. That is why this
amendment is so important. It recognizes that the problem is not the
people; it is the system, and this amendment addresses the problems in
the system, across a broad spectrum of activities.
It directs a review of the organizational structure of our nuclear
weapons complex; it establishes an office of counterintelligence and
foreign intelligence within the Department of Energy; it requires each
lab to have a counterintelligence program; and it establishes a
counterintelligence polygraph program; it enhances civil and monetary
penalties; and deals with the issue of foreign visitors in a way that
protects our national secrets, while allowing our scientists to be
engaged in a broader scientific community. It also addresses the
emerging problem of computer security, ensuring there is an annual
evaluation, an operational evaluation, of national laboratory computer
systems.
I want to commend the select committee on its analysis and its
identification of the serious problem of our failure as a Nation to
protect our national secrets. This amendment goes a long way toward
beginning the restoration of that security.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cox-Dicks amendment.
Working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and my other colleagues has exemplified the
bipartisan spirit and cooperation that the nation deserves in
formulating a sensible response to the security deficiencies at our
national laboratories.
The report that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) released last month was startling
in that it exposed 20 years of systemic failure in our
counterintelligence operation that spanned several administrations. Our
intelligence agencies failed to embrace new technologies and our
counterintelligence units failed to protect our secrets above all else.
Our gravest error has been the lack of an individual clearly
responsible for protecting our Nation's secrets.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will take us a long way in solving the
structural deficiencies in our counterintelligence operation and
improving security at the laboratories. It establishes a structural
chain of command with ultimate authority for protecting our secrets
with the Secretary of Energy and it gives the Secretary the tools to do
it, such as polygraph examination of scientists with access to the most
sensitive information and increased financial penalties for employees
who mishandle classified material.
We are fortunate that Energy Secretary Richardson has stepped forward
to assume that responsibility. This legislation provides him with the
authority and tools he needs to manage the job.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
legislation, but I do want to make two points. The first point I want
to make is I want to congratulate both the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
because this is not a new issue for the Committee on Armed Services. In
fact, during the last several years, it has been a tireless effort on
behalf of both the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) to address the very concerns that
were dealt with in great detail by the Cox committee.
I can remember having debates on this floor about the elimination,
largely pushed by our government, of COCOM and that process that
greatly troubled Members on both sides of the aisle. I can remember
amendments on past defense bills where we focused on the need to deal
with the proliferation of the exportation of computers and high
technology. So I want to give appropriate credit to the authorizing
committee for the leadership role it has played in the past on these
issues.
Secondarily, I want to make the statement that this amendment is not
the end. It is the beginning. This does not solve all of our problems.
Our problems are not just with the labs. In fact, many of the problems
at our labs are created by ourselves when in the 1993-94 time frame we
did away with the color coded classification status and we put a
moratorium on the FBI background checks. Those were things we did
ourselves. We should not have done it back then, and now we are trying
to right that wrong. But this does not solve all of our problems, and
we must commit ourselves to work on all of the recommendations
contained in the Cox committee report, which I had the pleasure of
serving on.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is that this is not just a problem
of our laboratories, it is a problem of our export policies, and this
is not to say that we want to stop our country from exporting abroad.
It is a case of providing a common sense approach, working with
American industry, to make sure we are competitive, but that we do not
open the door for all kinds of technologies to be sold to Tier III
nations or those nations that our State Department lists as terrorist
nations.
As I said when we released the Cox committee report, the basic
problem in my mind was the failure of our government to protect the
American people. I am sure we can blame China or we can blame
companies, but, in the end, our government has failed us. This takes
one step forward to try to begin to address those concerns.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and I
salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks) for taking the lead in working this amendment
out.
This amendment started as a bipartisan effort to address the
counterintelligence problem at DOE. It included the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson),
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and myself.
When our amendment was not made in order under the first rule, a
number of other amendments which really duplicate component parts of
this were made in order. They are still made in order under this rule,
which creates a problem. We were principally working as an alternative
to a moratorium proposed by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) in an
amendment which will later be brought up which would effectively, in my
opinion, ban the foreign visitors program at the national laboratories.
We tried to come up with constructive alternative to that, something
that would put in this counterintelligence where needed, strengthen
security, but not abolish the program.
After the rule was not made in order, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Cox) joined our effort to come up with a bipartisan compromise,
and he added provisions to the amendment that relate to export
controls. We have spent a couple of days trying to iron those out.
While there are still wrinkles, we have a bill that we think is an
acceptable piece of work and one we can support.
I still find problems with it and want to serve notice that we have
got work to do in conference. For example, just to take as one example,
section 1407. We direct the President to negotiate an agreement with
China that will include end use verification of any high performance
computers that are exported to China.

[[Page 12223]]

{time} 1430

I agree with that goal, but I am also realistic. I doubt any
sovereign nation which has not been defeated in war would agree to end
use verification without notice. I question the wisdom of legislating
unattainable objectives.
Nonetheless, this is better than the original draft. It is a good
compromise. We still have some work to do in conference. I am
particularly pleased with section 3109. This addresses the
controversial issue of foreign visitors to our labs.
We have crafted a bipartisan provision in the Cox/Dicks amendment
that will make the necessary security improvements to our labs without
crippling international programs that are critical to national
security, Nunn-Lugar, our lab-to-lab programs with the FSU, the former
Soviet Union, to make sure bomb grade plutonium and uranium will not
fall into the hands of countries which we do not want to have it, or
terrorist organizations; training the IAEA inspectors, things like that
that are constructive, useful, and can only take place at the labs
because that is where the expertise lies.
Our provision allows the program to stand but puts new restrictions
on it. The Ryun amendment in my opinion would require a 2-year
moratorium that effectively bans the program. We think we have a good
bipartisan solution here. We recommend the entire amendment.
We would also say to Members as other amendments come up that this
amendment really takes care of the Ryun amendment. It is a better
solution. This amendment makes unnecessary, I would suggest, the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) on
polygraph because we codify the polygraphs requirements the
administration is now putting in place.
This also makes unnecessary a number of other amendments because we
have subsumed them and included them in this particular amendment. It
is a good amendment. I recommend its adoption.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I
have been part of a group that has worked for several weeks on an
appropriate, constructive proposal to deal with some of the security
problems we have found.
I was concerned, frankly, that some of the ideas floating around here
were simply a reaction, without thinking and working through the
implications. I was also concerned that some of them focus on just
little pieces of the problem without looking at the broader problem.
I think this amendment is balanced. It does deal with the wide range
of security problems. It is commonsense, but yet it significantly
improves the security at our nuclear weapons labs and other places, but
it also allows important work to continue, work that is in our national
interest. It does not cut off our nose to spite our face.
I think the other key point to be made is this is not the complete
response. I agree completely with what the gentleman from California
(Chairman Cox) has said, that we have more work to do. The Cox
committee said, for example, we need to look at whether the Department
of Energy is even equipped to handle the Department of Energy's nuclear
weapons complex. GAO has said the same thing. We have got more work to
do to get to the bottom of the problems which arose here.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, the task the Select Committee on the People's Republic
of China was given was to investigate breaches in national security,
and it was a difficult one. Espionage charges against certain spies or
foreign agents was expected to emanate from this investigation. A lot
of the information that was alluded to was put in parenthesis to
indicate that further investigations were ongoing and that the
administration did not wish to have all of this information disclosed
at this time.
There were a few charges, most of them previously noted, some
including convictions and many others are still under investigation.
It described, I think, more importantly the general technique used by
the People's Republic of China. There was detailed discussion regarding
theft of certain classified information in the report. It described the
actions of certain U.S. satellite manufacturers which served to
transfer technology relevant to nuclear missile development. It
highlighted the failures of the U.S. security system to protect these
important nuclear secrets.
I think that all of these are important disclosures on how these
breaches of national security occurred. I think the committee needs to
be applauded for pointing this out and bringing it to the attention of
the Congress of the United States.
I rise today, however, to caution my colleagues on the implementation
of these concerns we have heard articulated today, that we do not
indirectly or maybe purposefully encourage race-baiting our loyal
American citizens who are following the law, making important
contributions in our nuclear labs and in other sensitive areas in
private industry, making important, notable achievements to our
scientific knowledge and our database, to our country; and that these
individuals, if they are Chinese or Asians generally, are not singled
out for special considerations, for special testing, for security
investigations, perhaps even having their security clearances pulled
while ongoing further investigations happen.
I think it is important for people not to say, we have three volumes
of reports and it is significant, and rely on the newspaper's account.
I call to the attention of this body three pages at least, page 91,
pages 40, 41, and page 2, and commend this Congress to read it.
Volume I, Page 91 is particularly disconcerting to most of us who are
concerned about the potential of scapegoating loyal Americans. Page 91
says, ``The PRC employs various approaches to coop U.S. scientists to
obtain classified information. These approaches include appealing to
common ethnic heritage, arranging visits to ancestral homes and
relatives, paying for trips and travel to the PRC, flattering the
guest's knowledge and intelligence, holding elaborate banquets to honor
these guests, and doggedly peppering U.S. scientists with technical
questions.''
On page 40, Mr. Chairman, it says ``U.S. scientists who are overseas
in the PRC are prime targets for approaches by professional and
nonprofessional PRC organizations who would like to coopt them. Select
committees have received information about Chinese American scientists
from the U.S. nuclear design labs being identified in this manner.''
Page 41 says, ``The number of PRC nationals attending educational
institutions in the U.S. presents another opportunity for the PRC to
collect sensitive technology. It is estimated that at any given time,
there are over 100,000 PRC nationals who are attending U.S.
universities who have remained in the U.S. after graduating.''
It goes on further to say, ``The Select Committee judges that the PRC
is increasingly looking to PRC scholars who remain in the U.S. as
assets who have developed a network of personal contacts that can be
helpful to the PRC.''
I submit that all of this suggestive language enlarges the reach of
the investigation and interjects doubt and suspicion regarding all of
the Chinese American citizens who are here who are in fact loyal
American citizens.
I caution this Congress to pay attention to the potential harm this
kind of allegation can bring to this large, loyal segment of our
American community.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay), the House majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment brought
to us by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), and I congratulate the two of them for an
outstanding job and a great service to the

[[Page 12224]]

American people. Also I commend their committee. The American people
owe them a great deal of praise for the work they have done.
American national security has been squandered for too long. It is
time for this Congress to correct that problem. The revelations in the
Cox report could not be more startling. The People's Republic of China
orchestrated a multifaceted cabal of spies to methodically steal all of
America's nuclear secrets. This theft by the Communist Chinese was so
complete that the bipartisan Committee on National Security has
concluded that the PRC's nuclear weapons design is now on a par with
our own.''
I know the press is trying to sweep this story under the rug. The
fiasco exposed in the Cox report is being painted as simply another
innocent and unavoidable blunder where no one is to blame. In other
words, it is no big deal. But considering the military ambitiousness of
Red China, there can be no doubt that this is only the tip of the
iceberg. They are going full steam ahead with their nuclear weapons
program, and using our technology to build it.
Because of gross negligence at the White House, future PRC warheads
aimed at the United States will largely be the product of American
expertise. Predictably, the Clinton administration is trying to ride
out this storm, like it always does. The difference is this tempest
puts our whole Nation at risk. There can be no compromises when the
security of America is at stake. We have to shore up security and
counterintelligence failures, and begin a serious battle against
espionage.
This amendment does that by establishing new procedures to combat the
vulnerability of classified technology. It also requires the President
to submit detailed reports to Congress on security matters concerning
our arsenals in Red China.
This amendment is only the beginning. Much more must be done, because
there are consequences to the President's careless disregard to protect
classified information, and it is time we tackle that problem.
Americans can be reassured, and China should know that this issue will
not fade away. This is just the first step.
China must not mistake the weakness of our President for the weakness
of the American people. Congress must be strong where the
administration has been weak. We need to flex our muscles and let the
world know that America takes its national security seriously.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam
(Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend both the
chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) on this report, and
for working diligently on the issues of security presented by the
recent situation that we face at the Department of Energy. I want to
particularly thank them for the deliberate nature in which they
addressed these issues, and also for not politicizing it, unlike some
people who have come to the floor.
In times of concern over national security, we must remind ourselves
that sparing no effort to ensure our national security should not be at
the expense of our basic beliefs about the civil rights of our people
as a whole, as members of ethnic groups, and as individuals. In times
of heightened concern about the national security, it is sometimes all
too easy to conclude that there may be groups of people among us who
are contributing to our national insecurity.
The most tragic example in American history was the treatment of
Japanese Americans during World War II, but in recent memory we have
stigmatized Arab Americans, especially in the immediate reaction to the
Oklahoma bombing.
Of course, we have many allegations of racial and ethnic profiling in
many communities around the country. It is vitally important to our
national security to continue to ensure the security of our military
secrets, but also our civil rights. We should spare no effort to ensure
that no one is profiled or stigmatized or asked additional questions or
given special treatment or subjected to lie detector tests because of
their ethnic background.
We must stand firmly for the national security of our military
knowledge and our military technology, but equally firm for civil
rights and fair treatment, which marks our society as unique in the
world.
I wish to express my concern that Asian-Pacific Americans are not
placed under a cloud of suspicion, and that all of the procedures being
suggested today, as I know they have by both the gentleman from
California (Chairman Cox) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks),that every one be examined for any potential
problems. Let us make sure that all our security concerns really deal
only with security concerns.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the Cox/Dicks
amendment, which implements key recommendations of the Select Committee
on the U.S. National Security amd Military/Commercial Concerns for the
People's Republic of China.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for working
with our Committee on International Relations to modify many of those
provisions in his amendment that fall within our committee's
jurisdiction. I am both gratified and saddened by the success of the
Select Committee.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), and their colleagues on the Select Committee,
including the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), one of the
subcommittee members, have provided an outstanding service by exposing
not only Chinese espionage against the crown jewels of our defense
establishment, but in bringing to light the failure of the Clinton
administration to safeguard our military secrets and in putting trade
and commerce ahead of our national security.
The advances in nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles that China
will reap from their acquisition of American science and technology
directly undermine the fundamental national security of our Nation.

{time} 1445

The impact of the loss of these military-related secrets to the
national interests of our Nation and to peace and stability of Asia,
though, is incalculable.
In addition, we must be greatly concerned about the prospects of
Chinese proliferation of stolen American nuclear and missile secrets to
rogue regimes and others in the Middle East and in South Asia.
Beijing's aggressive actions have in fact proven what many have long
suspected: that the Chinese view our Nation, not as a strategic
partner, but as a chief strategic obstacle to its own geopolitical
ambitions.
The continued assertion by this administration that the United States
and China are strategic partners is naive and misguided and certainly
cannot be found in Chinese actions and policies to date.
Regrettably, the Clinton administration's response to this threat to
our national interest is at best anemic. The Congress has a great deal
to do to rectify the problems that have properly been identified by the
Cox committee.
This legislative package is the sound first step in addressing those
problems. Our Committee on International Relations stands committed to
working with the Committee on Armed Services in fully investigating
these issues and in implementing the Cox committee's recommendations.
The Committee on International Relations has already held two
hearings to hear testimony from the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox)
and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and we have already
acted on one of the select committee's recommendations. That provision
is included in the

[[Page 12225]]

measure that we will be taking up next week, H.R. 973, the Security
Assistance Act of 1999. That bill includes a provision to impose higher
civil and criminal penalties against companies which violate our export
laws.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to support the Cox-
Dicks report.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to take the occasion of the debate
on the report, on the Cox-Dicks report, to comment on comments made by
our colleagues, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the
gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) regarding the issue of sensitivity
on the issue of our Asian-American community.
But sensitivity is not really enough of a word. We certainly have to
be sensitive as we go forward that the FBI in its investigations does
not look into the background of anyone because of their ethnic
background or their surname. Certainly they must be sensitive, but we
have to make certain that one of the casualties of this investigation
is not the good reputations of the people who have been so important to
our national security--people from our Asian-American community, with
their brilliance, with their patriotism, with their dedication.
I hope that as we go forward with all of these amendments and all of
the investigations that will continue, that we do not shed a light of
suspicion on individuals or companies or concerns in America. I happen
to be blessed in my district with a large Asian-American population,
mostly Chinese American. Many of those families have been there longer
than my own. They have been there for many generations. Some have been
there for only many days. But all of them love America.
They came here for a reason. We are the freest country in the world,
and we cannot let this espionage investigation jeopardize that. Our
country's attitude toward people and their rights cannot be a casualty
of this investigation. I am particularly concerned, as one who has
never pulled a punch in criticizing China and its activities in terms
of human rights, proliferation and trade. I want to say here
unequivocally that the jeopardizing of our rights in this country would
be a more destructive consequence than any espionage we can find in
this investigation.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this amendment. But I
really have real concerns when there are those who would use national
security to achieve partisan political advantage. However, in their
zealous effort to make this a partisan political issue, even though it
goes back 2 decades and even though it includes efforts during
Republican administrations to have some turn us back to the Stone Age.
There was an original amendment which would have restricted the
export of your basic laptop computer to China. That simply is not
reality.
We need to proceed as we move on beyond this amendment cautiously
with this debate. This near faux pax would have been disastrous for
American industry while having no impact on China. We need to carefully
consider how to best address our national security while simultaneously
taking into consideration the reality of today's global marketplace,
and we need to understand that America does not have a monopoly on
advanced technology.
Now, the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, of
which I am the ranking Democrat, has jurisdiction over the Nation's
export control policies. I am disconcerted that we have not had an
opportunity to consider the proposals contained in the amendment before
us in the subcommittee or in the full committee.
So we look forward to working on those issues in the days ahead. But
the issues raised in the Cox-Dicks report are not partisan issues.
Democrats and Republicans are equally concerned about our national
security.
So let us proceed with caution and address the issues raised by the
report in a responsible manner, with the full input of the relevant
committees, industries, and government agencies. Let us not unfairly
stigmatize Americans of Asian descent who have contributed to the
greatness of this country.
I believe that everyone in this Chamber wants to ensure the national
security of the United States. But we also have to do it in a way that
keeps the tip of the iceberg in terms of America's technology away from
those others who may not have it in the global marketplace, but make
sure we are competitive in all other respects. No one has a cornerstone
on national security interest in this Chamber.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member of the
Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some of the debate here.
Some try to make it seem that this is a Clinton-era problem. It is hard
to make that argument with problems that date back to 1982. Some of the
Members who spoke on the floor said, oh, this is just because we lost
COCOM. COCOM left us. We never lost it. They left us once the Soviet
Union fell apart.
We cannot get our allies to agree to fully significant controls. The
Bush administration could not save it, and the Clinton administration
could not save it. We have to deal with that reality, or we will take
actions here that will only injure American dominance in these high-
tech areas.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to, just as we end this debate, again
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and his staff for the
cooperation we have had in drafting this amendment. I think this
amendment will go a long ways to dealing with the security problems at
our national labs.
I can tell my colleagues, Secretary Bill Richardson, Ed Curran, one
of our finest FBI leaders in this country, are committed to finally
getting this problem cured and resolved. This is the heart and soul of
this amendment. It is the heart and soul of our report.
I want to thank all of my colleagues, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal- Allard) for their leadership
on the committee.
We had a good team, and the Republicans had a good team. Let us have
an overwhelming vote for this Cox-Dicks amendment.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cox-
Dicks amendment. It is one thing to spin that administration to
administration had problems; it is another thing for the President of
the United States to know about it, be briefed in 1996, and do nothing.
That is what in my opinion is criminal.
Let me give my colleagues a couple of ideas. I encourage all of my
colleagues to go and get the classified brief. We had an asset, I
cannot tell my colleagues what it is on the floor. We were building a
countermeasure for that asset. It would not have worked. We got the
asset. It not only saved the billion dollars, now we can build it.
Secondly, we have an asset against our fighter pilots. Ninety percent
of the time, both in the intercept and in the engagement, our pilots
die. We have that asset. It also helps us design what we need into the
joint strike fighter, what we do into the F-22.
Doing the opposite things gives the Chinese, not only saving billions
of dollars for a W-88 warhead and our technology, but it allows them to
be more dangerous in the weapons that they could put at the United
States. So this Cox-Dicks amendment is very very important. It is a
good first step.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San
Diego, California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the two authors of the
report along with all the committee members who participated in it.

[[Page 12226]]

This amendment is very strong in a couple of ways. It gives at least
a temporary review to the Department of Defense for militarily critical
technology that could be sent to potential adversaries. That is a very
important thing.
It also tries to reinstate a structure, a multilateral structure
where we can persuade our friends, other nations, our allies to join
with us in restricting militarily critical technology from going to
potential enemies.
Now, let me just say there is unfinished business in this report and
in this amendment. After this thing passes, we will still have
supercomputers going to China where we have no end use verification. We
will still be sending American satellites to China for launch by their
Long March rockets which also is a mainstay of their nuclear and
strategic assets.
We will still, after a fairly short moratorium, be allowing visits to
the 65 scientists who came from Algeria, Cuba, Libya, Iran, and Iraq
into our national weapons labs.
There is unfinished business. I look forward to voting for this
amendment and moving ahead to complete the job.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on each
side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has 1 minute
remaining and the right to close.
Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like, as essentially all of the other speakers have done thus
far, once again to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the
ranking member on the select committee, and thank all of the chairmen
and ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction who have worked
with us on this amendment.
This amendment does not cover many of the important topics of our
recommendations. Some of the debate here has focused on export controls
on computers. There is nothing about export controls on computers in
this amendment.
It is also important to recognize that hard work remains ahead for
our standing committees. I think that the ranking member and I will be
testifying before several of them to move this legislation along.
Lastly, some mention has been made on the floor about racial and
ethnic profiling by the Communist Party of China. The CCP ethnic and
racial profiling that is detailed in our report is a significant
distinction between the Communist Party and America.
In this country, the liberty and dignity of the individual are
paramount. We do not think of people as members of groups or
essentially tools of the State. That is why what we are investing in
our armed services, in our intelligence community, and our national
laboratories is so important. It is for the pursuit of freedom, not
just for Americans, but for people around the world. That is ultimately
the purpose to which this amendment is directed. I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Select Committee
on China, I rise in support of the Dicks/Cox amendment to the
Department of Defense Authorization bill.
Chairman Cox and Ranking Member Norm Dicks have crafted a
responsible, bi-partisan amendment that addresses many of the problems
the Select Committee found during its six month investigation.
This amendment implements most of the President's recommendations for
tightening security at our national labs, including establishing an
independent Office of Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy
with direct line to the Secretary of Energy. It requires polygraphing
of all Department of Energy lab employees who have access to sensitive
nuclear information, and increases the civil and criminal penalties for
mishandling of classified information. The amendment also tightens the
security of the computer system at the national labs.
In addition, the amendment places a temporary moratorium on foreign
visitors from sensitive countries to our national labs until these
strong security and counter-intelligence measures are in place. It also
requires, the Department of Energy to submit a comprehensive annual
report to Congress on security and counterintelligence at all DOE
defense facilities to ensure that these measures are indeed protecting
our national security.
In the area of technology exports, the amendment implements many of
the Select Committee's recommendations, including requiring a
comprehensive report on the adequacy of current export controls in
preventing the loss of militarily significant technology to China. It
also requires a report on the effect of High Performance Computers sold
to China, and requires that the President negotiate with China to
ensure that the computers we export to them are used for their stated
purpose.
Another area that the committee investigated was the adequacy of U.S.
policies regarding security at Chinese satellite launch sides.
Unfortunately, what we found was that there are numerous problems with
the security personnel hired by U.S. satellite companies. These
include, guards sleeping on the job, an insufficient number of security
personnel at launch site, and guards reporting to work under the
influence of alcohol. The committee also found numerous deficiencies in
the Defense Department's monitoring an oversight of satellite launches
in China.
Therefore, I am pleased that the Dicks/Cox amendment includes
provisions to address these problems, such as mandating new minimum
standards for security guards on satellite launch campaigns, requiring
the Department of Defense to develop technology transfer control plans
and requiring that the Department of Defense contract the guard force
for security at the launch sites. Finally, the amendment ensures that
the Defense Department monitors assigned to foreign launches have the
adequate training and support to properly execute their jobs.
In closing, I'd like to echo the statements of my colleagues on the
Select Committee. Many of the findings contained in the Cox Committee
report are indeed grave. This responsible amendment is an important
first step towards addressing these findings and ensuring that our
national security is protected. For that reason, I hope my colleagues
in Congress will vote in favor of this important, bipartisan amendment.

{time} 1500

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 428,
noes 0, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 180]

AYES--428

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
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
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
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
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr

[[Page 12227]]

Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
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)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
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
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
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
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Brown (CA)
Hinchey
Lucas (OK)
Luther
McHugh
Waters

{time} 1521

Mr. METCALF changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nethercutt, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1401) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________

REPORT ON H.R. 2084, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS, 2000

Mr. WOLF, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 106-180) on the bill (H.R. 2084) making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other
purposes, which was referred to the Union Calendar and ordered to be
printed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXI, all points
of order are reserved.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 200 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1401.

{time} 1522

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1401) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000
and 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001,
and for other purposes, with Mr. Nethercutt in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) printed in the
Congressional Record of June 8, 1999, had been disposed of.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not be offered.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Costello

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Costello:
At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 3167. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE
SAFEGUARDING AND SECURITY OF RESTRICTED DATA.

(a) In General.--Chapter 18 of title I of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.) is amended by inserting
after section 234A the following new section:
``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of
Department of Energy Regulations Regarding Security of
Classified or Sensitive Information or Data.--
``a. Any person who has entered into a contract or
agreement with the Department of Energy, or a subcontract or
subagreement thereto, and who violates (or whose employee
violates) any applicable rule, regulation, or order
prescribed or otherwise issued by the Secretary pursuant to
this Act relating to the safeguarding or security of
Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive information
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $100,000
for each such violation.
``b. The Secretary shall include in each contract with a
contractor of the Department provisions which provide an
appropriate reduction in the fees or amounts paid to the
contractor under the contract in the event of a violation by
the contractor or contractor employee of any rule,
regulation, or order relating to the safeguarding or security
of Restricted Data or other classified or sensitive
information. The provisions shall specify various degrees of
violations and the amount of the reduction attributable to
each degree of violation.
``c. The powers and limitations applicable to the
assessment of civil penalties under section 234A, except for
subsection d. of that section, shall apply to the assessment
of civil penalties under this section.''.
(b) Clarifying Amendment.--The section heading of section
234A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2282a) is amended by inserting
``Safety'' before ``Regulations''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for that Act
is amended by inserting after the item relating to section
234 the following new items:

``Sec. 234A. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of
Energy Safety Regulations.
``Sec. 234B. Civil Monetary Penalties for Violations of Department of
Energy Regulations Regarding Security of Classified or
Sensitive Information or Data.''.

[[Page 12228]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello) and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee on Rules for making
my amendment in order. I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their amendment.
However, I believe there is a loophole in their amendment.
The Cox-Dicks amendment does not cover all contractors and it does
not cover not-for-profit contractors. My amendment addresses this
problem by ensuring that any lab contractor who violates rules relating
to the safeguarding and security of sensitive information or data will
be held accountable.
My amendment to the Atomic Energy Act gives the Secretary of Energy
the discretion to decide when and how the fines for national security
breaches would be imposed. If the breach of national security is
unintentional and without consequence, the Secretary could choose to
impose a small fine or waive the fine and issue a warning instead.
The Act also gives the Secretary the flexibility to promulgate a
different rule from the collection of fees for not-for-profit
contractors. My amendment has not removed any of the flexibility
afforded the Secretary in the Atomic Energy Act. Instead, I have given
the Secretary the discretion to impose fines on all liable contractors.
When a contractor employee knowingly, willfully, or repeatedly breaks
the rules, the contractor should be held accountable and not
automatically exempted.
Last month when I offered this amendment in the full Committee on
Science to H.R. 1656, the DOE authorization bill, it passed
unanimously.
When Secretary Richardson testified before the Committee on Science
last month, he agreed with me that penalties should be imposed for
national security infractions for all lab contractors, including not-
for-profit contractors.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It is to the point. It
levels the playing field and, in my opinion, provides accountability to
anyone working at any of our labs throughout the United States, be they
for-profit or not-for-profit contractors.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COSTELLO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I certainly support the intent of this amendment. It is a good
amendment. There is some language that I would like to work with the
gentleman from Illinois prior to going to conference. There are some
concerns regarding fines and how it affects the taxpayers of California
because the University of California and other public institutions.
I would like the assurance of the gentleman that we will work
together to come to some agreeable language that will work for everyone
concerned.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to
work with the gentleman. And I not only have had conversations with him
concerning this issue, but also the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher) who I would like to yield to now to express some concerns, as
well.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy
with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
As I understood it, the Costello amendment would subject Department
of Energy laboratory contractors to financial penalties for violations
of security procedures. I agree with my colleague that laboratory
contractors must be held accountable for security lapses by their
employees. Such accountability is necessary if we are to ensure that
the security procedures that we put in place are properly administered.
Protecting our Nation's secrets must be a top priority of our national
laboratories. I am pleased that the House just voted to adopt the Cox-
Dicks amendment that enhances security at the labs.
I am concerned, however, that the amendment of the gentleman makes no
distinction between laboratory contractors that are for-profit
organizations and those that are not-for-profit organizations.

{time} 1530

There are key differences between how these two types of
organizations function. For example, subjecting the University of
California, which is a public institution, to the same fines and
penalties as a for-profit corporation would potentially penalize all of
the tax-paying residents of the State of California for the operations
of a Federal facility in pursuit of a national mission. I believe that
in leveling civil penalties against these contractors, we must account
for the differences inherent in their organizations. I am hopeful that
this legislation moves forward and as it moves forward we can continue
to work together to address concerns about applying civil penalties
against not-for-profit laboratory contractors.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentlewoman's comments and concerns. I assure her, as I do my other
friend from California and the California delegation, that I intend to
work with them to address this issue in conference. The goal of my
amendment is to create a level playing field for both for- and not-for-
profit contractors. The goal in our Committee on Science, of course,
was to try and level the playing field and as we move this legislation
forward and hopefully if this amendment is adopted by the committee, we
will work in conference to address the issues that you have raised
here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding me this time. I rise to support the legislation. I
believe that we have a challenge to promote good scientific research,
to do it in a manner that includes many of our citizens here in the
United States, to reflect the diversity of this Nation, to promote
collaboration but also to secure the important security issues of this
country.
With that, I would simply ask, since I happen to come from a
community that has a great emphasis on scientific research, NASA is
located in my area, many of my universities like the University of
Houston, Texas Southern University, Rice University and many others who
I have not called their names, collaborate with the Department of
Energy and other such entities such as the Department of Defense. I
would simply like to yield to the gentleman to inquire whether his
amendment would in any way inhibit or put a particular hardship on the
very good research that many of our not-for-profit, nonprofit
institutions are engaged in.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. COSTELLO. I would say to the gentlewoman that the intent of the
amendment is not to penalize in any way any university in the State of
Texas or for that matter in my State of Illinois that are involved in
research at our national labs. But it is intended to give the Secretary
of Energy the ability to penalize any not-for-profit corporation that
is doing work for our labs that repeatedly and intentionally violates
the security regulations and rules that we have adopted. So I would
assure her as I have the members of the California delegation that we
will work in conference to address the issue.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the
gentleman and particularly for the fact that he has given this issue
over to the Secretary of Energy in his wisdom and discretion, I think
that is very important. I thank the gentleman very much for his
amendment. I look forward to supporting this amendment.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).

[[Page 12229]]

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman for
his amendment. It is a good one. As the chairman I am prepared to
accept it.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking Democrat on the
committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding me this time. We have examined the amendment on this side, we
fully understand it and find it acceptable.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the House adopt my amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hunter:
At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 3167. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY COUNTERINTELLIGENCE POLYGRAPH
PROGRAM.

(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Energy, acting
through the Director of the Office of Counterintelligence of
the Department of Energy, shall carry out a
counterintelligence polygraph program for the defense-related
activities of the Department. The counterintelligence
polygraph program shall consist of the administration of
counterintelligence polygraph examinations to each covered
person who has access to high-risk programs or information.
(b) Covered Persons.--For purposes of this section, a
covered person is one of the following:
(1) An officer or employee of the Department.
(2) An expert or consultant under contract to the
Department.
(3) An officer or employee of any contractor of the
Department.
(c) High-Risk Programs or Information.--For purposes of
this section, high-risk programs or information are any of
the following:
(1) The programs identified as high risk in the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary and known as--
(A) Special Access Programs;
(B) Personnel Security And Assurance Programs; and
(C) Personnel Assurance Programs.
(2) The information identified as high risk in the
regulations prescribed by the Secretary and known as
Sensitive Compartmented Information.
(d) Initial Testing and Consent.--The Secretary may not
permit a covered person to have any access to any high-risk
program or information unless that person first undergoes a
counterintelligence polygraph examination and consents in a
signed writing to the counterintelligence polygraph
examinations required by this section.
(e) Additional Testing.--The Secretary may not permit a
covered person to have continued access to any high-risk
program or information unless that person undergoes a
counterintelligence polygraph examination--
(1) not less frequently than every five years; and
(2) at any time at the direction of the Director of the
Office of Counterintelligence.
(f) Counterintelligence Polygraph Examination.--For
purposes of this section, the term ``counterintelligence
polygraph examination'' means a polygraph examination using
questions reasonably calculated to obtain counterintelligence
information, including questions relating to espionage,
sabotage, unauthorized disclosure of classified information,
and unauthorized contact with foreign nationals.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment expands and I think makes somewhat more concise the
polygraph provision in the umbrella Cox-Dicks amendment that was just
passed. We are all concerned obviously with the losses that have been
categorized before us throughout the media, that have been the subject
of this major piece of legislation, and one answer to that, of course,
is to do more polygraphs, do them on a regular basis. In looking at the
language that was proposed by the special committee, that language
directs itself to what are known as special access programs. What my
amendment does is expand that to include people who have access to
nuclear weapons design, which is the very subject of the technology
that was stolen, and fissile material, that is nuclear weapons
material. So people who have access in those very important areas are
similarly subjected to polygraphs.
The other aspect of our amendment is that the amendment also
designates that these polygraphs should be given every 5 years, no less
than every 5 years, which we think is a reasonable rate. That is the
difference.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I discussed this amendment with the offeror of the amendment,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). While he assured me that
this requirement of the counterintelligence polygraph would be
universal in the sense that it would apply to all employees that fit
into the category of being an employee of a high-risk program in the
Department of Energy, I just wanted to confirm with the gentleman from
California (Mr. Hunter) at this point if that is the real intent and
meaning of this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I would say to my colleague, yes, that is the intent of
the amendment and the amendment very clearly states that the
counterintelligence polygraph program shall be administered to each
covered person who has access to these high-risk programs. And those
high-risk programs are, of course, the nuclear weapons design programs,
special access programs, and access to the material that we make
nuclear weapons out of. Very clearly this is totally ethnic neutral, it
is race neutral, it has no reference to the backgrounds of these
people. If you qualify and are given a clearance under one of these
high-risk programs, you have to take the polygraph test. So it is very
fairly in this particular amendment, very fairly delineated to apply to
all people who have to get those particular clearances.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I have a further question of my
colleague. Who is to manage the polygraph program? Who is to design it?
And how is it to be applied to these employees in these high-risk
programs? Whose guidance will the Department of Energy be following?
The CIA, the FBI or exactly who?
Mr. HUNTER. No, the director of the Office of Counterintelligence of
the Department of Energy shall administer this program for the
Secretary of Energy.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Now, the polygraph would be directed
specifically to questions referring to leaks of sensitive information
and not those things that refer to the privacy of the individuals or
their associations in private life outside the context of the
laboratory, or will it go into matters of their social behavior, their
family relationships with other persons who may not be employed in the
labs? How extensive is this polygraph going to be in its search for
information which would be critical to the national security of these
laboratories?
Mr. HUNTER. Of course, there is a certain discipline and a certain
structure to polygraphs that are directed to people who have access to
highly secret material. And, of course, one very important point, and I
know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is concerned about this,
too, is that the polygraph and the polygraph examination and the people
who undertake it do so with a high degree of integrity, that is, that
they limit it to intelligence areas that will give them information,
only information as to whether or not the subjects may have been
subject to a security breach. And, secondly, that the polygraph is
given in a

[[Page 12230]]

very professional manner and is given by very professional people with
a high degree of integrity. I know that is a concern, and I think that
is something that we simply have to monitor very closely. But again the
Secretary of Energy is charged with this program. He is charged with it
and he carries it out through his director of the Office of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy. So you have the
President's Cabinet member overseeing this particular program. I think
we should pay a great deal of attention to make sure that it is
administered with a high degree of integrity but I think we can achieve
that.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. A question by one of our colleagues, who
unfortunately could not be here because there is another pressing
meeting, raises the point of many of these employees are not fully
conversant in English. They are limited English speakers. Many of them
are highly skilled, very, very important technical scientists in this
field. Is the polygraph examination going to be given in different
languages so that the failure of communication in English is not going
to tag this individual as being a risk because they could not relate to
the types of questions that are coming at them in the English language
nor could they respond in English in an adequate way?
Mr. HUNTER. First, I think obviously that is a very important part of
the integrity of the polygraph examination. It has to be given in a way
that is fully communicated to the person who is the subject of the
examination and once again that is a part of the professionalism of the
examination. Of course if you have a person who does not communicate
fully in English, it must be communicated in the language that they are
conversant with. We will certainly expect that that is the way that it
would be administered. I think we can have conversations with the
Secretary of Energy to make sure that that occurs.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Does the amendment in any way set down the
monitoring mechanism so that we can be assured that the responses that
you have given to my inquiries will actually be the process followed by
the Department of Energy?
Mr. HUNTER. The answer to that is I would say to my colleague that
giving polygraph tests is a science that has been built up over the
years. The Department of Energy, because this is such an important
area, and the gentleman from Indiana has mentioned this, we have had
actual failures of polygraph in the past who register a positive when
in fact it should have, but because this is such a critical area, I
think we can expect the Secretary of Energy to adopt, A, the highest
standards, and, B, use the best trained professionals to do this,
because this is so serious. And I think we should ensure that that
occurs, but I think we can.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Hawaii for
yielding me this time. I rise not in opposition at all to the author of
the amendment but to commend him especially for two areas that he has
covered in this amendment. First of all, those individuals covered and
also how often this is administered and to what programs are
administered. I think the gentleman has done a thorough job. My
concerns and caveats come to who is administering this and how they
administer it in a professional, scientific way with thorough analysis
and comprehensive integrity.
The Washington Post had an interesting story on this several weeks
ago looking at the credibility of polygraphs, about the validity of the
system, the analysis of answers using output of flawed polygraphs, the
issue of false positives. What we want to do, I think, and the
gentleman from California very much wants to do this, too, and
accomplish this, is establish uniform standards.

{time} 1545

Now I do not know that we should contract these out. Maybe the FBI
has the ultimate science and professionalism and integrity. We have
seen that we have had some problems in contracting this out in the
past, that there have been some unreliable polygraphs produced; and I
want to work with the gentleman in conference to make sure that not
only have we got the parts right that he has done such an effective job
on who is covered, how often, what special access programs are covered,
but who administers this, and should we allow a contracting out of
this.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to
my friend he has raised excellent questions, that this is a subject
that we need to sit down and discuss with the Secretary of Energy, and
I would say that I can assure him that I will ask our chairman, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), because this is a very
important area to him also, to participate with us and with the
gentleman and with the Secretary of Energy and have some discussions
during the conference to make sure that we have two things: the highest
professionalism, and, No. 2, the best standards.
If those best standards fall in the area of government-given
polygraphs, and perhaps they are not in the private sector, then let us
go with the best standards if they are in the government. If the best
standards and the best science has been developed on the outside, let
us use that capability, but certainly let us make sure we have the
best.
Mr. ROEMER. As long as the gentleman says the best standards are in
the private sector and everybody agrees on that, that we do not then
have this jumping back and forth between established best standards for
one and their administering 50 or 60 percent of the polygraphs and the
FBI or somebody else is doing the remaining 40 percent, and we know
there is a discrepancy between or differences between the
administration of those tests. I think it is very important that we
establish a uniform standard of policy here as to who is administering
it, and if it is the FBI, maybe we do not contract out. If the
established science is in the private sector, then that is the uniform
standard that we establish, and I look forward to working with the
gentleman. I am not going to oppose this amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman, and let me just respond that I
will work also to see that we have uniformity. I think that is a key.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Part A amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Roemer:
At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 3167. REPORT ON COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY
PRACTICES AT NATIONAL LABORATORIES.

(a) In General.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Congress a report for
the preceding year on counterintelligence and security
practices at the facilities of the national laboratories
(whether or not classified activities are carried out at the
facility).
(b) Content of Report.--The report shall include, with
respect to each national laboratory, the following:
(1) The number of full-time counterintelligence and
security professionals employed.
(2) A description of the counterintelligence and security
training courses conducted and, for each such course, any
requirement that employees successfully complete that course.
(3) A description of each contract awarded that provides an
incentive for the effective performance of
counterintelligence or security activities.
(4) A description of the services provided by the employee
assistance programs.
(5) A description of any requirement that an employee
report the foreign travel of that employee (whether or not
the travel was for official business).
(6) A description of any visit by the Secretary or by the
Deputy Secretary of Energy, a purpose of which was to
emphasize to employees the need for effective
counterintelligence and seurity practices.

[[Page 12231]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have been a member of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence since the beginning of this Congress. I have been
especially interested in the issues surrounding the compromise of
nuclear weapons design information and the security and
counterintelligence programs at the national laboratories. I do not
believe that all of the facts surrounding what happened and how it
happened with respect to the compromise of sensitive weapons
information to the PRC have yet been sorted out.
Problems clearly existed for 2 decades, and for reasons that are
still inexplicable, very little appears to have been done on a
systematic basis until the press reports, the promulgation of
Presidential Decision Directive 61. While I commend Director Freeh and
the Director of Central Intelligence Tenet for pushing PDD 61, and
Secretary Richardson for his commitment to fully implement
counterintelligence and security reforms, and just recently to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Dicks) for their amendment today, I am not yet convinced all
specific reforms have been considered addressing the culture and
leadership between our national labs and the Department of Energy.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that counterintelligence and security
reforms will only succeed if good counterintelligence and security
practices become ingrained, ingrained in the daily business of those
who have the duty to protect national security information and if there
is continued high-level attention being made to security and
counterintelligence discipline from the leadership and the national
security agencies of the United States Congress. The keys, Mr.
Chairman, are ingrained in the daily business, continued high-level
attention, and disciplined leadership and direct communication between
DOE and their employees and the United States Congress.
I have thus proposed in this amendment that the Secretary of Energy
provide the Congress with a report each year on certain matters related
to counterintelligence and security that would give one indication that
there is keen attention and involved leadership to security and
counterintelligence practices at the national laboratories. I would
expect the report to be sent each year to the Armed Services and
Intelligence Committees of the Congress with classified attachments, if
necessary. There were three reports in the Cox and Dicks amendment just
voted on. This amendment does not produce any kind of duplication
between those other reports. I would hope that the committees would
then use the report as one springboard for oversight.
Again, I believe Congress must send the strongest constructive
message about counterintelligence and security, and the message must be
sustained over the long term, not just in the heat of revelations about
espionage with sufficient appropriations from our oversight committees
to ensure that the job gets done.
I would like to thank the House committee staff on intelligence,
current members of the intelligence and counterintelligence communities
and former members, such as the Director of Intelligence Jim Woolsey
and experts on counterintelligence matters such as Paul Rudman and John
Feron for their help in putting this amendment together.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) who
has also been helpful in putting together the bipartisan amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding, and I do rise in strong support of his amendment, of which I
am a cosponsor, which would require the Secretary of Energy to report
to Congress annually regarding the counterintelligence and security
practices at our national laboratories.
I will not belabor this too much, because a lot of what I would say
would be repetitious of what the gentleman from Indiana has already
stated; but as a member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, I do have a distinct interest, as I think we all do, but
perhaps it is a little more focused on the intelligence committee in
safeguarding our national labs, especially considering the recent
release of the details of the Cox-Dicks report regarding United States
national security and the People's Republic of China.
The facts obviously are still emerging, the consequences of that are
still emerging, and efforts are being made to address it, but I think
we have come to the conclusion that something needs to be done on a
longer term regular basis, if my colleagues will, is what this
amendment is all about, requiring the Secretary of Energy to issue an
annual report on certain matters related to counterintelligence and
security, in those particular labs.
So I am strongly supportive of this. I think we need to remain ever
vigilant on this. We need to learn from the past, and we need to make
sure that whatever it is that we do to cure these things will be
continued into the future, and in my judgment some sort of annual
review is exactly what is needed, and so for that reason I strongly
support this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Delaware for
his strong bipartisan support for the amendment, and again come back to
the many hearings and the many reports that we have had from the Cox-
Dicks Commission, the many meetings that we have set up with members of
the counterintelligence community. They stress over and over and over
again that the culture in our laboratories has to change; that we have
to have ingrained in the daily business a concern and riveted attention
to the details of security; that we have to have this as a continuum;
that we have to continue to stress this at the highest levels;
Secretary of Energy Richardson, who has got a good start on this,
continue to visit the national laboratories and make this a top-down
and bottom-up change in the culture.
The Chinese have probably been spying on the United States for 30
years since they started a nuclear program. We need to be more
vigilant, we need to be more detailed about securing the most sensitive
secrets we have, some of which are at our national laboratories.
So I would hope that this amendment would be accepted, that we can
change the culture, we can keep attention to this, and that we will
continue to put the necessary appropriations forward to keep ever
vigilant in protecting our national security secrets.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton)
for any comments he may have on the amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I would merely say it is a good amendment,
and we examined it on this side. We have no problem with it and endorse
it.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Missouri and
would ask that the House adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence).
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman for
his amendment, too, and as chairman of the committee I am prepared to
accept it.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from South Carolina,
and with those two resounding endorsements I know when to stop talking,
Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the House to adopt the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 12232]]

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. ANNUAL AUDIT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC
OF CHINA.

(a) Annual Audit.--The Inspectors General of the Department
of Defense and the Department of Energy, in consultation with
the Director of Central Intelligence and the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall each conduct an annual
audit of the policies and procedures of the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy, respectively, with
respect to the export of technologies and the transfer of
scientific and technical information, to the People's
Republic of China in order to assess the extent to which the
Department of Defense or the Department of Energy, as the
case may be, is carrying out its activities to ensure that
any technology transfer, including a transfer of scientific
or technical information, will not measurably improve the
weapons systems or space launch capabilities of the People's
Republic of China.
(b) Report to Congress.--The Inspectors General of the
Department of Defense and the Department of Energy shall each
submit to Congress a report each year describing the results
of the annual audit under subsection (a).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Sweeney) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to use all my allotted time, and I want
to thank both the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for the opportunity to
present this amendment.
As my colleagues know, the past several years have revealed two major
breaches in the national security interests of this great Nation, and
we have heard a lot of debate and discussion on the floor today about
one of those. And the Chinese nuclear espionage and the transfer of
militarily-sensitive technology to satellite trade have now proven
beyond a doubt to have significantly enhanced the military capability
of communist China.
Since the end of the Cold War, I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have taken
our military strength and in turn our national security a bit for
granted. Sadly, the recent events have revealed that American strength
is not automatic and we must take positive steps to preserve our role
as the only remaining superpower.
Today I offer my amendment to reestablish that it is the policy of
the United States to ensure that our technological advances and
military knowhow are not turned against us in the form of advanced
military threat. My amendment and the real value of my amendment, I
believe, is that it would provide an additional and very necessary
layer of security and scrutiny to ensure that Chinese espionage
experienced in the Department of Energy labs is not repeated in the
Departments of Defense and Energy and that they regularly monitor their
policies with respect to the technological transfers with China. The
amendment requires that the Inspector General of Defense and Energy
assess in consultation with our intelligence community their
departments' policies and procedures with respect to the exchange of
technology and scientific information that could be used to enhance the
military capabilities in China. This audit must be conducted on an
annual basis and is continuing with a report to Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I offered a similar amendment to the NASA authorization
just a few weeks ago that passed the House, calling for an annual audit
of policies regarding the transfer of technology to China from our
space program. I believe this is a commonsense review and it should
exist in all relevant departments throughout the Federal Government.
Surely I recognize that the Department of Energy has taken steps to
correct some of the problems that led to the compromise of our most
critical military secrets.

{time} 1600

I also recognize that there have been a number of amendments
presented, and there will be more that will be presented today, that
also provide for some answers and some solutions, and Congress has made
this a priority as we address these security issues.
A few years ago we were pretty certain that the top secret scientific
information at our nuclear labs was secure. We now know that was not
the case. I think it is entirely appropriate and I would suggest
essential that the agencies of the U.S. Government engaging in national
security related matters be required to regularly conduct comprehensive
evaluations of their policies for protecting militarily sensitive
technology.
Again, the amendment simply provides an extra layer of protection at
the Departments of Defense and Energy to prevent the repeat of the
breach of our nuclear labs. America can no longer take our national
security for granted and we in Congress can no longer take our national
security for granted. I believe this is a common sense oversight
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I find no fault with the amendment, and I
commend the gentleman for offering it. On behalf of the committee, I
accept it.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have examined the amendment on our side
and find it commendable.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
At the end of title XXXI (page 453, after line 15), insert
the following new subtitle:

Subtitle F--Department of Energy Foreign Visitors Program Moratorium

SEC. 3181. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ``Department of Energy
Foreign Visitors Program Moratorium Act''.

SEC. 3182. MORATORIUM ON FOREIGN VISITORS PROGRAM.

(a) Moratorium.--Until otherwise provided by law, the
Secretary of Energy may not, during the foreign visitors
moratorium period, admit to any facility of a national
laboratory any individual who is a citizen of a nation that
is named on the current Department of Energy sensitive
countries list.
(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The Secretary of Energy may
waive the prohibition in subsection (a) on a monthly basis
with respect to specific individuals whose admission to a
national laboratory is determined by the Secretary to be
necessary for the national security of the United States.
(2) On a monthly basis, but not later than the 15th day of
each month, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives a report in writing providing
notice of the waivers made in the previous month. The report
shall identify each individual for whom such a waiver was
made and, with respect to each such individual, provide a
detailed justification for the waiver and the Secretary's
certification that the admission of that individual to a
national laboratory is necessary for the national security of
the United States.
(3) The authority of the Secretary under paragraph (1) may
be delegated only to the Deputy Secretary of Energy or an
Assistant Secretary of Energy.
(c) Foreign Visitors Moratorium Period.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``foreign visitors moratorium period''
means the period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act and ending on the later of the following:
(1) The date that is 2 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

[[Page 12233]]

(2) The date that is 90 days after the date on which the
Secretary of Energy, after consultation with the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, submits to the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives a certification in
writing by the Secretary of each of the following:
(A) That the counterintelligence program required by
section 3183 is fully implemented, and fully operating, at
each of the national laboratories.
(B) That such counterintelligence program complies with the
requirements of Presidential Decision Directive number 61.
(C) That the Secretary is in compliance with the provisions
of subsection (b).

SEC. 3183. COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment at Each Laboratory.--The Secretary of
Energy shall establish a counterintelligence program at each
of the national laboratories. The counterintelligence program
at each such laboratory shall have a full-time staff assigned
to counterintelligence functions at that laboratory,
including such personnel from other agencies as may be
approved by the Secretary. The counterintelligence program at
each such laboratory shall be under the direction of, and
shall report to, the Director of the Office of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy.
(b) Investigation of Past Security Breaches.--The Secretary
shall require that the counterintelligence program at each
laboratory include a specific plan pursuant to which the
Director of the Office of Counterintelligence of the
Department of Energy shall--
(1) investigate any breaches of security discovered after
the date of the enactment of this Act that occurred at that
laboratory before the establishment of the
counterintelligence program at that laboratory; and
(2) study the extent to which a breach of security may have
occurred before the establishment of the counterintelligence
program at that laboratory with respect to a classified
project at that laboratory by the admittance to that
laboratory, for purposes of a nonclassified project, of a
citizen of a foreign nation.
(c) Required Checks on All Non-Cleared Individuals.--(1)
The Secretary, acting through the Director of the Office of
Counterintelligence of the Department of Energy, shall ensure
the following:
(A) That before any non-cleared individual is allowed to
enter any facility of a national laboratory, a security
investigation known as an ``indices check'' is carried out
with respect to that individual.
(B) That before any non-cleared individual is allowed to
enter a classified facility of a national laboratory or to
work for more than 15 days in any 30-day period in any
facility of a national laboratory, a security investigation
known as a ``background check'' is carried out with respect
to that individual.
(2) Non-Cleared Individual.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
a non-cleared individual is any of the following:
(A) An individual who is a citizen of a nation that is
named on the current Department of Energy sensitive countries
list.
(B) An individual who has not been investigated by the
United States, or by a foreign nation with which the United
States has an appropriate reciprocity agreement, in a manner
at least as comprehensive as the investigation required for
the issuance of a security clearance at the level designated
as ``Secret''.

SEC. 3184. EXCEPTION TO MORATORIUM FOR CERTAIN GRANDFATHERED
INDIVIDUALS.

(a) Grandfathered Individuals.--Notwithstanding section
3182(a), the Secretary may, during the foreign visitors
moratorium period described section 3182(c), admit to a
facility of a national laboratory an individual who is a
citizen of a nation that is named on the current Department
of Energy sensitive countries list, for a period of not more
than 3 months for the purposes of transitional work, if--
(1) that individual was regularly admitted to that facility
before that period for purposes of a project or series of
projects;
(2) the continued admittance of that individual to that
facility during that period is important to that project or
series of projects; and
(3) the admittance is carried out in accordance with
section 3183(c).
(b) Report on Grandfathered Individuals.--Not later than 30
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report on each individual admitted to a
facility of a national laboratory under subsection (a). The
report shall identify each such individual and, with respect
to each such individual, provide a detailed justification for
such admittance and the Secretary's certification that such
admission was carried out in accordance with section 3183(c).

SEC. 3185. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this subtitle:
(1) The term ``national laboratory'' means any of the
following:
(A) The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,
California.
(B) The Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico.
(C) The Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, and Livermore, California.
(2) The term ``sensitive countries list'' means the list
prescribed by the Secretary of Energy known as the Department
of Energy List of Sensitive Countries.
(3) The term ``indices check'' means using an individual's
name, date of birth, and place of birth to review government
intelligence and investigative agencies databases for
suspected ties to foreign intelligence services or terrorist
groups.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer my amendment today because I believe its strong
moratorium language will enable the Department of Energy to enact the
previously debated and passed intelligence programs.
Mr. Chairman, I have worked with the bipartisan group that wrote the
Cox-Dicks amendment, and I voted for it. I agree with the series of
strong security provisions that the amendment offers. However, I also
believe putting these security provisions in place cannot be achieved
overnight.
Until a comprehensive counterintelligence program is up and running
at each laboratory, access must be limited to ensure that enhanced
security is functioning properly.
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, I would have had a chart just a moment
ago, but it would have shown that 16 percent of our foreign visitors
from sensitive countries were not given any kind of background check
between 1994 and 1996. Congress needs to make sure that every effort is
made in our power to limit that access until we discover the full
extent of the revealed security breaches. It is pretty extensive when
you look at the numbers between 1994 and 1996.
Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson in a letter written today to all
Members of Congress states that the Ryun amendment ``effectively kills
several important national security programs at the DOE laboratories.''
However, the amendment allows the Secretary of Energy to waive the
moratorium for individuals deemed necessary to our national security,
so we have a waiver provision in there with the moratorium that allows
if we have a national security problem allowing necessary people to
come in and be able to perform in those laboratories. For each waiver,
the secretary must report which individuals were admitted, along with
the justification for their admittance to the House and Senate Armed
Services Committees on a monthly basis.
Mr. Chairman, after the two-year moratorium is complete and after
consultation with the Director of the FBI, the Secretary of Energy is
required then to certify in writing that the new counterintelligence
programs are running effectively before giving Congress a 90-day review
period for the lifting of the moratorium.
This amendment puts accountability and Congressional oversight back
into the security process at our nuclear labs. We must establish
procedures to ensure that the theft of our national security secrets
never happens again.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized to control 20
minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, were it not for the Cox-Dicks amendment, this would be
a different case. We not only are replowing the same ground, we find
this amendment in conflict with that amendment which we have already
passed unanimously in this body.
Mr. Chairman, let me commend my friend from Kansas, who is a very
sincere and dedicated member of our committee. However, this amendment
is not necessary because of the reasons that I heretofore stated.

[[Page 12234]]

Mr. Chairman, the protection of critical nuclear information is a
very serious matter. There has been a compromise, and some changes are
required in the manner in which security and counterintelligence
matters are handled. The amendment does provide some increased emphasis
on counterintelligence and potential for enhanced protection, but would
codify the counterintelligence program mandated by Presidential
Directive 61 in the least restrictive manner thus far proposed that
provides a waiver by the Secretary of Energy during moratorium.
However, since the Cox-Dicks amendment has been accepted by this
body, as I point out, by unanimous vote on a rollcall vote, this
amendment is not needed. It flies in the face, sadly, with the Cox-
Dicks amendment, so we would have two standards set forth in the bill
should this be adopted. That, of course, is a very serious problem for
anyone to follow when you have two standards, two ways of doing
something, two time limits. It would be very difficult, and, frankly,
unworkable.
Regretfully, because the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) is such a
dedicated member of the committee, I find that I really in all
sincerity must oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to draw the distinction here, because
while the Cox report allows for a moratorium, it is a very limited
moratorium. It is a 90-day moratorium. In actually reading the report
by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is a part of this
amendment, and Mr. Cox, it is very clear to me that is a very limited
period of time.
My amendment allows for a two-year moratorium, which is sufficient
time to put a counterintelligence program in place and ensure that we
genuinely protect those national secrets. That is the reason for the
length. Under the Cox report it has a 90-day period with a 30-day
reporting period, so conceivably at the end of 60 days there would not
be a need for any further moratorium.
So I believe the extension is necessary if we are going to make sure
that we have a counterintelligence program in place and to ensure our
national secrets.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of the Ryun amendment,
and I want to say at the outset that I very much respect the position
of folks on the other side. I know the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Mrs. Wilson) is very dedicated, very bright, and has the best
interests of our country at heart and serves her constituents very
well. I have though a difference of opinion on this issue with the
folks that limited the scope of the foreign visitors cutoff.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure we have this
understood here. Nothing happens. There is a moratorium until Ed
Curran, the new Director of Counterintelligence, certifies that we now
have in place an effective counterintelligence program. Then, under the
Cox-Dicks amendment you would have 45 days, and Congress would then
have a chance to review it. So you would have 60. But this is 60 days
after the new head of counterintelligence certifies that we have an
effective plan in place.
Why would we want to keep it on for two years after that? That does
not make any sense.
Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time from my B-2 friend, let me tell----
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the B-2 did very well over there, by the
way, in Kosovo.
Mr. HUNTER. I know the B-2 did very well in Kosovo. Let me say why
the Ryun amendment makes a lot of sense. It is for this reason. I
understand under both provisions we establish a counterintelligence
office. That is, of course, a must. It is a mandate.
But the issue should go beyond how we establish the
counterintelligence operation. It should also include the issue of
this: Does it make sense for us to have visitors and to allow Algeria,
Cuba, and I am looking at the GAO report on foreign visitation to our
nuclear weapons complex, Cuba, Iran, Iraq and China in our nuclear
laboratories at all? What advancement is Cuba giving us to our nuclear
weapons program? What is the reasoning whereby we feel that we need to
make, and I have added them up here, six visits by the states of
Algeria, Cuba, Iran, Iraq and China to our nuclear weapons
laboratories?
I think, and I say to my friend in all sincerity, I think we have
missed part of the debate. I think when we do counterintelligence
background checks on people from Iraq, you know what our
counterintelligence people are going to give us on these particular
agents and scientists? They are going to give us blank pieces of paper,
because it is very difficult for us to get background information on
those folks.
Now, I do not think that people from those states and many of the
other controlled access states have anything to give to our nuclear
weapons complex that helps us either build nuclear weapons or do
stockpile stewardship on nuclear weapons, which is our primary purpose.
I would simply say this to my friend: The Secretary of Energy can
execute waivers, but this is all about accountability. Under both
provisions, the Ryun amendment and the base bill, the Secretary of
Energy can execute waivers. I think if you look at this list of people
from controlled countries that had no business being at our national
labs, and you see the percentage of people that, in the cases of Iran
and Iraq who were even given background checks, and it is down to 10
and 20 percent of people from Iraq were given background checks to come
into our nuclear weapons complex, I think it is appropriate for us to
say to the Secretary of Energy, listen, for the next two years, you can
have people come in, and if it is the Nunn-Lugar program that affects
the Soviet Union, if it is one of our missile control regimes, if it is
a fissile material control regime, all you have to do is sign a piece
of paper and you bring those scientists in. But we want you to look at
these applicants for admission to our national weapons complex. The
Ryun amendment does that.
I think, in light of that, the two-year moratorium makes a lot of
sense. These people have not been paying attention. I think the
gentleman would agree with me, when you let people come in from
Algeria, Cuba, Iran and Iraq, and they are supposed to be contributing
to our nuclear weapons development or stockpile stewardship, it makes
us realize the leadership in DOE has not been reflecting on these
admissions. We want to make them reflect.
Lastly, I would say what Leo Thorsen has said, the great Medal of
Honor winner. He said in areas of national security, he said, go with
strength. Go the extra mile. We are going the extra mile with the Ryun
amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Ryun amendment, although I
understand the sincerity with which he offers it.

{time} 1615

This amendment is entirely unnecessary, as has been already pointed
out. The concerns that are pertaining to the moratorium and checking
out all the foreign scientists who come have been dealt with adequately
in the Cox-Dicks amendment that has already passed.
This amendment places a 2-year moratorium on the entry of foreign
visitors from sensitive countries, and it presents what seems to me to
be a very simplistic solution to a wave of espionage that has already
occurred in our weapons labs.
I know that the sponsor indicated that between 1995 and 1996, that
some

[[Page 12235]]

16 percent of the foreign scientists did not receive any background
checks. If we had a 2-year moratorium for that time period, then it
would make a lot of sense. But what we have in the situation here is
that we are trying to solve a problem that we are already aware of, and
it is like locking the barn door after the horses have escaped.
The free exchange of scientists in unclassified research areas at our
nuclear weapons lab is important for recruiting and retaining a world
class staff. We need to help maintain the U.S. nuclear stockpile and
maintain American scientific leadership. A quarantine at our national
laboratories in effect will insulate us from some of the world's finest
minds in many scientific fields, and has the effect of undercutting our
own progress, development, and superiority in nuclear weapons
development and scientific advancement.
Imagine if this moratorium had existed during the U.S. development of
the atom bomb. Dozens of scientists and physicists, people like
Einstein and Fermi, who were citizens of enemy nations, would have been
prohibited from research and development of a weapon that helped end
World War II. These exceptional minds who labored tirelessly for their
adopted country would be barred from that work today.
Secretary Richardson has responded to this. The Cox-Dicks amendment
has responded to this. This amendment is entirely unnecessary.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman who just spoke, we have a
waiver provision that allows for national security, to allow certain
scientists to come in if necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun). I think it is a good
amendment.
I have listened intently to all of the opposition. It does not make
sense. It takes years to learn the scope of espionage that has already
occurred in our nuclear labs. We still may not know the full extent of
the problem.
As a matter of fact, the Cox report has only been able to offer up
for the public view certain portions of what they found out. Many parts
of it are still classified, and we would not know what has been learned
there.
In March, the former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory
wrote in the Washington Post that during his tenure at the lab a great
number of individuals from sensitive countries visited, but there was
``. . . no indication that these contacts compromised our security.''
Unfortunately, it was during this same period of time that classified
information on the W-88 warhead designed at Los Alamos was stolen by
the Chinese. In this case, what we did not know has certainly hurt us.
Espionage by definition is not conducted in plain sight. We did not
know that China was obtaining our nuclear secrets from laboratory
employees, and my theory is that we do not know of losses that have
occurred because of the foreign visitor program.
The Government Accounting Office has reported that during the period
1994 through 1996 there were 5,472 visits from sensitive countries to
the three weapons laboratories. Of that number, 2,237 were from Russia;
1,464 were from China; and 814 were from India. That high visitation
rate continues, with Los Alamos recently reporting 1,040 visits from
sensitive countries in 1997 alone.
In view of this high volume of visitation from countries of
proliferation concern, at least one of which has illicitly obtained our
nuclear weapons secrets, I do not think it is inappropriate to place
strict limits on these visitations.
I would point out what has already been pointed out to a lot of the
concerns of our opponents in this matter, that the moratorium imposed
by this amendment would not be permanent, nor would it be absolute. The
amendment provides for waivers by the Secretary of Energy, allowing the
admission to a national laboratory of specific individuals from a
sensitive country if the Secretary determines the visit to be necessary
for the national security interests of the United States.
The amendment also includes a sunset provision that has not been
mentioned which would, under certain conditions, make it possible for
termination of the moratorium within 2 years.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It should be adopted.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I find parts of this amendment to be
difficult to understand, at least in the real world and the way the
laboratories operate.
Sandia National Laboratory in my district is a multi-program
laboratory. Yes, it does nuclear defense work, but it also does a whole
lot of other things. This amendment would prohibit foreign visitors
from sensitive countries to any facility on Sandia National
Laboratories, and the only exceptions are for when it is necessary for
national security.
This means we are no longer going to have any foreign visits that
deal with the solar energy farm or the micromachines program or nuclear
fusion or semiconductors or lithography, or a whole range of scientific
developments arrayed with computing.
We need our scientists to be engaged in the most advanced science in
the world, and the reality in this country today is that half of the
graduate students in engineering in American universities are not
American citizens.
We need to stay on the cutting edge of science, and we would make a
mistake if we cut ourselves off from that science.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
introduced by my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), fellow
member of our Committee on Armed Services. I have the utmost respect
for the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and Members on that side
of the aisle. I appreciate what is being done by the Cox-Dicks
amendment.
There are many steps in the right direction. My friend, the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has great concern for her
district, country, and her labs, and she very carefully and
meticulously explained to me her views on the bill. I appreciate her
willingness to talk with me at length about this.
But as I evaluate the situation from my perspective as a member of
the Committee on Armed Services, it is apparent to me that to simply
rely on the Cox-Dicks amendment is a potential underreaction to an
extremely serious situation.
With that in mind, I strongly support the efforts of the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) to put our security first, to put the future
security of our Nation at the absolute top of our priority list. I have
listened to a number of colleagues. The amendment of the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun) does nothing but strengthen the recommendations put
forth by the Cox commission.
It is clear from our debate that we are all in agreement over the
seriousness of what is at stake. Events at Los Alamos reflect a
collapse in DOE counterintelligence and a compromise of national
security. Again, the Cox-Dicks amendment is crafted to address these
counterintelligence lapses, and outlines no less than 13 new
initiatives for DOE implementation. This is good.
There is no doubt that the measures, if properly executed, will close
loopholes exploited by Chinese spies. It seems to me, however,
impossible to set in place an extensive, verifiable counterintelligence
system in a mere 90 days.
I would remind my colleagues, and there is not a member in this
Chamber that did not support the Cox-Dicks amendment, that this
amendment establishes three new agencies of counterintelligence
oversight. Do we really

[[Page 12236]]

believe these new agencies will be operational in 3 short months? I
submit the answer is no.
The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) is simply providing the DOE
adequate time to ensure that some of America's most sophisticated
technology is safe from foreign espionage. I contend any Member that is
troubled by events at Los Alamos and is interested in legitimate
solutions will support this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to the
Ryun amendment. I want to commend the gentleman for his work on this
issue. He was an early proponent of tightening security at DOE, and his
realization of the problems there have been proven correct.
We attempted in the drafting of the original Dicks amendment to
address the problems he identified and, to a large measure, we were
successful. The Dicks-Ryun amendments are now almost identical except
for one major point. However, in my view, this point is a major
difference. I must reluctantly oppose his amendment.
The Ryun amendment, like the Cox-Dicks amendment, imposes a
moratorium on foreign visitors to the dose national laboratories. But
under the Ryun amendment, this moratorium would extend for at least 2
years, regardless of whether or not all possible security measures
needed to protect the labs are in place.
This is a serious concern to me because Ed Curran, chief of
counterintelligence at DOE, assures me that it will not take that long
to fix the problems at the labs. Frankly, I do not think the House
could accept any answer from DOE that said it would take 2 years to fix
these problems. To let problems continue for that long once they have
been identified would be totally unacceptable.
Because the Ryun moratorium would last well after the amount of time
needed to fix the problem, I am concerned that it will actually reduce
the incentive for DOE to react quickly. I believe the amendment of the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) will slow down the improvement of
security at DOE.
The Cox-Dicks amendment already adopted by the House provides ample
time for congressional oversight of DOE's changes to security at the
labs, and it provides DOE the incentive to act quickly. I urge Members
to oppose the Ryun amendment.
I just want to underline, our amendment is in place until the
director, Mr. Curran, and the director of the FBI certify to the
president, to the Congress, to the DOE that they have a security
program in place. Then there will be 45 days of congressional review
after that to make certain we agree with that.
But to put a 2-year lock on this thing, as the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Ryun) does, will undermine any incentive to act quickly, which is
what we want. We want Richardson, Curran, and Freeh out there
implementing this program as quickly as possible.
I do not think the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) intended this. I
think it is an unintended consequence, but I think it really undermines
our effort to get a quick solution to this problem.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Ryun amendment. This
is a commonsense amendment. To quote the amendment of the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the letter of June 8, it says his amendment
simply prohibits foreign visitors from sensitive countries, and those
are constituents that are such staunch U.S. allies as China, Cuba,
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, from entering national laboratories
unless the Secretary of Energy grants a waiver to individuals deemed
necessary to our, the United States', national security.
Frankly, given the track record of this administration, I hate to see
them have the ability to grant waivers. I would love to have some
language in there that said unless they have been giving to the
campaign, but I do not want to go that route.

{time} 1630

I think we have already hashed that out. We know the relationships
that have caused some of these breaches in security. But let us look at
some of the statistics: 742 Chinese scientists visited Los Alamos
National Laboratory, but only 12 were given background checks; 23 Iraqi
and Iranian scientists visited the Sandia National Laboratory, none
were given background checks; 1,110 Russian scientists visited Los
Alamos National Laboratory, yet only 116 were given background checks.
Come on. This is national security. What is it that these people from
sensitive countries offer that people are opposing the Ryun amendment
over? I am not sure. What was it that the scientists from Cuba or North
Korea or Iran or Iraq or Russia gave that we are afraid to give up for
2 years? Really we are not giving it up for 2 years. The Secretary of
Energy would have the right to waive the requirement.
This is a common sense amendment. Our national security has been
breached because of the sloppiness of the current administration. This
tries to correct it. I stand in strong support of the Ryun amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) released their report last month,
I feared amendments like this one offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Ryun) today.
This amendment is nothing more than a misdirected overreaction.
Instead of making constructive changes to improve our
counterintelligence operations, this amendment blindly cuts off our
labs to foreign scientists, scientists who work in many nonclassified,
nonweapons-oriented areas of the labs.
Specifically, this amendment fails to distinguish between the
smuggling of our classified national secrets by American citizens from
nonclassified disarmament-oriented exchanges with countries such as
Russia.
Among our country's greatest national security threat is the spread
of nuclear chemical and biological weapons. In February I spent a week
in Moscow, meeting with U.S. and Russian scientists who administer
programs designed to stop Russian scientists and their nuclear
materials from going to countries such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
Given the State of the Russian economy and the fact that Russia's
uranium stockpiles are not locked down, we have no choice but to engage
our Russian counterparts on a scientist-to-scientist level.
The Ryun amendment would end this cooperative effort. It would
prevent Russian scientists from visiting our laboratories for 2 years
and would severely damage U.S.-Russian relations.
Mr. Chairman, for those who are concerned about visits to our
national labs, let me say just this. Earlier today, as part of the Cox
and Dicks amendment, this House took steps that would reasonably
address the need to protect classified materials at our national labs
from foreign visitors.
It would provide for the lifting of a moratorium when DOE's Director
of Counterintelligence, with the concurrence of the FBI Director,
determines that the proper counterintelligence measures are in place.
Let us embrace this measured approach offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cox) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). Let
us reject the reactionary approach before use. Let us not blindly shut
down vital national security programs that have nothing to do with
classified secrets.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, but I
would like to reserve the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has the right
to close.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

[[Page 12237]]

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Ryun) for the serious work he has done in this effort. It is
certainly rare that I would have a different opinion from my committee
chairman, but I believe that the Cox-Dicks approach is better.
I think it is important for us to focus on the important parts of
these security problems. There has been no indication whatsoever that
the foreign visitor program has been in any way related to any of the
security lapses that we have had at the national laboratories. Now
other things are related, management of DOE and the number of other
areas where more work is required, but not the foreign visitor program.
I would further say that the numbers that we hear talked about do not
really tell us very much. For example, the Governor of California once
called Lawrence Livermore and asked that a busload of Chinese tourists
be able to visit Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and go to the publicly
open museum. Every person on that bus counts as a foreign visitor. I do
not think we wanted to have the Secretary of Energy sign a waiver for
each and every one of those tourists on a bus going to a public
building.
I think the Cox-Dicks approach is better and ask that this amendment
be defeated.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat the commendation of the
last speaker to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), because he served
a purpose in raising this issue to the forefront. He caused us to take
what he was proposing, to consider it in depth; and that was the
genesis of the amendment we adopted unanimously today, the Cox-Dicks
amendment.
While it included other things, that was our initial purpose, to take
the foreign visitors program and add strictures to it, but not stifle
it so much that we would literally suffocate and kill it, because this
particular proposal would simply wipe out the foreign visitors program
except for perhaps a few singular individuals who might be certified
into it.
Now, what does that mean? What is the foreign visitors program? The
foreign visitors program exists on reservations like Los Alamos, which
is about the size of the District of Columbia. It is not just some
small laboratory. It is a huge complex of facilities, an enormous site.
It includes secure areas to which they do not have access and lots of
other areas and labs and work spaces.
It would include an Israeli scientist there working on solar energy,
a Swedish chemist who has come to work on plutonium issues, because
there is a lot we still do not know about plutonium. The Swedish
chemist, an actual case, is one of the world's experts. We need his
insights and advice into the nature of plutonium, how it ages and what
its effects are.
It includes lots of foreign citizens who will soon be American
citizens who post-doc'd from American universities and are working
there, working at Los Alamos, or Livermore. They are the scientific
talent of the present or the future.
It includes a lot of Russians and lab-to-lab exchanges. Why are they
there? Their knowledge is just about on parity with us anyway, but it
is reciprocal. We do not talk a lot about this. That is part of the Cox
report that was not published. We have gained a great deal through
these exchanges. That reciprocity has enhanced our knowledge of what
they are doing and enabled us to get a better grip on the spread or
misuse of nuclear materials and nuclear devices.
It could include IAEA trainees, because this is the perfect place to
come where the knowledge resides. It could include nonnuclear
exchanges. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) stated,
lots of other things have nothing to do with nuclear weapons,
lithography for inscribing ships, for example, micromachinery, and
stuff like that.
We will wipe out this program. Why is it important? Why does it have
to occur at the labs? We set it up years ago when we created the
stockpiles stewardship program so that we could have at these labs,
which are national treasure houses, scientific talent that is second to
none, so that we could attract excellent scientists there and maintain
our excellence in nuclear weapons.
This is an important program. The strictures we need for the security
and counterintelligence have already been passed and put into effect by
the Cox-Dicks amendment. This is not necessary. In fact, it is a
dangerous precedent.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
for yielding me this time, and I certainly thank the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Ryun) for his leadership on these important issues.
Mr. Chairman, we have been through some troubling times. We have been
sometimes amazed, sometimes fearful, and sometimes deliberating what
can we do to protect the national security issues of this government,
and how can we combine that with the necessities of research and
collaboration and our own intrinsic spirit of a country that welcomes
those into our borders.
I believe there is good intent behind this particular amendment, but
I rise in opposition because of the importance of our national labs and
the relevance that they have to part of the collaborative effort we
have on very important research.
While the intent of preserving our national security secrets is one
that I am committed to accomplishing and will be supporting several
amendments dealing with the recent incident that we had in our national
labs, I feel that this amendment imposes an unnecessary burden on the
ability of our national labs to function.
In fact, we have already addressed many of these issues. The Cox-
Dicks amendment gives DOE incentive to rapidly fix security problems.
Under the Ryun amendment DOE has a 2-year moratorium, no matter what
they do, because they are forbidding those who are foreign nationals
from even coming near our national labs.
I think the American ingenuity is better than that. I think we are
smart people. I think we can address this question right now; and we
can not or will not, by addressing it right now, prohibit the
collaborative research that is important by most of those who come to
our national labs, who have no intent of spying.
We had a terrible series of events which have been noted by the Cox-
Dicks report, started under Republican administrations, continued under
Democratic administrations, went under a Republican administration.
There is no one that can claim that one party over another has not had
some responsibility for what has happened.
I would ask we vote down the Ryun amendment and support the measures
that have already been done and support the Department of Energy's
works that they have already begun to do, and make sure that we
continue in the attitude that we have that good research is good and
spying is bad.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much
time is remaining on both sides, please.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), my friend and colleague.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, it is apparent that the Department of Energy has no
culture for keeping secrets. They keep secrets about like a sieve holds
water. Personally, I think that we should move all nuclear functions
from the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense under
civilian control. At least in the Department of Defense we have a
culture for keeping secrets, a culture for protecting our Nation's
secrets.

[[Page 12238]]

Now, what is being asked by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) is
not outside the realm of possibility. It is a very reasonable
consideration, a small step in the giant trip we need to take towards
recovering our Nation's secrets and putting into place a system that
would prevent them from being lost in the future.
We simply have a counterintelligence function being put in place, a
2-year moratorium, and start the process of protecting the secrets that
our country has invested billions of dollars in developing, and the
loss of our secrets places our Nation in jeopardy. Our children's
safety is very important to us. Whether they are in school or on the
streets, it is important.
The Ryun amendment is a good first step, and I would encourage my
colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).
Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), my friend and personal hero.
A year ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I traveled
to Russia and visited several classified Russian nuclear labs. While we
were there, we saw a demonstration, a cooperative venture that was set
up between Sandia lab back in the United States and Russia.
We actually looked on TV screens and were looking at this Sandia lab.
It was an experiment on how to most efficiently control nuclear
materials, how to most efficiently verify that respective Nations are
following treaty requirements.
What will happen if this amendment passes? First of all, there will
be retaliation. Any nation that is on this sensitive nations list, they
are going to retaliate against us. Of course, they are not going to let
people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and I continue to
visit their complexes.
Second, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) a while ago gave a
list of the nations that are on the list of sensitive countries, and he
mentioned Cuba and Algeria. I mean, who can complain about not letting
Cuban baseball players into our nuclear facilities?
The problem is that is an incomplete list. The list I received from
staff also mentions that are on the list of sensitive countries,
Israel, Taiwan, India, Pakistan. Surely we would all acknowledge that
these are countries that we do have need for cooperative scientific
venture even in some classified areas.
The third point I would make is that this amendment is too broad. The
specific language puts this 2-year moratorium on ``any facility of a
national laboratory.''
Now, the doctor in me, when I hear the word ``laboratory,'' I think
it talks about some one little small space or one room. These
laboratories, like Sandia lab, Los Alamos, are large, sprawling, many,
many acres, many, many buildings, doing all kinds of work with all
kinds of different scientists, much of which is not classified.
We would be cutting off all of this material and all of those
opportunities by passing this amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Ryun amendment.
I rise today in strong opposition to the Ryun amendment.
Last month Congressman Nethercutt offered an amendment to the DOE
authorization bill in the Science Committee that would have imposed a
moratorium on the Department of Energy's foreign visitor program. I
amended Mr. Nethercutt's amendment to include a sunset provision. My
amendment was unanimously accepted.
I offered my amendment in the Science Committee because I am very
concerned about national security at our labs. My amendment called for
a moratorium on foreign visitors from sensitive countries to all labs
when the visit is to a classified facility, and topics involve export
control and nonproliferation. However, it included a
1. Waiver of the moratorium on visits related to the U.S.-Russia
nonproliferation programs that are important to our national security.
2. Similar to the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the Secretary can issue waivers as long as the Secretary
reports to Congress within 30 days.
3. Contained a sunset to the moratorium. After all applicable
portions of the Presidential Decision Directive 61 are in place,
additional counterintelligence, safeguards and security measures
announced by Secretary Richardson are in place and that DOE's current
export controls on nonproliferation that govern foreign visits is in
place.
4. Annual report by DOE and FBI to Congress assessing security at
each lab.
Mr. Ryun's amendment would effectively kill several important
security programs at the DOE labs including the nonproliferation
programs that are so important to our national security.
I went before the Rules Committee to offer my amendment that was
unanimously passed by the full Science Committee, however, my amendment
was not made in order. Therefore, I will vote against the Ryun
amendment and urge my colleagues to also vote against the amendment.

{time} 1645

Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the current administration has used
words like unnecessary, overdramatize, and overreaction when discussing
this legislation that tightens security at our nuclear labs.
Security at the Department of Energy nuclear laboratories has been a
systematic problem for over two decades. To blame one agency, one
administration, or one individual would certainly be inappropriate.
However, the discovery of all the thefts that have taken place in our
most sensitive secrets does indeed warrant prompt and decisive action.
The recent security proposals by the Department of Energy will leave
visitors from China, Iran, Iraq, and Russia, many of these sensitive
countries, back in the status quo. Congress must enter in and make the
change so that we no longer have the status quo.
I ask that my colleagues vote in support of this amendment and in
support of the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), who
intends to vote ``yes''.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun). This amendment could
have the potentially destructive effect of cutting off important
exchanges for 2 years between American scientists and their
counterparts from other countries.
The amendment attempts to respond to compromises to our national
security with regard to the People's Republic of China, obviously, a
worthy goal, but it goes too far, extending the moratorium for 2 years
instead of the 90 days specified in the Cox-Dicks amendment.
The sensitive country list, as has been mentioned, includes many
friends of the United States, including Israel. The list includes most
of the former Soviet republics, including countries like Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and Georgia that are part of NATO's Partnership For Peace,
and whose presidents took part in the recent 50th anniversary
celebrations for NATO here in Washington. It includes India, the
world's largest democracy. The stated reason for putting India on the
list is it has not yet signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But
it needs to be made clear that India's nuclear program is an indigenous
one, developed by India's own scientists.
Export controls on supercomputers and other dual-use technologies
have been in effect against India for years, forcing India to develop
its own highly advanced R&D infrastructure. There is no evidence or
even suggestion that India has been involved in the kinds of espionage
activities that have been documented with regard to China.
And we must be careful not to cut off scientific exchanges for as
long as 2 years. And I know, Mr. Chairman, there is a waiver provision
for national security reasons, but I would suggest

[[Page 12239]]

that that is a very difficult test. Experience shows these types of
waivers are rarely used.
And I just want to say that I agree that China's espionage activities
should cause us to be more vigilant, but the Cox-Dicks amendment
addresses many of these concerns, including a much more measured
approach to dealing with the Department of Energy's foreign visitors
program. So I think that for that reason we should oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Ryun).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) will
be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8, printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Gilman

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman):
At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. RESOURCES FOR EXPORT LICENSE FUNCTIONS.

(a) Office of Defense Trade Controls.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of State shall take the
necessary steps to ensure that, in any fiscal year, adequate
resources are allocated to the functions of the Office of
Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State relating to
the review and processing of export license applications so
as to ensure that those functions are performed in a thorough
and timely manner.
(2) Availability of existing appropriations.--The Secretary
of State shall take the necessary steps to ensure that those
funds made available under the heading ``Administration of
Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' in title
IV of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, as
contained in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277)
are made available, upon the enactment of this Act, to the
Office of Defense Trade Controls of the Department of State
to carry out the purposes of the Office.
(b) Defense Threat Reduction Agency.--The Secretary of
Defense shall take the necessary steps to ensure that, in any
fiscal year, adequate resources are allocated to the
functions of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the
Department of Defense relating to the review of export
license applications so as to ensure that those functions are
performed in a thorough and timely manner.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence), in offering an amendment which requires the Secretary of State
and the Secretary of Defense to ensure that adequate resources are
allocated to the Office of Defense Trade Controls and the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency for the purpose of reviewing and processing
export license applications.
The Office of Defense Trade Controls, the ODTC, within the Department
of State, currently processes about 45,000 licenses each year, which is
nearly four times what the Bureau of Export Administration in the
Department of Commerce deals with, with only one-fourth of the
personnel.
With the transfer in jurisdiction of satellites and related
technology from the commodity control list to the munitions list, ODTC
will be taxed even greater to meet its obligations to review and
process munition licenses as well as meeting its mandate to ensure
compliance with our export control laws. That is why the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and I worked together to ensure that last
year's Omnibus Appropriations Act contained $2 million for the Office
of Defense Trade Controls to carry out its responsibilities.
Regrettably, the State Department has refused to allocate the
necessary funds to ODTC. Therefore, additional language was placed in
last month's emergency supplemental as report language directing State
to provide the monies that are needed. The State Department still
refuses to provide all of the $2 million to ODTC, citing other pressing
needs. Given the State Department's refusal to provide these needed
funds, this amendment directs the Secretary of State to provide the
balance of the funds needed to ODTC.
This amendment ensures that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency is
going to be adequately resourced by the Department of Defense.
Accordingly, I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman) and myself would require both the Secretary of State and
Secretary of Defense to provide sufficient resources to the offices
within their respective departments that are responsible for reviewing
and processing export license applications, as the gentleman from New
York has said. This is premised on the strong belief that review of the
export licenses should be carried out in a thorough and timely manner.
This amendment builds upon the provision in last year's Defense
Authorization Act that transfers licensing jurisdiction for the export
of United States satellites from the Commerce Department back to the
State Department. Last year's legislation also mandated a greater
Defense Department role in ensuring that sophisticated military-related
technology is not inappropriately transferred to dangerous countries
and countries of proliferation concern.
Mr. Chairman, this is a common sense amendment that simply requires
both secretaries to commit sufficient resources to carry out their
department's licensing activities. In particular, it calls on the
Secretary of State to immediately allocate those funds provided last
year for this purpose. As the Cox report indicated, the relaxation of
export controls on sensitive dual-use technologies has had a
devastating consequence for United States national security. Combined
with the actions taken by the Congress last year to tighten our export
control process, this amendment will help to see to it that American
national security interests are protected.
The amendment's requirement that all export license reviews be
carried out in a timely manner addresses industry's concerns regarding
possible delays in the licensing process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania:
At the end of title IX (page 265, after line 11), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 910. DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY SECURITY ENHANCEMENT.

(a) Reorganization of Technology Security Functions of
Department of Defense.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish the Technology Security Directorate of the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency as a

[[Page 12240]]

separate Defense Agency named the Defense Technology Security
Agency. The Agency shall be under the authority, direction,
and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
(b) Director.--The Director of the Defense Technology
Security Agency shall also serve as Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Technology Security Policy.
(c) Functions.--The Director shall advise the Secretary of
Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, on policy issues
related to the transfer of strategically sensitive
technology, including the following:
(1) Strategic trade.
(2) Defense cooperative programs.
(3) Science and technology agreements and exchanges.
(4) Export of munitions items.
(5) International Memorandums of Understanding.
(6) Industrial base and competitiveness concerns.
(7) Foreign acquisitions.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment and the one that will follow are
noncontroversial amendments. I have discussed them with my colleagues
on the other side. I have discussed them with the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member on the Select Committee on
U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the
People's Republic of China.
My colleagues, these are perfecting amendments to try to deal with
the internal operations of DOD to make sure that we have in place the
appropriate role for our agency personnel who are charged with the
responsibility of monitoring input on potential technology transfers in
licensing so that we have maximum effort available to raise the
potential threats that these technologies might bring to bear on the
U.S. This change would take DTSA and the Technology Security
Directorate out from under the control of DTRA, which is the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, and allow it to operate as a separate entity.
The reason why this is important is that in a reorganization that
occurred in the fall of last year, DTSA was placed under the
acquisition side of the Department of Defense, thereby providing undue
influence on those technical people whose job it is to monitor
technologies that, in fact, may be requested for licensing.
It is true that the DTSA organization also reports to the policy side
of the Department of Defense, but there is a conflict in that dual
reporting relationship. What we simply do with this amendment is have
DTSA report directly to the policy side alone so that the technical
people in DTSA, who are those that are best able to make key decisions
relative to technology licensing in exports to the upper levels of the
Pentagon, so they can have the appropriate response for the decision-
making process involving Commerce and State on technologies that in
fact may be exported.
It is a technical amendment, but it is one that I think is consistent
with what was done by the Select Committee on U.S. National Security
and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China.
It is consistent with the goals and objectives of the chairman and the
ranking member, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the
amendment? If not, all time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania:
At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. NATIONAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT OF EXPORT LICENSES.

(a) Report to Congress.--The Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall provide to
Congress a report assessing the cumulative impact of
individual licenses granted by the United States for exports,
goods, or technology to countries of concern.
(b) Contents of Report.--Each report under subsection (a)
shall include an assessment of--
(1) the cumulative impact of exports of technology on
improving the military capabilities of countries of concern;
(2) the impact of exports of technology which would be
harmful to United States military capabilities, as well as
countermeasures necessary to overcome the use of such
technology; and
(3) those technologies, systems, and components which have
applications to conventional military and strategic
capabilities.
(c) Timing of Reports.--The first report under subsection
(a) shall be submitted to Congress not later than 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall assess
the cumulative impact of exports to countries of concern in
the previous 5-year period. Subsequent reports under
subsection (a) shall be submitted to Congress at the end of
each 1-year period after the submission of the first report.
Each such subsequent report shall include an assessment of
the cumulative impact of technology exports based on analyses
contained in previous reports under this section.
(d) Support of Other Federal Agencies.--The Secretary of
Commerce, the Secretary of State, and the heads of other
departments and agencies shall make available to the
Secretary of Defense information necessary to carry out this
section, including information on export licensing.
(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``country of concern'' means--
(1) a country the government of which the Secretary of
State has determined, for purposes of section 6(j) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979 or other applicable law, to
have repeatedly provided support for acts of international
terrorism; and
(2) a country on the list of covered countries under
section 1211(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (50 U.S.C. app. 2404 note).

{time} 1700

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will also make this brief. This is also
noncontroversial. This also is an outgrowth of the Cox committee and a
recommendation that I brought forward because of the findings that we
made in looking at the damage done to our security.
We came to a bipartisan conclusion that U.S. international export
control regimes have actually facilitated China's efforts to obtain
militarily useful technology. And, therefore, what this amendment does
is, I think, go a long way toward addressing the problem of monitoring
what countries like China are attempting to acquire by ensuring that an
annual comprehensive assessment of export licenses to countries of
concern be prepared by the Department of Defense.
In other words, when an export license is granted to what we call a
tier-three country, which is a country that the State Department
identifies as one that is a potential threat to us, or when an export
license is given perhaps to a country listed as a terrorist state,
there is no requirement today that there is a process in place to
monitor the cumulative effect of those licenses.
What my amendment says is that the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has to submit to the
Congress an annual report. That annual report will reveal to us the
cumulative impact of individual exports to countries of concern. It
does not say that any action will occur in a negative sense. It simply
provides for the Congress to be given an annual report by DOD of these
exports.
I think it is a common sense amendment. It will increase our
effectiveness in this area. I would ask my colleagues to support this.

[[Page 12241]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do so to ask my friend
some questions.
I am sure that his intentions are very solid, but my question on the
wording of the amendment is that, what if they do the study and they
find out it has actually aided America's defense? Are they allowed to
record that?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, that would be fine. That
would be outstanding, and we would be happy to receive that report.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I understand the
language, I do not have it in front of me, it says to report the
adverse impacts of international trade in high-technology items.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
continue to yield, actually, if he will real my amendment, he will see
that section 2 says ``the impacts of exports of technology which would
be harmful.'' It says, ``which would be harmful.''
Mr. GEJDENSON. Right. So in that, would it be okay, for the record,
if they assess something and they found out it would be helpful?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept
that.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, excellent.
Let me just say again, we have taken a spying case that started in
the 1980s and we are trying in the process, I am fearful, of destroying
the future economic and military strength of the country.
All these amendments are well-intentioned. But the reality is that
most of this technology is not exclusively American, that American
industry that has led the world with modern technology will not
continue to do so if we unilaterally stop selling things, especially
when they are generally available.
There are tens of companies that have most of these products. And if
we continue to look through this in the same way we looked at machined
tools, we will do to the computer industry and to other high-tech
industries what we did to the machine tool industry.
Some of the same Members here would not allow American machine tool
companies to sell abroad for fear it would end up in Russia's hands.
What happened? The American machine tool industry continued to degrade
to the point where the Defense Department wanted Japanese machines. And
when the Soviets in those days were looking for a machine tool to
create the kind of quality they needed for their submarine program,
they bought a Toshiba.
So let us not sit here and believe that we exist in a vacuum of total
control of this technology. What we are going to set up with this
stampede before any of the committees of jurisdiction have dealt with
the issues is create the only restrictive process in the world. None of
our allies are with us. They are selling everything they can to
everybody who will put money on the table. And we are about to restrict
things that are not in our national interest.
We need to deal with choke-point technologies. We need to deal with
fissionable material, chemical and biological weapons, not with every
piece of technology that leaves this country. And it seems to me that
unless we calm down here a bit, we are going to do fundamental damage
to a critical industry for the future of this country.
The choice is ours. Are we going to continue to add these amendments
whose cumulative weight will create an export licensing process so
complex that no one will believe America is a reliable supplier?
And again, these are not generally technologies that we hold
unilaterally. These are technologies that exist all across the planet.
Other countries, other companies have them.
I will close with this: In the early days of this Clinton
administration, they were refusing a license for telephone switches to
China. These switches operated at 565. And so, I took a look at that.
And again, I am saying none of these things are made in my district, to
my dismay, but this is an American product by AT&T. It was a 565
switch.
The Clinton administration refused to sell it. The Chinese made their
own 565s. So we forced them to create a competitive technology. And a
third country sold them 625 switches even faster. We have to understand
the reality of the world and what really helps us.
The mistakes we have to date I think are clearly of the kind that
this new approach will only exacerbate. Do not try to cast the wide
net. Focus on the critical technologies, on things that are fundamental
to weapons and other secrets that are critical to national security.
Trying to have this broad net across the globe on computers when a
Sony Playstation, our kids' Sony version of Nintendo, operates at a
greater speed than what we consider a super computer today is
unachievable. It will only have one result. It will not increase
national security. It will do damage to America's forward-looking
industries.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I was not going to do this but I cannot let those
comments go unanswered. Here is a chart that I prepared, starting in
1993 until 1999. This chart has been made available to every one of my
colleagues; and for the past two nights, I have done one-hour special
orders here each night in detail about these charts. I cannot go
through all of that today, but I would encourage my colleagues to read
what I said and then come on the floor and dispute what I have said.
These charts were prepared by employees of the Federal Government
that I have been working with from those agencies whose responsibility
has been to monitor our technology, not to stop it, as the gentleman is
trying to say, but to monitor it, so the DOD has at least the ability
to know what it is we are selling.
Now, let us look at what has happened. And why did I pick 1993? Was
it because Bill Clinton was elected? No. It is because in 1993 this
administration decided to end COCOM.
COCOM was a process that was in place with our allied nations to
monitor technology to make sure that in fact that technology, if it was
going to be sold, we would understand the implications. This
administration ended it. And I do not want to hear that it was started
by the Bush administration.
Our Select Committee on China went into detail. We called in the
witnesses. The final decision and the ultimate demise was, by this
administration, they replaced it with something called Wassenaar, which
is a total and complete failure. It has done nothing to stop technology
or to give us the ability to monitor it.
Look at what happened since this administration ended COCOM. Each of
these red dots are decisions that we took unilaterally to allow
technology to flow overseas.
Now, in the case of high-performance computers, let us take that for
a moment. Because the story is, well, every nation builds them today.
Wait a minute. Up until 1995, only two countries built them, Japan and
the U.S. There was an unwritten understanding between Japan and the
U.S. that neither country would export high-performance computers to
tier-three countries. We unilaterally ended that. We did it.
DTSA, the agency that I just talked about, said that is a bad
decision. The administration said, we do not care. We are going to sell
these computers anyplace. Within 2 years, China had acquired 350 high-
performance computers.
What is the industry saying today? Oh, Japan is selling these. We
have to compete with them. Well, why are they selling them? Because our
Government stripped away the process, stripped away the process to
allow the input by defense experts on the implications of these
technology transfers.

[[Page 12242]]

Now, I cannot help it if my colleague does not believe employees of
his administration. That is where I got this information from. But it
goes beyond that also during this time period. These are export
violations by this administration that occurred by China that this
administration ignored and did not impose sanctions required under arms
control regimes.
Where did these technologies go? They did not go to normal countries.
They went to Libya. They went to Iraq. They went to Iran. They went to
North Korea. This administration ignored the violations. This
administration 20 times in the last 7 years, when we caught these
violations occurring, said, we are not going to do anything because we
do not want to upset our relationship with China. This combination of
factors, along with these numerous visits by Chinese influence
peddlers.
I wish my Democrat constituents could visit the President 12 times in
one year like John Huang did. I wish my constituents could have
personal meetings with President Clinton 12 times in one year to
influence peddle. But my constituents do not have that opportunity.
So when the gentleman says we are going too far, I say to the
gentleman, we had a 9-0 vote in the China committee for recommendations
to improve our security. It was this administration who removed the
laboratory security color coding at our Federal labs in 1993.
It was Hazel O'Leary who removed the FBI background checks in 1993.
It was Hazel O'Leary who overruled Lawrence Livermore Laboratory when
they caught a retired employee giving classified information, and she
reinstated. And it was Hazel O'Leary in 1995 who gave the design for
the W-87 warhead to U.S. News and World Report the same year they said
we caught China.
This administration has been the problem with export policy, and we
are trying to make some modest changes sensitive to the concerns of
business to allow us to get a control on what it is we are selling. We
are not trying to hurt business.
I will put my record against that of the gentleman on free market
support of our business any day of the week. For him to stand up here
and say we are trying to hurt our business is nothing less, in my
opinion, than totally distorting our reputation and what we support.
We are concerned about America's security, and we are concerned about
giving our employees in the Defense Department the chance to have input
into what is happening.
I wish the gentleman on the Committee on International Affairs would
have done more on the elimination of COCOM or the other things that
occurred over the past several years that this administration gave away
the complete ability of our country to monitor the kinds of technology
that we are selling. Because if we would have stopped these things, we
would not have had to have a China commission, we would not have had to
have a Cox committee. But none of those things occurred.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, would it be fair
to characterize some of the discussion that took place in the Committee
on Armed Services since 1993 as addressing some of the very problems
that the gentleman has outlined in that chart?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time,
absolutely. And the gentleman and my friend was in the leadership in
some of those debates.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further,
has it not been a topic of discussion among Democrats and Republicans
that these questions that have been raised and which are addressed in
the amendments now before us have been, if anything, stated in just as
strong if not stronger terms in trying to deal with the question of
technology transfer in the security interests of this Nation?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely. And Democrats have been on
the forefront of that in this body, as have Republicans. Our battle has
not been within this Congress.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And would it not be fair to say that the question we
had in the Committee on Armed Services was as to whether the Commerce
Department was the best area to be making decisions with respect to
national security interests of this country and technology transfer?
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Absolutely.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And so, I think it would be also fair to indicate
that these two amendments that appear before us today, if anything,
would be characterized by individuals on the Committee on Armed
Services, such as myself, as possibly being even a little light in
terms of what we might reasonably expect to impose given the sorry
record that has appeared before us over the last 6 years.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would say the gentleman
is correct.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, some interesting things have been said, not all of them
completely accurate. And I am sure it is unintentional.
The reality is that COCOM died and it died for a very simple reason.
None of our European, Japanese, and other partners would sit by any of
the rules. Even when we had the Soviet Union, we could not get the
French, Germans, and others to restrict sales.
Once the Soviet Union fell apart, in 1991, not when Bill Clinton got
to be President, but in 1991, COCOM stopped functioning. And the reason
there is not a COCOM today is because we cannot get an agreement from
any of our allies or former members of COCOM on any restrictions
whatsoever. The most that they are willing to do is to have their own
set of rules essentially.
So they can dream about blaming Bill Clinton for everything, even
when he wins. They can use his name here on a regular basis as some
kind of scoundrel. But the reality is, in 1991, when he was not
President, COCOM already stopped working.

{time} 1715

What he tried to do with a follow-on organization is try to get our
allies to have some semblance of a united position on exports. He has
not been able to do it. The next President will not be able to do it.
And not if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) were the
President would he be able to do it because the Europeans will not
enter into that agreement with us.
Supercomputers, the Bulgarians made supercomputers when they were
still communists. It is impossible to think that we are somehow going
to strengthen America's security by degrading the industries that are
giving us a new generation of computers every 6 months. So what you are
going to do is, you are going to try to slow this process down. When a
shelf life of a product is 6 months, you have basically disposed of
that product's value.
When we look at where the future is, the future is very clear. The
societies that take advantage of their leads and invest in future
research and development will be the societies that succeed. American
industry is not always right but in this area they are and the
gentleman is wrong. American industry is competing globally. There are
competitors making high speed computers and others of these products
across the globe. And in every system, the present system and the
previous system, the Defense Department was at the table. But if you
ask people whose sole responsibility is defense, I guess they would not
sell grain, they would not sell cars, they would not sell anything,
because in some way that does assist your adversary.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not develop the technology for the future, we
will be begging the Japanese or the Germans to sell us the computers we
need and then tell me about American national security, when we no
longer make the best in this country. It happened in electronics, it
happened in machine tools, and with this kind of

[[Page 12243]]

attitude, it is going to happen in the most forward industry we have
had in this country in some time, in telecommunication and computers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
In closing, the gentleman would make a fine fantasy writer for
fantasy books. We are dealing in substance here. There have been
serious security concerns brought before this Congress by nine of the
most solid Members of this institution, four members of the Democrat
Party who I have the highest respect for, who understand security
issues and understand the implications of them and do not get on this
floor and rail with a bunch of uninformed and unbacked-up rhetoric
about what we are trying to do. This is a serious issue that deserves a
serious response. This amendment takes that step. I would encourage and
ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan effort to provide one more
tool to allow us to monitor our technology before it is sold to a rogue
nation or a terrorist state.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 266, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 181]

AYES--159

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blunt
Bonilla
Bono
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Fletcher
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
LaHood
Latham
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--266

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Calvert
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--9

Brown (CA)
Ewing
Hinchey
Kasich
Luther
McHugh
Quinn
Sherwood
Waters

{time} 1741

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. KLECZKA, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr.
BRADY of Texas and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WALDEN of Oregon and Mr. HULSHOF changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent Mr. Skelton was allowed to speak out of order).

Announcement of Agreement by Military Forces of Yugoslavia to Withdraw
From Kosovo Within 11 Days

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
Some in the House may know this, but many may not:
Secretary of Defense Cohen just a few moments ago announced that
there is a withdrawal agreement by the military forces of Yugoslavia
back to Serbia, and the agreement is that they will be completely out
of Kosovo in 11 days.
I thought the House should know that.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 11 printed
in House Report 106-175.
The Chair understands that it will not be offered.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 12 printed in the House
Report 106- 175.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. DeLay

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. DeLay:
Strike section 1203 (page 310, line 22 through page 314,
line 7) and insert the following:

[[Page 12244]]

SEC. 1203. LIMITATION ON MILITARY-TO-MILITARY EXCHANGES WITH
CHINA'S PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY.

(a) Limitation.--The Secretary of Defense may not authorize
any military-to-military exchange or contact described in
subsection (b) to be conducted by the Armed Forces with
representatives of the People's Liberation Army of the
People's Republic of China.
(b) Covered Exchanges and Contacts.--Subsection (a) applies
to any military-to-military exchange or contact that includes
any of the following:
(1) Force projection operations.
(2) Nuclear operations.
(3) Field operations.
(4) Logistics.
(5) Chemical and biological defense and other capabilities
related to weapons of mass destruction.
(6) Surveillance, and reconnaissance operations.
(7) Joint warfighting experiments and other activities
related to warfare.
(8) Military space operations.
(9) Other warfighting capabilities of the Armed Forces.
(10) Arms sales or military-related technology transfers.
(11) Release of classified or restricted information.
(12) Access to a Department of Defense laboratory.
(c) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to any
search and rescue exercise or any humanitarian exercise.
(d) Certification by Secretary.--The Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate
and the Committee on Armed Service of the House of
Representatives, not later than December 31 of each year, a
certification in writing as to whether or not any military-
to-miltary exchange or contact during that calandar year was
conducted in violation of subsection (a).
(e) Annual Report.--Not later than June 1 each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Service of
the House of Representatives a report providing the
Secretary's assessment of the current state of military-to-
military contacts with the People's Liberation Army. The
report shall include the following:
(1) A summary of all such military-to-military contacts
during the period since the last such report, including a
summary of topics discussed and questions asked by the
Chinese participants in those contacts.
(2) A description of the military-to-military contacts
scheduled for the next 12-month period and a five-year plan
for those contacts.
(3) The Secretary's assessment of the benefits the Chinese
expect to gain from those military-to-military contacts.
(4) The Secretary's assessment of the benefits the
Department of Defense expects to gain from those military-to-
military contacts.
(5) The Secretary's assessment of how military-to-military
contacts with the People's Liberation Army fit into the
larger security relationship between United States and the
People's Republic of China.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

{time} 1745.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to bar the United
States from training the Communist Chinese military. Now, at first this
amendment may sound unnecessary, especially after all the revelations
about the Red Chinese spying that was found in the Cox report. It seems
almost crazy to even suggest that the American government might tutor
its ambitious nemesis in military strategy, but that is exactly what
the United States Department of Defense under Bill Clinton has planned.
Unless this Congress acts to stop it, the Pentagon will go ahead with
military to military exchanges and other sensitive information sharing
with the People's Liberation Army. Such cooperation between American
and Red Chinese Armed Forces has been both hot and cold for the better
part of two decades. President Bush ended military exercises 10 years
ago after the communist government violently suppressed the peaceful
protest for democracy in Tiananmen Square. But consistent with his
administration's habitual appeasement of Communist China, President
Clinton jump-started American cooperation with the PLA soon after
taking office in 1993. The imbalance in these so-called exchanges is
extreme and predictably benefits the PRC.
Just this year, more than 80 cooperative military contacts were
planned between the U.S. and Red China. Proposals for these training
exercises include American operation on advice from Special Forces
units, from the Navy Seals, the Army Green Berets and the Air Force.
Last December a ship from Communist China participated for the first
time ever in complex exercises with America in Hong Kong. Plans were
hatched this year for the PLA to engage in Code Thunder, the largest
U.S. Air Force exercise in the Pacific, and, remarkably, the United
States Army has already hosted communist troops for training exercises,
and it just recently squelched a visit by PLA observers to view the
entire American air and infantry divisions that were practicing at the
Army's National Training Center.
Such suicidal national behavior has to come to an end. The role of
our military is to defend America from hostile foreign powers, not to
train them. This amendment protects the American military from its own
expertise.
The United States has the most sophisticated military equipment in
the world, bar none. Rogue nations and other aggressors are permanently
discouraged from wreaking havoc around the globe because they fear the
wrath of American retaliation.
One key to this influence is our unmatched technological and
strategic supremacy. Why on earth would we want to share our most
valuable secrets with any nation, let alone a potential aggressor? The
Cox report went into painful detail about the extent to which our
arsenals have already been compromised to Communist China. The massive
depth of the PRC's operation to infiltrate American security should
teach us many lessons about our relationship with the growing power in
Asia.
Primarily our relationship is not a two-way street. The PRC steals
our nuclear secrets and we do nothing. We give them industrial
technology and ask for nothing in return. They financially tamper with
the reelection of an American President, and we sweep it under the rug.
We open our markets to their products, but they slam their markets
closed to America. Now, almost like a parody, the United States is
practically training the People's Liberation Army. It is past time that
we say enough is enough.
Opening our markets is different than opening our laboratories and
military facilities, and the line should now be drawn. The Chinese
Communists will not leave any stones unturned in their quest for
military domination. There is absolutely no reason for the United
States to enhance the PLA's war-making capabilities. It was not that
long ago that a high ranking PLA official threatened to nuke Los
Angeles if America interfered in the Taiwan Straits. There could be no
clearer warning to their intentions, and we must defend ourselves from
such a threat.
Now, this amendment is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It prohibits the
United States Secretary of Defense from authorizing military exchanges
with Communist China that reveal American classified, nuclear,
logistical, technological, intelligence and other war fighting secrets.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress must vote against military-to-military
exchanges with the Communist Chinese now. American security is
definitely at stake.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I must point out this amendment is unnecessary. The
committee did its work. The language in section 1203 of our bill more
than adequately protects American national security in the area of
military-to-military exchanges with the Chinese People's Liberation
Army. The majority wrote this language, we agreed to it, it is good
language.
Let me tell you what it does, what is already in the bill. First, it
provides that these contacts be governed by the

[[Page 12245]]

principles of reciprocity and transparency.
Second, it establishes limits that would prevent Members of the PLA
from inappropriate access to advanced technologies and capabilities of
the United States Armed Forces.
Third, it requires the Secretary of Defense to certify prior to the
start of any operation that military-to-military contacts with the PLA
will be conducted in accordance with such principles of reciprocity and
transparency that such contacts are in the national security interests
of the United States, and prohibits members of the U.S. Armed Forces
from participating in any military-to-military contacts until such
certification is given to Congress.
Fourth, it requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed
annual report to Congress that provides an assessment of the military-
to-military contacts with the PLA.
In addition to being unnecessary, this amendment would actually harm
American security interests. The truth is that military-to-military
contacts are more beneficial to the U.S. than to the PLA. Our military
operates every day in an open, democratic society. The PLA operates in
China's closed society. With military-to-military contacts we gain
insight in the PLA's structure, its culture, its mode of operation and
its influence on Chinese internal politics and foreign policy
decisionmaking.
It is a matter of intelligence. We enhance our understanding of
China's strategic doctrine and can reduce the potential for
miscalculations and access between the PLA and U.S. or other Western
forces.
Moreover, routine senior level defense contact in times of relative
calm can help ensure open communications during times of tension. The
language that is already in the bill, that is already there, written by
the majority and agreed to by the minority, protects U.S. national
security, while keeping open lines of communication, which is very
essential to the American national interests.
I intend to vote against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLay amendment to limit
military-to-military contact between members of the United States Armed
Forces and the Chinese People's Liberation Army. The DeLay amendment
would strengthen the limitation already carried in the committee bill
that would attempt to better protect our military secrets while not
prohibiting VIP level exchanges from continuing.
Make no mistake about it, there is a need for increased vigilance. As
the bipartisan Cox committee report reminds us, the Chinese are engaged
in a long-term effort to modernize their military, and, in particular,
to understand and acquire the power projection capabilities that are
the hallmark of our military forces.
In addition to acquiring United States and Western technology to
improve their power projection capabilities, the Chinese are also
attempting to understand and even adopt United States military tactics,
techniques and procedures, the essential how-to knowledge necessary for
effective military operations.
Increasingly, the Department of Defense is being pressured by other
elements of our government to work with the Chinese military in ways
that increase the chances these vital trade secrets might be revealed.
For example, just recently the Chinese asked to send a delegation of 20
officers to the United States Army Training Center to be fully
integrated into operations there. Although the Chinese were eventually
denied full access to the center, the Army was under pressure from
other parts of the administration to give the Chinese, quoting from an
Army source, ``a level of involvement that was beyond what we had
granted to any other country,'' according to these Army documents. The
Army believed the Chinese had an ulterior motive for their request, the
desire to gain insight into advanced Army tactics.
Mr. Chairman, the United States would be foolish to place a higher
value on the policy of engagement with China than on protecting the
tactics and technologies that are the cornerstone of our national
security, especially capabilities for power projection that China might
well turn on Taiwan or our other allies in the Asia-Pacific region.
I agree with the DeLay amendment, and urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Guam (Mr. Underwood).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas, which has been characterized as a limitation on
military to military exchanges with China's People's Liberation Army.
However, if one takes the time to read the amendment, they will soon
discover the limitation is a little inaccurate. What the amendment
actually does is destroy the cornerstone of an effort to try to work to
some extent with the military on a reciprocal basis with the Chinese
military.

{time} 1800

I think the amendment represents a misunderstanding about what
military-to-military exchange programs are all about.
At first glance it would appear that the DeLay amendment would have
us believe that the U.S. military is currently engaged in some
sophisticated military exercises with the Chinese PLA, or has done so
in the past. This is not the case. This amendment would prohibit all
military contacts with the PLA for logistics operations, field
operations, chemical and biological defense, force projection
operations, and arms sales.
Ironically, we have not participated in this level of cooperation
with China since Chiang Kai Shek, and the DeLay amendment sets up the
premise that our military is sharing vital tactical and operational
techniques with the PLA.
This is a little bit exaggerated. If any American commander was to
engage in the kind of substantive exchange type of activities
enumerated in the DeLay amendment, that commander should be in deep
trouble. The language of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) is redundant in that he is outlawing what is already not
practice.
In reality, the military exchange program, through this program as it
currently exists, both China and the U.S. have embarked on a series of
measured steps aimed at achieving increasingly higher levels of mutual
confidence and understanding.
Let no mistake be made, our current military engagement program with
China is leagues away from any level of cooperation we have with any
other nation on the face of the earth. The basic substance of our
existing military contact with the Chinese is based around naval port
visits, exchange visits by top military leaders, and working level
talks and meetings.
Indeed, during his tenure as commander of U.S. Forces in the Pacific,
Admiral Joseph Prueher, now retired, had several productive exchanges
with the Chinese military leadership which focused on discussions on
Asia-Pacific security issues and bilateral defense relations.
Admiral Prueher's exchanges also provided for an opportunity for us
to learn about what is going on in China and their efforts at so-called
economic reforms, and the PLA's modernization. Our intelligence of this
information would be scant, at best, if it were not for the
relationships established by such military-to-military exchanges.
Even if we were to treat the Chinese as an adversary or potential
adversary, continued and measured military-to-military exchanges
provide invaluable intelligence and access to China's military leaders
that we otherwise would be cut off from.

[[Page 12246]]

The British in the early part of this century promoted military and
academic exchanges with their adversaries, the Germans, in order to
know their enemy. We, too, engaged in this practice with Japanese
admirals in the 1920s and '30s. Ceasing this intelligence practice
would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
The essential point is that in our society, we encourage the free
exchange of ideas. This is one of the reasons why our Nation annually
and publicly releases reports on the posture and strategy of our armed
forces.
In fact, the U.S.-China military exchanges have created an
environment where China has finally published its first white paper on
defense, and although we know it is not comprehensive and not entirely
accurate, I think through this contact we are breaking a barrier.
Mr. Chairman, furthermore, the DeLay amendment ignores the key
current practice that governs our military-to-military exchanges with
the PLA. In response to unequal treatment of access with regard to
Chinese military equipment and installations as well as exercise
viewing privileges, the Secretary of Defense has established a quid pro
quo procedure. In other words, our military exchanges mirror the level
of access that is granted to our officers and troops on exchange in
China. Thus, I think our fears of unequal access are moot.
Through this evenhanded and measured commonsense initiative, we do
not risk exposing ourselves to charges of weakness and
disingenuousness, but at the same time we remain engaged with China's
military to achieve the greater goal of mutual understanding.
This amendment is simplistic, I believe a knee-jerk reaction that
feebly attempts to stem a genuine problem, but a problem that exists in
an entirely different area. This amendment fails to consider the entire
picture and constellation of elements that comprise our national
security apparatus. The DeLay amendment seeks to create an enemy out of
China by naively tossing out the baby with the bath water.
We need to create a balanced legislative approach that will yield a
well-conceived response to foreign espionage.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes sense. I can
understand why a cultural and economic relationship with China can
improve human rights, but China is not a military friend. The events of
last month have made that clear.
After the Tiananmen Square massacre, we discontinued military
cooperation with China, and then in 1993 President Clinton reinitiated
military-to-military contacts. Now we have learned that as early as
1996, national security adviser Sandy Berger knew that the Chinese had
stolen our nuclear secrets and were continuing to practice espionage in
the United States.
Yet, in 1998, for the first time ever, we engaged in a joint military
exercise with China's Peoples' Liberation Army. What has occurred
during these military-to-military contacts scares me almost as much as
the Cox report.
We have recently learned China is now attempting to purchase
torpedoes specifically designed to explode directly under our ships.
Why? Because at one of the visits last year they learned that our U.S.
aircraft carriers had a thin hall and were vulnerable to these types of
torpedoes.
At these exercises the Chinese saw our military's dependence on
satellites and digital systems and AWACs aircraft. It does not surprise
me that they are now seeking new ways to attack American satellites and
to disrupt communications. We should not be allowing any national
security secrets to be given away to any potential adversaries, much
less China. We would not invite a thief to observe our home security
system as it was being installed and tested.
This administration continues to show its inability to even attempt
to keep our national security secrets from China. As a result of this
ineptness, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Delay) to prohibit most military-to-military contacts with the People's
Liberation Army.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. No one can deny that
there is a serious breach of U.S. security with respect to the leak of
military secrets to the People's Republic of China. The answer in my
view to address that problem is to plug the leaks, punish the
violators, prevent this from happening again, and to outsmart the
technology which the Chinese have wrongfully obtained.
The answer is not to change our form of government and replace one
Secretary of Defense and one Commander in Chief with 435 Secretaries of
Defense or Commanders in Chief. I believe that is the fundamental error
behind this ill-conceived amendment.
I would like my colleagues to consider the following not-too-unlikely
scenario: A rogue state, let us say Iraq, decides it wants to plan and
execute an attack on a U.S. corporation located in Beijing, in the
People's Republic of China. Our intelligence community learns of this
planned attack.
If the DeLay amendment were the law, as I read it, the Secretary of
Defense and the military would be prohibited from talking to the
People's Republic of China military about responding to prevent that
attack, prevented from sharing any information as to what to do about
it.
The principal flaw in this very flawed proposal is not simply what I
believe to be its political motivation, it is also its absolute
unreasonableness in implementation. People have to make decisions in
times of crises with limited information and with peoples' lives on the
line. It is wholely inappropriate for us to require that those
decisions be bound up in the deliberations of a legislative branch.
There is not one Member here, certainly not I, that would say that
the conduct of the Chinese military is exemplary. But history teaches
us that there are times when we cannot choose our partners or our
allies. There are times when we must act and seek the help of anyone
who is willing and prepared to help us.
I agree that those circumstances would be very limited, indeed, given
the history of the last few years and months and weeks on this issue.
But for us to rule it out with the exception of search and rescue
exercises or humanitarian exercises, whatever that means, I believe is
imprudent and reckless, and is an abrogation of the rightful
constitutional power of the executive branch.
For these reasons, I would urge my colleagues, both Republicans and
Democrats, to reject this ill-conceived amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. Chairman, we were just looking at what happened with Secretary
O'Leary a few years ago. We found out recently that she has been, when
she was Secretary of Energy, she was shovelling out the door our
nuclear secrets, just shovelling out the door. In retrospect, it looked
like a going out of business sale. It was probably more like a going
out of sanity sale. This is insane. The policies this administration
has had towards Communist China, our worst, our most deadly potential
enemy, is insane.
We have heard, we can just plug the leaks, change a little here,
change a little there, and that is the way to approach it. No. What we
need to protect the interests of the United States and ensure that our
people are not incinerated with our own weapons or destroyed or killed,
or having our defenders destroyed or killed by tactics that they have
learned from us, that our enemy has learned from us, the way we do that
is change the fundamental policies that we have toward Communist China.

[[Page 12247]]

Communism should not be treated as a potential friend. It is being
treated as a friend now. It should be treated as a potential enemy. It
is a hostile power, it is not a friendly power. Until we start treating
communism this way, we will continue to do nonsensical things like
training their military on how to better run a military.
I have a list here, as of February of this year, of the proposed
military exchanges between the United States and the Communist Chinese.
It includes quartermaster training, acquisition training, logistics
training. It includes special forces training. It includes having their
top officers to come for briefings.
Here we have what this administration's policies are. This is after
they knew, this is after this administration knew that the Communist
Chinese had acquired our most deadly weapons secrets, weapons that
could incinerate millions of Americans, and this administration was
still proposing that we have a military exchange program to teach them
how our military functions and how their military can better function.
This is insanity. This is total insanity. I strongly support the
DeLay amendment, and would request the American people to pay close
attention to this vote.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the descriptive term that was
used by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher)
may be the right one, but it is about the underlying amendment, not
opposition to it.
As I read this, yes, and again, I like the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), I get along with him well, I know his intentions are noble. But
would the author of the legislation prohibit the American military from
sitting down with the Chinese to deal with nonproliferation issues? If
we had not just reached this conclusion in Kosovo, it would be illegal
under the language of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to sit down
and talk about logistics with the Chinese.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay) apparently does not trust our
American military, that they are either too naive or simple, that
somehow the Chinese are going to take advantage of them.
Let me tell the Members, we live in a free and open society. Anybody
who wants to talk to the American military can look in the phone book
and call them up and talk to them. We do not get to talk to Chinese,
generally, because it is a closed society.
I would argue that whether it was the Soviet Union or any of the
satellite states, that any time there was contact, at the end of the
day, America and freedom won. I believe our system is stronger, our
military is more capable, and every time they come in contact with
America and what it does, they crumble a little more.
The Chinese are probably praying that we go into an isolationist
mode. It could be the best thing for the leaders in Beijing, because
when they meet and see what Americans are all about, our strength comes
across clearly.
Let us see what the Department of Defense says about this amendment.

{time} 1815

For example, an attempt by U.S. open military-to-military channels
regarding nonproliferation by definition involved contacts or exchanges
with the PLA strategic missile and/or chemical defense personnel.
Proliferation is a key area of U.S. Chinese relations, yet DoD would be
barred from participating in that discussion. I would think the
gentleman would demand that if there were discussions on
nonproliferation that he would have members of the American military
there.
Listening to the debate today, no one fools themselves that this
world is not a dangerous place, even without the Soviet Union and its
former empire situation. But we are the most powerful country on the
face of this Earth. There is no one in second place compared to our
capabilities, our men and women who represent us in the service.
I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), for this country to be
shivering here, trying to stop dialogue that achieves our goals, is a
mistake. It is a mistake to say we cannot talk about proliferation
issues. It is a mistake not to have these military-to-military contacts
when it suits our interests, when America decides it is the right thing
to do.
I am not sure what is going on here, frankly. I see a debate that
creates the image of a weak and failing America. It is the wrong
message to our countrymen. It is the wrong message to our adversaries.
America is strong and capable. I would bet the lowest-ranking member of
our Armed Forces, in a discussion with the Chinese, that we win that
discussion, that we gain from that discussion.
When they see what we live like here, it undermines them. My parents
fled the Soviet Union. What they told me was when Khrushchev visited
here, they believed and I believe it, too, that Khrushchev thought we
built a Potemkin Village, that we created these great grocery stores
for him to see. Then Khrushchev went back.
But by the time Gorbachev came, they knew from military-to-military
contacts, from private contacts, that every American had a better life
than the top brass of the Soviet union.
It is foolish to put in permanent law a ban on these kind of
contacts. It defies our own national interests. This is not about doing
the Chinese a favor. We do not have these meetings to help the Chinese.
We do this for our interests.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time is remaining on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has 16\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) has 15
minutes remaining.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say this side believes that we have a
strong America, but we have a weak administration. Nothing in my
amendment has anything to do with talking about proliferation or
treaties or anything else. It has everything to do with exchange of
operations, letting the communist Chinese observe what we do so they
can take it back to China and copy it, if not steal it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this important
amendment. I hope that it sends a wake-up call to both the leaders of
the People's Republic of China and our current administration.
I am shocked and dismayed by the casual attitude of our current
administration to the efforts of the Chinese Government to infiltrate
our Nation's political and military infrastructure. I do not take these
actions against our Nation lightly, and I hope my colleagues will not
either.
I thought it was a proper course of action in 1989 when President
Bush suspended joint training exercises following Tiananmen Square.
Given the findings of the Cox report and our administration's admitted
failure to respond to massive security breaches, I believe we should
suspend all joint military exercises with China at once.
I believe that someday a peaceful Chinese nation can contribute
positively to the international community. But at the present time, it
is very difficult to place trust in the Chinese Government and expect a
change in our current administration's seemingly willful acceptance of
China's deceptive tactics and aggressive posture. I think that our
current policy toward China should mirror that of President Reagan's
engagement with the Soviet Union by containing their military
aggression, preaching the moral superiority of freedom, and influencing
the ideas of their people through trade and exposure to western
political values.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment. Stop joint military activities with China until their
leaders are willing to participate as an honest world power and until
our administration is willing to make our national security a top
priority.

[[Page 12248]]

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman from Missouri for granting me this time and particularly
since he has given me time to speak in support of the DeLay amendment.
I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is right on this. I
think between the revelations of the two 40-foot container loads of
automatic weapons being shipped to our West Coast, the now control of
two ports on the Panama Canal by a company called Hutchinson, which is
owned by the Chinese, the things that have come out as a result of the
Cox report as far as the Chinese either being given in some instances
by dumb Americans, in some instances being sold technology and some
instances stealing technology.
But I would like to ask the sponsor of this bill to let us take this
a step further. See, next month this body is going to vote on something
called most-favored-nation status for China. Technology is one thing.
But in order to build the weapons that threaten America, China needs
money. They get that money from America. They get that money from trade
with America where they sell their goods to America with 2 percent or
less tariff as a result of the most-favored-nation status. Yet, our
country, our goods, when sold in China, have to pay anywhere from 20 to
40 percent.
I find it strange that the gentleman who is so right on this issue, 1
year ago, on July 22, when we voted to disapprove most-favored-nation
status voted with the Chinese. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
voted to grant the Chinese unlimited access to the American market and
to continue this $60 billion trade surplus on behalf of China.
In fact, I think I have gone so far as to break the code. See, MFN
does not really stand for most favored nation. It stands for money for
nukes. When some people very cleverly changed the name of it to NTR,
thinking it would stand for normal trade relations, I think the truth
of the matter is it stands for nuclear tipped rockets that they are
going to buy with American money.
So I am going to vote with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
today, but a month from now when we vote on MFN, money for nukes, I
hope he will be voting with me to vote no.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) for yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support today of the DeLay amendment. The time has
come to base our relationship with China on realism rather than wishful
thinking. The DeLay amendment sends a necessary message to the People's
Republic of China that the communist government is an untrustworthy
military partner.
China's overall military modernization is striking. The PLA's
abandonment of a traditional land-based people's army in favor of
forming comprehensive strategic and nuclear strike capability by land,
sea, and air has profound consequences on our relationship with China,
and we ought to let them know that.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the PRC has been pursuing a
rapid escalation of its military modernization, of both its strategic
and conventional forces, and it is utilizing American technology to do
so.
As a result, I believe a military confrontation with the PRC is not
out of the question. Let us remember it was just 3 years ago that we
were forced to send two aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait to
respond to PRC menacing the region.
Military-to-military exchanges are in some cases cornerstones of
important peaceful relationships with our allies. The People's Republic
of China is not an ally. To be successful, these exchanges must employ
real transparencies so that each partner gains insights into the
capabilities of the others.
There is no mutual transparency here, Mr. Chairman, in our exchanges
with the PLA. Instead, the information obtained by the Chinese is being
used by its military to isolate our vulnerabilities and position the
PLA for a future conflict, and our military experts observe nothing of
value in return. This is not the goal of military exchanges. This
amendment ensures that our leading military technology and know-how are
not turned against us in the form of an advanced military threat.
Mr. Chairman, Henry Kissinger recently stated ``that the critics of
our `strategic relationship' with China have an obligation to develop a
vision commensurate with the vastness of the historical sweep of the
challenge.''
I believe he was addressing people like the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) and myself. I would answer Mr. Kissinger by pointing to the
document which is the foundation of our American vision, our
Constitution. It is, after all, a vision which requires minimum rights
and protections for all individuals.
As we know, if Mr. Kissinger were a Chinese citizen and espoused the
principles of the Constitution, he would be quickly in prison. Our
vision, Mr. Kissinger, is the vision of Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson,
and preserving it is important.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to China, our country has looked the other
way for too long. The DeLay amendment tells China that we expect a
relationship based on truth and realism. I urge all my colleagues to
support the DeLay amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLay amendment to
restrict military exchanges with China's People's Liberation Army. The
time has come to base our relationship with China on realism rather
than wishful thinking.
Since 1994 the P.R.C. has been constructing military facilities in
the Spratly Islands. The size and nature of these facilities suggest
that the P.R.C. is attempting to establish a permanent strategic
presence in the area, from which it could patrol the South China Sea,
the waterway through which one sixth of the world's trade is shipped.
Two years ago, in March 1997 a Chinese controlled company was able to
obtain, from Panama, the rights to the port facilities that flank the
canal zone.
Then there is the matter of the democratic nation of Taiwan. The
P.R.C.'s 1995 military exercises and 1996 missile firings in the Taiwan
Strait have been followed by an offensive military buildup on the
Chinese mainland itself that includes tripling the number of missiles
(to more than 100) already deployed against Taiwan.
These developments are all the more alarming when seen against the
backdrop of:
(1) China's overall military modernization, its abandonment of a
traditional, land-based ``people's army'' in favor of a comprehensive
strategic and nuclear strike capability by land, sea, and air;
(2) China's clandestine efforts to acquire the most secret and
sensitive of United States military technologies, including the know-
how to replicate the W 88 warhead, the most dangerous security breach
in 50 years; and
(3) allegations that China has assisted the North Korean missile
program, on top of its known and suspected sales of missile and nuclear
technologies to terrorist states.
With respect to China, our country has looked the other way for too
long.
Human rights violations in China and Tibet are another point of
contention since the Tiananmen Square crackdown. Among these violations
are the recent excessive jail and labor camp sentences for pro-
democracy activists.
A future military confrontation with the P.R.C. is not out of the
question. Just three years ago President Clinton was forced to send two
American aircraft carriers into the Taiwan Strait.
United States policy toward the P.R.C. has been based on wishful
thinking for far too long. Policy makers in the Administration of both
parties have time and time again been willing to give Chinese leaders
the benefit of the doubt only to be consistently let down.
The DeLay amendment tells China that we expect a relationship based
on truth and realism.
Mr. Chairman, Henry Kissinger recently stated and I quote, ``that the
critics of our ``strategic relationship'' with China have an obligation
to develop a vision commensurate with the vastness and historical sweep
of the challenge''.
I believe he was addressing people such as Congressman DeLay and
myself. I would answer Mr. Kissinger's challenge by pointing to

[[Page 12249]]

the document which is the foundation of America's vision. Our
constitution. A vision which requires minimal rights and protections
for all individuals.
As we all know, if Mr. Kissinger were a Chinese citizen and espoused
the principals of our constitution he would quickly be imprisoned. Our
vision, Mr. Kissinger is the vision of Franklin, Adams and Jefferson.
I ask support for the DeLay amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I
commend him for bringing attention to this extremely important national
security issue.
I first learned last summer that the Pentagon was considering a plan
for our elite special forces to engage in joint training exercises with
Chinese PLA troops. At the time, I was outraged because our lax U.S.
policy of constructive engagement toward China had already proven too
dangerous.
Mr. Chairman, that was before the advent of the Cox report. What once
seemed outrageous is now beyond belief. We have known for years that
China cannot be trusted. In 1995, the United States made a futile
agreement to extend most-favored-nation status to China, providing it
would stop exporting nuclear weapons, and it would stop its abusive
human rights practices. It has failed on both accounts, Mr. Chairman,
and yet the administration continues to turn a blind eye to China's
blatant suppression of human rights and its role as a global supply of
weapons of mass destruction and technology to foreign countries.
We have learned the hard way that we have no reason to trust China.
Last year the CIA reported that China had at least 13 missiles targeted
at United States cities, and the Rumsfeld Commission indicated that
China's proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass
destruction threatens the security of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, while China was busy selling technology to rogue
nations and amassing its own nuclear stockpile, the Defense Department
was drawing up a game plan to engage the United States in military-to-
military contacts with China in hopes of establishing a relationship of
trust and confidence. How much more can we afford to give?
The Defense Department even developed and implemented a United
States-China military exchange program for 1999 that includes visits
from PLA officials to tactical and strategic facilities in the United
States. Encouraging such exchanges is another way to potentially expose
U.S. military information to a communistic nation.
Mr. Chairman, China has proved itself a threat to United States
national security. The DeLay amendment would prohibit military
exchanges involving U.S. forces training PLA forces and help prevent
China's capability for invasion and long-range operations.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the DeLay amendment. The
security of our Nation may depend on it. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the
security of our Nation may depend on it. Vote for the DeLay amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham), a top gun.

{time} 1845

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, but I am old gun now.
I would tell my colleagues that if I were to see a cobra, and the
cobra was mounted, I might catch it and milk his venom and use that
venom for good. And I think in some ways we need to, whether it is the
Middle East, whether China or Russia, we have to engage them both
economically and in other ways and milk that. But at the same time, I
think we do not let that cobra loose where we have children playing in
a room, and we do not teach that cobra how to bite.
The Navy Fighter Weapons School, which is known as the Top Gun, and
the Air Force has the 414th, which is their fighter weapons school, and
the adversary squadrons, every single day of my life in the service I
flew Russian and Chinese tactics against our fighters so we would know
how to fight them. How do we defeat their jammers? How do we defeat
their tactics.
For example, they have high-low pairs and they have pincer tactics.
They will take a pair up, up high, of MiG 23s or MiG 25s or even MiG
29s, and they will run sections of pairs, high-low pairs so that we
cannot pick out the low pair or the high pair on one radar, and they
want the enemy to go after the high pair. Then they will come around in
a double pince or a single pince. If the high section sees that the
enemy is going after them, they will turn and run and the pince will
come in and shoot the enemy down.
The White House allowed the Chinese and the Russians into the 414th,
into Navy Fighter Weapons School in Fallon, and let them watch how we
defeat their tactics and their jammers. That is wrong. That is like
teaching the cobra how to bite. And I guarantee my colleagues, Russia
and China will bite us if they have the opportunity. And the reason I
am supporting this amendment is I do not want to give that cobra the
chance to bite the kids that are up there in the air or on the ground
with other things. I think that is wrong.
When I was a lieutenant in the United States Navy, I was just as
outspoken then as I am now. And when our government, with a Republican
President, let the Shah of Iran have F-14s, I pounded my fist on the
table and said I do not want to have to look down the barrel of those
F-14s some day, because the Shah may not be here. And I knew the
history of Iran and that someday we were going to look down those
barrels. And we even trained some of their fighter pilots. And guess
what? I felt like Billy Mitchell.
We must not give our enemies our deep secrets or let them play in the
baby crib. And that is what we are doing, and that is what the
gentleman from Texas, in his amendment, is trying to stop. How more
common sense can we get? We cannot give the enemy the tactics that he
can kill us with. And that is the reason I support the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, there is no one I respect more in this House than the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). His work on this committee is
outstanding, his leadership in trying to stop the devastation and the
hollowing out of our defense is next to none. The gentleman, we say
from Texas, knows from where he comes, and I do respect the gentleman,
but in this case I respectfully disagree with him.
The gentleman says that my amendment is redundant because the
committee has worked very hard at putting language in the bill that
does basically the same thing I do. Where I disagree is the
transparency and the reciprocity part of their portion of the bill,
which, in my opinion, gives a huge loophole to this administration,
this administration that has already exhibited incredible weakness when
it comes to China.
Foreign relations with China are very difficult in the best of
circumstances. They were difficult during the Reagan administration,
they were difficult under all the administrations before this
administration. But when we have an administration that kowtows to the
Chinese, that lets them bamboozle them, that out-negotiates them, it
leads to these kinds of problems that we are talking about here today.
The President of the United States went to China. He was received in
Tiananmen Square, where hundreds were killed fighting for democracy.
The President, while he was in China, was embarrassed when the
Communist Chinese decided that that they would test an ICBM missile
while the President of the U.S. was in-country. Just recently, after
the huge mistake of bombing the Chinese embassy, this President
apologized I do not know how many times. And I will tell my colleagues
something, I will never forget the picture that I saw on CNN network of
the ambassador to China and his aide standing over the President of the
United States while he was sitting at his desk in the oval office
signing a book of apology. Now, we should have apologized once, and
that is enough.

[[Page 12250]]

But this administration has kowtowed to the Communist Chinese over
and over again. And now we find that they are using all types of ways
for exchanges to show the Communist Chinese and the People's Liberation
Army how we do things so they can copy it. It has got to stop.
There is no reciprocity. The only thing that transparency will show
is that we give them the key to the penthouse and they give us the key
to the outhouse. We have got to stop it for the sake and security of
the American people. And my amendment makes no mistake, leaves no door
open, leaves no crack open. My amendment says we are going to stop it
and we are not going to show the Chinese how the SEALS operate; we are
not going to show exercises using two divisions of our army; we are not
going to let them on our aircraft carriers so they can take notes of
how to destroy them; we are not going to do these kinds of things. That
is what my amendment does.
The gentleman from Guam says that the program improves our knowledge
of Chinese methods and tactics. We are going to learn 1950s and 1960s
and 1970s military tactics from the Chinese. We gather intelligence
from them. The U.S. Armed Forces are superior to the People's
Liberation Army. There is nothing we can learn from them nor is there
parity between these exchanges. We offer the Chinese our national
laboratories while they offer us empty barracks.
Let me just cite a couple of examples that were put in an article in
The New Republic written by Jason Zengerle, I believe it is. A group of
officers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army happened to drop in
on an American naval base. Over steaks, beer, two kinds of wine and
apple pie, the Chinese peppered their American counterparts with
questions about the American aircraft carrier they were on and its
vulnerabilities. Wanting to be a gracious host, like the admiral, an
American lieutenant commander proceeded to tell the Chinese about the
carrier's Achilles heel, its hull is too thin on the bottom, the
commander explained. So a torpedo that exploded underneath the carrier
could easily penetrate the carrier's skin. That is why they are buying
torpedoes that explode under our ships because we gave them the
information.
In another incident, not surprisingly then, when then chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, visited a Chinese
military installation in 1997, and this is incredible, he was shown a
routine marksman demonstration, at a distance, through binoculars. Now,
this is an exchange. And he was given a tour of empty barracks and mess
halls. And similar things have happened to other visiting American
officers. We see the same tired old factories, the same divisions we
have seen before, gripes a Pentagon official. We do not get into their
crack divisions and factories.
We have to stop this. We have to stop it now. Enough is enough. The
security of this country is at stake. I ask for a ``yea'' vote for the
DeLay amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I first must say to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham), that no one in this Chamber admires more what he has done
and what he does for his country, so I compliment him in his past and
present actions, though from time to time we will vary on issues. And I
appreciate the gentleman's comments earlier.
But let me say this to my friend from California, as well as my
friend from Texas. When we first started the debate on this bill, I
stated that this was the best bill that we have put forward to the
Congress of the United States since the early 1980s. That included the
language regarding the military-to-military contacts regarding China
drafted by the majority under the guidance of our chairman, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). We have done the job. It is
well worth it. We have protected the interests of the United States. I
do not think it could be better.
The amendment that the gentleman from Texas offers, in my opinion,
gilds the lily. I think that what is in there is excellent. I stand by
it, I embrace it, I compliment the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spence) and those that worked it out and I agree with it. I hope that
we stand by it and approve it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
Representative Delay's amendment. This amendment would prohibit the
military to military exchanges that train the People's Liberation Army
of China.
I support this amendment for several reasons. First in light of the
Cox report on the extent of China's espionage and theft of America's
national security secrets, I feel that further contact is unwise. It
would be imprudent to foster a relationship, which is not beneficial to
our nation's interests and further extends the risk of exposure of U.S.
technologies and capabilities.
This bill would ensure that exchanges and contacts between our
military and the People's Liberation Army would be beneficial to both
nations. It would prohibit exchanges and contacts which involve
nuclear, chemical or biological operations; intelligence activities;
war-fighting exercises, military space operations; arm sales or
military related technology transfers. This amendment would preserve
our two nation's ability to perform search and rescue or humanitarian
exercises.
Mr. Chairman, June 4th marked the ten-year anniversary of the tragedy
in Tiananmen Square. The images of the crackdown on the student
democratic movement are still fresh in my mind even after ten years.
The failure to recognize the mistake of ten years ago continues, as
last week over 100 dissidents were detained to prevent the public
marking of this anniversary.
I offer this recollection because, I believe that China has not
recognized that stability is not something which can be demanded but
rather it must come from the people freely expressing their own ideas.
The United States should not have military to military contact with the
People's Liberation Army because the Chinese government continues to
use in military to restrict the notions of democracy within its own
people.
I urge the members of this body to vote--``yes'' and support
Representative DeLay's amendment.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. DeLay).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) will
be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House
Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Goss

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Goss:
At the end of title XII (page 317, after line 17), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 1206. LIMITATION ON DEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMED
FORCES IN HAITI.

(a) Limitation on Deployment.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), no funds available to the Department of
Defense may be expended for the deployment of United States
Armed Forces in Haiti.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the
deployment of United States Armed Forces in Haiti for any of
the following purposes:
(1) Deployment pursuant to Operation Uphold Democracy until
December 31, 1999.
(2) Deployment for periodic, noncontinuous theater
engagement activities on or after January 1, 2000.
(3) Deployment for a limited, customary presence necessary
to ensure the security of United States diplomatic facilities
in Haiti and to carry out defense liaison activities under
the auspices of the United States embassy.
(c) Report Requirement.--Whenever there is a deployment of
United States Armed Forces described in subsection (b)(2),
the President shall, not later than 48 hours after the
deployment, transmit a written report regarding the
deployment to the Committee on Armed Services and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed

[[Page 12251]]

Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate.
(d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to restrict in any way the authority of the
President in emergency circumstances to protect the lives of
United States citizens or to protect United States facilities
or property in Haiti.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am expecting the arrival at any time of the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Gilman), who is my co-colleague on this subject. Mr. Chairman,
over the last several years, the Clinton-Gore administration has asked
the military to do more with less, and I think that deserves our time,
so I am going to discuss this matter pending the arrival of the
gentleman from New York.
The result of having to do more with less, I think, is very plain to
see. Declining morale and a military on the verge of being hollowed out
confront us just at the time when we seem to have more demands on our
military in so many other places.
The solution seems simple, as even President Clinton's Secretary of
Defense William Cohen admits when he said, ``We have to find a way to
either increase the size of our forces or decrease the number of our
missions.'' I could not agree more.
Earlier this year the commander of U.S. forces in Latin America, that
would be General Charles Wilhelm, recommended we end our permanent
troop presence in Haiti. In its place General Wilhelm recommends the
periodic deployment of troops, as is the norm throughout the Western
Hemisphere and the Caribbean. General Wilhelm's recommendation is sound
on a number of counts, and I believe Congress should endorse it.
Maintaining a permanent presence in Haiti unnecessarily puts our
troops at risk. A clear indication of this is the fact that about half
our soldiers in Haiti do nothing more than protect their fellow
soldiers. The situation is that tense. That is what is happening. The
deployment to Haiti strains military resources. We already know there
is a call for those resources elsewhere. The financial cost is
approximately $20 million per year. We also know there is a need for
those resources elsewhere. The training, readiness and operational
tempo are affected as well, as the military has clearly stated in much
testimony before the United States Congress.
Our presence in Haiti duplicates work more appropriately done by
nongovernmental organizations. Even our commander in Haiti, the person
on the front line, the person responsible, Colonel Morris, frankly
admits that much of his troop's work could be done by private sector
groups. We are talking about building schools, building wells, doing
other humanitarian work which desperately needs to be done in Haiti.

{time} 1845

Finally, and from my perspective most importantly, our military
planners clearly believe that the permanent deployment is less
effective than periodic deployments would be. In other words, we get
more bang for the buck, do more for Haiti, and do more for ourselves if
we go to our norm of periodic deployments.
General Wilhelm's recommendation is right on target: End the
permanent troop presence but allow the military to conduct routine
periodic deployments as the situation warrants. Unfortunately, our
military's pleas for a commonsense approach seem to have fallen on deaf
ears among the Clinton administration's policymakers and political
advisers.
It is time to restore Haiti to the norms in the hemisphere and end
the permanent troop presence there. I think it is good for America. And
in the end, I think it is a much more effective way to help the Haitian
people, which is what we are trying to do.
For these reasons, I am very pleased to join the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, in offering an amendment that would essentially formalize
General Wilhelm's recommendation. And I strongly urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is astounding to me when I see this constant assault
on any progress President Clinton has made. It almost seems an argument
ad hominem; if it was a Clinton administration policy and it seems to
be succeeding, let us see if we can cause some trouble here.
Other sections of the bill today, as we have an agreement from Mr.
Milosevic to pull out, other sections of this bill will make it
impossible to keep peacekeeping troops in Kosovo in the former
Yugoslavian areas.
Let us take a look at the history of Haiti. It has never exactly been
the Switzerland of the world. There has been dictator after dictator.
And between 1992 and 1994, there were 60,000 refugees coming out of
Haiti.
The gentleman and many from the Florida delegation came to the floor
expressing their concern for social services that were being overrun by
Haitian refugees. 60,000 in 3 years. And every day we saw members of
the Florida delegation complaining about the pressures on their State
that somehow we had to end this massive immigration, people risking
their lives in bathtubs virtually, to come to the United States, it was
so bad in Haiti.
In the last 3 years, we have had 3,000 refugees coming in from Haiti.
Is that a failed policy? Do we want to go back to the kind of policy we
had before? In the last several months here, we have pulled out the
peacekeeping forces at the insistence of the chairman of the Committee
on International Relations. We are not training their police. They have
no trained police.
And now these people who are helping the poorest people in our
hemisphere, some of the poorest people on the planet, we are going to
pull them out too? Why? We are not getting enough refugees coming
across the ocean? They are not taking their little boats and risking
their lives and their families to come to Florida? Is that what the
gentleman wants?
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is addressing me as ``the
gentleman from Florida,'' is the gentleman asking, do we want to keep
the troops in Haiti to stop Haitians from leaving the oppression in
Haiti? Is that what this is about?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it seems to me that
if we squander this opportunity where we are in the developmental
process of a democracy, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but I will
guarantee my colleague, dictatorship will return and those refugees
will be coming again.
It is better for the Haitians, it is better for the U.S. if we are
able to help these people have a decent living at home. The violence
has been reduced. The Toutons Macoute is almost out of business. There
are not 60,000 refugees coming here to the United States in a 3-year
period. Let us continue the good work we have started.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chairman how much time
is remaining on either side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) controls 6\1/2\
minutes. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) controls 7
minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the
House Committee on International Relations.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, our military did a superb job when they were sent to
Haiti back in 1994. However, their mission of restoring the elected
civilian government of former president Jean

[[Page 12252]]

Bertrand Aristide was accomplished some time ago. I imagine that many
Americans are not aware that we still have troops in Haiti.
The Clinton administration informs Congress that we have maintained
our permanent troop presence in Haiti to provide humanitarian relief
and to give our Army Corps of Engineers and medical personnel
opportunities to be trained. However, I do not believe it is now
necessary to keep a permanent troop presence in Haiti to accomplish
those goals.
Obviously, humanitarian relief activities can be conducted at far
less expense to our taxpayers by civilian contractors working for our
Agency for International Development.
It is obvious that Haiti is becoming a dangerous place. Our local
commander in Haiti has had to raise his assessment of the threats
against our troops from both common crime and, increasingly, political
unrest.
In an ominous development, on June 4, press reports revealed that
civilian employees of the U.S. military support group in Haiti
abandoned their all-terrain vehicle in a hail of rocks. Protesters then
torched the vehicle.
Our troops are increasingly unable to conduct their stated
humanitarian mission. They are hunkered down and there are clear signs
that they may become direct targets of attack. The presence of the
troops has certainly not stopped nor in any way deterred numerous
political murders or recent rioting.
Despite the administration's insistence that U.S. troops do not have
a security role, we can see U.S. troops mired in a dangerous, open-
ended commitment in Haiti.
The chairman of our Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), and I offered this amendment in an effort to
support the Defense Department's sensible recommendations that the
permanent U.S. military presence in Haiti under Operation Uphold
Democracy should be brought to an end.
Normal stationing of U.S. troops to protect our embassy and to
provide diplomatic representation in Haiti would, of course, be
permitted at all times. The President's authority to protect American
lives and property in Haiti are also explicitly protected by this
amendment.
The intent of this amendment is to make certain that our U.S. troops
permanently deployed in Haiti under Operation Uphold Democracy through
the U.S. support group will be completely withdrawn by December 31,
1999. The administration has fully 7 months to complete an orderly
drawdown of our troops who are permanently stationed in Haiti.
Until such time as they are completely removed, our troops will
continue to conduct their currently scheduled humanitarian missions.
After the permanently deployed troops are completely withdrawn, U.S.
forces will be permitted to deploy to Haiti for short-term
expeditionary missions.
There are serious concerns about the security of our troops in Haiti
which we should consider. Moreover, it is not fair to our men and women
in uniform to leave them in Haiti in an open-ended deployment.
Accordingly, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1401 and urge our
colleagues to support the Gilman-Goss amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I was privileged to join the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Charles Rangel), and we went to Haiti
quite recently. We met with Pierre Denize, the national police chief of
Haiti.
Remember, Haiti does not have an army now because we have agreed and
they have agreed to get rid of them. We met with Bob Manuel, the
Secretary of State for Public Security in Haiti. We got what I
considered an excellent report about that.
Our troops are not in jeopardy. How many troops are we talking about,
I ask my esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations?
Two hundred seventy; 270 troops. Psychologically, they are performing
an immensely important task of working and development. They are not
there for security. I found them not to be in jeopardy. They are
working with Department of Justice and Department of Defense people in
the Isatat training program, in the U.N. SITPOL agreement. Things are
moving.
If we try to legislate them out of Haiti before the administration,
the Department of Defense, and the State Department, which have all
agreed that they should go, the question is the timing and whether the
House of Representatives should now become the executive branch of
Government.
Please, I beg my colleagues not to intrude this amendment, which is
potentially dangerous, into the subject matter of Haiti. Haiti has
problems. It is coming along very well.
I am glad that I was invited by my esteemed colleagues from New York
and Florida to witness and talk in depth with them about this subject.
Those troops are important there. They are not in jeopardy. And let us
not pull them out prematurely.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be
defeated. It represents a double standard.
Why treat Haiti different than what we treat anyone else? There are
only 500 troops in Haiti, thirty-six thousandths of 1 percent of our
active force. Now, anyone who has any kind of sense at all knows that
there is very little in Haiti.
This is about two things, as I perceive it: Haiti bashing, and it is
not the first time, and bashing the President. It is time some of this
stuff stopped.
We are talking about a small country here. The people are poor. And I
say again, why not help continue what the President has started? How
can we expect more from Haiti than we do from some of the rest of them?
Why do we expect more from Haiti than we do any of the other countries
that we are trying to help?
So there is a double standard. $288 billion. We are only spending $20
million to support the troops in Haiti, 500 of them. And I appeal to my
colleagues to please kill this Goss amendment. The gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss) has a very good way of approaching Haiti, always on
the negative.
Please kill this amendment. It is not worth being in this good bill.
So please go against this. It is bad for America and it is bad for
Haiti.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my good friend
the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
I do not know of a sweeter lady in this body than the gentlewoman
from Florida. But I say to the gentlewoman, because there is payback;
500 troops and $20 billion a year.
Look at Kosovo. We are lucky if we are going to get out with $100
billion. Bosnia cost us $16 billion.
When the Progressive Caucus comes up in the Labor-HHS bill and wants
to increase money in Medicare and health care and education and not
talk Social Security, if we want to do these things, the Progressive
Caucus has got to support it and not want to cut defense by 50 percent
of what it is now. There is a payback.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Gilman-Goss amendment.
I do so because we know that Haiti has been unstable. We are not
really providing that much to them. But to take away the little bit
that we are providing is unconscionable.

{time} 1900

All that we are talking about is helping the poorest country in this
hemisphere continue to have some hope for

[[Page 12253]]

stability, economic development, for growth and progress. I would urge,
Mr. Chairman, that we vote in the best interests, not only of Haiti but
that we vote in the best interests of humanity, a little bit of
humanitarian effort. I urge that we vote ``no'' to the Gilman-Goss
amendment.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Owens).
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, why are we obsessed with Haiti? If there is
going to be a standard for spreading our generosity, and we are the
indispensable Nation, we are the last superpower, I think it is
important that we should help out wherever we can in crises throughout
the world, but why not have a single standard? Why do we not establish
a standard? Where we have been in Bosnia, I do not think it has been
$16 billion as I heard before, but at least we have spent $8 billion in
Bosnia. We have been in Korea forever. Korea has a strong economy. They
could support their own defense. We have been in Europe with bases for
a long time and in Japan. We are spread out all over the world in
places spending billions of dollars over long periods of time. Why
would we not help a nation in this hemisphere, and the commitment there
is relatively pennies now compared to the kind of commitments we have
with the bases in Europe and Japan and Bosnia. I am not saying we
should pull out of Bosnia overnight, but I think there ought to be some
kind of formula whereby we go in to help, we spend a preestablished
amount of money, we do it with some kind of standard equally throughout
the world.
If you pick out Haiti alone and you go after Haiti, then the only
conclusion we can come to is that it is because Haiti is a black
nation. Why else are we obsessed with Haiti?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Meeks).
Mr. MEEKS of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the
Gilman-Goss amendment. Haiti is on the eve of democratic elections. We
say that we have the moral authority to try to make sure that democracy
is across this world. Yet the smallest and the poorest country in this
world, we do not want to aid. We have less than 3 to 400 troops in
Haiti. Yet we are trying to pull them out on the eve of elections when
we may restore hope and dignity to people who are our neighbors. Yet we
go all over the place for others. There seems and there is a double
standard. We must not let this amendment stand. We must make sure that
the bill is not poisoned by this terrible, terrible amendment and help
the people who need most the help. To whom much is given, as this
country has, much is required.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, this is a very dangerous amendment. This
sends a message to the antidemocratic forces in Haiti that America is
ready to disengage. This coupled with a hole that was placed by the
majority in terms of human rights observers. This amendment should be
defeated and it should be defeated overwhelmingly.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to read part of a Charleston Post and
Courier editorial:

General Wilhelm did not suggest that the United States
should give up and walk away. He proposed U.S. military
forces should visit Haiti periodically. Unfortunately, as the
General told Congressmen, the 500 American soldiers--that
number is actually 503 American soldiers--who remain have to
spend much of their time defending themselves from attack.
They should not be exposed in this way. Instead, detachments
of troops, ready for combat if required, should be sent to
Haiti to demonstrate U.S. commitment to upholding the rule of
law. It would be wrong to keep troops in Haiti merely to
disguise the fact that U.S. intervention, hailed as one of
President Clinton's major foreign policy achievements, has
failed.

I would point out that that editorial absolutely parallels the advice
we are getting from the military. Now, we have heard testimony that
Haiti needs to be treated the same as everybody else. I agree. That is
what we are trying to do is take out the permanent troops and replace
them with the periodic deployments which are characteristic for the
area.
Secondly, we are trying to reduce the strain on the readiness of our
troops because, Lord knows, we need them and the reduced strain would
be helpful to the military. Thirdly, we are trying to increase troop
safety. In fact our troops have been fired on in Haiti. Many people do
not know that. Fourthly, many of the activities that are going on in
Haiti that we need to help with are better suited with other NGOs. We
will help those other NGOs as we have in the past and will continue to
do in the future. That is where the help should be coming for the
Haitians.
There are other reports coming from Haiti, well founded at this time,
of new brutality and unfortunately involves brutality by people in
Haiti, Haitians who are trained by the U.S. This is not good. Things
are going sour in Haiti. The gentleman from Connecticut has pointed out
that we have now got a problem in Haiti. I do not know if the gentleman
has noticed that we have got a dictatorship returning to Haiti in the
past several months and that we no longer have all the elements of
democracy down there that we seek to have. The dictatorship has in fact
returned. But that is not the reason for the amendment. The reason for
the amendment is to give Haiti a better chance to treat it the same as
everybody else, to get the right kind of help going to Haiti and to get
our troops back where they need to be.
This is the defense authorization bill. This is not the Haiti relief
bill. This is the defense authorization bill. The military has
recommended we get those troops out of there on a permanent basis. We
should listen to the military. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the
amendment.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Gilman-Goss amendment, which limits funds for deployment of US Armed
Forces in Haiti.
There are about 400 US military personnel in Haiti, who make up the
US-Haiti support Group. This mission is humanitarian in nature, and
provides engineering and other infrastructure assistance, and it is
important to note that their presence is not permanent.
The role our troops play in Haiti is critical. If this amendment
passes; however, we would send a negative message to the people of
Haiti; namely, that the United States is leaving them at a critical
time in the country's movement toward democracy.
I would like to point out that no other statute requires that the
President report to Congress before a training deployment, as would be
required if this passes.
I urge you to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Lastly, it is unfortunate that a Member from Florida continues to
attack our policy in Haiti. What we need to understand is that when the
problems of Haiti go unresolved, these problems in turn, become ours as
well.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment. The Gilman/Goss amendment sends the wrong signal to the
people of Haiti. It says that we don't care about democracy and we
don't care about the rule of law and certainly we don't care about the
people of Haiti.
This amendment would mandate a congressionally-imposed deadline for
the withdrawal of troops which could send a destructive signal to
opponents of democratic reform in Haiti. We are not talking about many
troops--just 270 troops. That is vastly different from the 25,000
troops that went to Haiti 5 years ago. The 25,000 troops didn't have a
single causality and you wanted to end that. Now the 270 troops that
help in the areas of health care and rehabilitation program--you want
to cut that also. This is ludicrous.
This is just another tactic to embarrass this Administration and to
call into question smart, quick and decisive action we took in 1994
when we restored democracy back to Haiti by taking out Raoul Cedras and
restoring the democratic government of then President Jean Bertrand
Aristide.
Don't you remember what it was like 7 years ago when boat people
drowned just to flee persecution and repression.
60,000 refugees left and fled for their lives. Many died trying to
escape. This amendment

[[Page 12254]]

would cut off badly needed money to the defense program. This program
allows children to be vaccinated and also allows engineers to train in
building roads and bridges.
Mr. Speaker, this is the last program we have in Haiti and now that
is in jeopardy. What exactly do you want to happen in Haiti. You cut
off the training program, you effectively ended the MICIVIH program and
now this humanitarian program.
The MICIVIH program was established in 1993 jointly by the United
Nations General Assembly and the Organization of American States. Since
that time, it has made critical contributions to Haiti's political
development by assisting judicial reform efforts, conducting credible
human rights monitoring and carrying out impartial investigations into
human rights violations. Now that's gone.
Elections are coming up soon. This amendment would end what is a
small and worthwhile humanitarian support program in Haiti.
The U.S. Military Support Group in Haiti--a 400 strong presence of
engineers, humanitarian civil affairs and other personnel--serves as a
visible manifestation of U.S. support for Haiti's democratic transition
and economic development.
The presence of U.S. military personnel in Haiti also has a positive
effect on the security and stability of Haiti. This is not a permanent
presence in Haiti. The role our troops play there is critical, giving
Haitians reason to be hopeful by building schools, providing health
care, digging wells, and being a visible sign of the U.S. commitment to
democracy in that country. The President has made it clear that he is
paring down on the deployment and this is not the time to pull our
troops out of Haiti.
Let's not pick on Haiti. I rise in opposition to this amendment and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) will
be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed
in House Report 106-175.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Part A amendment No. 14 offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida:
At the end of title VII (page 238, after line 22), insert
the following new section:

SEC. 726. RESTORATION OF PRIOR POLICY REGARDING RESTRICTIONS
ON USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAL
FACILITIES.

Section 1093 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) Restriction on Use of Funds.--''; and
(2) by striking subsection (b).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) each
will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am offering an amendment that simply repeals the statutory
prohibition on privately funded abortions in overseas military
facilities and restores the law to what it was for many years. This
amendment would permit servicewomen stationed overseas to use their own
funds to obtain reproductive health care. No Federal funds would be
used and health care professionals opposed to performing abortions as a
matter of conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so.
Earlier this month, this amendment was endorsed on a bipartisan basis
by the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed
Services, the committee of jurisdiction. This was a major victory for
women serving in our armed forces. Unfortunately, the full committee
failed to follow the recommendation of the subcommittee and deleted the
language from the bill. As one of the ranking women here, I strongly
feel that this ill-advised policy must be overturned. Women in our
armed forces already give up many freedoms and risk their lives to
defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their privacy,
their health and their basic constitutional rights for a policy with no
valid military purpose.
Many of my colleagues will recognize this amendment as the former
Harman amendment. I am proud to attempt along with the Women's Caucus,
those of us who support this, to continue the good work of my friend
and my colleague Congresswoman Jane Harman. I urge my colleagues to
vote for this amendment. We owe our women serving our Nation no less,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, over the last 30 years the availability of abortion
services at military medical facilities has been subjected to numerous
changes and interpretations. In January 1993, President Clinton signed
an executive order directing the Department of Defense to permit
privately funded abortions in military treatment facilities. The
changes ordered by the President, however, did not greatly increase the
access to abortion services. Few abortions were performed at military
treatment facilities overseas for a number of reasons. First, the
United States military follows the prevailing laws and rules of the
host nations regarding abortions. Secondly, the military has had a
difficult time finding health care professionals in uniform willing to
perform the procedures. Third, the real purpose of military medical
treatment facilities is for military medical readiness and the training
of lifesaving instead of the taking of life. Current law allows
military women and dependents to receive abortions in military
facilities in the cases of rape, incest or when necessary to save the
life of the mother.
The House voted several times to ban abortions at overseas military
hospitals. A similar amendment offered by Representative Jane Harman in
the fiscal year 1998 Defense Authorization Act was rejected 196-224. In
1998, the House National Security Committee rejected another attempt to
allow privately funded abortions at these facilities. When considering
the fiscal year 1996 defense authorization and appropriations bills,
the House voted eight times in favor of the present ban.
In overseas locations where safe, legal abortions are not available,
beneficiaries have the option of using space available travel for
returning to the United States or traveling to another overseas
location for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to turn
over control of the time in the management of this amendment to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez). She is the originator of
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs.
Meek) for her help on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from California for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a question of constitutional rights. When
someone puts on the uniform of the United States military, she should
not forfeit her constitutional rights. If a different constitutional
right were at stake here, I suspect that the attitude of those who
oppose this amendment would be very different. They may not like the
fact that the Constitution guarantees the right to choose, but it does.
If we had a policy that said that you could not freely exercise
religion at your own expense on military property in foreign countries,
people would object vociferously to that because they would understand
that there was something fundamentally wrong to denying people in the
military their constitutional rights.

[[Page 12255]]

You may not like this constitutional right. You are free to try to
change it. But it is a constitutional right. And to deny it to women
who serve in uniform is just wrong. The Sanchez amendment corrects that
wrong. I would urge everyone to support it strongly as I do.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond. I
assure the gentleman that the United States Supreme Court permits the
Congress to discriminate and for us to make decisions with regard to
the military. If you are too tall, if you are too short, if you are too
heavy, if you are colorblind, if you are diabetic. We are permitted to
decide how we can shape the force and we can also decide on rules and
procedures for the military.
Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Meek amendment.
The House has spoken on this issue many times. Each time it has
rejected this amendment. Just last year the House rejected this same
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) by a
vote of 190-232.

{time} 1915

By requiring U.S. military facilities to provide elective abortion on
demand to uniformed personnel dependents, the Meek amendment would turn
DOD medical treatment facilities into abortion clinics.
When the 1993 Clinton administration policy permitting abortions to
be performed in military facilities, which was reversed in 1996 except
in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, when that was
first begun, all military physicians as well as many nurses and
supporting personnel refused to perform or even to assist in elective
abortions.
Our troops already are demoralized enough. Why should we again ask
them to do something to which they object?
I received a couple of letters on this issue. I just want to read a
couple of quotes.
The National Right to Life Committee in a letter summed it up well by
saying, ``Facilities and personnel of the Federal Government should not
be utilized to deliberately destroy the lives of innocent human
beings.''
And I received a letter from the Archdiocese for the Military
Services which echoes this message by saying, ``Military medical
personnel have refused to take part in the procedure of life destroying
abortion, citing the primary responsibility of our Nation's military
services to preserve human life.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose again the Meek
amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the gentleman who just spoke that
there is already an objection clause and that no military personnel are
forced to perform any of this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher), my friend.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I guess I am a little confused about the
subcommittee chairman's assertion that the military discriminates right
now against people that are too tall and too other things when in fact
I think what we would actually call those would be minimum standards
for qualification to qualify to be a good soldier, airmen, Marine. The
question I have is: Is there such a thing as being too female, because
this is a specific issue for American fighting men and women, and this
is about American women who have the right to have the right to choose
as American citizens, but because they are on military duty overseas
our colleagues are suggesting that they forfeit that right.
I think that is discriminatory, I think that is inappropriate, and I
urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Indiana for yielding this time to me knowing that we do not agree on
the subject. I just want to make a couple of points:
First of all, these are privately funded, these are not taxpayer
funded. Secondly, we have the personnel to perform these procedures
because they perform them in the case of rape, incest and the life of
the mother. Thirdly, our men and women under arms serve under American
law and American command, and like it or not, they have the same right
to legal medical procedures as women throughout America. And fourthly,
this is terribly discriminatory. If someone is an officer, they can
afford to have their wife fly home or their daughter who got in trouble
fly home. If someone is a common enlisted guy, they cannot, and space
available does not necessarily work.
Do my colleagues really want them to go out on the medical economy of
some of these foreign deployments where death is just about as likely
as any other outcome? Do they not have a right as service men and women
to have either their wives safe or, as women, to have a safe procedure?
Mothers have a right to live for their children even if they have to
elect this procedure.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis), my colleague.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong
support for the Meek Sanchez amendment. I find it ironic that strong
women, brave women, who enter the military to fight for their country
then cannot get the same basic rights that people back home already
have, rights they are fighting to protect. I think that this policy is
the height of hypocrisy, and this amendment should not even be debated,
it should not even be a question. It even should not be a
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, let us extend to the fighting women in the military the
same choice options that others have back home. I thank the gentlewoman
for having yielded this time to me.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend
for yielding this time to me and congratulate him on his courage in
embracing this important human rights issue. Let me begin by noting
that I have the utmost respect for my friends on the other side of this
issue, but in all honesty I continue to struggle with how so many
bright and otherwise enlightened people can continue to demand a course
of action that literally kills children and emotionally wounds so many
of their mothers.
As my colleagues know, the national debate on partial-birth abortion
has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that abortion is violence
against children. Can our friends on the other side of this issue not
appreciate the inherent cruelty towards babies in sanctioning the
stabbing to death of a partially born child followed by the suctioning
of his or her brains and then calling that choice? I believe that such
child abuse is beyond words, Mr. Chairman.
As my colleagues know, abortion methods often involve the literal
dismemberment of children with razor-blade-tipped curettes. They are
really just knives hooked up to a hose, a suction device that is some
20 to 30 times more powerful than the vacuum cleaner my colleagues have
in their homes today. Well, the baby's body is literally hacked apart.
The arms and the legs are cut off. Next time my colleagues go home and
look at their child, they should remember this. And they can make faces
and roll their eyes, but that is what abortion actually entails; it
hacks off the arms, it decapitates the head.
I do not know if my colleagues have ever seen The Silent Scream put
out by Dr. Nathanson, a former abortionist and founder of NARAL. He
shows with ultrasound a baby being hacked to death, the commonplace
abortion method that is utilized in this country. If the Sanchez-Meek
amendment becomes law, it would facilitate that kind of cruelty towards
children in our overseas military hospitals.
There are chemical abortions where highly concentrated salt solutions
and other kinds of poisons are literally injected into the amniotic sac
or into the

[[Page 12256]]

baby so as to procure that baby's death. That is child abuse.
A humane and a compassionate society will embrace those children with
prenatal care and love even when they are, quote, unwanted and would
say that that kind of violence cannot be sanctioned.
I chair the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human
Rights. I have had about a hundred hearings in that Subcommittee and in
the Helsinki Commission which I also chair, many of which have focused
on torture. I have to tell my colleagues there is an unsettling
similarity between the mangled badly bruised bodies of people who have
endured torture and the victims of saline or salting-out abortions
where they are covered with bruises. Very often the only part not
bruised is the palms of their hands because it takes 2 hours for the
baby to die, and the babies clench their fists because they feel the
pain.
Abortion is child abuse. The Sanchez-Meek amendment would allow and
facilitate abortion on demand in our military hospitals, the ultimate
violation of human rights. We need to stand for the innocent unborn
children and for their mothers. The emphasis should be on prenatal
care, not on a course of action that maims, chemically poisons, and
otherwise destroys human beings.
Please vote no on the Sanchez-Meek amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
Sanchez amendment, a bill that would restore women the right to equal
access in health services at military hospitals. This amendment is
first and foremost about protecting women's health. It would give
military women the access to the health care they need and deserve.
Soldiers in our Armed Forces already give up many freedoms and risk
their lives in defending our country. They should not be asked to
sacrifice their health, their safety and their basic constitutional
rights for a policy with no valid military purpose.
Let me clarify that the amendment does not allow taxpayer-funded
abortions at military hospitals, nor does it compel any doctor who
opposes abortion to perform an abortion. The amendment merely
reinstates the policy that was in effect from 1973 to 1988 and again
from 1993 to 1996. This policy gives women in the military who are
stationed overseas the same rights as military women in their own
country, the right to pay for a safe and legal abortion with their own
private money.
Enough is enough. Every woman should be guaranteed the same rights as
any other woman, particularly if those same women are fighting to
protect the freedoms of this country. How can we in good conscience
deny our service women any right at all?
We will hear a lot of inflammatory language and a lot of discussions
designed to frighten and intimidate. That is not what it is all about,
Mr. Chairman. It is about women who want to take their own money and
pay for a service that should be available. It is not, but they are
paying their own money to have this service, one of the health care
benefits that they should be afforded that they are not being afforded.
How can we say to a military woman who is out there risking her life
for us in our Armed Services that we are going to deny access to
service? We do not do that to men in any shape, form or fashion; do not
do it to women.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am just not sure I remember the last time a man
received an abortion. I do not think it has ever happened. I do not
think it is humanly possible. I am not sure how gender even became
injected in this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, a lot of talk about rights, about women's
rights, and properly so. Not a word, not a syllable, not a phrase is
spoken about the rights of the unborn child. Because the unborn child
in the process we call abortion or euphemistically we call choice,
which is an interesting subject, but nonetheless the rights of the
unborn are never considered whatsoever.
Now I have heard people on the other side say that there is a
constitutional right to choose. It is really not in the Constitution,
but the court found it there in 1973, 7 to 2, the right to an abortion.
But there is no right to have the taxpayers pay for that abortion.
Now our colleagues will say but under the Meek amendment, which we
are debating here, under this amendment the pregnant woman will pay her
own expenses. But they are using a medical facility of the United
States military, and thus they are turning that into not a place for
healing, but an abortion mill, an abortion clinic.
Now there are people whose tax dollars go to pay for that hospital
who are morally opposed to abortion, who do not think it is a good
thing, who think it is a tragedy to take an innocent little human life,
and before it gets a chance to laugh or cry, exterminate it. They do
not terminate a pregnancy, they exterminate. All pregnancies terminate
after 9 months.
Now this has been the policy of our country and our government for
some time, and it ought to stay there. Do not turn military hospitals
into abortion clinics. Do not use the facilities that are paid for by
taxpayers to kill an unborn child.
Our colleagues say they want to make abortion safe, legal and rare.
We can make it legal, we cannot make it moral, and we cannot make it
safe for the unborn, and by facilitating abortions we are not making it
rare.
So think of the child, put the child in the picture, think of the
unborn life that is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, and do not turn our military hospitals into abortion
clinics.

{time} 1930

Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my colleagues that there
are already abortions performed at military hospitals, and that a woman
who chooses to have one under this amendment would pay all the costs of
having that procedure done in a military hospital. So it is at no
expense to the taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanchez amendment. I hope this
amendment has the support of all but the most extreme of the anti-
choice Members of this body, because this is indeed a very moderate
approach. It simply says that women stationed overseas will be allowed
to have abortions in safe military facilities at their own expense, at
an expense that covers the full cost, not just the marginal cost,
including, I would assume, a charge for the facility itself.
It says that no doctor would have to perform the procedure if or she
did not want to because of moral or religious or ethical objections. It
simply reinstates the policy of this country from 1973 to 1988 and
again from 1993 to 1996.
We are about to deploy servicewomen even into the Balkans, where the
hospitals have been damaged, where the Albanian hospitals are overrun
or are having to deal with refugees, where all of the hospitals are
overburdened, and we are turning to American servicewomen and saying,
``Yes, you might risk your life because of a sniper or a land mine,
but, in addition, you must risk your life to an unsanitary operation
performed in whatever hospital or whatever illegal facility is
available.''
The other alternative available to our servicewomen is to wait.
Instead of the abortion taking place in the first month, it would take
place in some later month. Is that what the so-termed pro-life forces
want?
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. Our servicewomen and the wives and daughters of our
servicemen stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, but they
are entitled to receive

[[Page 12257]]

the same rights guaranteed all Americans under Roe v. Wade.
This bill penalizes women who have volunteered to serve their country
by unduly interfering with their constitutionally protected right to
choose. The Sanchez-Morella amendment assures that servicewomen and the
wives and daughters of our servicemen do not become second-class
citizens or subject to a two-tiered health care system. This amendment
provides access for our servicewomen to medical care, to legal medical
care.
Individuals who volunteer to serve in the Armed Forces already give
up many freedoms and they risk their lives defending our country. In
exchange, we offer our military personnel a full array of health care
services; that is, except in the case of comprehensive reproductive
health care.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I respect immensely my friend that
spoke about abortion, but that is not really what this whole issue is
about. Most of the women in the military overseas are very, very young.
Even someone that voluntarily wants an abortion, I can imagine there is
quite an emotional scar, whether you choose to or not. The military
does not want these young women having an abortion overseas. They do
not want someone in a military unit overseas that is going to go
through this emotional trouble that has to work with a team.
There is not a single woman that has ever been forced in the military
to have that abortion overseas. The military will bring that woman
back, and, under Roe v. Wade, they are not denied, not one single item,
and they are protected.
So they are not abused, they are not discriminated against, because
they have the same rights back here in the United States once they get
in CONUS. But the military does not want young impressionable women to
have to go through an abortion overseas.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to let our colleague know I have a letter
here from the Department of Defense that strongly support this
amendment. In fact, our military does want this. They do want this
amendment to pass.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. This issue is about equal treatment for servicewomen
stationed overseas. This amendment is not about Federal support for
abortion services, it is about giving women who have volunteered to
serve their country abroad the same protections and choices they would
have here at home.
When a woman in the military is stationed overseas, the best medical
facility is most often the base hospital, a hospital that is clean and
safe with well-trained doctors. However, this amendment denies military
women, those who serve and protect our country, access to this base
medical facility, even when the woman pays for and is willing to pay
for the treatment.
Regardless of your position on choice, ask yourself a question: What
would you want for your daughter, for your sister or your wife? If she
were stationed overseas, would you not want her to go to the hospital
of her choice? Would you not want her to go to an American military
facility?
Mr. Chairman, these women fight for our freedom every day. Let us not
take their freedom away. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about recognizing the
rights and dignity of our women in the armed services. It is really a
very limited attempt to correct the policy that never should have been
enacted in the first place. It simply allows women to obtain safe
abortion services using their own money at U.S. military hospitals
overseas.
The current ban increases women's health risks and denies women their
basic constitutional right to privacy. A woman must inform her
superiors of her need for an abortion and wait until there is space
available on a military flight back to the United States. The delay
puts women's lives in jeopardy. The need to inform her superiors
violates her privacy rights.
Furthermore, women serving overseas depend on the base hospital for
medical care in areas where local health care facilities are
inadequate. The health of a servicewoman is threatened when she has to
look outside of the base for a safe provider of the medical attention
she needs. The current policy may even force a woman to seek an illegal
or unsafe abortion when facing a crisis pregnancy.
The ban discriminates against the women serving our country overseas.
This amendment would ensure equal access to comprehensive reproductive
health care for all U.S. servicewomen and dependents, regardless of
where they are stationed, and therefore should be enacted.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to cosponsor this amendment.
Much has already been said about what the amendment does, but it does
allow women serving in the military overseas who depend on their base
hospitals for medical care and may be stationed in areas where local
health care facilities are inadequate to be able to avail themselves at
their own cost of an abortion that may be very necessary.
Women who volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces already give up many
freedoms, and they risk their lives to defend our country. They should
not have to sacrifice their privacy, their health and their basic
rights for a policy that does not have any valid military purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is about women's health. I
believe that. I believe it is also about fairness. The amendment also,
and this has been repeated over and over again, it does not allow
taxpayer-funded abortions at military hospitals, nor does it compel any
doctor who opposes abortion on principle or as a matter of conscience
to perform an abortion. It reinstates the policy we had before.
Finally, please know the amendment has the strong support of health
care providers, organizations like the American Nurses Association,
American Public Health Association, Medical Women's Association and the
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The litany goes on. These
are medical people who know.
Please support the amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Sanchez amendment. Only in a Republican Congress can a woman sign up to
serve her country and have her rights denied in return. While a female
soldier is busy defending her country overseas, her country in this
Congress is working to take away her rights.
If a male member of the armed services needs medical attention
overseas, he receives the best. If a female member of the armed
services needs a specific medical procedure, she is forced to either
wait until she can travel to the United States or go to a foreign
hospital, which may be unsanitary and dangerous.
This bill will cost the American taxpayer nothing. Each woman will
pick up her own tab. All she wants is the right to do it.
Women have waited long enough to receive equal treatment in the
military. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote for
this amendment, and give these most deserving soldiers back what is
rightfully theirs.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
Mr. Chairman, it is quite disappointing for the gentlewoman who just
spoke to talk about a Republican Congress denying.
Let me just state this: The purpose of the military is to fight and
win the Nation's wars. The gentlewoman's comments also impugn the
dignity of

[[Page 12258]]

Democrats who are pro-life advocates, those whose passion is about
saving life, not taking the life of the innocent unborn child, as she
is walking off the floor and does not want to hear this debate. I am
speaking directly to you.
There are Members of both sides of this aisle that speak passionately
about saving the life of the unborn. For you to try to rein in politics
is completely unnecessary.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) to respond.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional
right, a right that is legal in the United States. You are depriving a
woman who is defending her country, putting her life on the line to
defend her country. You are taking away a right that men have. It is a
right that she would have if she were in her own country. I think it is
outrageous. It is wrong. Everyone should vote against this amendment.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 50
seconds.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sanchez-
Morella-Lowey amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Sanchez) and my colleagues for their important work on this issue.
In closing, I just want to say, please do not be fooled. This is not
an issue of taxpayer dollars funding abortion. This is about American
women in private with their own money exercising their constitutional
right to choose.
Over 100,000 women live on American military bases. These women work
to protect the freedom of our country. These women risk their lives and
security to protect our great and powerful Nation. These women for the
past 4 years have been denied the right to a safe and legal abortion at
the bases where they are stationed.

{time} 1945

Just yesterday, when we debated the anti-choice majority's latest
effort to restrict access to legal abortion, I said I was tired of
these attempts to chip away at a woman's right to choose. I ask my
colleagues to please support the Sanchez-Morella-Lowey amendment.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) to close in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) is recognized
for 3 minutes to close.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition
to this amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to vote against this amendment.
I bring a somewhat unique perspective to this debate in that not only
prior to coming to the Congress did I practice medicine, but for many
years prior to coming to the Congress I practiced medicine in the
military. I was actually in the Army Medical Corps at the time when
pro-life President Ronald Reagan passed an order that said we were not
going to have abortions in military hospitals anymore.
It was very interesting for me at the time, I was a medical resident,
to see the reaction to that order. It was sort of a sigh of relief.
Everybody that I spoke to, the doctors and nurses, were very pleased
that they were going to take that very, very controversial issue and
move it out of the military hospitals.
Some people have been arguing that this is a constitutional right.
There is no constitutional right to have an abortion in a military
hospital. Indeed, the reason all of those doctors and nurses, even many
of whom considered themselves to be ``pro-choice'', liked getting it
out is because they did not like to have anything to do with it.
It is one of the most fascinating things to me, when I talk with my
medical colleagues, many of whom say, you know, I am pro-choice, but
they always follow it with this. They say, I would never perform an
abortion, I would never assist in an abortion. The reason why they say
that is they know exactly what an abortion is. It is the taking of an
innocent human life. It has a beating heart. It has brain waves. Those
are the things that I used to use to make a determination as to whether
or not somebody was dead.
This is a very, very controversial issue. Even if Members do stand on
the pro-abortion side of this issue, Members have to acknowledge that
it is so incredibly controversial within the population in general that
this would be something that we would be well served as a Congress to
keep outside of Federal facilities, outside of Federal hospitals.
To say that the women will pay for the abortion, we all know that
that issue is just part of the story. Having that infrastructure,
having those medical professionals there, it represents a certain
amount of Federal support.
For the millions and millions of pro-life Americans, I think
certainly if Members are pro-life, they should vote against this
amendment. I think if Members are undecided, they should vote against
this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the
amendment, which will restore regulations permitting abortions for
service members and their dependents at overseas defense department
medical facilities.
Without this amendment women who have volunteered to serve their
country will continue to be discriminated against by prohibiting them
from exercising their legally protected right to choose abortion simply
because they are stationed overseas.
While the department of defense policy respects the laws of host
nations regarding abortions, service women stationed overseas should be
entitled to the same services, as do women stationed in the U.S.
Prohibiting women from using their own funds to obtain abortion
services at overseas military facilities endangers women's health.
Women stationed overseas depend on their base hospitals for medical
care, and are often situated in areas where local facilities are
inadequate or unavailable. This policy may cause a woman facing a
crisis pregnancy to seek out an illegal and potentially unsafe
abortion.
Since 1996, the ban on DOD abortions was made permanent by the DOD
authorization bill. I have fought to restore the female service
member's constitutional right of choice.
This amendment does not require the department of defense to pay for
abortions; it simply repeals the current ban on privately funded
abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas. Absolutely no federal
funds will be used for abortion services. In addition, all three
branches of the military have a ``conscience clause'' provision which
will permit medical personnel who have moral, religious or ethical
objections to abortion or family planning service not to participate in
the procedure. These provisions will remain intact as well.
Access to abortion is a crucial right for American women, whether or
not they are stationed abroad. This amendment must be supported, as
women who serve our country must be able to exercise their choice
whether or not they are on American soil.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Meek) as the designee of the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Sanchez).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek)
will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order:
Amendment No. 12 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay);
Amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss);
Amendment No. 14 offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek)
as the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

[[Page 12259]]

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. De Lay

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 15-minute vote, followed by two 5-minute
votes.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248,
noes 143, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 182]

AYES--284

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--143

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bereuter
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pastor
Payne
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Brown (CA)
Hinchey
Jones (OH)
Kasich
Sherwood
Stark
Visclosky

{time} 2016

Mrs. THURMAN, Ms. DANNER, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, and Messrs. WEINER,
HORN, and DAVIS of Florida changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HOLDEN, WISE, LUCAS of Kentucky, HALL of Ohio, MOAKLEY,
LARGENT, KILDEE, MASCARA, STUPAK, DINGELL, COSTELLO, MOORE and SHERMAN,
and Ms. PELOSI, Ms. SLAUGHTER and Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 2015

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 200, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Goss

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 227,
noes 198, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 183]

AYES--227

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent

[[Page 12260]]

Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--198

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

NOT VOTING--9

Brown (CA)
Coburn
Hinchey
Kasich
Lewis (CA)
Rush
Sherwood
Stark
Visclosky

{time} 2024

Mr. METCALF changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Meek of Florida

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) as
the designee of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez) on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded voted has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 225, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 184]

AYES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Walden
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--225

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows

[[Page 12261]]

Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Brown (CA)
Hinchey
Kasich
Sherwood
Stark
Visclosky

{time} 2033

Ms. McKINNEY changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Ney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nethercutt, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1401) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 and 2001, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO REPORT ON H.R. 1000, AVIATION INVESTMENT AND
REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure be permitted to file a
supplemental report to report number 106-167, which accompanied the
bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize
programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
purposes.
The supplemental report contains the CBO cost estimate for the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.

____________________

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. DUNCAN. 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. 1401.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.

____________________

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.

____________________

CONTROLS ON EXPORTATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN AMERICA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a
very important policy issue in this country and that is the policy of
export controls and specifically the controls that we place on the
exportation of technology.
There has been a lot of talk about this issue today on the national
defense bill, a lot of concerns about the exportation of technology.
And I want to make a national security argument for changing some of
those controls and allowing actually for the greater exportation of
technology.
We heard a lot of talk today about the dangers of technology and what
it can do to our national security. I think this is a misguided policy
based on Cold War philosophies that fail to recognize the changes that
have taken place in our economy and the emergence of a new information-
based economy and what that means for all manner of policy decisions,
particularly in the area of exportation of technology.
The situation we have right now is we have very strict restrictions
on exportation of certain technology, most notably encryption software
and any sort of so-called supercomputer. I say ``so-called'' because,
basically, the laptops that we have on our desks today just a couple of
years ago were considered supercomputers. That shows how fast computers
advance and how much our policy fails to keep up with it.
The national security argument that I wish to make is based on the
fact that our national security is best protected by making sure that
the United States maintains its leadership role in the technology
economy, maintains a situation where we in the U.S. have the best
encryption software and the best computers.
If we place restrictions on the exportation of that technology, that
will soon fail to be the case. We will cease to be the leaders in this
technology area and we will cease to be able to provide that very
important R&D to the military that enables them to be the leaders in
technology.
Our current policies are creating a situation where more and more
countries of the world have to go elsewhere to get access to either
encryption software or computers of any kind. And that is a very
important point in this debate.
The limitations that we place on the exportation of technology is
based on two premises. One is correct but misinterpreted, and the other
is incorrect. The one that is correct but misinterpreted is that
technology matters in national security. That is absolutely true.
Computers, software, all manner of technology give us a stronger
national defense, and all manner of technology can be a potential
threat to any country's national security. That is true.
But the mistaken application comes from the belief that somehow the
United States can place its arms around that technology and not allow
the rest of the world to get it. That might have been true in the
1940's and in the 1950's. But in the new economy, in the Internet age
and in the age of technology, it is not true.
Encryption is the best example. We believe that we are not going to
allow the rest of the world access to the best encryption technology by
restricting our Nation's companies' ability to export it. But we can
download 128 byte encryption technology off the Internet.
Dozens of countries, not the least of which are Canada, Russia,
Germany, export that technology. Also not to mention the fact that if
we want to buy the best encryption technology possible, we can go to
just about any software store in the world, slip it into the pocket of
our suit, and climb on an airplane and go anyplace we want to go.
Our restricting our Nation's companies' ability to export encryption
technology is not stopping so-called rogue nations or anybody out there
from getting access to that technology. What it is doing is it is
having them get that technology from some other country and also
hurting our companies' ability to export to legitimate users of
encryption technology.
And in the long-run, or actually, given the way the technology
economy works, in the much shorter run than we would like, we are going
to cease to be the leaders in encryption technology. The rest of the
world is going to overtake us. And then our national security is really
going to be threatened because we are not going to be the best and we
are going to face other countries that have better technology than us.
The same is true in the area of computers. We are but a couple years
away from creating a situation where most countries in the world will
not be able to export so-called supercomputers to the rest of the
country.
What we are a couple of years away from, forgive me, I did not
exactly explain that right, is having our basic

[[Page 12262]]

laptop not being able to be exported because of the 2,000 MTOPS limit
that we place on exportation.
I think that there is a false argument that has been set up in this
debate, and that is that this is a choice between national security and
commerce. And I could spew off a whole bunch of statistics about how
important technology is to the growth of our economy and how important
access to foreign markets is to that growth of our technology sector of
our economy. And all of that is true.
But a lot of people look at that and say, well, you are just arguing
put commerce ahead of national security. We are not arguing that.
National security, as well as commerce, demands that we change the
export control policies that we place on technology.

____________________

SAFETY IN AMERICA'S SCHOOLS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise tonight and talk for a
second about a subject that only a few months ago was on everybody's
lips but fast wanes away, and that is school safety and the problem
with violence in our schools.
In the next few days, or next week, we will consider gun legislation.
We will hear a lot of rhetoric. We will talk about a lot of things. But
somehow, with time and space, we forget about the great tragedy that
has happened in America in the past 2 years.
This year, when graduation takes place, many students will commence
to higher education. But in Colorado, 13 students will never go to
class again. In Georgia, only by the grace of God, our students were
injured and not killed.
Does Congress have a role in this? Is there something that we can do?
Yes, I think there is. But first I think we need to be honest about the
blame game.
There is appropriate responsibility in the gun industry, and they
should accept it. There is appropriate responsibility in the motion
picture industry, and they should accept it. There is appropriate
responsibility in the music industry, and they should accept it. And
every parent in America should understand today that parental
responsibility must be restored in America if we are ever to solve
school violence.
But Congress has a role, too. It is our fault, as well. We stand here
today in the people's House and appropriate money for the education of
our children, the defense of our country, exports of our materials and
facilitating our businesses. Yet our greatest natural resource is the
generation now being educated in the schools of America.
Should we run them? No, they should not be federalized. I was a
school board chairman in Georgia. I know local control is important.
But I know resources are equally important.

{time} 2045

Next week, I will introduce in the Congress a bill that really does
address school violence. It does not play the blame game by attacking
an inanimate object, a motion picture or music, all of which have some
responsibility, but instead it talks about us being a facilitator for
resources at the local level through a block grant program that
institutionalizes in this country an expectation of safety, discipline
and student assistance.
When you read behind the sensationalism of the last few instances in
America, you will find students who were troubled, students who were
reported by teachers or other parents to have demonstrated tendencies
that would be violent, and you will find gaps between that report and
any follow-up. And unfortunately in each and every case, whether it be
Paducah or Jonesboro or Conyers or Littleton, tragedy ensued and the
lives of American children were lost.
This bill would do the following things. It would create a block
grant program for any system in the country that wishes to apply for us
to assist in the funding of a director of school safety in every public
school in America. It would not allow the funds to supplant State or
local funds. The individual employed would not necessarily have to be a
certified teacher but could be at the discretion of that system,
somebody that most importantly met the needs of the demographics of
those children. If accepted, it would require a school safety plan. And
further it would exempt from existing law the prohibitions we now place
on many teachers and administrators from direct referrals of students
who demonstrated violent tendencies to the appropriate law enforcement,
mental health or other agency that we fund in our local governments
around this country.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that children rise to the expectations
that we set for them. Unfortunately, we have created an environment
where our expectations in our schools in terms of discipline, in terms
of zero tolerance for violence, are not as high as they should be. And
the children, the vast majority, almost 100 percent who are good kids,
who obey the rules, who go to school, they should not be punished and
their life should never be taken, because we did not do what we could
do to facilitate an environment in our schools of safety and discipline
and, probably most importantly, direct assistance when a child is in
trouble, to see to it they receive what they need at the most critical
time in their lives.
I want to conclude by making a point. I am a parent. Since I have
been in politics I probably got more credit for raising our three than
I deserve, but my wife and I raised three wonderful children. We sent
them all to public schools. I think that is the real world. I think
that is the world my kids will grow up in. We sent them there and we
tried our best to be involved in their education, to raise their
expectations, to do the right thing and to obey the law. There are lots
of other parents like that. But the biggest problem in America today is
probably parental deficit disorder, not attention deficit disorder. We
cannot expect our system to educate our kids and to raise them.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and let us do
something concrete for the children of America.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION REGARDING ALIENS FROM ALBANIA, MACEDONIA
AND MONTENEGRO

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will
lighten the heavy burden placed on our allies in the Balkans. Over the
past 9 weeks, over 780,000 refugees have flooded into Albania,
Macedonia and Montenegro, putting overwhelming pressures on already
strained humanitarian services. I recently visited these countries and
saw firsthand the growing number of refugees and the demands on social
services, government workers and relief agencies attempting to feed,
clothe and house refugees with nowhere else to turn. As a Nation, we
have appealed to these countries to keep their borders open to the
Kosovar refugees. We have increased our humanitarian aid, pledged to
admit 20,000 refugees into the United States, and already welcomed
3,000 of them into our country. In fact, volunteers for a relief agency
in my district, World Relief in Wheaton, have welcomed 54 refugees into
their homes. Yet as we are opening our homes to refugees from camps in
Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro, we are preparing to send back to
them aliens who have been residing peacefully in the United States.
Indeed, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service continues to
detain for deportation aliens from these countries. One of my
constituents in Illinois has been interned for purposes of deportation
since last March.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this policy should be revised to reflect
the current realities of the situation in the Balkans. Clearly there
are extraordinary conditions that prevent aliens from returning to
these republics at

[[Page 12263]]

this time. My legislation, cosponsored by seven of my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle, will designate temporary protected status for
aliens from the Republics of Albania and Montenegro and the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The U.S. has already extended such
protection to aliens from Kosovo. I believe that it must also be
extended to these other hard-pressed republics.
In my view, this would not only serve the best interests of the
United States, it would also signal to our friends in the region our
firm commitment to easing the overwhelming humanitarian challenges that
face them.
Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Attorney General and the Secretary of
State urging that TPS be designated for aliens from these countries.
The administration has yet to take action on my recommendation. As the
stability of our friends in the Balkans is of paramount importance to
the success of our Nation's mission, I believe Congress must act.
I thank my colleagues who join with me today in support of this bill.
I urge the House to act quickly on this legislation to show our strong
commitment to the continued well-being of our friends in the Balkans.

____________________

IN SUPPORT OF SECURITY AND FREEDOM THROUGH ENCRYPTION (SAFE) ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak
in support of the Security and Freedom through Encryption, or SAFE,
Act, which has been introduced in this session of the Congress and has
been done so in support of the high technology industry which is so
important to our economy and, therefore, to our country. Indeed, the
high technology industry has already created and employs nearly 5
million people across this great land. But the statistics do not show
the whole story, for as much as the high tech industry directly adds to
our economy, it adds even more indirectly. Advances in technology
impact every other sector of our economy, be it retail sales or farming
or manufacturing or whatever. The productivity increases that high tech
has brought to us allow us to work better and faster, creating higher
incomes and prosperity for all Americans. I think it is safe to say
that high technology has been the most important development in our
economy in the last 50 years. We need to continue to promote high
technology. Part of the problem we face is that currently government
imposes strict regulations on technology imports, such as encryption
technology. The rationale behind these policies is that we should limit
potential adversaries from acquiring top-notch technology, whether
those adversaries be in the foreign affairs field or in criminal
enterprises. In regard to encryption, this policy is outdated and needs
rethinking. It is as a practical matter impossible to limit access to
some of those technologies, especially when it is possible to purchase
top of the line encryption technology through the Internet or from a
foreign vendor. U.S. export controls on U.S.-created encryption do not
restrict anyone's access to technology or to encryption devices, and
instead cripples the U.S. technology industry's ability to grow, invest
in research and development and continue to create the best technology
in the world. That is a far bigger threat to our national security. Our
national security fundamentally relies on the strength and
competitiveness of our economy. Reforming encryption controls and
passage of the Security and Freedom through Encryption, or SAFE, Act
which I have cosponsored is a common-sense approach that levels the
playing field for our industry in the world, without compromising
America's national security interest. I urge its passage.

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE FOR H.R. 1000, AVIATION
INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record the official
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate for H.R. 1000, unanimously
reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May
27, 1999. As part of an agreement, the committee had received unanimous
consent to file its report by 6 p.m. on May 28, 1999. Unfortunately,
CBO was unable to complete the official cost estimate by 6 p.m., and
the committee had to include a committee cost estimate in its report.
That estimate is superseded by the CBO estimate.
U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 28, 1999.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1000, the
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 12st Century.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The principal CBO staff contact for
federal costs is Victoria Heid Hall, who can be reached at
226-2860. The staff contact for the private-sector impact is
Jean Wooster, who can be reached at 226-2940, and the contact
for the state and local impact is Lisa Cash Driskill, who can
be reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson,
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.

congressional budget office cost estimate

H.R. 1000--Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
century
Summary: H.R. 1000 would authorize funding for programs of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) primarily for
fiscal years 2000 through 2004. CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 1000 would result in additional outlays
totaling about $56 billion over the 2000-2004 period. That
total assumes appropriation action consistent with the bill's
authorizations and the levels of new contract authority it
provides for aviation programs. Outlays for the programs
authorized by the bill would grow from an estimated $9.2
billion in 1999 to $14.8 billion in 2004. We also estimate
that enacting the bill would increase direct spending outlays
by about $46 million over the same period. Revenues would
decline by $35 million over the five-year period. Because
H.R. 1000 would affect both direct spending and receipts,
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
The bill would provide an additional $7.1 billion in
contract authority for the airport improvement program (AIP)
over the 2000-2004 period (above the $2.4 billion a year
assumed in the baseline), but providing this contract
authority would not affect outlays from direct spending
because AIP outlays are subject to appropriation action. (The
increase in estimated AIP outlays is included in the
discretionary total cited above.) H.R. 1000 also would
increase direct spending authority for the Essential Air
Service (EAS) program by $10 million each year. We estimate
that enacting that change would increase outlays by $46
million over the 2000-2004 period. Furthermore, the bill
would allow the Secretary of Transportation to authorize
certain airports to charge higher passenger facility fees and
would expand a pilot program that provides for the innovative
use of airport improvement grants to finance airport
projects. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) expects that
these provisions would result in an increase in tax-exempt
financing and a subsequent loss of federal revenue. JCT
estimates that the revenue loss would be $35 million over the
2000-2004 period and $142 million over the 2000-2009 period.
H.R. 1000 would take the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
(AATF) off-budget and exempt AATF spending from the
discretionary spending caps, pay-as-you-go procedures, and
Congressional budget controls (including the budget
resolution, committee spending allocations, and
reconciliation process). Title X would provide for adjusting
AIP contract authority upward based on the difference between
the amounts appropriated and the amount authorized for FAA
operations, facilities and equipment, and research and
development. Any adjustments would begin in fiscal year 2001.
H.R. 1000 contains intergovernmental mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates
that the costs would be significant and would not meet the
threshold established by that act ($50 million in 1996,
adjusted annually for inflation). Overall, the bill would
provide significant benefits to airports operated by state
and local governments. Section 4 of UMRA excludes from the
application of that act any legislative provisions that would
establish or enforce certain statutory rights prohibiting
discrimination. CBO has determined that section 706 fits
within that exclusion. Section 4 also excludes from the
application of that act any legislative provisions that are
necessary for the ratification or implementation of
international treaty obligations. CBO has determined that
section 710,

[[Page 12264]]

which implements provisions of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, fits within that exclusion.
H.R. 1000 would impose new private-sector mandates by
requiring safety equipment for specific aircraft, imposing
consumer and employee protection provisions, and imposing new
requirements for commercial air tour operations over national
parks. Those mandates would affect owners of fixed-wing
aircraft, air carriers, end-users of aircraft parts,
operators of commercial air tours, and owners and operators
of cargo aircraft. CBO estimates that the total direct costs
of the mandates would not exceed the annual threshold for
private-sector mandates ($100 million in 1996, adjusted for
inflation).
Description of the bill's major provisions: Title I would
authorize the appropriation of $47.6 billion for FAA
operations, facilities, and equipment for fiscal years 2000
through 2004. Title I also would provide $19.2 billion in
contract authority for the FAA's airport improvement program
for fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Title I would allow the Secretary of Transportation to
authorize certain airports to charge higher passenger
facility fees than under current law. This title also would
expand a pilot program that provides for the innovative use
of airport improvement grants to finance airport projects.
Title II would establish a federal credit program to assist
commuter air carriers in purchasing regional jet aircraft.
Title II also would increase the amount of direct spending
authority for the EAS program and would authorize the use of
appropriations to FAA operations for that program.
Title III would provide that, of the amounts appropriated
for FAA operations in fiscal year 2000, up to $1.5 million
may be used to obtain contractual audit services to complete
a report on FAA's costs and on the allocation of such costs
among different FAA services and activities.
Title IV would make the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA)
inapplicable to aviation incidents, thereby broadening the
circumstances under which relatives can seek compensation for
the death of a family members in an aviation incident over
the ocean.
Title V would establish civil penalties for individuals who
interfere with or jeopardize the safety of a cabin crew or
other passengers.
Title VI would provide whistleblower protection for
employees of air carriers who notify authorities that their
employer is violating a federal law relating to air carrier
safety. The bill would set up a complaint and investigation
process within the Department of Labor (DOL).
Title VII would extend the war risk insurance program and
prohibit the FAA from charging fees for certain services.
This title would provide that, of the amounts appropriated
for FAA operations in fiscal year 2000, $2 million may be
used to eliminate a backlog of equal employment opportunity
complaints at the Department of Transportation (DOT).
Title VIII would make clear that the FAA has the authority
to regulate aircraft overflights affecting public and tribal
lands, and would establish a process for the FAA and the
National Park Service (NPS) to coordinate the development and
implementation of such regulations.
Title IX would place receipts to and sending from the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AAFT) off-budget and exempt
the fund from any general budget limitations. Title IX and X
would provide for periodic adjustments to the amounts
authorized to be appropriated for the FAA based on estimated
and actual deposits to the AATF and on appropriations action.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Over the 2000-
2004 period, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1000 would
result in additional discretionary outlays of about $56
billion, additional direct spending outlays of $46 million,
and a net loss of federal revenues of $35 million. The
estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1000, excluding the
potential impact of title X, is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall primarily within budget
function 400 (transportation).

Spending Under Current law:
Budget Authority \1\................................ 7,654 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays \1\............................... 9,247 3,458 1,347 512 166 78
Proposed Changes: \3\
Estimated Authorization Level....................... 0 7,572 8,950 9,886 10,357 10,860
Estimated Outlays................................... 0 6,020 9,653 12,095 13,687 14,710
Spending Under H.R. 1000: \3\
Estimated Authorization Level: \1\.................. 7,654 7,572 8,950 9,886 10,357 10,860
Estimated Outlays................................... 9,247 9,478 11,000 12,607 13,853 14,788

DIRECT SPENDING--EXCLUDING TITLE X

Baseline Spending Under Current Law:
Estimated Budget Authority \4\...................... 2,410 2,460 2,460 2,460 2,460 2,460
Estimated Outlays................................... 0 30 50 50 50 50
Proposed Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority.......................... 0 75 1,600 1,700 1,850 1,950
Estimated Outlays................................... 0 6 10 10 10 10
Spending Under H.R. 1000:
Estimated Budget Authority \4\...................... 2,410 2,535 4,060 4,160 4,310 4,410
Estimated Outlays................................... 0 36 60 60 60 60

CHANGES IN REVENUES

Estimated Revenues...................................... 0 -1 -3 -6 -11 -14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1999 level is the amount appropriated for that year for FAA's operations account and facilities and equipment account.
\2\ Estimated outlays under current law are from amounts appropriated for 1999 and previous years for the FAA operations account and the facilities and
equipment account, as well as the discretionary outlays from the AIP obligation limitations, assuming a full year of authority in 1999.
\3\ H.R. 1000 authorizes such sums as necessary for the FAA operations account and for the facilities and equipment account for fiscal year 2000. The
table reflects a level for 2000 equal to the amounts provided in 1999--that is, without any adjustment for anticipated inflation. Alternatively, if
the 1999 level is increased to adjust for inflation, the 2000 level would be $300 million higher, resulting in $300 million more in outlays over the
2000-2004 period.
\4\ Budget authority for AIP is provided as contract authority, a mandatory form of budget authority; however, outlays from AIP contract authority are
subject to obligation limitations contained in appropriation acts and are therefore discretionary. CBO's baseline projections assume a full year
budget authority will be provided for AIP for fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent year. The full-year total is 1.2 times the $2,050 million provided
through August 6, 1999.

The preceding table excludes the potential effects of title
X, which would provide for adjustments to AIP funding,
beginning in fiscal year 2001. The annual adjustments would
be derived by comparing the amounts authorized for FAA
operations, facilities and equipment, and research and
development, and the amounts provided in appropriations acts
for those purposes. If appropriations equal the authorized
amounts, then there would be no adjustment in AIP contract
authority. Any adjustment would constitute new direct
spending authority because it would be triggered by title X;
however, all outlays for AIP would still be subject to
obligation limitations established in appropriation acts.
Depending on the appropriation actions, this provision could
result in additional AIP contract authority of up to $40
billion over the 2001-2004 period, as shown in the following
table. (The maximum contract authority would result if no
appropriations were provided for the accounts in question.)

Estimate Budget Authority............................... 0 0 8,950 9,886 10,357 10,868
Estimate Outlays........................................ 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The amounts shown are potential additions to AIP contract authority attributable to section 1001 of title X.

Basis of estimate: Implementing H.R. 1000 would affect
spending subject to appropriation, direct spending, and
revenues. Estimates of outlays are based on historical
spending patterns for the affected programs and on
information provided by DOT and FAA staff.

[[Page 12265]]

Spending subject to appropriation
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1000
will be enacted before the start of fiscal year 2000, and
that the amounts authorized for aviation programs will be
appropriated for each fiscal year.
FAA Operations. H.R. 1000 would authorize the appropriation
of such sums as necessary for FAA operations for fiscal year
2000. The bill also provides that funds, appropriated for FAA
operations in fiscal year 2000 may be used for a number of
new activities, including $2 FAA operations in fiscal year
2000 may be used for a number of new activities, including $2
million to eliminate a backlog of equal opportunity
complaints at DOT, up to $1.5 million to study the use of
recycled materials in aviation pavement, and up to $1.5
million to obtain contractual audit services to complete the
Inspector General's report on the FAA's costs and cost
allocations. In total, we estimate that the additional
activities would require appropriations of $5 million for
2000. For fiscal years 2001 through 2004, the bill would
authorize specific annual amounts totaling $28,553 million.
In the absence of specific authorizations for FAA
operations in 2000, CBO estimates the amounts of the 2000
authorization based on the 1999 funding levels, with and
without adjustments for inflation. The FAA received an
appropriation of $5,567 million for operations in 1999. If
that level is not adjusted for inflation between 1999 and
2000, CBO estimates that the funding level for fiscal year
2000 would be $5,572 million (including an additional $5
million for the new activities cited above). CBO estimates
that appropriation of that amount in 2000 and the authorized
levels specified in the bill for 2001 through 2004 would
result in additional outlays for FAA operations totaling
$33.3 billion over the 2000-2004 period (excluding outlays
from amounts appropriated in 1999 and prior years).
Alternatively, if the Congress increased funding for
operations in 2000 to account for inflation, we estimate that
the funding level for that year would be $5,825 million.
Combining that amount with the specified authorizations for
2001 through 2004 would yield additional outlays of $33.5
billion for FAA operations over the 2000-2004 period.
H.R. 1000 also provides that funds appropriated for FAA
operations may be used for certain activities and programs
beginning in fiscal year 2001. Assuming that the Congress
appropriates the amounts authorized in the bill for FAA
operations for the years 2001 through 2004, we expect that
earmarking amounts for the programs described below would not
have any significant impact on outlays for FAA operations.
Section 211 would establish a program to provide commuter
air carriers with federal loans, loan guarantees, or lines of
credit for the purchase of regional jet aircraft. The program
is designed to improve service by jet aircraft to smaller
airports and to markets that the Secretary of Transportation
determines have insufficient air service. Section 212
provides that, from appropriations for FAA operations for
each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004, such sums as
necessary may be used to carry out the program, including
administrative expenses. The Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990 requires appropriation of the subsidy costs and
administrative costs for credit programs. The subsidy cost is
the estimated long-term cost to the government of a direct
loan or loan guarantee, calculated on a net present value
basis and excluding administrative costs. Based on
information from the FAA, CBO estimates that the subsidy
appropriation necessary to implement this program would total
about $80 million over the 2001-2004 period, and that outlays
for this program would be $60 million over the five-year
period. CBO estimates that administering the credit program
would cost about $11 million over the 2001-2004 period. The
bill would permit the Secretary to charge fees to cover all
costs to the federal government of making such loans and
would allow the Secretary to spend the fee receipts generated
to administer the program. For purposes of this estimate, we
assume the Secretary would not charge any fees.
Section 202 provides that, of amounts appropriated for FAA
operations beginning in fiscal year 2001, up to $15 million
each year may be used to subsidize air carrier service to
airports not receiving sufficient service as determined by
the Secretary of Transportation. Such amounts would be in
addition to the spending authorized under current law for the
EAS program. CBO estimates that implementing this section
would result in outlays of $54 million over the 2001-2004
period from the operations account, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
Section 131 would direct the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a pilot program to contract for air traffic control
services at certain towers that do not qualify for the
current contract tower program. The pilot program would
include a federal contribution to the costs of constructing
control towers at up to two facilities. The section provides
that, of the amounts appropriated for FAA operations
beginning in fiscal year 2000, up to $6 million may be used
each year for the pilot program. Because $6 million was
earmarked for cost sharing for contract towers in the fiscal
year 1999 appropriation for FAA operations, we estimate that
enacting section 131 would not affect the outlay rate.
FAA Air Navigation Facilities and Equipment. H.R. 1000
would authorize the appropriation of such sums as necessary
for air navigation facilities and equipment (F&E) in fiscal
year 2000 and specified amounts for fiscal years 2001 through
2004.
FAA received an appropriation of $2,000 million for F&E in
1999 (excluding $87 million that was provided in a separate
appropriation specifically for addressing year 2000 computer
problems). CBO estimates that appropriation of that amount in
2000 and the authorized levels specified in the bill for 2001
through 2004 would result in additional outlays for F&E
totaling $10.3 billion over the 2000-2004 period (excluding
outlays from amounts appropriated in 1999 and prior years).
Alternatively, if the Congress increased F&E funding in 2000
to account for inflation, the estimated funding level for
that year would be $2,047 million. Combining that amount with
the specified authorizations for 2001 through 2004 would
yield additional outlays of $10.4 billion for F&E over the
2000-2004 period.
FAA Airport Improvement Program. Title I would provide
$2,410 million in contract authority (a mandatory form of
budget authority) for the airport improvement program for
1999 and a total of $19,175 million in contract authority
over the 2000-2004 period, as discussed below in the section
on direct spending. That amount represents $7,125 million in
contract authority above the amount assumed in CBO's March
1999 baseline. For purposes of this estimate, we assume that
the obligation limitations for AIP contained in annual
appropriation acts for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 would
equal the amounts of contract authority that would be
provided in this bill.
Other Provisions. Based on the current costs of operating a
whistleblower protection program at the Department of Energy,
CBO estimates that the administrative costs of operating the
new DOL program provided in section 601 would be less than $1
million a year.
Based on information from the NPS and the FAA, CBO
estimates that discretionary outlays to conduct planning and
rulemaking for park overflights, complete air tour management
plans (including environmental analyses), and monitor any
overflight limits established in such plans would total $29
million over the 2000-2009 period. This process is already
underway, and we expect that these costs will be incurred
within the next 10 years under current law, assuming
appropriation of the estimated amounts. CBO estimates that
the provisions of title VIII dealing with park overflights
would cause no significant change in FAA or NPS spending over
the next five years. We estimate that operating the joint
advisory group would cost the agencies a total of about
$25,000 each year.
H.R. 1000 contains several additional provisions that would
require the FAA to conduct studies, complete reports, issue
rulemakings, and develop test programs. CBO assumes that such
costs would be funded from the authorizations provided in the
bill for FAA operations, facilities, and equipment. In total,
CBO estimates that these studies, rulemakings, and reports
would cost about $1 million in fiscal year 2000.
Direct spending
Relative to CBO's March 1999 baseline, enacting title I of
the bill would provide an additional $7,125 million in
contract authority (a mandatory form of budget authority) for
the airport improvement program for fiscal years 1999 through
2004. It also would extend the authority of the Secretary of
Transportation to incur obligations to make grants under that
program.
Under current law, $2,050 million in AIP contract authority
for fiscal year 1999 is available for obligation until August
6, 1999, equivalent to an annual rate of $2,410 million.
Title I would bring the total contract authority for fiscal
year 1999 up to the baseline level of $2,410 million and
would provide a total of $19,175 million in contract
authority over the 2000-2004 period. Consistent with the
Budget Enforcement Act, CBO's baseline projections assume
that a full year of contract authority ($2,410 million) will
be provided for AIP in fiscal year 1999 and each subsequent
year. Therefore, relative to the baseline, enacting title I
would not affect contract authority for 1999, and would
increase contract authority by a total of $7,125 million over
the 2000-2004 period.
Expenditures from AIP contract authority are governed by
obligation limitations contained in annual appropriation acts
and thus are categorized as discretionary outlays. For
purposes of this estimate, we assume that appropriation acts
for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 will set obligation
limitations for AIP equal to the annual levels of contract
authority provided in this bill (as discussed above).
Section 202 would increase DOT's direct spending authority
for the EAS program by $10 million each year, beginning in
fiscal year 2000. In 1999, the program has $50 million of
funding from amounts made available to FAA in discretionary
appropriations, and it has a permanent, mandatory level of
$50 million a year for future years. Section 202 would
increase that mandatory level to $60 million a year. We
estimate that additional

[[Page 12266]]

outlays from the increased authority would total $46 million
over the 2000-2004 period. (This provision is in addition to
the authorization for additional discretionary spending for
EAS out of amounts appropriated for FAA operations.)
Section 715 would prohibit the FAA from charging fees for
certain FAA certification services pertaining to particular
products manufactured outside the United States. Based on
information from the FAA, CBO estimates that the forgone
receipts would total about $1 million a year beginning in
fiscal year 2000 and as much as $4 million a year in future
years. Because the FAA has the authority to spend such fees,
a reduction in such fee collections would also reduce
spending; therefore, we estimate that this provision would
have no significant net effect on direct spending over the
2000-2004 period.
Section 404 would amend title 49 of the U.S. Code so that
the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920 (DOHSA) would not
apply to aviation incidents. Under DOHSA, a family can only
seek compensation if the relatives were financially dependent
upon the deceased. By making DOHSA inapplicable to aviation
incidents, section 404 would broaden the circumstances under
which relatives can seek compensation for the death of a
family member in an aviation incident over the ocean. It
could also lead to larger awards. Based on information from
DOT, CBO estimates that it is unlikely that enacting section
404 would have a significant impact on the federal budget.
The provision could affect federal spending if the government
becomes either a defendant or a plaintiff in a future civil
action related to aviation. Since any additional compensation
that might be owed by the federal government under such an
action could be paid out of the Claims and Judgments Fund,
the provision could affect direct spending. But CBO has no
basis for estimating the likelihood or outcome of any such
actions.
Section 708 would extend the authorization for the FAA's
aviation insurance program through December 31, 2004. Under
current law, the aviation insurance program will end on
August 6, 1999. Enacting this provision could cause an
increase in direct spending if new claims would result from
extending the insurance program. Moreover, such new spending
could be very large, particularly if a claim exceeded the
balance of the trust fund and the FAA had to seek a
supplemental appropriation. But historical experience
suggests that claims under this program are very rare;
therefore, extending the aviation insurance program would
probably have no significant impact on the federal budget
over the next five years.
Revenues
H.R. 1000 would authorize the Secretary of Transportation
to allow certain airports to charge higher passenger facility
fees than under current law. JCT expects that this provision
would allow airports to generate more income from fees, which
would be used to back additional tax-exempt debt. Such debt
would result in a loss of federal revenue. JCT estimates a
revenue loss of about $33 million over the 2000-2004 period
and about $136 million over the 2000-2009 period.
The bill also would expand a pilot program that provides
for the use of airport improvement grants to implement
innovative financing techniques for airport capital projects.
These techniques include payment of interest, purchase of
bond insurance, and other credit enhancements associated with
airport bonds. While the first pilot program, enacted in
1996, included these provisions, the early use of the program
was geared more toward changing federal/local matching
ratios. In addition, the earlier authorization provided for
no more than 10 projects. This provision represents an
expansion to 25 pilot projects. It is designed to leverage
new investment financed by additional tax-exempt debt. JCT
expects that this provision would lead to an increase in tax-
exempt financing and a resulting loss of federal revenue. JCT
estimates a loss of revenue of about $2 million over the
2000-2004 period and about $6 million over the 2000-2009
period.
H.R. 1000 would authorize the FAA to impose a new civil
penalty on individuals who interfere with the duties and
responsibilities of the flight crew or cabin crew of a civil
aircraft, or who pose an imminent threat to the safety of the
aircraft. The bill also would impose civil penalties on air
carriers that discriminate against handicapped individuals
and on violators of certain other provisions. Based on
information from the FAA, CBO estimates that the civil
penalties in H.R. 1000 would increase revenues, but that the
effect is likely to be less than $500,000 annually.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending and
receipts. The net changes in outlays and receipts that are
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the
following table. For the purposes of enforcing such
procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget
year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays................................... 0 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Changes in receipts.................................. 0 -1 -3 -6 -11 -14 -17 -19 -21 -24 -26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changes in the budgetary control of aviation spending: H.R.
1000 would change the budgetary status of funding for
aviation programs by placing the AATF off-budget and removing
AATF funding from discretionary caps altogether. The bill
also provides for periodic adjustments in FAA authorization
levels based on AATF receipts and appropriation action.
Exempting AATF spending from budgetary control and
enforcement procedures
Beginning in fiscal year 2001, title IX would take the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) off-budget and exempt
trust fund spending from the discretionary spending caps,
pay-as-you-go procedures, and Congressional budget controls
(including the budget resolution, committee spending
allocations, and reconciliation). By itself, taking the AATF
off-budget would not change total spending of the federal
government and would not affect spending or revenue estimates
for Congressional scorekeeping purposes. However, because
title IX would exempt AATF spending from the budgetary
control and enforcement procedures that apply to most other
programs, spending for air transportation would likely
increase insignificantly. The amounts of potential increases
are uncertain because they would depend upon future actions
by both authorizing and appropriations committees.
Adjustments to FAA authorizations and program funding
Beginning in calendar year 2000, title IX would require the
Secretaries of Transportation and the Treasury to estimate,
by March 31 of each year, whether the unfunded aviation
authorizations at the close of the subsequent fiscal year
exceed net aviation receipts to be credited to the AATF
during the fiscal year. If the unfunded authorizations exceed
estimated receipts, authorizations for appropriations from
the trust fund would be reduced. It is unclear how this
provision would be implemented, but enacting this provision
could decrease the amount authorized to be appropriated from
the AATF.
Beginning with the President's budget submission for fiscal
year 2003, title X would adjust the upcoming fiscal year's
FAA authorizations based on the difference between estimated
and actual receipts to the AATF in the most recently
completed year. Title X provides that when the President
submits a budget for a fiscal year, the Office of Management
and Budget shall calculate and the budget shall report the
extent to which the actual receipts (including interest)
deposited to the AATF for the base year (that is, the most
recently completed fiscal year) were greater or less than the
estimated deposits specified in H.R. 1000 for the base year.
If there is a difference between the estimated and actual
deposits in the base year, then title X provides that the
amounts authorized to be appropriated in the upcoming fiscal
year for FAA operations, facilities and equipment, research
and development, and airport improvement shall be adjusted
proportionately such that the total adjustments equal the
revenue difference.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments:
Overall, H.R. 1000 would provide significant benefits to
airports operated by state and local governments. It also
would impose two small mandates on state governments, but CBO
estimates the cost of complying with these mandates would not
be significant and would not meet the threshold established
by UMRA ($50 million in 1996, adjusted annually for
inflation).
Mandates
Section 401 of the bill would prohibit a state or local
government from preventing people associated with disaster
counseling services who are not licensed in that state from
providing those services for up to 60 days after an aviation
accident. Section 402 of the bill would expand a current
preemption of state liability laws by limiting the liability
of air carriers that provide information concerning flight
reservations to the families of passengers involved in
airline accidents. Air carriers are already provided immunity
from state liability laws for providing passenger lists under
these circumstances. Because neither mandate would require
state or local governments to expend funds or to change their
laws, CBO estimates that any costs associated with these
mandates would be insignificant.
Other impacts
H.R. 1000 would authorize $19.2 billion in contract
authority for the AIP for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, an
increase of more than $7 billion over CBO's March baseline
for

[[Page 12267]]

that period. Because the AIP provides grants to fund capital
improvement and planning projects for more than 3,300 of the
nation's state and locally operated commercial airports and
general aviation facilities, those airports could realize
significant benefits from this increase.
The bill also would expand the uses and change the
distribution of AIP funds. For instance, it would increase
from $500,000 to $1.5 million the minimum amount of money
going to each of the nation's 428 primary airports from the
entitlement portion of the AIP. (Primary airports board more
than 10,000 passengers each year.) These funds are
distributed based on the number of passengers boarding at an
airport. The amount of money received per passenger would be
significantly increased, and the current $22 million cap
would be eliminated. The bill would also allow non-primary
and reliever airports to receive up to $200,000 in
entitlement funds per eligible airport. (Non-primary airports
board between 2,500 and 10,000 passengers each year; reliever
airports are designated by the FAA to relieve congested
primary airports.)
Under this bill, eligible airports, under certain
circumstances, would be able to increase passenger facility
charges (PFCs) to $6 from the current $3 limit. Based on
information from the General Accounting Office and the FAA,
CBO estimates that if all airports currently charging PFCs
chose to increase them, revenues would total about $475
million for every $1 increase in the fee. The revenue
generated from increased PFCs could be used to leverage tax-
exempt bonds for airport projects. The bill also would
increase to 25 the number of airports eligible to participate
in an innovative financing pilot program. Under this program,
eligible airports could use AIP funds to leverage new
investment financed by additional tax-exempt debt.
Title II of the bill would deregulate the number and timing
of takeoffs and landings (slots) at La Guardia Airport,
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, and John F. Kennedy
International Airport, effective March 1, 2000. Title II also
would increase the number of slots available at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport by six, subject to certain
criteria. In general, as a condition of receiving money from
the AIP, airports must agree to provide gate access, if
available, to air carriers granted access to a slot. Based on
information from the affected airports, CBO estimates that
the increase in slots would have an insignificant impact on
their budgets.
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 1000 would
impose new mandates by requiring safety equipment for
specific aircraft, imposing consumer and employee protection
provisions, and imposing new requirements for commercial air
tour operations over national parks. Those mandates would
affect owners of fixed-wing aircraft, air carriers, end-users
of aircraft parts, commercial air tour operators, and cargo
aircraft owners and operators. CBO estimates that the total
direct costs of the mandates would not exceed the annual
threshold for private-sector mandates ($100 million in 1996,
adjusted for inflation).
Owners of fixed-wing powered aircraft
Section 510 would require the installation of emergency
locator transmitters on certain types of fixed-wing, powered
civil aircraft. It would do this by eliminating certain uses
from the list of those currently excluded from that
requirement. Most aircraft that would lose their exemption
and currently do not have emergency locator transmitters are
general aviation aircraft. According to information from the
National Air Transportation Association, the trade
association representing general aviation, the cot of
acquiring and installing an emergency locator transmitter
would range from $2,000 to $7,000 depending on the type of
aircraft. CBO estimates that fewer than 5,000 aircraft would
be affected, and that the cost of this mandate would be
between $15 million and $30 million.
Air carriers
Sections 402 and 403 would add new requirements to the
plans to address the needs of families of passengers involved
in aircraft accidents. Currently both domestic air carriers
that hold a certificate of public convenience and necessity
and foreign air carriers that use the United States as a
point of embarkation, destination, or stopover are required
to submit and comply with those plans. This bill would
require that as part of those plans air carriers give
assurance that they would provide adequate training to their
employees and agents to meet the needs of survivors and
family members following an accident. In addition, domestic
air carriers would be required to provide assurance that, if
requested by a passenger's family, the air carrier would
inform them whether the passenger's name appeared on the
preliminary manifest. Updated plans would have to be
submitted to the Secretary of Transportation and the Chairman
of the National Transportation Safety Board on or before the
180th day following enactment.
The bill does not specify what level of training would be
adequate for air carriers to be able to provide required
assurance. Based on information from representatives of air
carriers, CBO concludes that the major domestic and foreign
air carriers and some smaller carriers currently provide
training to deal with the needs of survivors and family
members following an accident. In addition, the domestic
carriers provide flight reservation information upon request,
as would be required under H.R. 1000. CBO estimates that the
cost of meeting the additional requirements would be small.
Section 601 would protect employees of air carriers or
contractors or subcontractors if those employees provide air
safety information to the U.S. government. Those firms would
not be able to discharge or discriminate against such
employees with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment. Based on information provided by
one of the major air carriers and the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, the agency that would enforce those
provisions, CBO estimates that neither the air carriers nor
their contractors would incur any direct costs in complying
with this requirement.
Section 727 would grant the FAA the authority to request
from U.S. air carriers information about the stations located
in the United States that they use to repair contract and
noncontract aircraft and aviation components. CBO expects
that the FAA would request such information. Based on
information from the FAA and air carriers, CBO anticipates
that the carriers would be able to provide the information
easily because it would be readily available and that any
costs of doing so would be negligible.
End users of life-limited aircraft parts
Section 507 would require the safe disposition of parts
with a limited useful life, once they are removed from an
aircraft. The FAA would issue regulations providing five
options for the disposition of such parts. The segregation of
those parts to preclude their installation in aircraft is one
option. Information from end users of such aircraft parts
indicates that most currently segregate those parts before
they reach the end of their useful life. CBO estimates that
additional costs imposed by this mandate would be small since
the end users would choose the most cost-effective method to
safely dispose of such parts and most currently comply with
the segregation option.
Commercial air tour operations
Title VIII would require operators of commercial air tours
to apply for authority from the FAA before coducting tours
over national parks or tribal lands within or abutting a
national park. The FAA, in cooperation with the NPS, would
devise air tour management plans for every park where an air
tour operator flies or seeks authority to fly. The management
plans would affect all commercial air tour operations up to a
half-mile outside each national park boundary. The plans
could prohibit commercial air tour operations in whole or in
part and could establish conditions for operation, such as
maximum and minimum altitudes, the maximum number of flights,
and time-of-day restrictions. H.R. 1000 would not apply to
tour operations over the Grand Canyon or Alaska. Those
operations would be covered by other regulations.
CBO estimates that title VIII would impose no additional
costs on the private sector beyond those that are likely to
be imposed by FAA regulations under current law. CBO expects
that the cost of applying to the FAA for authority to operate
commercial air tours over national parks or tribal lands
would be negligible.
Cargo aircraft owners and operators
Section 501 would mandate that a collision avoidance system
be installed on each cargo aircraft with a maximum certified
takeoff weight in excess 15,000 kilograms or more by December
31, 2002. Cargo industry representatives say they are
currently developing a collision avoidance system using new
technology and expect it to be installed in such cargo
aircraft by the deadline, even if no legislation is enacted.
CBO estimates that this mandate would impose no additional
costs on owners and operators of cargo aircraft.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Victoria Heid Hall,
for FAA provisions and NPS overflights; Christina Hawley
Sadoti, for DOL penalties; Hester Grippando, for FAA
penalties. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Lisa Cash Driskill. Impact on the Private Sector: Jean
Wooster.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.

____________________

JERUSALEM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge that the
administration immediately move forward to establish a United States
embassy in Jerusalem. It has been 4 years since Congress passed the
Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. That act requires that the U.S. embassy
must be moved to Jerusalem from its current location in Tel Aviv no
later than May 31, 1999. That deadline passed last week. It is most
regrettable that the administration is in the

[[Page 12268]]

process of considering exercising its waiver option to again delay
moving the embassy to Israel's capital city. Jerusalem is the capital
of Israel. Around the globe, it is the policy of the United States to
place its embassies in capital cities. But Israel is the glaring
exception to this policy. There is no plausible reason for this glaring
exception. It is vitally important that the administration act now to
move the embassy, because the final status negotiations of the Middle
East peace process which are in their initial stages will include talks
about Jerusalem. It is imperative to establish now the U.S. conviction
that realistic negotiations must be based on the principle that
Jerusalem is the eternal, undivided capital of Israel and must remain
united forever. If the embassy remains in Tel Aviv, it would encourage
the Palestinians to persist in unrealistic expectations regarding
Jerusalem and thus reduce the chances of reaching an agreement.
I urge the administration to follow the lead of Congress and
establish the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem where it rightfully belongs
now.

____________________

MANAGED CARE REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the managed care issue was left unfinished
in the last Congress. On the House side, the Patients' Bill of Rights
was defeated by just five votes when it came to the floor and it was
considered on the floor as a substitute to the Republican leadership's
managed care bill which did pass and in my opinion was a thinly veiled
attempt to protect the insurance industry from managed care reform.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that support among Democrats for passing
the Patients' Bill of Rights is as strong as ever and it certainly
needs to be. The Republican leadership in the House has reintroduced a
bill that is virtually identical to what it moved last year, and on the
Senate side earlier this year a Senate committee approved what I
considered a sham managed care bill that does not allow patients to sue
insurance companies but does allow insurance companies, not doctors and
patients, to define medical necessity.

{time} 2100

Mr. Speaker, what the Democrats are trying to do in the next week or
so is to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor, and because
of the fact that we have been unable, as in the last session of
Congress to get any hearings or committee action on the bill in the
House, we have already put in place a procedure known as a discharge
petition which will probably ripen next week and which will allow
Members to come down to the floor and sign the petition to essentially
force the Republican leadership to bring up a vote on the Patients'
Bill of Rights.
In many ways it is unfortunate that we are reduced to that. The
bottom line is that the Republicans are in the majority in this House,
not the Democrats, and if the Democrats cannot get a bill brought up in
committee because they are not in the majority, they do not chair the
committees, then the only recourse they have is to resort essentially
to the discharge petition process and hope that we can get a majority,
all the Democrats and some Republicans, to force a vote on the
Patients' Bill of Rights.
I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that another disturbing development has
apparently taken place in the House over the last week, and that is
that a few months ago we had heard that there were rumors that instead
of moving a comprehensive managed care reform bill, the Republicans
might try to bring up bits and pieces of patient protection. In other
words, instead of bringing the comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights
to the floor, they would bring up bills that only deal with emergency
room care or external appeals or whatever.
I just wanted to say that this approach should concern anyone who
really cares about managed care reform. I think it is being considered
as a means by which the Republicans hope to avoid the debate, a real
debate on the whole comprehensive issue of managed care reform,
particularly the right to sue and the issue of medical necessity.
What I think the Republicans may try to do is to bring up these
individual bills in this piecemeal approach and then give the
impression that somehow they are doing something on the issue of
managed care reform or patient protection, when in fact they are not.
If this piecemeal approach is adopted, I think the concerns of the
American people are certain to be ignored, the issues they care about
the most will be left off the table in order to appease the insurance
industry, and those pieces of patient protection that do get to the
floor will be riddled with loopholes and all kinds of escape clauses.
Healthcare problems and the deaths and the serious injuries and
serious problems that we have seen that have occurred because of the
inability of patients to get a particular procedure, an operation, to
be able to stay in the hospital, these things will continue to happen
unless we have comprehensive managed care reform like the Patients'
Bill of Rights.
I have a number of my colleagues here with me tonight to join in this
special order, and I should say that every one of them has been
involved in a major way, either as a member of our Democratic Health
Care Task Force or members of the Committee on Commerce, or one of my
colleagues from New Jersey's case, the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Education and Labor that deals with managed care
reform, and I am pleased they are with me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Arkansas, who has been one
of the leaders on the issue of managed care reform. He is a cochair of
our Health Care Task Force. It was he who last year brought up the
Patients' Bill of Rights as a substitute on a motion to recommit and
allowed us to consider the bill on the floor of the House.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from New
Jersey for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, once again we are here asking the Republican leadership
to bring patients rights legislation to the floor for a vote, once
again. We need this reform so we can make managed care work. We need
managed care.
We are only asking the leadership to do the job the American people
want them to do, to bring up a bill to guarantee all Americans with
private health insurance, and particularly those in HMOs or other
managed care plans, certain fundamental rights regarding their
healthcare coverage.
Today approximately 161 million Americans receive medical coverage
through some type of managed care organization. Unfortunately, many in
managed care plans experience increasing restrictions on their choice
of doctors, growing limitations on their access to necessary treatment,
difficulty in obtaining the drugs they need and should have and must
have to stay alive, and an overriding emphasis on cost cutting at the
expense of quality.
Patients rights legislation would guarantee basic patient protections
to all consumers of private insurance. It would ensure that patients
receive the treatment they have been promised and paid for. It would
prevent HMOs and other health plans from arbitrarily interfering with
doctors' decisions regarding the treatment of their patients and the
necessary healthcare that they require.
Patients rights legislation would restore the patient's ability to
trust that their healthcare practitioner's advice is driven solely by
health concerns and not cost concerns.
HMOs and other healthcare plans would be prohibited from restricting
which treatment options doctors may discuss with their patients. One of
the most critical patient protections that would be provided is
guaranteed access to emergency care. We would ensure that patients
could go to any emergency room during a medical emergency without
calling their health plan for permission first. Emergency room doctors
could stabilize the patient and

[[Page 12269]]

focus on providing them the care that they need without worrying about
payment until after the emergency had subsided.
HMO reform legislation would also ensure that health plans provide
their customers with access to specialists when they are needed because
of the complexity and seriousness of the patient's sickness.
Let us bring patient protection legislation to the floor. Let us give
the Americans the patient protection they are asking us for.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and just again
reiterate that the only way we were able, as you know, to get the
Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor in the last Congress was because
of the discharge petition that we filed. I think we ended up with
almost 200 signatures on it. Even with that the Republicans brought
their essentially sham managed care reform bill to the floor, and it
was only through the efforts of the gentleman from Arkansas that we
were able to do a motion to recommit and have full consideration of the
Patients' Bill of Rights.
We need to do that again, unfortunately, because again the Republican
leadership in the House has refused to have hearings or any kind of a
markup in committee of managed care reform, so once again we are forced
to go the route of the discharge petition in order to have the bill
considered.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to stress again, if I could, how this is an
extraordinary procedure. As elected members of the House of
Representatives, we should not have to resort to signing a petition
essentially to get a bill considered, but that is where we are.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to another colleague on our Health Care Task
Force and a member of the Committee on Commerce and has been dealing
with this issue for a long time as well.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
from New Jersey, who is our Chair of the Democratic Health Care Task
Force and also serves on the Committee on Commerce and the Health
Subcommittee. The reason I asked to move to the Committee on Commerce
two years ago was, one, because of the complaints and concerns about
managed care, along with Medicare and lots of other issues,
prescription medication for seniors and everyone.
It is frustrating, because we now, after the experience of the last
two years, we have a bill that has a huge number of cosponsors on it,
bipartisan cosponsors working on it, and now to have to go to the
discharge petition route that will be ripe next week for us to begin
working on that.
Again, it is only because we are having to do that, it is literally
taking the bill away from the committee, because this year, here we are
almost in the middle of June and have not had hearings on managed care
reform. So we obviously know what the priorities of our colleagues on
the other side, who are very honorable and I enjoy working with them,
but they do not have the same priorities as we do.
Again, managed care reform is one of the top Democratic agendas this
year, so that is why we have had to go through the discharge petition
to try to get on this floor a fair hearing on real managed care reform.
I say that, and I want to make sure we use the word ``real'' in
quotes, because our experience last year was that the managed care
reform bill that was written in the Republican task force, or in the
Speaker's office actually, turned back the clock, actually was worse
than passing no bill at all. That is why when it passed this House, it
died over in the Senate.
The reason I say that is because in Texas, and my colleague from
Dallas and I know that Texas passed a law in 1997 that would do what we
are asking to do on a national level. All we are trying to do is learn
from our State's experience and say okay, the states have done their
job on insurance policies issued in the states; now we need to do our
job on policies, insurance policies, issued nationally, that come under
ERISA.
Last year's experience, the bill that passed on this floor would have
reversed the success in the State of Texas. That is why I have some
concern about my colleagues on the Republican side saying, well, we are
going to pass legislation now on a piecemeal basis, whether it is 5
issues or 9 issues or whatever they come up with, because I watched
last year and they would have reversed the successes of our individual
states, and that is why we need real managed care reform this year.
Let me talk a little bit about the Texas plan. It has been in effect
for 2 years now. We have seen no ground swell of lawsuits. In fact,
there are very few. I knew the first one was filed by one of the
insurance companies challenging it. There may have been one more filed.
But we actually have a great experience in Texas on there not being any
huge costs associated with these real reforms that have been used, a
lot of times saying we don't want to build in costs. In Texas we have
not had the costs.
In fact, on the outside appeals process, it is one of the issues that
actually 50 percent of the appeals have been found in favor of the
patient, so that is a .500 batting average if you are a baseball fan.
But let me tell you, if I was one of those 50 percent that had been
denied some type of health insurance coverage for a procedure, I would
be glad that I had that 50 percent percentage.
Now, sure, 50 percent went against the patient and their request, but
that shows how important it is to have the appeals process, which is
just one of the issues.
The no-gag clause is important again. That was part of the Texas
bill. Medical necessity, the emergency room care, the accountability
issue, there are so many things that have to be in a real managed care
reform bill, and they have to be drafted correctly. They cannot be
drafted to where, sure, we are going to give you the accountability or
medical necessity, but they will leave a loophole that you can drive an
18 wheeler truck through. That is what happened last year.
So I have to admit coming to this floor I do not doubt the sincerity
of my colleagues, but I saw what happened last year, and it does not
take too much to show us from Texas that maybe your intent is not as
good as what it should be on real managed care reform. Again, an
outside appeals process is not going to break the bank. The experience
in Texas is very small cost.
No gag rules, let a doctor or provider talk with their patients. Even
if the insurance policy does not cover certain procedures, that doctor
ought to be able to tell that patient that. Just like Medicare does not
cover everything, that doctor ought to be able to tell that patient
``Medicare does not do this, I will do it, but you have to pay for
it.''
Accountability, if the doctor is held accountable for a certain
procedure, then whoever tells that doctor they cannot do that procedure
should also be accountable.
Again, medical necessity is so important for those of us who realize
that we really want healthcare, and managed care is going to be with
us.
We just want to make it work. I think my colleague from Arkansas
said, let us reform it. It is here, we are going to have to do the it.
In closing, let me touch on one issue that came up during the break.
I had an opportunity to speak to the National Association of
Manufacturers group in my district. I have to admit there are not a lot
of times over my legislative career that I spoke to the National
Association of Manufacturers. But during the question and answer
period, one of my business owners said he did not understand the
managed care debate. He said he has insurance for his employees. He
said, ``I am afraid. I don't want my employees to sue me.'' I said,
``Let me tell you, that is not my intent as a cosponsor of this bill
and a signatory on the discharge petition. Our intent is not to have
employees suing employers. Our intent is to just make sure that
employees have that ability to go to that person who makes that
decision.'' Maybe it is in Hartford or Des Moines or wherever it is, or
Dallas, Texas, but they ought to be able to go against that person who
is making that decision.

[[Page 12270]]

Employers do not make that decision. I was a manager of a business
and had the job of finding insurance coverage for our company. I spent
a lot of my time as a manager listening to my employees complain about
the insurance coverage, so I would contact the insurance company and
say, ``This is not what you told me when we bought this 3-year
policy.''

{time} 2115

Some employers can afford a Cadillac plan. Maybe they have a union
contract and they bargained for their benefits. Some employers can only
afford a Chevrolet. That is not the issue. We do not mandate. Whatever
the employer can afford, we want to make sure that employee receives
that care and what the employer is paying for.
So there is no intent on that. Hopefully the National Association of
Manufacturers will realize that we do not want their members to be
sued. We want their members to get their money's worth out of what they
are paying for insurance coverage today and in administering their
plan. Hopefully they will realize that and we will see some support,
because employers want to do the right thing by their employees.
Hopefully their trade association here in Washington will do the same
thing, and let them know that that is not our intent as Democratic
members to have that happen.
Again, I thank the gentleman. I am glad to see our other colleagues
from other committees, the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
where I served for 2 terms, because we have joint jurisdiction on this
bill.
Hopefully we will see some hearings, real hearings and a markup
before we get our 218. But if not, we will work hard to get our 218
signatures to have that discharge petition.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman in particular for bringing
up what has happened in the gentleman's own State's legislature in
Texas. As we know, some of the criticism which is really coming from
the insurance company about the Patients' Bill of Rights or any kind of
managed care reform is that somehow it is going to cause all those
lawsuits. The Texas experience shows that is not the case. What we want
to do is preventative. If these are in place, people do not have to
file lawsuits because the protections are there.
In addition, the gentleman pointed out there has been very little
cost increase. We always get the criticism that this is going to cost a
lot of money. It has been a matter of pennies, from what I understand.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. If the gentleman will continue to yield, again,
it is such a small cost, and the people are more than willing to pay it
to get adequate health care.
Mr. PALLONE. The other thing, too, is the insurance industry keeps
saying, why do we have to do this if the States are doing it? Why do we
have to do it on the Federal level?
Of course, as the gentleman points out, most plans do not come under
the State law because a lot of plans are preempted by ERISA. So if the
company basically has its own insurance, which a lot of big companies
do, they are not covered by the State law. So we do need the Federal
legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman again for his input.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations. I know the
gentleman is going to give us some information about this piecemeal
approach we think some of the Republicans are trying to pursue right
now, which goes very much against the comprehensive approach of the
Patients' Bill of Rights.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New Jersey for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I did want to speak tonight about the efforts of the
members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce to bring to
this floor a vote on our ideas of how managed care health insurance
companies can be made more responsible and accountable to people.
If we travel the country and listen to people of every neighborhood,
every region, every economic group, every racial and religious
background, there is one common refrain. That is that the managed care
industry is out of control.
The stories are legion. It is the story of the person who cannot get
a referral to a specialist, a cardiologist or neurologist or an
audiologist; stories about people whose children need another 6 weeks
of speech therapy, but cannot get an extension under the contract
because the managed care company will not interpret the contract that
way.
It is about people who travel out of town and find out that their out
of town health benefits are meaningless because you basically have to
travel back to wherever you came from for anything short of a dire
emergency room problem. It is a matter of people going to emergency
rooms and being treated for very serious problems, like collapses or
chest pains, and then being told weeks or months later that it was not
really an emergency, that they have to pay the bill themselves.
It is about people being referred to specialists who may not be
appropriate for the care that they need for mental health services or
for other kinds of services.
There are stories of women being discharged from hospitals 30 hours
after giving birth by C-section, people being discharged from hospitals
30 hours after having hip replacement operations. We are not making
these stories up. I have heard them myself from people in my district
in New Jersey.
Now, how is this, that in this country an industry could become so
autocratic and so unresponsive to consumers? I think the reason is that
in our economy, there are three ways that institutional behavior is
controlled. There is regulation, there is competition, and there is
litigation.
Regulation is obviously a set of rules that tells people and
institutions and corporations what they can and cannot do. It applies
to supermarkets, it applies to airlines, it applies to homebuilders, it
applies to just about everything in American society.
Under present law, regulations like those in my State, in our State
of New Jersey, that say you have to give a woman at least 72 hours
after she has given birth by C-section, do not apply to most Americans
because they are covered by a Federal law called ERISA, the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, that wipes out the effect of
those State laws. So most people are not protected by regulation in
their health insurance plan.
Then there is a matter of competition. If you do not like the Big
Mack, you can buy a sandwich from Wendy's, Burger King, or one of the
other chains. It does not work that way in health insurance. In most
markets in metropolitan areas around the country, one or sometimes two
major managed care plans control 75 percent or 80 percent of the people
who live in an area.
In the Philadelphia area in which I live, two plans cover about 85
out of every 100 people. When there is that much domination of the
market by that few people, there is no meaningful competition. If you
do not like what one plan is doing, you really do not have a meaningful
choice to go to someone else, which leads you to litigation. If you do
not like what someone is doing, you sue them.
I understand that some people feel that lawsuits have gotten out of
control. Perhaps some of them have. But if you mow lawns for a living
or build houses for a living or sell groceries for a living or paint
houses for a living, if you do something wrong, you can be held
accountable in a court of law.
If you hire someone to paint your house and they do a lousy job and
your shutters fall off, you can sue them for all the damage they cause
you as a result of their incompetence.
But if an insurance company insures the health of your daughter and
they deny her the right to see a specialist, and she gets very sick as
a result of it, you cannot sue the insurance company because they are
protected by this 1974 Federal law called ERISA that we are talking
about.

[[Page 12271]]

The only two businesses in America that are effectively immune from
responsibility in a court of law are managed care plans and nuclear
power plants. Everyone else is held accountable in a court of law, and
we believe, I believe the majority of us in this Chamber believe, that
that should stop in the case of managed care companies. They should be
held accountable the same way everyone else in American society is for
their decisions.
That is the heart of the real Patients' Bill of Rights that was
introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the senior
member of the House of Representatives, and cosponsored by many of us
at the beginning of this session.
We are not so fixated in our beliefs that we believe that we are a
thousand percent right and no one else can disagree with us. I think we
are right. I think the Dingell bill should be enacted. President
Clinton has said he would sign it. I think it would be good for the
American people because it would for the first time hold the managed
care companies accountable in the same way that everyone else is held
accountable.
But the majority here is not content to just say they disagree with
us. The majority will not even let it come to a vote. So we can vote on
naming Post Offices; we can vote on what should happen in Kosovo, as we
should; we can vote on what we ought to do to regulate pharmaceutical
products or to regulate the Y2K problem; we can vote on nuclear policy
with the Peoples' Republic of China, all of which we should be talking
about and doing.
But for some reason, we cannot vote on this. We cannot bring this
idea to the floor and let those of us who believe it is the right thing
vote yes and those who disagree with us try to amend what we say or
vote no. There has been no meaningful movement of this legislation to
the floor.
As a result of that, on Wednesday many of my Democratic colleagues,
and I hope some Republican colleagues, will join us in signing a
petition that forces this bill to the floor so we can have our day in
court, we can have our debate, we can either win or lose.
There is some other action on this which the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) made some reference to. There is an attempt by
majority members of the committee on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce to break up the Patients' Bill of Rights into little pieces
and have us consider a little piece at a time.
My subcommittee, which is the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee
Relations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce will begin
that process next week. I am glad we are starting the process, but I
would say this, if we are going to start it, let us really do it right
and let us finish it.
Tomorrow at 10 o'clock members of our committee will be making an
announcement. It is a strategy that we have to try to compel the
Committee on Education and the Workforce to consider all of the issues
on this; not just little pieces of it, not just the icing but the cake
as well as the icing; to really talk about the central issues that are
involved.
So I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), I am
looking forward to joining with the gentleman, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and scores of our colleagues, I hope 218 of our
colleagues, a majority, in marching to that podium next Wednesday to
sign a petition that would force this issue to come to the floor.
In the meantime, the members of our subcommittee, which I am
privileged to lead from the Democratic side, will be doing whatever we
can to use all the rules at our disposal to compel a vote, first in our
committee and then on this floor, on this very, very important issue.
I can certainly accept the fact that there will be those who disagree
with us that the health insurance industry should be held to the same
standard that everyone else in America is held to. That is not a
universally-held view.
But I would challenge, Mr. Speaker, those who disagree with our view
to let us have our day in court. Let us bring our bill to the floor. If
Members disagree with our bill, try to amend it. If Members believe it
cannot be amended, then vote against it. But do not deny the will of
the people of the country, and I believe the will of the majority of
Members of this Chamber, when push comes to shove, to enact a law which
is a real Patients' Bill of Rights which says to the health insurance
industry that you are an important part of our economy, we value what
you do, we encourage your continued development, but we do not hold you
open to special treatment. We do not exempt you from responsibility for
the decisions that you make and the wrongs that you sometimes cause as
a result of your decisions.
I assure the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) that the
Democratic Members, and I hope we will be joined by Members of
conscience from the other side of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, that we are going to knock on every door, pursue every road,
and use every rule at our command so that the will of the majority can
be done.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey, and particularly for the references he made to this effort in
the gentleman's subcommittee to do this piecemeal approach, if you
will. I understand what the gentleman is saying, which is that finally
at least there is going to be some discussion or perhaps some action on
HMO or managed care reform in the subcommittee.
But the gentleman rightly points out that this piecemeal approach is
really not the right way to go. The problem is that it would allow the
Republicans to essentially pick and choose what kind of patient
protections they want us to consider.
My fear is that they will ignore important parts of the Patients'
Bill of Rights, such as the right to sue, or even, just as important,
the really good definition of medical necessity.
We have talked about medical necessity a little tonight, but I do not
know that we have really described it that much. Basically, the core of
the Patients' Bill of Rights is this idea that the doctor, or I should
say the health care practitioner, because our next speaker is of a
nursing background, and I want to make it clear, we are not just
talking about physicians but also nurses. But the core of the medical
necessity idea is that the decision about what kind of procedure,
operation, or length of stay in the hospital, as the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) mentioned, is determined by the patient and their
health care practitioner, their doctor or nurse, not by the insurance
company.
That is one of the things that I am convinced would never see the
light of day if this piecemeal approach were adopted. So I am glad to
see that the gentleman as the ranking member and the other members, the
Democrats on this committee, are taking this position and going to have
this press conference tomorrow. I thank the gentleman.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
She is a nurse by background, and I think that brings a lot to this
whole debate, because once again we are looking at this from a
practical point of view.
One of the things that I notice when I go and talk to my constituents
is that the reason there is overwhelming support for the Patients' Bill
of Rights is because people understand that on a day-to-day basis that
this is what is needed.

{time} 2130

This is real. This is not pie in the sky. This is not ideological.
This is what is happening day-to-day.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me express my
appreciation to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for taking
the leadership and making sure that we get a chance to discuss such an
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate tonight in this special
order. This is a very, very important issue. As

[[Page 12272]]

I have sat and listened to the various presentations here, it occurs to
me that, when a patient is admitted to a hospital, one of the first
things that happens is that we take the history, and we want to know
all of the individual signs and all of the individual differences of
that patient.
I wonder how the HMOs and the insurance companies can reconcile
deciding that one size fits all after one goes to the extent of trying
to determine what the individual differences are. Because it makes a
difference in the way one begins to treat that patient.
We have forgotten that in this industry. As a matter of fact, I am
beginning to wonder if we have forgotten the patient altogether,
because the insurance companies will place the physician out there with
their instructions and almost dare them not to do anything else.
The physicians are held accountable, not the insurance companies that
dictate what they must do. That is not American. Nothing in the history
of medicine in this country has allowed something like that to happen.
In the past, when a physician graduated and met the standardized test
and assured the Nation that they had that body of knowledge mastered,
they had permission to practice medicine. They no longer have that
under the HMOs. They have to take the dictation from that HMO. Yet,
they can be held accountable by the patients and the patients' family,
but not the HMO that dictates it.
That is the most unfair thing that I have heard of. I cannot even
imagine this being something that is happening as a routine way of
doing business in health care delivery in this country, the super
nation, the number one nation in the world, the 911 for the rest of the
world, the Nation that every other nation expects to come to their
rescue, and yet we cannot respect the patient as an individual. That is
beyond my comprehension. This really has gone too far.
The mere fact that we do not have the opportunity to bring back a
course of doing business, this measure to the floor for honest debate
is again un-American. It is unfortunate that we have to sign a
discharge petition. I do not like the process of signing a discharge
petition. We are placed in a position to do that.
All 435 Members of this body will acknowledge that this is a problem
in this Nation; and yet, we have to go to discharge petition signing to
bring this measure to the floor. That is very difficult to believe.
But, yet, I will proudly join the group next Wednesday and sign this
discharge petition because this is a number one concern of the people
of this Nation.
No one wants to feel that, if they had an emergency and go to the
emergency room, they might be rationed in what might be the approach if
it is felt that it might cost the insurance company too much if they
began a procedure that might be too expensive.
We have had testimony that there have been times when physicians were
actually complimented because a patient died in the emergency room
which saved money for the insurance company. Does this sound like
America? Does this sound like the Nation that has brought forth some of
the most innovative measures and approaches to any disease, more so
than anywhere else in the world; and, yet, the people of this Nation
have no access to that success. Yet, all of us have participated in
paying for it because all of us pay for medical research.
We simply must address this issue for what it is. If all of us went
into a department store to get a suit, we would not want a suit that
would fit anybody, we would want a suit that would fit us. That is what
we want when we get sick. We do not want a one size fits all. We do not
want it to be just a diagnosis that must follow the script verbatim.
We have to get back to looking at patients as individuals and making
sure that they get the treatment they deserve. All that we can say
about this when it comes right down to it, people pay for their care.
They pay for their care, and they do not pay for it for the purpose of
insurance companies having a lot of money to invest so they can take a
lot of money home. They pay for it because it is a service, a service
that members of that insurance company of that particular plan should
have access to the needed care.
We are not talking about abuse of care. There are many measures that
can determine that. We are talking about essential basic care that an
individual deserves to have when that individual becomes ill. We are
talking about looking at that patient's history and making sure that
that is considered when the doctors orders are written, not just to
pull out a preprinted sheet and follow it simply because that is what
the insurance company dictated. Yet, the biggest frightening scare is
to be held accountable for what their dictating brings about.
There is something simply not right. This is a basic fundamental
right that every patient ought to have is access to care where they are
considered as an individual. There is a difference between a 25 year
old and a 75 year old; and, therefore, often the approach to that
patient's diagnosis, although it might be the same, might be a little
bit different.
When we get away from that as a Nation, we have forgotten where we
started, what this really is. This is really the health care industry.
This is the industry that we are supposed to be able to have confidence
to put our very lives in the hand of professional providers and feel
certain that we can trust it, not just a simple sheet of paper that, if
the doctor not follow it verbatim, then they are out a good stead with
the insurance company. It is out of control, and we simply must do
something about it.
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) very much for
having this special order. I do not think we can talk enough about this
subject. This is basic and fundamental to every human being being seen
as a human being in this country.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas
and particularly when she points out that, from the practitioner's
point of view, whether it is the physician or the nurse, that
essentially they cannot practice medicine because of the straight
jacket essentially that has been put on them many times by HMOs,
managed care organizations. I think a lot of people do not understand
that. It is important.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the responsibility
is still there, but they cannot make an independent decision.
Mr. PALLONE. We cannot have it. We have to have an end to that. I
agree with the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky), who is a member of our Health Care Task Force and been
working very hard to try to make sure that we are able to vote on this
Patients' Bill of Rights and to articulate to our constituents what
this is all about.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey
very much for the opportunity to participate in this discussion and
look forward to the successful efforts for all of us on this floor to
be able to debate and vote on a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights.
It is hard for me to imagine that there is anybody in this body who
has not received lots of mail from their constituents about the abuses
that are taking place every day. I have been hearing both from people
who give care, nurses and physicians, and people who receive care, who
are seeking the care, the patients.
I want to give my colleagues one example of a heartbreaking letter
that I received. It starts,

Dear Representative Schakowsky, I am a 31-year-old nurse
with breast cancer. Because I am an HMO member, I have had
recurrent problems with receiving health care. As a patient,
I have not yet received compromised care, but I have been
denied services or have been told where to get care and who
could give me care. I recently also was made to change
primary doctors, giving up one that I had for 8 years because
of my HMO.
I heard you speak on behalf of the Patients' Bill of
Rights, and I need you to know that, as a health care
provider and receiver and HMO member, I am certain that care
is being compromised and restricted and refused to us.

[[Page 12273]]

I am knowledgeable about the health care system, and I am
still able to be my own advocate, but I am sure 1 day I will
not be able to make telephone calls endlessly pleading for
standard of care. Who will do it for me? Why do I need to beg
for treatments or for the right to remain in the care of my
own doctor?
I am receiving follow-up care from my oncologists after
having a stem cell transplant for metastatic breast cancer,
and I am worried that continuity of care will be compromised.
And I will only be treated if the HMO sees fit rather than
being able to rely on the judgment of a physician who had
known me for 8 years and an oncologist who has seen me every
month for a year. I want managed care to stop making medical
decisions. I have a right to health care.
As a nurse, I also know that quality health care is the
issue. Having cancer has changed my life. Having adequate
health insurance was a wise choice I made 10 years ago. Today
I am fearful that I have no rights as an HMO member. That is
one battle too many for me to take on.
It frustrates me so much after having received this letter, and it is
one of many that I have received, probably one of the most articulate
descriptions of the problem, that we have to go through such a
cumbersome process of marching down and gathering enough signatures for
a petition simply to have the right to debate this issue fully in the
House.
One would think that all the Members would jump at the opportunity to
do that on behalf of our constituents. The only thing I can think is
that the concerns of the health care industry, of managed care
companies, of insurance companies has superseded concerns for ordinary
patients and consumers in our districts.
I do not think it is sound health care policy to force a breast
cancer patient to give up a physician of 8 years. It is not sound
health policy to force a breast cancer patient like my constituent to
beg for treatment. It is not sound health policy for insurance
companies to make medical decisions. It is not sound health policy for
the United States Congress to delay action on preventing these abuses.
We have a number of excellent proposals, H.R. 358, the Patients' Bill
of Rights, and as a prior colleague of mine said, there may be many who
disagree with that, but we certainly should be able to discuss a bill
that has provisions such as providing full and fair access to
specialists and to emergency care, giving patients the right to timely
appeals, including the right to appeal to an external and independent
entity, holding managed care plans accountable for all their decisions,
including the decision to deny care, and letting medical professionals
and their patients make the medical decisions.
So I am hopeful that next week when we do engage in gathering the
signatures for this discharge petition that we are going to have a
majority of Members of this body, both sides of the aisle, who say it
is time now, it is more than time now to fully debate this issue.
I am hoping that we will be able to provide the relief that our
constituents are begging for and deserve.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Illinois. It is funny when we talk about this discharge petition
process. It is extraordinary to think that here we are as the elected
Representatives, normally petitioning is something that I think of as
the citizens have grievances so they have to sign a petition and send
it to us as their Representatives. I do not think most people ever
imagine that their elected Representatives from Congress have to sign a
petition to get a vote on a piece of legislation, because I think most
of our constituents figure that is the normal procedure, that we get to
vote on bills, not that we have to petition to vote on them.

{time} 2145

I wanted to just compliment the gentlewoman also because I think that
that letter that she brought forward really says a lot about why this
Patients' Bill of Rights is so important.
One of the things I think about the most is how difficult it is when
a person is seriously ill or has cancer, as is the example that the
gentlewoman gave, and how difficult it is for them at that time when
they are not feeling well to have to go through all of the hoops that
these managed care companies often make them go through. Like if they
are not allowed to have a certain treatment, they are not strong, in a
position to appeal that or to try to seek redress because they are not
feeling well at the time. And it is really like the worst time for a
person to have to worry about whether they are going to have access to
treatment or how they can get access if it is denied. And I think that
letter really points out why it is so important to have these
protections that we are seeking. So I thank the gentlewoman again.
Now I see that my colleague from the district next door to my west is
here tonight, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), and one of the
first things that that gentleman did when he was first elected and took
office in January was to come to Monmouth County and have a town
meeting on the Patients' Bill of Rights because, obviously, he thought
it was so important. So I want to commend him for all he is trying to
do in his district and here on this issue, and I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join my colleagues, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and thank my colleague from
New Jersey for highlighting this issue and for pushing to get a
comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor, not bits and
pieces but a whole thing, an integral piece, and that is what we want.
That is what the public needs.
Each of us would like to have a relationship with a Marcus Welby kind
of physician, a kindly understanding doctor who really ministers to our
whole being, and works with us on medical decisions that often include
ethical decisions as well as scientific decisions. I have spent a lot
of time, particularly since I have been in office now, talking with
doctors, and it is interesting to think of it from their point of view.
What doctors are about to lose or what they feel in many ways they have
lost is the reason that they became doctors, the doctor-patient
relationship; the ability to make medical decisions with the patients.
And a lot of people say, well, the Patients' Bill of Rights, as it is
set up, will just bring lawyers into the picture and we will end up
having a medical system that is run by lawyers. Well, I do not think
that is true at all. And the way it is now, who has the last word? It
is not the doctor. If a patient can sue a hospital and can sue the
doctor but cannot sue the insurance provider, the insurance company,
who has the last word? Who can make the medical decisions? It is not a
doctor-patient decision. And doctors feel that they have lost the
reason that they went into that profession.
There is a lot at stake here, and that is why I think it is important
that we have a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights that provides
emergency room access and makes it possible for doctors to talk about
all of the treatments that are available, not just the cheapest ones,
and that lets the medical decisions rest with the doctor and the
patient. I hear that over and over again from doctors.
An interesting, I guess political sidelight is that it was not very
many years ago that doctors around the country by and large were very
much afraid of what Congress might do. Now they are very much afraid of
what Congress might not do. Doctors and their patients are looking to
us to act to protect the patients rights.
Mr. PALLONE. Well, I want to thank the gentleman. I think this is
really all it is about.
One of the things that I keep stressing, and that I think came up
tonight with the various speakers, is the fact that this is just common
sense. When we talk about these patient protections that are in the
Patients' Bill of Rights, we are not really talking about anything
abstract or difficult to understand or even difficult to implement. In
fact, when I go through the list of the kinds of patient protections
that are included in our bill, I think most people would be shocked to
think that they are not already guaranteed.
Mr. HOLT. If the gentleman would yield. In our State of New Jersey
many

[[Page 12274]]

of them are, in fact, provided. New Jersey has, in many ways, good
doctor-patient regulations and laws. And much of what we are calling
for in various parts of the country is provided. But what we need, I
think, are good standards all across the country.
Mr. PALLONE. And there is also the fact that the States do not have
any power over the ERISA plans, and the majority of the people are
actually under some kind of self-insured program or self-insured health
care or managed care through where they work, and that is preempted by
Federal law so that those State plans do not apply.
Just to give an example, and I know we do not have a lot of time, we
are almost out of time, but I just went through some of the highlights
of the Patients' Bill of Rights: Guarantees access to needed health
care specialists. Most people probably think they have a right to see a
specialist, but they do not necessarily right now.
Provide access to emergency room services when and where the need
arises. Most people are shocked to find out they cannot go to the local
emergency room because their HMO says they have to go somewhere else.
Provide continuity of care protections to assure patient care if a
patient's health care provider is dropped. Give access to a timely
internal, independent, external appeals process. Ensure that doctors
and patients can openly discuss treatment options.
That is a great one. The gag rule. When I explain to constituents
that under many managed care plans now that a doctor cannot give them
information about a course of treatment that is not covered by the
insurance company, they cannot believe it. Most people view that as un-
American because they figure we all should have a right to free speech.
And to imagine that a doctor cannot tell a patient about a treatment
option because it is not covered by the insurance plan is un-American
is unethical and just incredible.
These are simple things. We are not really talking about anything
that is terribly abstract. These are just common sense protections.
If I could just conclude by saying that I just think it is very
unfortunate that we just cannot bring this measure to the floor and
have a vote up and down. And the worst part of it is that this is the
second year. Last year we had to do the same thing; go through the same
petition process, have 200 some odd Democrats and a few Republicans
come down here and sign a petition to get this considered on the floor.
And here we are about to do the same thing next week in order to bring
this to the floor.
It just should not be that way. That is not the way people expect
this Congress to operate. But we are going to make sure it happens and
we are going to make sure that we have an opportunity to bring the
Patients' Bill of Rights to the floor of the House of Representatives
because it is the right thing to do and it is what Americans want and
expect from all of us.

____________________

KOSOVO PEACE AGREEMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes rebutting the
previous comments that we have all just heard. I will summarize it like
this, and then I will move on to the subject that I really came to
speak about this evening.
Do not misunderstand. Members on both sides of the aisle, both
Republicans and Democrats, want to get a medical system out there,
health care out there that is effective and delivers a good product to
help America stay healthy.
It is amazing to me sometimes that some of my colleagues, strictly
for political purposes, will stand up here in front of everyone and
preach about how some on both sides of the aisle must not want health
care for America. It is kind of like when we hear the education
arguments up here, as if somebody on this floor really truly does not
care about children. I have never met anybody that truly does not care
about children. I have never met anybody that truly does not care about
health care for America. I have never really met anybody that does not
care about patients' rights. Of course, we all care about it, but we
all have different approaches. And in order to fairly hear those
different approaches we have to have some type of process. We have to
have some type of order in the House.
The complaint that we have heard in the previous hour is that they
just would prefer not to follow that order of the House. They would
like to go out of the process. They would like to have it their way.
Well, I do not blame them for wanting it their way, but in the House
Chamber we have to follow the process. We have rules. If we all follow
those rules, we have a chance to be heard.
My gosh, how many hours every day does the American public listen to
us talk. Of course, we have freedom of speech. I was surprised,
disappointed, even somewhat amused that in the last hour someone had
the audacity to stand up and say we do not have freedom of speech in
this country. Oh, my gosh, being on the House floor, which by the way
is one of the highest privileges an individual can get in this country,
but they say they do not have freedom of speech. Of course they have
their freedom of speech.
Both Republicans and Democrats in education, in health care, in
transportation, in military, they care about those issues. Of course
they care about those issues. And I think it is just plain wrong for
somebody to stand up here and imply or directly state that one side or
the other, like the Republicans tonight, the Republicans must not care
about patient health care, the Republicans must not care about freedom
of speech.
Come on, grow up, folks. We have a lot of responsibilities out there
to the American people, let us appreciate and let us respect the right
that we have to stand on this floor without worrying about government
oppression and speaking our minds, and that we also have the obligation
to follow some type of process to have that order.
Well, enough said about that. This evening I really want to visit a
little more specifically about a couple of areas. Number one, about
Kosovo.
As we all now know, the news in Kosovo is good news. We have heard
some good news in the last few hours. The peace treaty, if that is what
we want to call it, has been signed. That is good news, regardless of
where we all are on Kosovo. I, for example, do not believe we should
have been there in a military sense. I think we had a humanitarian
obligation. And I objected to the strategy that has been used by the
administration, their approach to the problem in Yugoslavia, but
despite that fact, regardless of where we may stand, we all ought to be
happy that some type of peace agreement has been signed in the next
couple of weeks. Hopefully, it will be executed in such a way that the
death and the raping and the burning will come to a stop over in
Yugoslavia.
But while many people tonight will celebrate what happened with this
peace agreement, we have to remember that old saying that the devil is
in the details. What are the details of this peace agreement? What do
we have in Kosovo? What is the situation? There are a number of areas
that we should look at.
Remember what is very important about any action taken by a
government, really any action taken by anyone, and that is that intent
cannot be measured. We must measure results. The intent here was
probably well-founded. I have never criticized the President for his
intent. I think it was well-founded. Or the administration and the
other officers in the administration. It is the results that I
question. What are the results of what we have done?
Now that we are about to go into Kosovo with military forces on a
peacekeeping mission, we need to see what were the results of the last
78 days of bombing. Take a look at the Yugoslavian economy. We are
discussing our defense budget. To give an idea of the

[[Page 12275]]

total gross national product of Yugoslavia, the total gross national
product of Yugoslavia is one-fifteenth of our defense budget. In
Colorado, that is my home State, our gross State product is about $95
billion a year. Ninety-five billion dollars a year in the State of
Colorado. In the entire country of Yugoslavia it is about $17 billion.
It took us 78 days to get to this point. What is the result of that 78
days of warfare?
There are some questions we need to ask, and I hope we get
satisfactory answers. I do not like being a person who constantly
criticizes, but I do have an obligation as an elected Member of the
United States Congress to stand up and ask questions where I have doubt
about the strategy that is being deployed.

{time} 2200

There are a number of questions that we should ask. And we should not
let this peace agreement, which will be spun extensively, the spin
doctors are already at work tonight, I can tell my colleagues they are
burning midnight oil to spin this as a huge victory for the American
people, a huge victory for the freedom of this world.
Well, maybe so. I do not think so. But maybe so. But let me say the
way we measure, remember, we measure results.
Let us take a look at what we have accomplished. Let us talk about
what is going to happen now. Remember that the United States, in
effect, chose sides when the administration decided to go into the
sovereign territory of another country, which, by the way, just a
couple of years ago, about 7 years ago, we went to war over.
As my colleagues will remember, when Iraq invaded the sovereign
territory of Kuwait, we, as a country, said you should not invade the
sovereign territory of another country so we will go to war with you to
push you outside that sovereign territory. Well, now the United States,
through the auspices of NATO, is doing exactly the same thing. They
invaded the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia.
Now, do not take me wrong. There were some very atrocious things
going on in Yugoslavia. But they were not only being committed by the
Serbs. They were also being committed by an organization called the
KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army.
Do we know anything about the Kosovo Liberation Army with whom we
sided in this conflict? The answer is yes. Do my colleagues know how we
knew of them? They are terrorists. These people, this organization, was
listed by our State Department as terrorists. They committed acts of
terrorism. Our country recognized them as terrorists.
So what our administration consciously decided to do was to go into
the sovereign territory, to go into the sovereign territory of another
country to take sides with an organization that we ourselves label as
terrorists and to go to battle.
Well, now that we have apparently pushed the Yugoslavian Serbs out of
the territory of Kosovo, I can tell my colleagues that the Kosovo
Liberation Army will not stop there. They do not want the Serbs just
out of Kosovo. They want an independent State of Kosovo.
If the United States were to grant that or NATO or the world were to
say that is what should happen, in effect we would have given our sign
of approval and actually participated in the invasion of a foreign
country by a defensive organization. Remember, NATO is a defensive
organization. So we have NATO go on offense. We go into the sovereign
territory of another country. We portion out a part of that country and
turn that portion over to an organization called the Kosovo Liberation
Army, which we know are terrorists.
Well, let us think about what is going to happen. Who is going to
disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army? Who is going to control them? We
have controlled the Serbs. But remember, this latest conflict started
when the Kosovo Liberation Army people started assassinating Serb
police officers.
How are we going to disarm the Kosovo Liberation Army? In my opinion,
we are not going to disarm them. This is the onset of a new problem
that will last for a long time. And I can tell my colleagues that our
European allies will expect the United States to resolve it. I am going
to talk about burden sharing a little later on in my comments. But the
United States is going to be the one in the future that is looked upon
to resolve this.
We have got some other questions. How are we going to police these
areas? This is what we want to see in the details of that agreement.
Again, if we have got an agreement and if we can answer these questions
with a positive result, and that is what we want to measure are the
results, then this is great. But we ought to ask those questions.
And my colleagues, do not let the spin that is going to come off this
agreement tomorrow by the administration or whoever, do not let that
spin mask the fact that we all need to look at what the details of this
agreement are. Who is going to police the areas? How are we going to
set up a judiciary system? What are we going to do about the economy?
Remember, in Kosovo they did not have any time to plant the seeds.
They did not get in their spring plantings. They do not have an
economy. My colleagues, many of those refugees, who, by the way, I
think will claim political asylum and ask to stay in the United States,
many of those refugees will not go back into Kosovo. Many of those
refugees who do go back into Kosovo are going back to burned bridges,
destroyed schools, destroyed clinics, destroyed roads, destroyed
fields, no economy, no health care, no type of welfare system, no
transportation system, no heat for the winter, no air conditioning for
the summer, no water that is kind of like the water we have, purified
and clean water.
This is a huge problem over there. Who is going to pay the tab of
that? Well, you got it. In my opinion, the United States will. But I am
going to address that a little later on.
We also know that the Serbs have destroyed all these legal documents.
I mean, let us face it, the Kosovo Liberation Army and the Serbs are
both bad characters; the leaders, not the citizens. The citizens are
innocent and they are good people. But the leaderships of these two
organizations are murderers, both sides of them. They are murderers.
They are criminals. They are bandits. They are crooks.
Well, what the Serbs did is they made sure that for the innocent
citizens in Kosovo, they destroyed all their legal documents. Who is
going to set up the judiciary over there, the judicial process?
Remember, our military, our soldiers are not judges. They are not
police officers. And there is a difference between a police officer and
a soldier. I used to be a police officer. I have a little understanding
of that.
How are we going to set up the judiciary system? How will command and
control work? What will Russia's role be in here? What is the future of
American foreign policy? What we have done is set a legal precedent
here. As I mentioned earlier, we have entered the sovereign territory
of another country to resolve a civil war.
Now, some people will tell us that this was a genocide, that this is
like Adolf Hitler, that the United States of America had a moral
obligation to step in and stop this. Well, number one, it is not like
Adolf Hitler. Number two, there are in fact atrocities. But three, they
are driven more by civil war than by a dictator who is intent on
destroying a population. It is a civil war dispute that we are getting
into.
I am very appreciative of my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)
coming to join us, because as he and I have discussed, these are very
critical issues. But let me wrap up this legal point.
What is going to be our policy? This is an abrupt change for the
United States and for NATO. NATO has never carried out a mission like
this. Nor has the United States ever broken with legal precedence and
done this.
What happens now if Quebec decides to vote for independence in
Canada? Should we go to war with Canada to defend Quebec? What happens
if some people in Mexico want to become U.S.

[[Page 12276]]

citizens in the State of Texas and decides that Texans should seek
independence and become part of the country of Mexico?
My colleagues, these are not imaginary questions. These are issues we
should address.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Kingston). As the gentleman knows, the peace agreement has been
signed. I am asking questions about, you know, the devil is in the
details; what do we really have in these details? I have not seen the
details. The briefing I got indicated it has been signed, but we have
not been presented with any details.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I
appreciate his basic opposition to our operations over there. And I
have shared that opposition.
It is interesting to see where will this be as opposed to the
previously tried agreement. I hope that it works. I am optimistic
anytime we have a peace agreement. But, at the same time, my colleague
is asking all the pertinent questions. He had asked our reason for
being there to begin with.
Here we are now, 70 days of bombing, and I am still wondering, as a
Member of Congress, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, as
somebody who sat in hearings and listened to Madeleine Albright and
Secretary Cohen and General Shelton and Ambassador Pickering and all
these other folks, and I have asked them and I have heard other Members
ask them, What are we doing there to begin with? And we got very vague,
nebulous answers.
My colleague has raised the point about a civil war. What is going on
in Sudan right now? Is there not a civil war? Is there not persecution
of Christians over there?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in fact, in Sudan and
Rwanda there is not a civil war. That truly is a genocide. And that is
the difference. And if our policy is going to be to stop genocide, we
ought to be in Rwanda tomorrow or, as my colleague said, Sudan. There
are hundreds of thousands of deaths, many, many, many multiples of the
kinds of deaths that we have in Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was a civil war, as the gentleman has correctly pointed
out. In Rwanda and Sudan, there is truly a genocide. But we do not see
that on CNN. We do not see the administration gung ho about doing that.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, no, we do not. And there is also a border
war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Will we be over there? What is going
to be the policy?
And where will NATO come to play? As my colleague pointed out, NATO
is a defensive organization and yet this was an offensive operation.
Are we going to be seeing NATO doing that all over the world? And then
what are they going to do about the Middle East? Is NATO going to have
a role in that? We probably will not see that. But what kind of
precedent does that set?
In any case, as the gentleman has alluded to many times, in terms of
the details, let us assume everything that he has mentioned to this
point, everything works out. The big question then is how is it going
to be paid for?
One of the things that has shocked me as a Member of Congress is that
on peace agreements it is usually good ol' Uncle Sam, our hard-working
taxpayers back home, our money basically buying off both sides. But
over there, and it might be the President hosts something and you have
all the heads of state and you have a big fanfare and it is in some
strange and unusual place we have never heard of. And yet, at the
bottom line, they all have one thing in common; and that is that the
American taxpayers have paid both sides to quit fighting.
There can be a great advantage to that. It might be cheaper than to
continue fighting. And it certainly may save American lives. And yet
how much of this out of 19 NATO countries will we be paying?
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Georgia, I
think that point is a very valid point and I think it is something that
everyone on this floor has an obligation to explore.
Six hundred out of the 800 towns in Kosovo have been destroyed. There
has been mass destruction, mass refugees who have exiled from that
country who are going to have to go back.
I mentioned earlier the economy. This is going to cost a lot of
money. The United States has already carried by far the vast majority
of the financial obligation of this war. There are American forces. It
is American equipment. And it is the taxpayer, every one of my
colleagues in this Chamber, all of our constituents that are employed
out there, we are carrying the burden for this.
So far it is $16 billion. But that is not very accurate. I think it
is much higher than that. I think the tab to repair this is going to be
around $100 billion.
Now, does that mean that we should not repair it, that we should not
provide these people with heat in the winter, that they should not be
provided with food, that we should not try to boost their economy? No.
Just the opposite. I think there is an obligation to go in there and
help these refugees rebuild their country, help maintain peace.
But I am tired of the taxpayers of the United States of America
always carrying the burden. Where are our European allies? This is a
problem in Europe. But I know what is carrying the burden. It is the
United States taxpayers.
Now, as my colleague knows, I do not have any objection to helping
out somebody; we help people on welfare; if we can help out a neighbor.
That is why America is great. That is what makes our country great. But
we also believe in sharing, sharing the burden. And that is the big
question.
I am fully committed as long as I serve in this Congress to standing
up to this President and this administration and drawing a line in the
sand and say, look, Mr. President, we have got to have burden sharing
here. What share are the Europeans going to carry in this? Is it going
to be the United States taxpayers that for many, many years into the
future will spend a lot of money that otherwise would go to our Social
Security, that otherwise would go to our schools, that otherwise would
go to our health care programs?
My colleagues, do not kid yourselves. If we do not have burden
sharing by our neighbors and the other members of NATO, and I mean
fair, proportionate burden sharing, it will be a sacrifice in this
country.
Now, we are all willing to make a sacrifice to help a hungry person
get food. But after a while, when we have got neighbors that can help
feed them too, we cannot sacrifice our families. So this is a hot issue
for me.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, just to put it in Georgia terms, I
represent coastal Georgia from Savannah to Brunswick to St. Mary's,
Georgia. I also have, a little west of there, Vidalia, home of the
Vidalia onions; Statesboro, Georgia, home of Georgia Southern
University. You take all the 18 counties of the First District of
Georgia, it is about 600,000 people. Go down just south of that to
Jacksonville and we are talking about approximately 855,000 people, the
entire coast of Georgia and part of the coast of Florida. That is who
the refugees would constitute if we put numbers to it. We would have
that many refugees.

{time} 2215

You take all those people out of coastal Georgia and let us say a
hurricane came and the hurricane destroyed all the roads, all the
bridges, all the factories so there are no jobs, there are no schools,
there are no hospitals, there are no homes, and you have got to rebuild
all that.
And then as you have pointed out, our NATO allies have not been
carrying their fair share in this war effort. I seriously doubt that
they are going to be willing to do this in the peace effort. But as the
President obligates us to rebuild Yugoslavia, think about what also is
on the table. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, children's health
care, immunizations, research for multiple sclerosis, for Parkinson's
disease, for cancer, all this.
Now, in an ordinary household, the American taxpayer is saying,
``Okay, I understand, you got to spend some money in Kosovo so you're
going to reduce spending over here, and these are

[[Page 12277]]

good programs but I understand choice, because I the American worker
have to do that. I have to choose between a new dryer or a new set of
tires for the family van. And so I understand that.''
But that is not the case. Here in Washington what happens is you just
continue spending in both places. That is one of the things that just
drives us crazy with this administration, as conservative Members of
Congress, is that if the administration wants to obligate us to spend
all the money in Kosovo and let NATO not carry their fair share, then
you would think they would at least say, ``Okay, but we are going to
spend a little less elsewhere,'' but they do not do that. They continue
to spend at extravagant and high levels of other causes, both worthy
and wasteful. There again, the hardworking American families of middle
class taxpayers who are already putting in 50 to 60 hours a week, two-
income families and they are running back and forth, they are paying
taxes, one more time they are going to get stuck with the tab.
Mr. McINNIS. My district is Colorado. In fact the gentleman from
Georgia comes out to Colorado and vacations out in the Colorado
mountains. I happen to feel like him, I feel very lucky about the
district that I represent. But we camp out a lot in our district, out
there in the mountains. We kind of have a rule. It gets cold almost
every night, even in the hottest day of the summer it still gets cold
in the Colorado mountains at night. It still cools down, so you build a
fire. We have a rule. ``If you want to sit by the fire, you got to help
gather the firewood.'' That is just a basic obligation. In the morning
if you want to eat breakfast, you too got to get out of your sleeping
bag when it is darn cold and help get things put together for
breakfast. If we have got somebody who has got a broken leg or injured
or is otherwise incapable of helping gather the firewood, then the rest
of us pitch in and there is no complaint. Where the complaints start is
when somebody is capable of pitching in and they simply say, ``Hey, let
Jack do it. Jack's good at gathering firewood. I'd just as soon sit by
the fire and not have to go out and do the work.''
That is what I am concerned about here. I want a peace agreement. I
want this thing resolved. I think there are a lot of details we have to
talk about, and I think we should all seriously assess what are the
legal precedents that have been set. But at the same time I think this
administration, and I hope they are doing it, but I think this
administration has an absolute obligation to the citizens of this
country to say, ``Hey, we've been gathering all the firewood,'' and I
can assure you that on this war in Yugoslavia, all of the firewood or
90 something percent of the firewood that has gone into that fire was
gathered by the United States, not by the other 19 people at the
campsite. There are 19 people at that campsite. One of them gathered 90
something percent. Our good allies and good friends, the United
Kingdom, who have always been good, solid allies for us, they gathered
a proportionate share, about 10 percent or a little less, they have
been putting in a little firewood, but they have had their arms full
when they were coming in so they are working. But what are the others
doing? They are not carrying their fair share of the firewood. Now that
the real expenses are going to come into play here, now I think it is
absolutely critical that a couple of us stand up. We are not going to
be popular because at this campsite there are 19 people, 17 who really
are not contributing too much, so the two of us who stand up to the
other 17 and say, ``You got to pitch in,'' you can imagine those 17 are
going to say, ``Be quiet, what are you moaning about?'' and so on. But
we have a responsibility to the American taxpayer to stand up and say
to our European allies, ``You're going to have to pitch in on this
rebuilding. You're going to have to help too. You're going to have to
help gather that firewood.''
Mr. KINGSTON. I think the point is that what we need to do as Members
of Congress is to make sure that the President does everything he can
do to get everybody to, I guess, pass the hat fairly, because if this
is truly a European peril and Europe has the primary interest in it,
then Europe has to also have the primary obligation to help funding in
it.
Mr. McINNIS. I think we are at a real advantage tonight because our
colleague from California has come in with some more details that have
happened just in the last few minutes or have at least been released. I
thank the gentleman for coming out. I think it is a great opportunity
for us to send this message out.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from
Georgia for their generosity. As many of the Members know, we have
access over the Internet to any number of things. I have taken the time
this evening to track down off the Internet the draft text of the
proposed peace agreement. I found it at msnbc.com/news/277886.asp.
It is the text of the U.N. draft on Kosovo. While this is the draft,
and it was put together yesterday, it does contain a number of things
that I think merit our attention in line with the gentleman from
Georgia's comments about our commitments here and our obligations as we
go into the future. I would just like to highlight a couple of those in
particular. There are three parts to this agreement. There is the 21
paragraph preamble, if you will, then there is Annex 1 and then Annex
2. I do not recall which of the gentlemen referred to it, but the
phrase was the devil is in the details. I would particularly commend to
your reading Annex 1 and Annex 2.
In Annex 1, the document calls for a political process towards the
establishment of an interim political framework agreement providing for
a substantial self-government for Kosovo taking full account of the
Rambouillet accords and the principles of sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Now, what I am concerned about is what does that mean? It says a
political process towards the establishment of an interim political
framework. Now, I thought we were trying to find a political framework
that would allow the solution, not work towards a political framework.
The consequence of this is that we still have doubt and uncertainty as
to our ultimate goals.
There are three other points I would like to make about this draft
text. Again, that was in Annex 1. In Annex 2, paragraph 5, there is a
statement, ``Agreement should be reached on the following principles to
move toward a resolution of the Kosovo crisis,'' item number 5 being an
establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo as part of the
international civil presence under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy
substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be
decided by the Security Council of the United Nations.
Take note, if you would, please. We have been there as NATO. Now we
are transferring to the United Nations the responsibility for
establishing interim administration and an international civil
presence. Again in Annex 2, paragraph 6, there is agreement to allow an
agreed number of Yugoslav and Serbian personnel to return to Kosovo to
perform various civil and security functions after the agreement is
made.
Now, that is all well and good. But then, going back again in Annex
2, the last one, is a comprehensive approach to economic development
and stabilization of the region, including a stability pact for
Southeastern Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have agreed to autonomy for Kosovo, self-
government for Kosovo, an international civil presence in Kosovo to
protect the Kosovars and their autonomy, the return after their initial
withdrawal of Yugoslavian and Serbian personnel for limited civil and
security purposes, deployment in Kosovo of an international and civil
security presence, and a blank check for economic development and
stabilization. Well, who is going to bear the burden here? It begs the
question. Who is going to pay for this? I am serious about this. We
have spent $2 billion at least to date. Between now and the end of the
fiscal year, we are scheduled to spend

[[Page 12278]]

an additional 3 to $4 billion. And we have opened the door to a draw
because we are the only country that can do it, to a draw on the United
States Treasury to reconstruct what we just finished destroying.
Now, the gentleman from Colorado and the gentleman from Georgia are
correct. At what point do we make a choice as to the best interests of
the United States and its residents? Do we in fact spend the money in
Kosovo and Yugoslavia for reconstruction? Or do we spend the money on
education and health care and infrastructure here in the United States?
That is a true and unavoidable choice.
I regret to say, and I do want to say, I mean, I have been an
opponent of our activities in Yugoslavia. I think the President made a
serious mistake. I want to make sure that I am clear about this. I
commend him for his behind-the-scene efforts in getting us to this
point where we at least have the draft, as yet unsigned, of a treaty, a
peace agreement that will allow us to terminate our activities there. I
commend the administration for that. Mr. Speaker, it is a great thing
for us to get to this point. But there is substantial uncertainty that
remains here. As Members of the House exercising our constitutional
oversight authority, we need to be cognizant that the United States
remains the bank, if you would, on which the rest of the world will
ultimately come calling to fund all of these measures that lack
specificity, that are not well defined, that would not be used in
private industry for any transaction whatsoever. This is a step in the
right direction. I hope between now and the time when the United
Nations Security Council adopts this and the members of NATO affirm it
that definition is added to this agreement sufficient to answer these
questions as to what the various phrases in here mean about substantial
autonomy, substantial self-government and the like.
Mr. McINNIS. I think the gentleman from California's points are very
well made. He says the choice. Is the choice that we take, and I think
actually the costs run about $1 billion a day. I spent a lot of time in
business and in cost accounting. In fact back here I like to track the
numbers. I like to figure out where we are. There is a lot of money
shifting, not illegally but they put it in this account or take it out
of that so it is hard to get a true, accurate reflection of what this
is going to cost us. My estimation is by the time it is all rebuilt, it
will cost somebody about $100 billion. Now, I think militarily we have
probably spent about $16 billion, would be my guess. Now, they only got
the supplemental appropriation for an amount but there are other moneys
that they have drawn upon. But, that said, the question that the
gentleman from California asked, which is a very sound question and,
that is, do we take away from Social Security and from the programs,
domestic programs of the United States? I think the people of the
United States are willing to help make a contribution. Or the other
option is, do you completely ignore the needs of these refugees? Do we
ignore the fact that these villages have been destroyed primarily by
NATO military aircraft? I am not saying it is NATO's fault, I am just
saying that is the fact, that is how they were destroyed. Do we ignore
the fact they do not have electricity for the winter, they did not put
in their spring crops, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? No, we cannot
ignore that. What is the answer? I think the answer is a third option,
that is, we go to our European partners and say, ``Look, this wasn't
supposed to be a one-sided deal. You weren't supposed to get a free
ride. You're supposed to help on this thing. You've got to help gather
wood for the fire. If you want to sit by the campsite and sit by the
fire, you've got to help gather wood.''
So I think the option that we have to be very aggressive about and
reach out and grab hold of is the fact that our European partners, our
colleagues in NATO, have an obligation to pitch in.

{time} 2230

They have got to help pay for this. They have to have their taxpayers
help with this. Not just the American taxpayers, but the European
taxpayers. And do not just make American programs like our schools, our
Social Security, our transportation, our Medicare, et cetera, et
cetera, do not make just the American taxpayers go up to the bar and
throw money on the bar; make the Europeans. They are our allies.
Frankly, I think they have gotten a free ride. Ninety percent of our
military force over there has been American. Now, the British, let me
make one exception when I say European allies. The British, the United
Kingdom, they have been wonderful. They are as solid as you can get.
Frankly, the other allies we have over there are not gathering enough
firewood. I am one of those people, and the gentleman is one of those
people who have been doing a lot of gathering.
I am saying to the other 17 people out of the 19 at this campsite, I
am saying guys, gals, I am stopping. You are going to help pitch, or we
are not going to have a fire. Now, obviously we are going to have a
fire, but it is not going to be warm enough for all of us. You have to
pitch in.
Mr. OSE. If the gentleman will yield, the United States has a long
list try, as recently exhibited in the early nineties, of going to our
allies and asking them to pitch in, as the gentleman suggested.
It is curious, we have received from one ally a contribution, that
being the ally from Taiwan. They have put up significant money, and I
apologize for this, I don't recall whether it is 300 thousand or 300
million, but the money they have contributed has gone towards medical
and assistance, other assistance, with our refugee and humanitarian
aid. So it is not a question of whether or not there are countries,
allies of ours, even non-NATO Members, to whom we can turn for
assistance. That exists. There are people who will help us in this
challenge that we all face. It is a question of are we asking them?
Have we asked them for their contribution?
Mr. McINNIS. You know, we are about to face some tough budget
decisions coming up this summer. We are the Republicans, we are in the
majority, it is our decision. Somebody has to lead the charge. We have
got to make tough decisions. I am not running from a tough decision.
But the President in his budget has all kinds of program requests
which in my opinion will greatly exceed the budget caps, or so you are
familiar with it, the budget discipline that we put upon ourselves.
We figured years ago, as the gentleman knows, that in order for this
economy to stay solid, for the government to not continue to go into
annual debt, we already have the national debt, to reduce the national
debt and avoid the annual deficits, we have got to exercise some fiscal
discipline that has not been exercised in the past. So we got an
agreement out of the President that we would all live within what we
call the caps.
Well, the President's budget, what it does is it raises taxes so it
allows expenses to go way up, but he says it is within the caps, the
administration, because they raise taxes. We are saying you are not
going to raise taxes, we have got to control spending.
Now, out of this, it is going to be tough. We do not have a lot of
money laying around back here. While you hear the word ``surplus'' a
lot, when you really take an accurate picture, we still have that
national debt.
What is going to happen is if we do not go to our European allies,
then this amount of money we have in the pot for American domestic
programs, which is going to be tight as it now exists, in other words,
it is going to be a really tough year fiscally, we now are going to
have to make additional contributions out of our programs, out of the
programs that are the highest priority for us as American citizens, to
pitch in.
As I said earlier, the gentleman has talked about this off the floor
to me, we have an obligation to pitch in. We have a humanitarian
obligation. That is what made our country great, is the fact that
America always stood up to the plate. The United States was always
there to help the underprivileged

[[Page 12279]]

and to help the needy. We will fulfill that obligation. But, by gosh, I
do not want it always coming out of the hide of the American taxpayer
and out the hide of the people who benefit from our domestic programs.
So my message tonight, as is shared by my colleague from California,
is you all, European allies, we all need to say hey, pitch in. No free
rides. We have got a problem out there, let us get the solution. And if
we all pitch in, by the way, it is not going to be too heavy a burden
on any one of us. We can all help carry the pack up the mountain. But
so far it is you and I, speaking of the United States, that have
carried it this far up the mountain.
I am getting tired of it. I want to give some benefit to our
taxpayers.
Mr. KINGSTON. I wanted to shift gears with the gentleman, if it is
okay. One of the issues which the gentleman and I have spoken about,
the gentleman being from Colorado, me being from Georgia, we have had
shootings at schools recently, is what is the cause of this? I hope the
gentleman from California stays, if he can.
But I go back to my Clark Central High School in 1973. It was a large
public school. We had the usual share of problems, of teens. We had
love, we had breakups, we had couples, we had drugs, we had alcohol, we
had DUIs, we had fast cars, we had the pressures of the post-sixties
generation and long hair and hippies and good times and bad times
associated with that. We did have school violence, we had fights and we
had inner-city problems and some racial tension here and there. But we
did not have random shooting of children.
You ask yourself as a parent, I have four children, and I ask myself,
what is it in 1999 that is different than 1973 that causes children to
randomly shoot each other? What is it out there? Is it in the air? Is
it in the entertainment business? Is it in education? Are we missing
something in early childhood development? What can we do?
One of the things which the gentleman has been a leader of is
pointing out the amount of time that children spend before violent TV
shows or before violent video shows.
One of the statistics, interestingly enough I wanted to share with
the gentleman, if I can put my hand on it right now, well, this is not
the statistic I wanted to share right here, but the gentleman has
brought this chart, and if the gentleman wants to explain it, I will
bring it down there to him, but here is one of the I would say typical
video games which our children are exposed to.
If you go to just about any shopping mall, they are going to have a
video arcade parlor. The gentleman and I growing up, we thought okay,
that is foozball and air hockey and maybe one of those games where you
go inside and drive real fast.
But this is what they have. This game is it is made by Interplay, who
is a big donor to political causes, but the name of the game is
``You're Gonna Die.'' It is actually Kingpin. ``Kingpin is the life of
crime.''
In it are children. This is not adults who play this game, this is
children at the shopping mall on Saturday. They can decide who their
gang members are going to be, they can decide who they are going to
shoot. They can steal a bicycle or hop a train to get around town. Even
when you are in jail, you can recruit gang members to your side. You
can talk to people the way you want to, from smack to pacifying, and
then you can shoot and have actual damage done, including exit wounds
to specific body parts.
This is the cheerful manna that American children are exposed to over
and over again. Because these kids, to play this game, you do not just
walk in. Frankly, I do not think an adult could walk in and plunge a
quarter or two down and start playing it. You have to develop the
expertise. So this game is geared for kids who play lots of video, and,
as we know, kids who play lots of video have a kind of addiction to it,
and they play many hours worth a week. It could be football, it could
be hockey or basketball, but, for some kids, unfortunately, it is
Kingpin, Life of Crime, talking about ``You're Gonna Die'' and all
these cheerful things. We wonder what kind of message we are sending to
our children.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman, you know what has been
exciting though the last couple of weeks. As you know, Mr. Kingston,
you and I a couple of weeks ago talked about this very specific problem
we think exists out there with society, and that is go to your local
arcade. You will be surprised. These games are actually murder
simulators.
As I spoke a couple of weeks ago, it is very similar to the
simulators that we use to train pilots how to fly an airplane, to teach
drivers how to drive a car. These simulators teach people how to kill.
Now, if you do not believe me, I know how it sounds. ``Come on,
Scott.'' Go into the arcade and see it for yourself. I had not been to
an arcade for a long time. My three children, Daxon, he is 22, Tess is
21, Andrea is 17, so I hadn't been in an arcade. So I went into an
arcade and I was surprised.
But what was exciting to me as a result of our conversations here on
the floor was, number one, we came to the conclusion, we do not need
more laws. That may not necessarily be the answer. Let us go out and be
consumers. Both the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and I
represent constituents, and I think we have the bully pulpit right
here. We can use this to talk about the executives at Interplay
Corporation and make requests.
You know what happened, Mr. Kingston? Well, you know. But for my
colleagues, what happened after Mr. Kingston and I discussed it a
couple of weeks ago, I had parents start calling me. ``What can I do,''
they said? I said go to your local arcade. If you think there is a game
in there that is a murder simulator or is too violent for young people,
the age of people playing it, tell the proprietor of that shop and
demand that they remove it. Ask them to remove it and if they do not,
demand they remove it.
I followed that. I went to the Denver International Airport, right in
the Denver International Airport Denver, Colorado, there were violent,
horrible games in their arcade located on city property. I called the
mayor of Denver, Wellington Webb. Within an hour those games were
yanked. That is cooperation.
Disney Corporation, Knoxville Farms, Six Flags. There are a number of
people. Even the Video Association came in and expressed cooperation.
They are concerned about this.
So what I think is an important message here for us to get out,
because you and I are not proponents of more laws, that is not
automatically the answer, we will pass more laws and then we will all
be satisfied.
The answer is getting out there, get swift action, which you do not
get with the United States Congress just because of the way the system
is set up. Go out there, use consumer demand, go into the private
marketplace, use the leverage we have and tell the producers, the
manufacturers, the advertisers in the magazines and the people,
retailers that put these games out there, look, no more. The game is
over. Get those things out of here.
A couple of the executives I talked to, I asked them, I said, ``Do
your kids play these games? Do you have this game at home, the one you
just showed us?'' I said, ``If you do not, do you not have an
obligation to the rest of the children in our society?''
We are going to make it out there so consumers do not want this
product, consumers are going to want this product out.
Mr. KINGSTON. Under the title of Rapid Response, let me give our
viewers a web page so they can look this up. It is interesting, I think
this web page has been cleaned up in recent days since the pressure you
have put on them, but I checked it out and it does not really say that
much. But you can get a little bit of a feel.
Mr. McINNIS. If the gentleman would yield, if the gentleman would
give the web page to the colleagues on the floor, that would be
helpful.
Mr. KINGSTON. Absolutely.
WWW.INTERPLAY.COM/KINGPINCORPSE.
So it is WWW.INTERPLAY.COM/KINGPINCORPSE.

[[Page 12280]]

Now, the music is provided by a group called Cypress Hill the 4th.
That is their album. The band is Cypress Hill. They have a web site
also. You can reach that by just going CYPRESSONLINE.COM you can get a
feel for where our kids are.
One of the things that the gentleman and I as parents have done from
time to time is sit down and talk to our kids deliberately about
alcohol or drugs or sex or violence or whatever is going on in the teen
world, and it is amazing to me what you find out when you take that
time.
As a father of teens, you have to wait until they are ready to talk.
You cannot just walk in there and say ``Hi, I am dad of the year, I am
feeling guilty. I want to interface with you.'' It does not work like
that. You have to be available to them. But when they want to talk, you
can get it out of them.
It is shocking the exposure they have to violent lyrics or CDs or
violent TV shows and R-rated movies where people are slashed from the
very first frame to the final frame.

{time} 2245

Then this arcade stuff, where they do it just over and over again.
You know, if you start with small children, the desensitizing, by the
time they are 10 or 11 years old, what a message we are sending them.
The pastor, in Paducah, Kentucky, they had a tragic school shooting
about a year ago. The kids were praying. The pastor pointed out who was
presiding over one of the funerals of the kids, and I am paraphrasing;
he said: We live in a society where we tell our children it is okay for
us to kill our unborn children, so why are we surprised when our born
children start killing each other? We should not be surprised.
What he has done with that statement is raise this whole issue of
violence to a different plane. What is the signal we are sending out
here with the various messages that we are pummeling our children with
over and over again?
It could be irreligious, it could be video entertainment, it could be
movies. It might be the way we as parents say something. It might be
something altogether different.
But what bothers me is we look at the actions by the U.S. Senate as
they rushed on the blood of these children to pass strict gun control.
For those who have no children at home, in most of the cases, to
pretend that they have done something to protect my children or your
children is absurd.
In Columbine, Klebold and Harris broke 23 existing gun control laws.
In Georgia, the 22 which the student grabbed was locked up. He broke
into it and went out and shot kids.
It sounds good, okay, we are going to pass gun control, but nothing
that has been done by the Senate would protect my kids or the
gentleman's kids or future grandchildren from anything that could
happen at their school, which is similar to Columbine or what happened
in Rockdale County, at Heritage High School.
I think we as parents and we as a responsible culture need to examine
everything that is out there. What is the toxin that is getting into
our kids? As I said in my opening statement, what was it in 1973 when I
was in a large public high school with all kinds of tensions and all
kinds of influences, what was it that is different than 1999, when kids
just randomly start shooting each other?
Mr. McINNIS. I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I want to read
a couple of letters here, but I do want to thank the gentleman. I
appreciate the gentleman, I would like to point out, as a father of
several children, and I think he has a great family.
The key here is we can do something as consumers. As consumers we can
do something about some of these products. Let us go out into an
arcade. If we see a violent game, talk to the proprietor.
What I found is when we talk to these people, for example, when I
talk to the mayor's office in Denver, I am not sure they were aware of
that. I will tell the Members, they were really cooperative. They got
right on it. They did something about it.
I think Members are going to find a lot of positive reaction within
our community without more laws being passed by the Congress, being
imposed upon citizens of this country. Without more laws, I think as a
consumer we have some leverage.
Let me conclude first of all by thanking my colleague from the State
of Georgia. I appreciate very much his participation this evening, and
my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
I am going to shift gears completely. I had the opportunity a couple
of weeks ago, I make it a point when I go back to my district to try
and go teach classes in the schools. Before the schools got out for the
summer I went and taught some young people.
I wanted to read some of their responses in the thank-you letters. I
like to leave this speech with a high note. We talked about Kosovo, we
talked about violent video. Now let us leave it with a high note and
talk about a few cute letters.

Dear Mr. McInnis, I enjoyed you coming to my class. Thank
you for giving us the books, and thank you for saying I have
a beautiful smile. Don't I look exactly like my mom? Your job
sounds pretty exciting. I was really impressed with all those
questions, and you could answer all of them. Thank you for
coming. Your friend, Kyra. P.S., Josh was kind of cute.
Josh was my legislative assistant.

Dear Mr. McInnis, how are you? I hope your trip was great.
I never knew that we had the freedom of speech. On your 11th
birthday, what did you want to be? Thank you for coming to
our classroom. Kyle Webster.
Dear Mr. McInnis, I didn't know that in some States you had
to smoke in your house or outside your house. Thank you for
coming. I think your job sounds fun. You taught us a lot,
your friend, Matt.
Dear Mr. McInnis, I like you. I like how you taught us the
tree. Thanks for the books. Thanks for coming. Thank you for
teaching us. Your friend, Amber.

The tree means the branches of the judiciary, the executive, and the
legislative branch.

Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for telling me about the three
branches of government, the executive, legislative, and
judiciary. I didn't know anything about the three branches,
but now I do. I really liked it when you talked about all the
freedom of our country. Thank you for coming. From Derrick.
Mr. McInnis, I'm glad you taught me about the tree. I like
the legislative branch the most. Thank you for teaching me
what they mean, too. I'm glad you got to come in and show my
class and me about all you showed us and taught us. I will
remember what you taught us. Your friend, Brandon.
Dear Congressman McInnis, thank you for coming to our
class. I enjoyed it. I learned a lot of things. One of them
is that you are trying to make new rules. Your friend, Guy.
Dear Mr. McInnis: I never knew that Wyoming had the least
people and California had the most people. My dad says that
alcohol is like pouring fuel on a fire that's already
burning. Thanks for coming to our class. Love, Alanna.
Dear Mr. McInnis: Thank you for teaching me things I never
knew. I am still thinking smoking is not a law. Thanks for
telling me about the three branches of our government. I
never know there was such thing. I am surprised that in some
places you can smoke.
Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming to our classroom. I
liked it when you talked about the population. Your schedule
must be busy traveling all over. Have a safe trip!'' That was
from ``Your friend, Lindsey.''
Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming. We know that you
have a busy schedule but we are very lucky to have you come
to our class. I didn't know that the most population is in
California, and the least population is in Wyoming.
Is it fun being a Congressman? Do you like to travel a lot?
I think you are a very nice man. I hope you come again. Thank
you for coming. Love, Joya L'Ecuyer.
Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for the book. How does that
money get to you? Does all that money go to you or do you
share some of the money? I will miss you. You are a good
teacher. I will never forget the lesson on the three
branches. Thank you for coming, love Megan Mueller.
Dear Mr. McInnis, I learned the three branches and the
names of them. I didn't know you had to travel a lot and go
so far. On the tree the branch on the left is called the
Executive branch. The one on the right is called the
Judiciary. The one in the middle is called the the
Legislative. Thank you for coming. From Daniel.
Dear Mr. McInnis, I never knew that California had the most
people in it. I thank you for coming. Your friend, Gary.
Dear Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming to our classroom. I
liked it when you talked about our freedom. It was very
interesting. Thank you for the books. Morgan.

[[Page 12281]]

Mr. McInnis, I think our class is very lucky to have you
come. Thank you so much, really. Oh, yes, by the way, thank
you for the books. Thanks for teaching us all about the
Constitution, laws, and tree branches. I think it must be
hard to do the stuff you do. Your friend, Brittany.
Mr. McInnis, thank you for coming and telling us what it is
like in Washington. It is cool how there are three branches
of government. I never knew there were so many different ways
to have freedom. Your friend, Brittany.
Dear Mr. McInnis, I didn't know that that is how taxes
worked. Thank you for coming. Thank you for the book. From
Douglas.

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about some pretty tough issues up here in the
Capitol, we should never forget how many times freedom is mentioned in
these letters from these young people, how proud these young people are
to be Americans.
We often talk about what has gone wrong. I spent most of my speech
talking about some things that were going wrong. But we should not
forget the fact that most things are going right. If Members want to
feel good about what is going on in this country, if they want to feel
refreshed, go to a classroom. I have nothing but good things to say
about a lot of teachers. It must be exciting every day to have these
kinds of young people in their classroom.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time I had this evening to speak to my
colleagues, and I want to thank all my little friends that sent a
letter to us.

____________________

REFLECTIONS ON THE WAR IN THE BALKANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Toomey). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is
recognized for half the time remaining until midnight, which is
approximately 30 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, we are told tonight that we are at the
beginning of the end of the war in the Balkans. But before the ink has
dried on the agreement there are a few reflections that I think are in
order, because we cannot just sign this piece of paper and pretend that
we can move on, pretend that we have peace, because the truth is that
problems could arise and we could end up in a multi-party land war
right in the middle of the Balkans, with our young men and women put in
grave danger.
I would like to take this discussion tonight to another level which
goes beyond the fine print of agreements, which inevitably are lost,
and goes to higher principles. This is an appropriate time to reflect
on the lessons that we have learned in the Balkan war, and to take
those lessons and transform them, and to transform these thoughts of
war into thoughts of peace, and turn the thought of peace into the
reality of peace, and to speak to higher principles, which this country
has the ability to create so that we can continue in our historic quest
to be the light of the world, to be what the prophet spoke of as the
shining city on a hill, resplendent in our commitment to all human
values, to evolve into a country which can win the peace without
finding it necessary to take up arms to win a war.
The values which are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
animate our concern for each other and for people around the world.
These words ring in the hearts of Americans: We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These values, these ideas, these ideals, are so powerful that they
cause others to rise up in defense of their own rights all over the
world. We Americans love democracy, and it hurts us when we see tyrants
imposing death or death of hope on people anywhere in the world.
Recent humanitarian catastrophes have occurred and the United States
did not intervene: 80,000 dead in Algeria; 10,000 dead in the
Ethiopian-Eritrean war in a recent month; 820,000 dead in Rwanda over 5
years; 1.5 million dead in Sudan in the first 15 years; 40,000 Kurds
dead at the hands of Turkish forces; 200,000 people killed in East
Timor by Indonesian forces.
These tragedies have befallen our brothers and sisters around the
world, people we surely care about but people we did not help, people
who died while the world watched.
We have the strongest Nation in the world, yet with that strength
through great difficulty we learned to exercise the greatest discretion
in the use of force, because once that force is used the consequences
cannot be predicted. Sometimes the very people we intend to help may
end up being hurt.
Such a dilemma has faced us in the Balkans. We have advanced here a
doctrine of humanitarian intervention. By all fair accounts, that
intervention has produced conditions which are worse than they were
before we began our involvement.
Ethnic cleansing was being undertaken against the Kosovar Albanians.
NATO's bombing accelerated it. Serbian paramilitary attacks cause
masses of Kosovar Albanians to flee the province. NATO's bombing turned
masses into a great human tide seeking to flee the war. Serbian
paramilitary forces destroyed the homes and villages of Kosovar
Albanians. NATO's bombing widened the area of destruction.
Today there will be a semblance of peace or a chance for peace in
Kosovo, but what kind of a peace? It will be a peace which will have
been gained at the cost of thousands of lives of innocent civilians of
both sides? It will be a peace where the province has been decimated by
both sides by cluster bombs, by booby traps, by landmines. It will
harken to the comment that was made in another war: We have created a
desert, and have called it peace.
Certainly in a democracy our history has shown us that there are some
things worth standing up for. I think the most important thing that any
one of us can do in life is to stand up and to fight for those things
we believe in.

{time} 2300

In this country, we believe in freedom of religion. We hate to see
that freedom denied to anyone anywhere else in the world. Yet that
freedom is being denied today in China, in East Timor, in Burma, in
North Korea, and in other nations; and that bothers us as Americans.
In the United States, freedom of religion is essential to our
democracy. It is first in our amendments. It is first in our hearts.
People come from all over the world here to find freedom of religion to
follow that truth that resonates with their own hearts. Americans
fought for that right. Indeed, it is a human right.
This freedom of religion means that all may pray and worship; that no
one is forced to worship any faith except that which they believe; that
the State sponsors no religion, but respects all religion. This is a
powerful principle of freedom of religion.
We separate church and State in America, but separation and such
separation by our Founders was never meant to imply that we should
separate the practice of government from high principles or the actions
of government from spiritual principles.
Our motto in the United States, as we all know, is ``In God We
Trust.'' That motto is not simply the recognition of an external
transcended reality. It is a communion of the Nation with the angels.
It has become a clarion call for moral leadership. If we truly trust in
God, then each of us must become as moral leaders. If we trust in God,
each of us can summon a transcendent morality.
Spiritual awareness enkindles the power of the human heart, which
brings to each of us love which transcends all, love which heals all,
love which comforts all, love which sees all, love which forgives all,
love which conquers all, love which speaks to all, love which you hear,
love which you can feel, love you can touch, love you can see; and then
we comprehend understanding, and we are able to touch the wings of
angels.
That appeal to sense in essence transcends language when we
communicate with each other through the heart. Love speaks to all
languages. The language of the human heart speaks through all
languages.

[[Page 12282]]

Now in Christianity, the highest commandment is to love one another.
Love yourself. Love your neighbor as yourself. As we affirm love in our
hearts, we affirm the future; and the future is in turn revealed to us,
because a heart filled with love is like a magnet that draws to it the
love that it desires. What the heart seeks, the heart finds. What the
heart asks for, the heart receives. If the heart asks for peace, its
prayer will be answered. So will be the prayer be answered if it asks
for war. The doors at which the heart knocks on are open. As we affirm
love in our hearts, we affirm truth, and eternity is revealed to us.
When this war in the Balkans first began, Mr. Speaker, I felt this
illogic of war grip this Capitol. It was as a physical force, whirling
like a vortex, the start of war. Words of war, actions of war produce
war. We can be co-creators of our own world.
So as we are near the end of what we can only hope be the last war of
this century, it is time to ask what kind of a world do we want in the
next century and how can we avoid the wars of the next century. How can
we build the peace of the next century.
We want a world of love, a world of hope, a world of joy, a world of
prosperity, a world where all may worship, a world where all may live,
a world where all may strive, a world where all may grow, a world of
peace.
Many of us have come to America, indeed many of my constituents have
come to America from different nations. That is one of our strengths in
this country, our diversity.
The motto which soars above this majestic chamber speaks to the unity
of one people, e pluribus unum: out of many, one. That is why it is so
painful for we Americans to watch people suffering anywhere in the
world, because they happen to have a different religion, a different
race, a different ethnic group, a different political philosophy.
We come here from many Nations. We share a common destiny as brothers
and sisters of a common planet. What kind of a world do we want? Only
through the application of higher principles can we hope to have our
systems of government forsake war and destruction and to make the
survival of each person a sacred commitment.
In this world of strife and war, we are called upon to be channels of
peace. In this world of darkness, we are called upon to bring light. In
this world of fear, we are called upon to bring courage. In this world
of despair, we are called upon to bring hope. In this world of poverty,
much poverty, let us bring forth plenty. In this world of ignorance,
let the light of knowledge light the world. In this world of sorrow,
let us use our spiritual principles to bring forth joy. In this world
of judgment, certainly we are asked to bring forth mercy. It is through
the heart that we connect with all humanity. It is through the heart
that we connect with the infinite.
These are principles that transcend governments. Governments kneel
before these principles. The Congress of the United States, even this
Congress, is nothing next to these principles. The government of any
country is humbled before these principles. It is through the human
heart that we meet injustice and we transform it and through the
application of spiritual principles we change the world.
We have throughout the last few months employed doctrines which are
decidedly not spiritual in an attempt to solve our international
problems in the Balkans. These doctrines speak to our limitations as a
Nation, limitations which may burden us today, but limitations which we
can jettison and which can fall away from our conscience, actions like
the separation of a stage of a rocket falling back into the atmosphere
as the capsule of destiny rockets higher and higher towards the stars.
But back on earth, we ought to inspect those doctrines which keep us
earthbound which will make it impossible for us to have real peace. The
doctrine of the end justifying the means. NATO has bombed civilians.
NATO has bombed a civilian structure. NATO has helped to destroy a
civil society with its bombs. Now the ends which NATO has sought to
achieve, the end of ethnic cleansing, the dislodging of a powerful
dictator, we have to ask if the ends have justified the means.
As one Russian leader asked us when we were in Vienna, would in fact
it be a proper pursuit of peace if their government had decided to drop
a nuclear bomb on a U.S. city? So we need to inspect this doctrine of
the end justifying the means.
We need also to inspect the doctrine of might makes right. Now, I
happen to believe that in America the law is what makes right. Yet, in
this conflict, we have seen the United Nations charter, which this
Nation was proud to lead the world in organizing, violated by an
organization which saw fit to take the law into their own hands because
they did not want to go through the United Nations, a United Nations
which we recognize at this moment had to have been instrumental in
finally bringing about an agreement in the Balkans.
The United Nations charter states that its primary purpose was to
save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. It States in its
article IV that ``all members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State or in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.''
If might makes right, the U.N. charter does not mean anything. If
might make rights, the North Atlantic Treaty signed in 1949, article I,
may mean nothing. Article I states, ``The parties undertake, as set
forth in the charter of the United Nations, to settle any international
disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace and security and justice are not
endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the
threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of
the United Nations.''

{time} 2310

So from the United Nations, that principle flowed into the North
Atlantic Treaty. But if might makes right, the North Atlantic Treaty
means nothing.
If might makes right, the Hague Conventions of 1907, which prohibit
penalizing a population for someone's acts, means nothing.
If might makes right, the Geneva Convention of 1949, which prohibits
attacks on objects indispensable for the survival of a civilian
population, such as an electric system, water system, sewer system, if
might makes right, the Geneva Convention means nothing.
If might makes right, the 1980 Vienna Convention, which bars coercion
to make nations sign agreements, means nothing because the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia was told at Rambouillet that they would either
sign that agreement or be bombed.
So we need to inspect this doctrine of might making right and we need
to also, as we inspect it, determine whether the Constitution of the
United States itself has the meaning which its founders imbued in it
when it said in Article I, Section 8 that the Congress shall have the
power to declare war.
And notwithstanding my affection for the person who holds that office
right now, I have to ask whether or not the War Powers Act was violated
and whether or not the Constitution of the United States itself was
violated in this pursuit of an exercise of power. If might makes right,
perhaps even the Constitution is without meaning.
We have to also, as we review this war, determine whether or not the
doctrine of retributive justice, an eye for an eye, is to stand; that
by killing people we teach people that it is wrong to kill people. When
we advance such a doctrine, we end up in a moral cul-de-sac. We find
ourselves chasing into a darkness and unable to extract ourselves from
it.
The idea of vengeance is something that is a very old idea. In the
literature of Beowulf from many, many years ago the concept of Wergild
was that if you did something to somebody's relative that other family
had the obligation to come back and kill one of yours. Yet we were told
that in this wonderful book we know as the New Testament

[[Page 12283]]

that there was a new law brought forward; that the law of an eye for an
eye was no more. Vengeance is mine, said the Lord. I will repay. And if
we have confidence in that doctrine, in the belief that there is a
higher power who judges all and dispenses justice, then we have to ask
about our feeble efforts to render justice through retribution and look
at this doctrine of retributive justice.
In this war we get the opportunity to inspect the doctrine of
collective guilt; that just because people happen to live in a country
which is governed by a tyrant, which is governed by an individual who
does not support basic human rights of an important minority group in
his country; that because of that everyone in that country is guilty.
We need to look at that doctrine. Because behind that doctrine is a
sense of punishment which NATO apparently felt it had to mete out to
the people of Serbia, taking over 2,000 lives of innocent civilians. We
must look at that doctrine of collective guilt.
We must look at the doctrine of collateral damage. I have been in
meetings in this Congress where the idea of collateral damage was
brought forth, and if one did not listen carefully enough, one would
not be aware that it meant killing innocent civilians. That phrase
means the death of innocent civilians. And so in this war we have
developed an acceptance of the idea of collateral damage.
But these are people. These are innocent civilians who were killed;
people going to visit their relatives while riding on a passenger
train; people riding a bus to work or to go to the market; refugees in
a convoy trying to get out of a war-torn country; people sitting in
their homes eating dinner; people in factories just trying to do their
work; people like us who were just trying to live. And yet they become
collateral damage. They do not even have names. They do not even have
descriptions. They are deprived of their humanity. And when they are
deprived of their humanity, we deprive ourselves of our own humanity.
So we need to look at this doctrine of collateral damage.
We need to look at the doctrine of accidental bombing. How many times
could we hear over and over and over again it was an accident; that we
blew up these innocent civilians? An accident. I mean if any one of us
driving a car found ourselves over and over and over again getting into
accidents, two things would happen. We would not be insured any more
and a court would take our license away. And so should NATO's license
to prosecute a war against a civilian population be taken away, because
there are no accidents when the accidents keep repeating themselves.
The doctrine of necessary distortion of meaning. George Orwell knew
well this conflict. The idea of peace bombs. A peace war. Bombing for
peace does violence to cognition and does violence to the commitment
that this Nation has, as a people, to speak plainly to those we
represent, to tell them the truth of what is going on, to do it in
language which is clear and sparkling so that no one can mistake what
our intentions are and to not distort meaning.
Indeed, in listening to an earlier discussion about the culture of
violence in our society, is it any wonder when we send out so many
conflicting messages about the violence which is wreaked by
international organizations that the children of any nation would be
confused about violence being visited in their own midst?
And one other doctrine we need to inspect is the doctrine of creation
of enemies. I remember years ago when I was a student at Saint
Aloysius, an elementary school in the City of Cleveland, the United
States was in a conflict with Russia. It was called the Cold War, and
we used to do drills in school in the fifth grade. Some of my
colleagues will remember those drills. They were called duck and cover.
We were told that we should expect that at some time there was this
possibility that a nuclear attack could be launched by Russia at the
United States.

{time} 2320

And we were told that if only we would put our arms around our head
and protect it and tuck our head deep into our lap and closed our eyes
and prayed, that when the flash came, we would not be blinded and
perhaps we could go back home after school.
President Eisenhower himself knew in that era that such drills were
folly because a nuclear strike would mean the annihilation of a major
population. So those drills were merely to try to assuage the fears of
the American people about the cataclysm of a nuclear war.
But we felt throughout that time in the Cold War that the possibility
for destruction was there because enemies were being created and in
that dialectic of conflict that went back and forth across the oceans,
we found ourselves fearing each other, preparing to destroy each other.
And last month, in the middle of this Balkan conflict, the leader of
the Yablako faction in Russia said that the effort to blockade the port
in Montenegro was putting us on a direct path to nuclear escalation.
Last week, Premier Chernomyrdin of Russia, in an op-ed piece in the
Washington Post, stated that the world was closer to a nuclear conflict
than at any time in this decade because of the Balkan conflict.
Russians were our enemies. They became our friends. And again we have
tested that friendship and we began a repolarization, trying to exclude
them right from the beginning from this process of peacemaking which
could have been made possible through the U.N. Security Council so many
months ago.
As we create enemies, we may fulfill the prophecy of destruction; and
we will bring ourselves to a nuclear confrontation, we fear, if we stay
on that path of the creation of enemies. We create enemies, and then we
are ourselves our own enemies. ``We have met the enemy,'' in the words
of Pogo, ``and he is us.''
Mr. Speaker, because of this great concern which Members of Congress
had, 11 of us went on a mission of peace to Vienna on April 30 to meet
with leaders of the Russian Duma, including Vladimir Luhkin, a leader
of the Yablako faction, who only weeks earlier had made this powerful
statement about the nations being on a direct path to nuclear
escalation.
And in Vienna, under the leadership of my good friend the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Curt Weldon) 11 of us sat down with leaders of
the Russian Duma and began to work out a framework for peace, to
reestablish this amity which we have worked so hard for, where only a
year ago Russian and American astronauts could work together in the
same space program, where a short few years ago Russian and American
astronauts could fly around the world together in the same space
capsule.
We went to Vienna at a time where some were challenging whether or
not Russian leaders and U.S. leaders ought to be together in the same
room. And yet we took that step forward to apparently and quietly over
a period of 2 days put together not an agreement between nations, but a
framework that could be used to take steps towards peace and unravel
what looked like a concentration of war energy that was moving like a
juggernaut across this world.
That was many, many, many weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. And in that time
since then, many opportunities toward peace were lost and many lives
were lost and much damage was done to property and to people's hopes
and dreams.
There are times that people around the world depend on the United
States as being a protector of human rights to rise and to defend the
principles that are enshrined in our own statue of liberty in the
harbor in New York City, that that lady who holds the lamp in the
harbor, the encryption at the base, which reads, ``Give me your tired,
your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched
refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the tempests, to me. I lift
my lamp beside the golden door.''
So I speak of Bosnia. Now, I had the opportunity to witness
firsthand, as a

[[Page 12284]]

Member of the United States congressional delegation, the effects in
Bosnia of hatred and tolerance where Muslim people were driven from
their homes, where there was an attempt to destroy people for what they
believed in, an attempt to destroy the homeland of Muslim people.
I saw graves ringed with fresh marble. I saw homes that had been
blown up everywhere and everything riddled with bullets. I met with
people that had been driven from their villages by fear and terror. And
I met people that wanted to go home because home called them, as home
calls us all. But fear put up a roadblock and governments put up a
roadblock.
I met with the Muslim women of Srebrenica who lost their husbands,
who lost their fathers, who lost their brothers, who lost their
children when 5,000 Muslims were lined up and murdered only because
they were Muslims.
I met with Dr. Sarich in Sarajevo and learned of the difficulty
placed in the path of Muslims who simply wanted to return home in
keeping with the Dayton Agreement. I appealed to the State Department
and the Justice Department for the women of Srebrenica.
I spoke on the floor of the Congress for an appeal to the Government
of the United States to remember what happened in Srebrenica and to
maintain their commitment to the people of Bosnia as they try to
resettle and restore their country and to help bring those who are
responsible for the atrocities in Bosnia to justice.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it could be said that the seeds of the current
war in the Balkans could have been sown because the world community
failed to bring to justice those who committed war crimes. Because
until they are brought to justice, can there really be justice with
respect to Bosnia and to help find the missing and to help heal the
broken families and broken hearts and to work with the assembled
nations to help protect the peace and to help rebuild the civil
society? Can that really be done if those who were responsible for
creating that moment are not brought to justice?
The Dayton Agreement was merely a promise. It is not a reality. We
must continue to work to make it a reality. And it is the
responsibility of the Government of the United States to show
leadership in the world and to make sure the promise of Dayton becomes
a reality.
I am not a stranger to the Balkans. I was in Sarajevo. I was in
Brzko. I was in Tuzla. And I was also in Croatia last year to visit
family, to hope to have a chance to see the place where my own
grandfather was born, a little town in eastern Slovenia called Botnoga,
where John Kucinich was born many, many years ago. And I so much wanted
to see the place where he was born.

{time} 2330

And when I went to Zagreb to visit with friends and relatives, I
learned that in Botnoga, there was no ``there'' there. In fact, the
town had been leveled in the previous war with Serbia. And yet when I
learned in that moment the feelings that I had felt, strong feelings,
it occurred to me again, do we move forward in this world, hoping for
peace if we believe that there must be vengeance, if we believe in an
eye for an eye, if we believe that every injustice which is done to us
must be returned in full measure by us? And so in my own way I was
confronted with those feelings.
I do not think that any of us could say that we have suffered the
kind of tragedy which the Kosovar Albanians have suffered. And it is
true that the world community has a responsibility to do everything it
can to try to repair their shattered lives. We had a moral
responsibility to take steps that stopped the destruction of Kosovo. We
have a moral responsibility to bring about a peaceful resolution there.
But I believe that right at the beginning, our responsibility rested on
understanding the primacy of international law as expressed through the
United Nations and through the U.N. Security Council and through the
Geneva Convention, and through the Hague and through the United States
Constitution, Article 1, section 8.
Now, ultimately military solutions are not adequate. Ultimately truly
peaceful structures, we can call them democratic structures, must be in
place. We had that opportunity more than a year ago. We remember when
100,000 people marched through the streets of Belgrade protesting the
regime, asking for support, asking for an opportunity to uphold
democratic values, asking for a chance to keep their media free, to
keep their exercise of basic rights as part of their ongoing civic
life. And yet that movement did not receive the support which the world
community owed it. But peaceful structures must be put in place,
notwithstanding the massive destruction, and the international
community has agreed to participate in the rebuilding of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. But with that rebuilding must come democratic
structures so people can live, people can worship, people can work,
people can play and people can live out their lives. And so it is
appropriate for the State Department, working with the United Nations,
to begin to work to negotiate transitional government structures. To do
less while simply giving lip service to humanitarian efforts is a cruel
hoax. It has been said before and it should be said again, until the
leadership in Belgrade is replaced through a democratic process, it
will be very difficult to be able to have a lasting peace.
Now, the Bible says, ``You shall know the truth, and the truth shall
set you free.'' We have to be seekers of the truth about what happened
in the Balkans, so we do not repeat the same mistakes. And so that we
can create new possibilities for peace. Let our country be seekers of
the truth in our own land and in our own foreign policy, so that we can
all see the light, when the light of truth shines through the darkness
and the darkness will not overcome truth. Such is always the promise of
America when we live by the ideals upon which this country was founded,
the ideals of truth, the ideals of justice, freedom of religion,
freedom of speech.
As we strive to become one Nation with liberty for all, one Nation
with justice for all, one Nation with freedom of speech for all, one
Nation with freedom of religion for all, let us remember that unity is
something that all of us seek after, a transcendent unity of higher
purpose. So let us strive for a government which strives for peace. And
let us have a government which protects the freedom of all to worship,
let us have a government which practices toleration, let us have a
government which stands against discrimination, let us have a
government which makes us always proud of our Nation, let us have a
government which fulfills the promise of one of America's greatest
Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, who spoke of a government of the people,
by the people and for the people.
In America, the beauty of this country is that we are always creating
a new Nation. Years ago we spoke of creating a Nation conceived in
liberty. Today we create a new Nation again. And in this new
millennium, which we are advancing towards, we can create a new
millennium where peace, not war, is the imperative, begun in unity,
where those who seek truth, where those who know truth and have found
truth unite their thoughts across religions and cultures, drawing from
the universality of the human condition and the higher consciousness
which is the impulse of a universe that calls us forward.
Now, there is real power in that kind of America, power that
transcends a $270 billion military budget. There is real power in a
kind of America where we live by our ideals, where we stand by the
spiritual principles which our founders held dear. This recognition
would lead us to create a harmony that would dissipate the
inevitability of war and consecrate the inevitability of peace.
As we move towards a new millennium, we can summon a new creativity
and thought, a new vibration and feeling, a new consciousness which
will help us create new worlds. It is time for us to think in terms of
studying peace as we would study war. We have a war college. There
ought to be a college for peace. We ought to spend more time in this
country studying conflict

[[Page 12285]]

resolution and mediation, at local, State and at the Federal level, so
we can teach people, even in the schools, how to deal with their
feelings, teach people how to respect each other's rights, make ours a
quest for something that we have not even been able to grasp, a new
condition for peace.
Perhaps it is time for a Department of Peace, as we have a Department
of Defense, where the impact of every government decision, particularly
with respect to the work of the Department of Defense, is studied
finely as to what its effect would be on peace. I mean, if 1 percent of
the Federal budget would be used for such a department, 1 percent of
the Federal budget used for the military, that is, 1 percent of $270
billion, we would have enough to make a major beginning in a new
millennium towards promoting tolerance which comes from understanding.
Because once people understand, there will be more tolerance. Once
people understand, there will be more acceptance, because acceptance
follows knowledge and leads to the brotherhood and sisterhood of all.
We could move together to create peace, not the peace of the grave
which we are all too familiar with in the tragedies we have witnessed,
but the peace of a joyful life, not just peace which is a cessation of
war but peace which is something more innate, peace which is inside
each one of us, peace inside which no one can take away, an inner peace
which we in turn give to the world.

{time} 2340

Peace on earth truly begins within each of us, and that inner peace
which makes each of us is a source of peace in the world which we
extend to those who are persecuted, which we extend to those who hate
us, which we extend to those who misunderstand us, which we extend to
those, until their hearts open up and their eyes open up, my fellow
Americans, our arms open up and we embrace each other as brothers and
sisters, and we hold each other in a triumph of love, in a triumph of
universal peace; Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, black, white,
yellow, red, brown, brothers and sisters.
Mr. Speaker, peace.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. McHugh (at the request of Mr. Armey) for today until 7 p.m., on
account of attending a funeral in his district.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. McNulty) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Kind, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Smith of Washington, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Millender-McDonald, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Napolitano, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Maloney of Connecticut, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Berkley, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Duncan) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cunningham, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Portman, for 5 minutes, on June 10.
Mr. Shuster, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

A BILL 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, a bill of the House of the
following title:

H.R. 1379. To amend the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, to make a technical
correction relating to international narcotics control
assistance.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 10, 1999, 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:

2546. A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture,
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the
Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to establish a trust for
the benefit of the cash seller of livestock until the cash
seller receives payment in full for the livestock; to the
Committee on Agriculture.
2547. A letter from the Secretary of Agriculture,
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the
Agricultural Fair Practices Act to authorize administrative
enforcement by the Secretary of Agriculture; to the Committee
on Agriculture.
2548. A letter from the Architect of the Capitol,
transmitting the report of all expenditures during the period
April 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998, pursuant to 40
U.S.C. 162b; to the Committee on Appropriations.
2549. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Defense, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to
provide authority for the Department to provide support to
civil authorities for combating terrorism; to the Committee
on Armed Services.
2550. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Manufacturing Technology Program [DFARS Case 98-D306]
received April 16, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Armed Services.
2551. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Restructuring Savings Repricing Clause [DFARS Case 98-D019]
received April 16, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Armed Services.
2552. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Manufacturing Technology Program [DFARS Case 98-D306]
received April 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Armed Services.
2553. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Restructuring Savings Repricing Clause [DFARS Case 98-D019]
received April 20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Armed Services.
2554. A letter from the Director, Defense Procurement,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement;
Electronic Funds Transfer [DFARS Case 98-D012] received April
20, 1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Armed Services.
2555. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, transmitting the 1996-1997 annual report on the
National Health Service Corps (NHSC), the NHSC Scholarship
Program (NHSCSP), and the NHSC Loan Repayment Program (NHSC/
LRP), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 254b(g); to the Committee on
Commerce.
2556. A letter from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to
establish a demonstration for testing and evaluating disease
management approaches to the identification and treatment of
asthma in children receiving medical assistance under title
XIX or child health assistance under title XXI of the Social
Security Act; to the Committee on Commerce.
2557. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to
amend title 5, United States Code, to revise the overtime pay
limitation for Federal employees; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
2558. A letter from the Secretary of the Interior,
transmitting a detailed boundary map for the 39-mile segment
of the Missouri National Recreational River including two
tributaries, 20 miles of the Niobrara River and 8 miles of
Verdigre Creek, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1274; to the Committee
on Resources.
2559. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a draft of proposed legislation to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to construct and operate a visitor center for
the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River on land
owned by the State of New York; to the Committee on
Resources.
2560. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department

[[Page 12286]]

of the Interior, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
to amend the Act which established the Saint-Gaudens National
Historic Site, in the State of New Hampshire, by modifying
the boundary; to the Committee on Resources.
2561. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a draft of proposed legislation to allow the National Park
Service to acquire certain land for addition to the
Wilderness Battlefield, as previously authorized by law, by
purchase or exchange as well as by donation; to the Committee
on Resources.
2562. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Fisheries Off the West Coast
States and in the Western Pacific; West Coast Salmon
Fisheries; 1999 Management Measures [Docket No. 990430113-
9113-01; I.D. 042799A] (RIN: 0648-AL64) received May 13,
1999, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
2563. A letter from the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Fisheries in the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Hired Skipper Requirements for the
Individual Fishing Quota Program [Docket No. 980923246-9106-
02; I.D. 071598A] (RIN: 0648-AK20) received May 13, 1999,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Resources.
2564. A letter from the Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting the Report on the
Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act for the
6 months ending June 30, 1998, pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 621; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
2565. A letter from the Director, Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, transmitting the annual report on
applications for court orders made to federal and state
courts to permit the interception of wire, oral, or
electronic communications during calendar year 1998, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 2519(3); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2566. A letter from the Deputy Administrator, General
Services Administration, transmitting a report of Building
Project Survey for American Samoa, pursuant to 40 U.S.C.
606(a); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
2567. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Commerce, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to
authorize appropriations for the programs of the Department
of Commerce's Technology Administration, to amend the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Act; to the
Committee on Science.
2568. A letter from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting a
report on the status and progress of the Department's
hydrogen program and recommendations of the Hydrogen
Technical Advisory Panel for any improvements in the program
that are needed; to the Committee on Science.
2569. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Civil Works, Department of the Army, transmitting a draft of
proposed legislation to provide for the development,
operation, and maintenance of the Nation's harbors; jointly
to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and
Ways and Means.
2570. A letter from the Acting General Counsel, Department
of the Defense, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
to address certain transportation matters that affect the
Department's operations; jointly to the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Armed Services.

____________________

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:

[Omitted from the Record of June 8, 1999]

Mr. BURTON: Committee on Government Reform. H.R. 457. A
bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to increase the
amount of leave time available to a Federal employee in any
year in connection with serving as an organ donor, and for
other purposes (Rept. 106-174). Referred to the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union.

[Submitted June 9, 1999]

Mr. SHUSTER: Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. Supplemental report on H.R. 1000. A bill to
amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs
of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other
purposes (Rept. 106-167 Pt. 2).
Mr. HYDE: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 576. A bill to
amend title 4, United States Code, to add the Martin Luther
King, Jr. holiday to the list of days on which the flag
should especially be displayed (Rept. 106-176). Referred to
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
Mr. COBLE: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 1225. A bill to
authorize funds for the payment of salaries and expenses of
the Patent and Trademark Office, and for other purposes
(Rept. 106-177). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union.
Mr. WOLF: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 2084. A bill
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000, and for other purposes (Rept. 106-180). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and references to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. SMITH of Texas: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 322. A
bill for the relief of Suchada Kwong; with an amendment
(Rept. 106-178). Referred to the Private Calendar.
Mr. SMITH of Texas: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 660. A
bill for the private relief of Ruth Hairston by waiver of a
filing deadline for appeal from a ruling relating to her
application for a survivor annuity (Rept. 106-179). Referred
to the Private Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. GEKAS:
H.R. 2083. A bill to provide for the appointment by the
Attorney General of a special counsel when investigation or
prosecution of a person by an office or official of the
Department of Justice may result in a personal, financial, or
political conflict of interest; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. WOLF:
H.R. 2084. A bill making appropriations for the Department
of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
By Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon (for herself and Mr. Walden of
Oregon):
H.R. 2085. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to end the marriage penalty, to provide estate tax
relief for family-owned farms and other family-owned
businesses, to provide a tax credit for longterm care needs,
to expand the child and dependent care tax credit, to
increase the deduction for health insurance costs for self-
employed individuals, and to adjust for inflation the
exemption amounts used to calculate the individual
alternative minimum tax; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. Brown of
California, Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mrs. Morella, Mr.
Ewing, Mr. Cook, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Etheridge, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Kuykendall, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Lucas of Oklahoma, Mr. Smith of
Michigan, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Eddie
Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Capuano, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Udall of
Colorado, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Gutknecht,
Ms. Lofgren, and Mr. Gordon):
H.R. 2086. A bill to authorize funding for networking and
information technology research and development for fiscal
years 2000 through 2004, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committee on
Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Mr. TALENT (for himself, Mr. McCrery, Mr. English,
Mrs. Bono, and Mr. DeMint):
H.R. 2087. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HAYWORTH (for himself, Mr. Armey, Mr. Ballenger,
Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Bateman, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Bonilla, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Burr of
North Carolina, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Callahan,
Mr. Calvert, Mr. Camp, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Coble, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Collins, Mr. Combest, Mr.
Cook, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Davis of
Virginia, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. DeLay, Mr. DeMint,
Mr. Dickey, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Duncan, Ms. Dunn, Mr.
Ehrlich, Mr. Everett, Mrs. Fowler, Mr. Frelinghuysen,
Mr. Goss, Mr. Graham, Ms. Granger, Mr. Hastings of
Washington, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Herger, Mr.
Hill of Montana, Mr. Hilleary, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Istook, Mr. Sam Johnson
of Texas, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Kasich,
Mr. Knollenberg, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Largent, Mr. Latham,
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Mica,

[[Page 12287]]

Mr. McCollum, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Gary Miller of
California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. Myrick, Mr.
Nethercutt, Mr. Ney, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Norwood, Mr.
Nussle, Mr. Paul, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Pitts, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Rogan, Mr.
Rohrabacher, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Salmon, Mr.
Schaffer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Skeen, Mr.
Souder, Mr. Spence, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Stump, Mr.
Sununu, Mr. Talent, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Terry, Mr.
Wamp, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Watts of Oklahoma, Mr. Weldon
of Florida, Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Bachus,
and Mr. Goode):
H.R. 2088. A bill to prohibit discrimination in contracting
on federally funded projects on the basis of certain labor
policies of potential contractors; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. BOEHNER:
H.R. 2089. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide new
procedures and access to review for grievances arising under
group health plans; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. GREENWOOD (for himself, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Farr of
California, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Morella, Mrs.
Capps, Mr. Calvert, Mr. English, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Foley, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Franks of New Jersey, Mr.
Bilbray, and Mr. Gutierrez):
H.R. 2090. A bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to
contract with the National Academy of Sciences to establish
the Coordinated Oceanographic Program Advisory Panel to
report to the Congress on the feasibility and social value of
a coordinated oceanography program; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. Engel, Mrs. Kelly,
Mrs. Wilson, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Crowley,
and Ms. Schakowsky):
H.R. 2091. A bill to designate the Republic of Montenegro,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Republic
of Albania under section 244 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act in order to render nationals of these foreign
states eligible for temporary protected status under such
section; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 2092. A bill to require that the membership of
advisory bodies serving the National Cancer Institute include
individuals who are knowledgeable in complementary and
alternative medicine; to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Markey, and
Mr. Tierney):
H.R. 2093. A bill to establish the National Youth Violence
Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committee
on the Judiciary, 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. EHRLICH:
H.R. 2094. A bill to amend the Webb-Kenyon Act to allow any
State, territory, or possession of the United States to bring
an action in Federal court to enjoin violations of that Act
or to enforce the laws of such State, territory, or possesion
with respect to such violations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. BOEHNER:
H.R. 2095. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to make needed reforms
relating to group health plans; to the Committee on Education
and the Workforce.
By Mr. ENGEL:
H.R. 2096. A bill to amend chapter 89 or title 5, United
States Code, to make available to Federal employees the
option of obtaining health benefits coverage for dependent
parents; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (for himself, Mr. Franks of New
Jersey, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Roukema, Mr.
Holt, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rothman, and Mr. Smith of New
Jersey):
H.R. 2097. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of the U.S.S. New Jersey, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services.
By Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN:
H.R. 2098. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on dark
couverture chocolate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 2099. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
mixtures of sennosides; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself and Ms. Lofgren):
H.R. 2100. A bill to amend the Trademark Act of 1946 to
prohibit the unauthorized destruction, modification, or
alteration of product identification codes, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. HOUGHTON (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Weller,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut,
Mr. Matsui, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Levin, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Ms. Dunn, Mr.
Sweeney, Mr. English, Mr. Foley, Mr. McInnis, Mrs.
Thurman, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Coyne, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Stark, Mr. Nussle, and Mrs. Lowey):
H.R. 2101. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to modify and permanently extend the work opportunity
tax credit and to allow certain tax-exempt organizations a
credit against employment taxes in an amount equivalent to
the work opportunity tax credit allowable to taxable
employers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut (for herself, Mrs.
Thurman, Mrs. Kelly, Mrs. Morella, and Mr. Baker):
H.R. 2102. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individuals a deduction for qualified long-term
care insurance premiums and a credit for individuals with
long-term care needs, to provide for an individual and
employer educational campaign concerning long-term care
insurance, and to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act
to expand State long-term care partnerships by exempting 75
percent of partnership assets from Medicaid estate recovery;
to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York:
H.R. 2103. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 to allow employees to take, as additional leave,
parental involvement leave to participate in or attend their
children's educational and extracurricular activities and to
clarify that leave may be taken for routine medical needs and
to assist elderly relatives, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to
the Committees on Government Reform, and House
Administration, 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.
H.R. 2104. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act
of 1993 to permit leave to care for a domestic partner,
parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, or grandparent if the
domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, or
grandparent has a serious health condition; to the Committee
on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the
Committees on Government Reform, and House Administration,
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. McCOLLUM (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Goss, Mr.
Gilman, and Mr. Mica):
H.R. 2105. A bill to provide for the treatment of the
actions of certain foreign narcotics traffickers as an
unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States for
purposes of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act;
to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition
to the Committee on the Judiciary, 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. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. Andrews, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Frost, Mr.
Evans, and Mr. Allen):
H.R. 2106. A bill to exempt certain small businesses from
the increased tariffs and other retaliatory measures imposed
against products of the European Union in response to the
banana regime of the European Union and its treatment of
imported bovine meat; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. NADLER:
H.R. 2107. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exclude from the gross estate the value of certain
works of artistic property created by the decedent; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. Franks of New Jersey,
Mr. Markey, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Bonior, Mr.
Hinchey, and Mr. Lewis of Georgia):
H.R. 2108. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to
increase consumer confidence in safe drinking water and
source water assessments, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. PAYNE (for himself and Mrs. Maloney of New
York):
H.R. 2109. A bill to limit the sale or export of plastic
bullets to the United Kingdom; to the Committee on
International Relations.
By Mr. PAYNE:
H.R. 2110. A bill to provide for the waiver of certain
grounds of inadmissibility related

[[Page 12288]]

to political activity in Northern Ireland or the Republic of
Ireland for aliens married to United States citizens; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H.R. 2111. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to repeal the personal holding company tax; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself, Mr. Hyde, and Mr.
Coble):
H.R. 2112. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
allow a judge to whom a case is transferred to retain
jurisdiction over certain multidistrict litigation cases for
trail, and to provide for Federal jurisdiction of certain
multiparty, multiforum civil actions; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SNYDER (for himself, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr.
Frost, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Hinchey):
H.R. 2113. A bill to amend title I of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure proper
disclosure to participants and beneficiaries under group
health plans covered under such title of limitations placed
by such title on certain protections that would otherwise
apply under State law; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. STARK:
H.R. 2114. A bill to establish a Medicare administrative
fee for submission of paper claims; to the Committee on Ways
and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
H.R. 2115. A bill to establish a demonstration project to
authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
selectively contract for the provision of medical care to
Medicare beneficiaries; to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. STEARNS (for himself, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Stump,
and Mr. Evans):
H.R. 2116. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish a program of extended care services for veterans
and to make other improvements in health care programs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 2117. A bill to require any amounts appropriated for
Members' Representational Allowances for the House of
Representatives for a session of Congress that remain after
all payments are made from such Allowances for the session to
be deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction
or to reduce the Federal debt; to the Committee on House
Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Rules,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. WYNN (for himself and Mr. Davis of Virginia):
H.R. 2118. A bill to amend the Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge Authority Act of 1995 to provide for continued
engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition, and
construction related to the project to upgrade the Woodrow
Wilson Memorial Bridge; to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
By Mr. ROHRABACHER:
H.J. Res. 58. 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. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. Dan Miller of Florida,
Mr. Sununu, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. LaHood):
H. Con. Res. 129. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Bureau of the Census should
include in the 2000 decennial census all citizens of the
United States residing abroad; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
By Mr. FROST:
H. Res. 204. A resolution designating minority membership
on certain standing committees of the House; considered and
agreed to.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:

91. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of
the State of New Mexico, relative to Senate Memorial 46
memorializing the United States Congress to enact Legislation
amending the Social Security Act to prohibit Recoupment by
the Federal Government of State Tobacco Settlement Funds; to
the Committee on Commerce.
92. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of West Virginia, relative to House Concurrent
Resolution No. 22 memorializing the Congress of the United
States to enact legislation amending the Social Security Act
so that funds due the states as a result of the Master
Settlement Agreement reached with the tobacco industry are
exempted from recoupment by the Health Care Financing
Administration and prohibiting federal interference with the
states in deciding how to best utilize those settlement
funds; to the Committee on Commerce.
93. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Minnesota, relative to Resolution No. 2 memorializing the
Congress and the Administration to support legislation that
would explicitly prohibit the federal government from
claiming or recouping any state tobacco settlement
recoveries; to the Committee on Commerce.
94. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Utah, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 3
memorializing the EPA to refrain from overfiling or
threatening to overfile on state-negotiated compliance
actions if the actions achieve compliance with applicable
state and federal law and are protective of health and the
environment; to the Committee on Commerce.
95. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 490
memorializing the Congress of the United States to establish
a limited pilot program which exempts the Commonwealth of
Virginia from the provisions of Sec. 13612 (a) (C) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 requiring states to
make recovery from the estates of persons who had enjoyed
enhanced Medicaid asset protection; to the Committee on
Commerce.
96. Also, a memorial of the General Assembly of the State
of Rhode Island, relative to Senate Resolution No. 99-S 0849
memorializing the United States Congress to enact legislation
amending the Social Security Act to prohibit recoupment by
the federal government of state tobacco settlement funds; to
the Committee on Commerce.
97. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of New
Hampshire, relative to Senate Resolution No. 5 memorializing
Congress to authorize construction of the World War II
Memorial in Washington, D.C. to begin immediately; to the
Committee on Resources.
98. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of the
State of Montana, relative to House Joint Resolution No. 4
memorializing Congress to have the management of grizzly
bears returned to the fish and wildlife agencies of the
states of Montana and Idaho; to the Committee on Resources.
99. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the State of Montana,
relative to Senate Joint Resolution No. 5 memorializing the
United States Congress and the Executive Branch of the United
States Government to take action to require coverage of the
cost of long-term care and prescription drugs by the Federal
Medicare Program; jointly to the Committees on Commerce and
Ways and Means.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 10: Mr. Maloney of Connecticut.
H.R. 17: Mr. Brady of Texas.
H.R. 88: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Bentsen, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Sabo, Mrs. Morella,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Tierney, Mr.
Barton of Texas, Mr. Leach, Ms. Hooley of Oregon, Ms.
Stabenow, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 111: Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Kleczka,
and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 116: Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 125: Ms. Kilpatrick and Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 165: Ms. Carson, Mr. Capuano, and Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 274: Mr. Lantos, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Ewing.
H.R. 306: Mr. Allen, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Porter.
H.R. 352: Mr. Stenholm and Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 358: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 371: Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 383: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 415: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 417: Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 444: Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 489: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 561: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 566: Mr. Quinn and Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
H.R. 570: Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 583: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 599: Mr. Evans and Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 648: Mr. Traficant, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 664: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 690: Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 691: Mr. Pickering and Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 700: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 708: Mr. Reyes and Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 728: Mr. McCrery, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Thornberry, Mr. Thune, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr.
Istook, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Burr of
North Carolina, Mr. Lucas of Kentucky, Mr. Bryant, Mr.
Hinojosa, and Mr. Hall of Texas.
H.R. 772: Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 782: Mr. Terry and Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 784: Mr. McCrery, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Taylor of North
Carolina.

[[Page 12289]]

H.R. 789: Mr. Inslee and Mr. Barcia.
H.R. 791: Mrs. Morella.
H.R. 815: Mr. Cummings and Mr. Graham.
H.R. 827: Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Goodling, and Mrs.
Maloney of New York.
H.R. 832: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 837: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 852: Mr. Roemer, Mr. Ganske, and Mr. Gary Miller of
California.
H.R. 860: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 872: Mr. Bonior.
H.R. 878: Mr. Coble.
H.R. 896: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 902: Mr. Horn, Mr. Holt, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Menendez,
and Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 904: Mr. Maloney of Connecticut and Mrs. Morella.
H.R. 932: Mrs. Thurman.
H.R. 942: Mr. Turner.
H.R. 976: Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, and Mr.
Lantos.
H.R. 984: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 987: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Latham, and Mr.
Kasich.
H.R. 1004: Mr. Stump, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Baker.
H.R. 1029: Mr. Pastor, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 1054: Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 1060: Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1071: Mr. Smith of Washington and Mrs. Jones of Ohio.
H.R. 1083: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 1085: Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 1093: Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, and
Mr. Thompson of California.
H.R. 1102: Mr. Evans, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Largent, Mr. Barcia,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Wamp.
H.R. 1109: Ms. Velazquez and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1118: Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Berkley, and Mr. Bilbray.
H.R. 1123: Ms. Norton, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Payne, and
Mr. Blagojevich.
H.R. 1129: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Capuano.
H.R. 1167: Mrs. Christensen.
H.R. 1178: Mr. Goodling, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Peterson of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Gary Miller of
California, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Taylor of Mississippi, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. McIntosh, and Mr.
Dickey.
H.R. 1196: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Cook, Mr. Filner, and Ms.
Sanchez.
H.R. 1218: Mr. Sherwood.
H.R. 1245: Mrs. Morella, Mr. Crowley, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Wexler, and Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 1248: Mr. Franks of New Jersey and Mr. Martinez.
H.R. 1256: Mr. Pallone.
H.R. 1261: Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 1272: Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H.R. 1293: Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 1300: Mr. Weiner, Mr. Hilliard, Mr. Petri, and Mr.
Ney.
H.R. 1301: Mr. Rogers, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Regula, Mr.
Bateman, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Bono, Mr.
Calvert, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Watts
of Oklahoma, and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 1315: Mr. Gary Miller of California.
H.R. 1326: Mr. Chambliss.
H.R. 1329: Mr. Paul and Mr. Diaz-Balart.
H.R. 1342: Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Coyne, and Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 1349: Mr. Graham, Mr. DeMint, and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 1350: Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Wu, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms.
Velazquez, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 1354: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. English, and Mr. Minge.
H.R. 1355: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 1358: Mr. Minge, Mr. Weller, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 1366: Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Menendez, and Mr. John.
H.R. 1385: Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gibbons, Mr.
Gordon, and Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 1389: Mr. Luther, Mr. Pastor, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Evans,
Mr. LaHood, Ms. Rivers, and Mr. Etheridge.
H.R. 1402: Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Radanovich, Ms.
Woolsey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Ryun of Kansas, Mr. Phelps, Mr.
Reyes, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Levin, Mr. Brown of California, Mr.
Rogers, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Regula, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Udall of Colorado, and Mr. Goodling.
H.R. 1412: Mr. Bonior and Mr. Delahunt.
H.R. 1433: Mr. Frost, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Clement.
H.R. 1441: Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Bereuter, and Mr. Collins.
H.R. 1442: Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hobson, Mr.
Andrews, Mr. Mascara, Mr. Green of Texas, Mr. Weldon of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 1443: Mrs. Meek of Florida and Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1456: Mr. Lampson, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Sawyer, Mr.
Lantos, Mrs. Clayton, Mr. Clyburn, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Martinez,
and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1477: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and Mr.
Faleomavaega.
H.R. 1485: Mr. King.
H.R. 1497: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut.
H.R. 1503: Mr. Shows, Mr. Frost, Mr. Sununu, Mrs. Thurman,
Mr. Goode, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Hostettler, and Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 1511: Mr. Largent, Mr. Shaw, and Mr. DeMint.
H.R. 1525: Mr. Clay and Mr. Engel.
H.R. 1546: Mr. DeMint.
H.R. 1568: Ms. Brown of Florida, Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mrs.
Christensen, Mr. Leach, Mr. Shows, Ms. Millender-McDonald,
Mr. Spence, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Ewing, Mrs. Thurman, Mrs.
Emerson, Ms. Carson, Mr. Frost, Ms. Danner, Mr. English, Mr.
Rahall, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Berkely,
Mr. Cook, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Cooksey.
H.R. 1584; Mrs. Kelly and Mr. Barrett of Nebraska.
H.R. 1598: Mr. Davis of Virginia and Mr. Frost.
H.R. 1600: Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin.
H.R. 1622: Mr. Tierney, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Sanders.
H.R. 1629: Mr. Watt of North Carolina, Mr. Burr of North
Carolina, Mr. Thompson, of Mississippi, Mr. Ney, Mr.
Oberstar, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 1631: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 1649: Mr. Metcalf.
H.R. 1658: Mr. DeFazio, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Metcalf, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Nethercutt, and Mr. Stump.
H.R. 1663: Mr. Frost, Mr. English, Mr. Pitts, Ms. Berkley,
and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 1675: Mr. Romero-Barcelo, Mr. Bonior, Mr. Filner, and
Ms. Norton.
H.R. 1687: Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Stump.
H.R. 1693: Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Wu, Mr. Campbell, and Mr.
Paul.
H.R. 1706: Mr. DeMint.
H.R. 1710: Mr. DeMint, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. Coburn.
H.R. 1771: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Ney, Mrs. Wilson,
Mr. Bachus, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Lantos, and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 1772: Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Lantos.
H.R. 1775: Mr. Cook, Mr. John, Mr. Ackerman, and Mr. Jones
of North Carolina.
H.R. 1777: Mr. Gary Miller of California and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 1786: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Sawyer, and Mr. Weygand.
H.R. 1791: Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1796: Mr. Boucher, Mr. Frost, and Mr. LaFalce.
H.R. 1839: Mr. McGovern.
H.R. 1840: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Salmon.
H.R. 1862: Mr. Frost, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Costello, Mr. Lantos,
Mr. Wynn, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Weygand, and Mr.
LaFalce.
H.R. 1880: Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 1887: Mr. Towns and Mr. Tierney.
H.R. 1899: Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Lantos, and
Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 1932: Mr. Coyne, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Crowley, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Boswell, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr.
Weygand, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Levin, Mr. Ehlers, Mr.
Tiahrt, Mr. Dickey, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Barcia,
Mr. Andrews, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Houghton,
Mr. English, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Phelps, Mr.
Ramstad, Mr. Leach, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Baird, Mr.
Luther, Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, Mrs. Kelly, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Ney, and Mr. Ford.
H.R. 1960: Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Menendez, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mrs. Meek of
Florida, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Borski, Mr. Wynn, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Lantos, Ms. Lofgren, Mr.
Vento, and Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 1973: Mr. Evans, Mr. Weldon of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Shuster, and Mr. Greenwood.
H.R. 1977: Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Shays, Ms. Lofgren,
Mr. Minge, Mr. Hall of Ohio, and Mr. Berman.
H.R. 1998: Mr. Moakley.
H.R. 1999: Mr. Minge.
H.R. 2002: Mr. Dingell.
H.R. 2030: Mr. McIntosh.
H.R. 2031: Mr. Barr of Georgia and Mr. Gilman.
H.R. 2038: Mr. Ewing.
H.J. Res. 48: Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Martinez, Mrs. Morella, Mr.
Lampson, Mr. Porter, Mr. Bateman, Mrs. Northup, Mr. Coburn,
Mr. Holden, Mr. LaHood, and Mr. DeMint.
H.J. Res. 55: Mrs. Myrick.
H. Con. Res. 38: Mr. Lampson, Mr. Frost, Mr. Hilliard, and
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H. Con Res. 46: Mr. Farr of California.
H. Con Res. 60: Mr. Lantos, Mr. Smith of Washington, and
Mr. Latham.
H. Con Res. 77: Mr. McNulty and Mr. Stump.
H. Con Res. 107: Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Combest.
H. Con Res. 113: Mr. Frost.
H. Con Res. 121: Mr. Porter.

[[Page 12290]]

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

United States
of America

June 9, 1999

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

IN MEMORY OF FIREFIGHTER LOUIS MATTHEWS, ENGINE COMPANY NO. 26,
NATION'S CAPITAL

______

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

of the district of columbia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, the brief and fruitful life of Louis
Matthews surely gives us an appreciation for what firefighters face and
what we have lost. Seven years in the Department, only 29 years old,
Firefighter Matthews spent his entire short but productive, adult life
serving the people of the nation's capital, and finally gave his life
for them.
Firefighters are known to be a breed apart and to have their own
culture. That culture has developed from the fact that they are like no
other civil servants. Not only do firefighters work together, they live
together, and they await the possibility of injury or death together.
Two died in this fire, and two were seriously injured. One of the
injured, Charles Redding, lived to attend both funerals. Joseph Morgan
is very seriously injured and still in the hospital. Anthony Phillips
was killed in the fire. Yes, they live and die together. Firefighters
are very much like soldiers in a battalion ready and waiting for the
next battle.
I know something of their culture. I am a proud member of a
firefighter family. My grandfather, Lt. Richard Holmes, became a
District of Columbia firefighter in 1902. I am still approached in the
streets by people who remember him--he lived to be 96. I give some
credit to the Fire Department for his physical and mental fitness and
for the fact that he played a cutting game of badminton with his
grandchildren in his 80's and 90's. And, I am grateful to the
Department for giving me a picture of my grandfather standing in
uniform as a part of Engine Company No. 4. As I have my memories of my
grandfather, Firefighter Matthews family will cherish theirs.

____________________

IN SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF MATTHEW T. RUSSELL ON HIS APPOINTMENT TO
ATTEND THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

______

HON. PAUL E. GILLMOR

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to an
outstanding young man from Ohio's Fifth Congressional District. I am
happy to announce that Matthew T. Russell, of Napoleon, Ohio, has been
offered an appointment to attend the United States Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland.
Mr. Speaker, Matthew has accepted his offer of appointment and will
be attending the Naval Academy this fall with the incoming cadet class
of 2003. Attending one of our nation's military academies is an
invaluable experience that offers a world-class education and demands
the very best that these young men and women have to offer. Truly, it
is one of the most challenging and rewarding undertakings of their
lives.
During his time at Napoleon High School, Matthew has attained a
perfect 4.0 grade point average, which ranks him first in his class of
one-hundred ninety-seven students. Matthew is a member of the National
Honor Society and was selected for the Who's Who Among American High
School Students and an All-American Scholar by the U.S. Achievement
Academy.
Outside the classroom, Matthew has distinguished himself as an
outstanding student-athlete. On the fields of competition, he is a
varsity letter winner in soccer and football. During his junior season
of football, Matthew was selected as a First Team All-District and
Honorable Mention All-State place kicker. Among his other activities,
Matthew is an active member in the St. Paul Lutheran Church, was a
delegate to Buckeye Boys State, and, in February 1998, attained the
rank of Eagle Scout.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would ask my colleagues to stand and
join me in paying special tribute to Matthew T. Russell. Our service
academies offer the finest education and military training available
anywhere in the world. I am sure that Matthew will do very well during
his career at the Naval Academy, and I wish him the very best in all of
his future endeavors.

____________________

THE TWIN DANGERS OF INDIFFERENCE AND PARALYSIS

______

HON. MAJOR R. OWENS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we hope and pray that the war in Kosovo will
end within a few days, sooner rather than later. Slobodan Milosevic has
been indicted as a war criminal and we look forward to a trial someday
that will send a clear message to other similar sovereign predators
throughout the world that genocide under any name will no longer be
tolerated by the civilized world. Unfortunately there are many
honorable Americans who do not see the actions of the Yugoslav regime
as genocidal. They quibble about the numbers and imply that there are
not enough victims. Certainly ``ethnic cleansing'' is not the same as
Hitler's massive marches of victims into the gas chambers and the
ovens. However, it is clear that only the intervention of the
international community has saved thousands of humans driven from their
homes from starvation and death by fatigue and cold. What if the
refugees had all been left to survive on their own? What then would be
the death count? In this year 1999 we have been presented with a clear
challenge. Instead of waiting to mourn for the corpses, we have fought
the savage oppressors. Many mistakes have been made and we have
demanded a more flexible and inclusive approach to leadership in this
crisis. Minimizing ``collateral damage'' in this crusade against
genocide is as important an objective as any other. But no concerns
should fester into paralysis. Indifference is the greatest crime we
might commit. Fear of taking risks could lead to a situation where we
``just let the refugees naturally die.''

Let the Refugees Die

Just let the refugees die
Don't hear their hungry children cry
Masked men treat families real mean
But no gas chambers on the scene
Bayonets pierce a few unruly eyes
But only NATO bombs
Force humans to flee like flies
Just let the refugees naturally die
High honors confer on them
Collect millions for a giant museum
Great poet muses will be fed
By memories of these pitiful dead
Editorials express awesome regret
We pledge never ever to forget
Just let the refugees naturally die
Their camps are not outrageously sad
Surplus U.S. food tastes not too bad
War crime standards must be high
Why make an international nuisance
Until millions undeservedly die
Tall tales insist Hitler has returned
But piles of bodies have not yet burned
Torched villages are carefully planned
But Auschwitz ovens are loudly banned
Sacred sovereignty you can not deny
Genocide is a bloody NATO lie
Homeless helpless savage rebels
Don't hear their hungry children cry
Just let the refugees naturally die.

____________________

HOPE FOR NIGERIA

______

HON. DAN BURTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, for many years Nigeria has been a
symbol in international circles of mismanagement, corruption, drug
trafficking, and dictatorship. It stood as one of the world's pariah
nations. Nigeria is a country of more than 100 million people and
abundant natural resources, which should make it leader on the African
continent and the world stage. It has been prevented from taking its
rightful role because of poor political leadership. In 1993, a
democratic election was annulled and once again military dictatorship
prevailed.
Now, however, it appears the tide may have turned. On May 29th of
this year, President

[[Page 12291]]

Olusegun Obasanjo was inaugurated after his victory in democratically-
held national elections. This is a moment of truth for Nigeria.
Obasanjo faces several tremendous challenges. He must build up
democratic institutions in a country that has had precious little
experience with them. He must overcome serious economic problems. And,
he must repair Nigeria's negative international image. Nigeria may
finally be on the path to prosperity and democracy, and the entire
African continent could reap the benefits.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ROBERT E. ANDREWS

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No.'s 167, 168, and 169, I was
unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye'' on all three of these votes.

____________________

A SALUTE TO OWEN MARRON, CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL OF ALAMEDA COUNTY'S
UNIONIST OF THE YEAR, 1999

______

HON. BARBARA LEE

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor today to salute Owen A. Marron
on his achievement of being named the Unionist of the Year, 1999, by
the Central Labor Council of Alameda County and acknowledge his
accomplishments as he completes his career as the Central Labor
Council's Executive Secretary-Treasurer. Mr. Marron has been a longtime
leader in the U.S. labor movement, particularly in California.
Mr. Marron was born in Buffalo, New York and grew up in Southern
California. Upon completion of high school, he worked in the Kaiser
steel mills in Fontana, California. When he joined the United Steel
Workers Union, he became the fourth generation in his family to join.
Following his discharge from the U.S. Army in Korea, Mr. Marron
returned to the steel plant, soon becoming a grievance committeeman for
his local. He later served his local as the recording secretary and
Chairman of the Incentive Committee.
In 1964, Marron left the steel mills to pursue a career in the labor
movement in California by working as a representative for SEIU Locals
660, 616, and 700.
In 1976, Marron became a delegate to the Central Labor Council of
Alameda County and a labor representative of the State Council on
Developmental Disabilities.
In 1982, Marron was appointed to the Alameda County Central Labor
Council's staff. During his career with the Labor Council, he served as
Assistant to the Secretary and Executive Secretary-Treasurer. In
addition, he was elected as Vice President of the California Labor
Federation.
Throughout his more than forty-year career in the labor movement,
Marron has displayed strong and passionate leadership. His highlights
include organizing over 150,000 trade unionists and their families in
labor marches in 1982 and 1984; leading the historic Alameda County
employees strike of 1976; mobilizing the entire Alameda County labor
movement in a strike against Summit Hospital in 1992; and playing a
pivotal role in bringing President Bill Clinton to the Alameda County
Labor Day Picnic and South African President Nelson Mandela to visit
Oakland.
He has made a positive and profound impact on the lives of many
individuals and organizations. His leadership skills and dedication
will be sorely missed. I proudly join his many friends and colleagues
in thanking and saluting him on receiving this prestigious award and
extending my best wishes on his upcoming retirement.
Marron will be honored as the Unionist of the Year in Oakland,
California, on June 17, 1999.

____________________

WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT ACT

______

HON. CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING

of mississippi

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce alongside
my colleagues, Mr. Thompson of California and Mr. Chambliss of Georgia,
the Wetlands Reserve Program Enhancement Act to extend authority for
the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) to help family farmers stay on their
land, and to benefit waterfowl and sportsmen at the same time.
Across the country, thousands of private landowners have discovered
the WRP is an attractive alternative to farming high-risk and high-cost
cropland that is frequently flooded. WRP provides these landowners with
a voluntary, financial incentive to restore such areas to wetlands. The
landowner in turn is free to use his or her WRP incentive payment to
refinance debt, upgrade machinery or to buy additional land to make
their farming operation more profitable.
In my hope state of Mississippi, WRP has been a very popular program
with private landowners, and for good reason. With today's farm crisis,
WRP is helping Mississippi farmers who could not otherwise afford to
stay on their land or to pass it on to future generations. To give you
a better idea of how popular WRP has been with farmers, let me share
with you some statistics.
Since 1992, nearly 4,000 landowners from 47 states have enrolled
655,000 acres in WRP nationwide. My home state of Mississippi has
benefited through the WRP by enrolling more than 74,000 acres for the
purpose of wetland conservation. However, due to limited funding, only
about one-third of all eligible Mississippi landowners could be
accepted into the program. In some states, landowner demand for WRP
exceeds available funding 5 to 1. Mr. Speaker, many more wetland acres
could be preserved nationwide through the provisions of this bill.
The purpose of the Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Act is to extend WRP
authority to help more landowners in the future. Specifically, my
legislation extends WRP authority for enrolling new lands by three
years to 2005, and replaces the current WRP acreage cap with a new
250,000-acre annual enrollment limit. This will allow 4,000 to 5,000
additional landowners to enroll in WRP over the next five years.
This additional land enrolled in WRP will benefit not only farmers,
but also waterfowl and other wetland wildlife. In the Mississippi Delta
states, most of WRP land is planted in high-quality hardwood trees that
flood in the winter and provide critical habitat for waterfowl and
other wildlife. In fact, WRP has become one of the largest wetland
restoration programs ever attempted on private lands.
WRP is restoring waterfowl breeding habitat in states like South
Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin. It is restoring migration habitat in
Illinois, Iowa, Ohio and New York. Most of all, WRP is restoring
waterfowl wintering habitat in such diverse states as California, Texas
and Louisiana.
Where there are ducks, there are duck hunters. Many waterfowlers have
discovered that private land enrolled in WRP makes for excellent
hunting. In places like Mississippi that have a proud waterfowling
tradition, access to quality hunting sites is in high demand. In many
cases, WRP is creating new opportunities for sportsmen to participate
in this time-honored tradition.
My legislation seeks to encourage more of these kinds of partnerships
and to ensure that WRP takes every advantage of opportunities to
restore and enhance wetland habitat for waterfowl.
In summary, this legislation represents a win-win opportunity for
farmers, conservationists, sportsmen, and wildlife. This is a
commonsense proposal which I believe my colleagues in the House will
find good reason to support. The WRP is the kind of non-regulatory,
incentive based conservation program that landowners want and wildlife
need as we enter the next century.

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS TO MAJOR GENERAL DAVID W. GAY ON THE OCCASION OF HIS
RETIREMENT

______

HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to
honor one of Connecticut's finest military officers. Major General
David W. Gay is the Adjunct General of the Connecticut National Guard
and today friends and family will gather to wish him well on his
retirement.
Beginning his military career with the Marine Corps in 1953, General
Gay has dedicated his life to serving and protecting our great nation.
Throughout his distinguished career, General Gay has received numerous
meritorious awards and decorations from the Marine Corps, Army National
Guard and State of Connecticut for outstanding conduct. Among

[[Page 12292]]

his many accolades, he has been honored with the Connecticut Longevity
Service Medal, the Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, the Legion of Merit
Award, and the National Guard Bureau's Eagle Award--the most
prestigious award issued by the National Guard Bureau. These signs of
recognition are testament to a prominent and honorable career.
His commitment and dedication to service culminated in his
appointment as Adjunct General of the Connecticut National Guard,
serving as the ranking member of the Governor's Military Staff and
commissioner of the State Military Department since 1992. General Gay
has been an invaluable resource to me in my capacity as a Member of
Congress. His professionalism and unparalleled skill in his field have
helped to address the concerns of my constituents quickly and
effectively. I appreciate all that he has been able to provide for
Connecticut's Third Congressional District.
In addition to his illustrious military career General Gay has
demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to his community. As well as
being a member of several local organizations, General Gay chairs the
State Management Board of the Community Learning and Information
Network (CLIN), a pioneer project in distance learning education
technology. He has also served as President of the Nutmeg Games, a
state-wide multi-sport festival for Connecticut amateur athletes. His
innumerable contributions to the community and the State of Connecticut
will not be forgotten.
I am honored to stand today to join his wife, Nancy, children, David,
Jennifer, and Steven, and the many other voices of family and friends
in congratulating General Gay on his retirement. His service to our
country and community will not be forgotten and we wish him much health
and happiness in the coming years.

____________________

HONORING THE BROOKLYN SCHOOL SETTLEMENT ASSOCIATION

______

HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the leaders and
members of the School Settlement Association for ninety-eight years of
service to the Brooklyn community. The work they have done over the
years has had an impact on thousands and thousands of lives. They have
seen the critical needs that exist in our communities and addressed
them. They have stepped in and filled gaps where children and older
people in our communities are at risk.
Unlike so many others who have tried and failed, the School
Settlement Association here in Brooklyn has succeeded. As the only
remaining School Settlement Association in Brooklyn, their longevity is
a testament to the strength of their vision, the importance of their
mission, and the quality of their teachers, service providers and
leaders.
Not only have they remained strong for these ninety-eight years, but
they have grown and expanded. Their initial objective of helping
strengthen the attendance and performance of young students in school
has broadened. Now, they successfully work to enhance children's health
and nutritional needs. They have implemented summer and after-school
programs, literacy programs, as well as college and career seminars
that help students prepare for a successful future.
In addition to this, their outreach now includes the needs of many of
our community's older adults. Many of our seniors who might otherwise
go without the proper medical assistance and healthcare services can
safely rely on the School Settlement Home Attendant Service Corporation
and home Health Care Service.
Finally, as the scope of their mission has expended, so have the
number of neighborhoods in which they operate. Originally founded in
Ridgewood, they now reach out to Williamsburg, Greenpoint and other
areas around Brooklyn. The large area they now help is reflective of
the deep concern they have shown for everyone in our neighborhoods.
As we look to the future, and they prepare to celebrate their 100th
anniversary, on behalf of the 12th Congressional District, I want to
thank them for all they have done. They have helped keep the fabric of
our communities strong, and our future bright. I ask my colleagues to
join me in congratulating the School Settlement Association. May their
next 100 years be better than the last.

____________________

THE WHITE BEAR LAKE'S CENTRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL ODYSSEY OF THE MIND TEAM

______

HON. BRUCE F. VENTO

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge a local middle
school's achievement at the Odyssey of the Mind World Finals and the
achievement of other Minnesota schools at this special competition in
Knoxville, TN.
Odyssey of the Mind is an activity designed to engage childrens'
minds and helps them develop their creativity. Through exercises that
require impromptu and creative responses, the team works together to
create a solution. White Bear Lake's Central Middle School received one
of five special awards during this unique competition. The team was
recognized for its outstanding creativity in its solution to the
``Environmental Challenge'' Division II category. The team competed
with more than 800 teams representing 28 countries. Success against
tough competition such as this is truly an outstanding achievement. Its
encouraging as an educator and member of Congress to see the emphasis
upon academic achievement and excellence.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an article from the May 31, 1999
Star Tribune detailing the accomplishments of White Bear Lake's Central
Middle Schools Odyssey of the Mind team as well as the achievements and
recognition accorded additional Minnesota schools.

White Bear Gets a Top Odyssey Award

Central Middle honored for creativity; Anoka High among top state
finishers

(By Terry Collins)

White Bear Lake's Central Middle School was one of five
teams internationally to receive a special award during this
weekend's 20th Annual Odyssey of the Mind World Finals
competition in Knoxville, Tenn.
The students received the ``Ranata Fusca'' award for
outstanding creativity for the solution of a problem in the
``Environmental Challenge'' Division II category.
The students were nominated by a panel judging their
problem.
``It's outstanding,'' said Karen Karbo, director of the
Minnesota state Odyssey of the Mind. ``They took a great risk
that involved great skill. It's quite an award. I couldn't be
more proud.''
Anoka High School had one of the highest finishes of any
Minnesota school. Students placed second in the ``Radiometric
Structure'' Division III problem-solving category.
``They were exceptional,'' Karbo said. ``To finish that
high out of several hundred teams in their division is
remarkable.''
They were among about 5,500 students from the United States
and 28 countries who participated, all winners of their local
or regional Odyssey competitions.
More than 800 student teams tested their wits in several
categories, including devising a species-survival plan,
putting a contemporary spin on Shakespeare and calculating
how much weight a self-built balsa-wood structure can hold.
The finals started Thursday and concluded Saturday.
Other Twin Cities-area finalists included:
Cedar Ridge Elementary, Eden Prairie: fourth place,
``Customer Service,'' Div. L.
Inver Grove Heights Middle, Inver Grove Heights: ninth
place, ``Customer Service,'' Div. II.
Hopkins Community Education Program Gold, Hopkins: 11th
place, ``Over the Mountain,'' Div. II; 13th place, ``O, My
Faire Shakespeare,'' Div. III.
St. Louis Park School District's Gifted/Talented Program,
St. Louis Park: 14th place, ``Ratiometric Structure,'' Div.
L.
Greenleaf Elementary, Apple Valley: 19th place,
``Environmental Challenge,'' Div. I.
Coon Rapids High, Coon Rapids: 23rd place, ``Over the
Mountain,'' Div. III.
Other Minnesota finalists included:
Fergus Falls Middle, Fergus Falls, Minn.: Third place,
``Environmental Challenge,'' Div. III.
College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, Minn./St. John's
University, Collegeville, Minn.: Fourth place, ``Radiometric
Structure,'' Div. IV; 14th place ``O, My Faire Shakespeare,''
Div. IV.
Hermantown Middle, Hermantown, Minn.: 12th place, ``O, My
Faire Shakespeare,'' Div. II.
Queen of Peace Middle, Cloquet, Minn.: 16th place,
``Radiometric Structure,'' Div. I.
Robert Asp School, Moorhead, Minn.: 24th place, ``O, My
Faire Shakepeare,'' Div. I.
Karbo said Minnesota has the ninth-largest Odyssey student
participation in the world. More than 1,000 students
participated this year in 10 regional Odyssey competitions
throughout the state.
``They truly represent the finest students we have in this
state,'' Karbo said. ``To even get to this level of
competition is extraordinary.''

____________________

[[Page 12293]]

HONORING NANCY EMERSON

______

HON. LOIS CAPPS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Nancy Emerson of Santa
Barbara, California who retires this year from the Santa Barbara County
Education Office after fifteen years of service.
Nancy Emerson's educational distinctions include a B.S. from the
University of Washington and a M.A. from Cornell University. She has
served in college admissions and counseling positions at Cornell and
the University of Miami, she has worked with severely developmentally
challenged children, young adults, and their families; and she has been
a teacher and coordinator of adult education courses and conferences on
local government issues in Santa Barbara.
Most recently, Nancy has been a Specialist for Teacher Programs in
the Santa Barbara County Education Office. She has directed teacher
support and recognition activities, including the nationally recognized
program, IMPACT II The Teachers Network. Nancy has been instrumental in
the local and national development of this Network, working hard to
further the teaching profession an ultimately, the success of thousands
of children on Central Coast.
Nancy has volunteered her time generously, serving in many leadership
capacities such as voter service, adult education and political action
for the League of Women Voters since 1971. She has been a classroom
volunteer, PTA president and member of District Budget Advisory
Committees in Denver, Colorado and Goleta, California.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Nancy Emerson for her lifelong work as an
educator and for the dedication she has shown to the children of Santa
Barbara County and to our nation.

____________________

IN HONOR OF TEAM SURFSIDE EFFORTS FOR DISASTER VICTIMS

______

HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to honor and commend Mayor Paul
Novack of Surfside, FL, who has presided over Team Surfside, a group of
townspeople who have united and devoted themselves to helping victims
of disasters, including, most recently, those of Hurricanes Georges and
Mitch.
The volunteers of Team Surfside have made the difference between life
and death to the survivors of these natural disasters in Haiti and
Honduras by providing desperately needed supplies.
Their efforts have been recognized nationally and internationally by
National Public Radio and Voice of America.
Mayor Novack has been the unsung hero behind Team Surfside,
spearheading all of the outstanding work that they have accomplished.
He twice flew to Haiti to personally delivery supplies into the hands
of the victims ensuring that the people who needed it received the
humanitarian aid and cutting through red tape and delays.
All the volunteers in this effort should be commended for their
dedication and selfless commitment to helping others.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CHIEF DANIEL B. LINZA UPON HIS RETIREMENT

______

HON. JAMES M. TALENT

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chief Daniel
B. Linza, who will be retiring on July 2, 1999, from the City of
Kirkwood Police Department after 44 years of service. I hope you will
join me in honoring his fine career and in wishing him a happy and
healthy retirement.
Chief Linza began his career as a patrol officer for the City of
Kirkwood Police Department April 23, 1955, upon his graduation from the
Criminal Justice Program of Saint Louis Community College. After
several promotions, he was selected Chief of Police December 1, 1969.
During the 29\1/2\ years he served as Chief, he established within his
department new hiring procedures, promotional processes, and upgraded
the physical fitness of officers, as well as providing them with
necessary training in officer safety.
He has been actively involved with numerous professional and
community organizations dedicated to serving the residents of the City
of Kirkwood. He has initiated many police community partnership
programs, including Neighborhood Watch, Community Oriented Neighborhood
Policing, the DARE program, and Graffiti Paint Out Day, Chief Linza has
held leadership positions in several law enforcement organizations. He
has distinguished himself while serving as president of the Missouri
Peace Officers Association, the Law Enforcement Officials of St. Louis
County, the FBI National Academy Associates (Graduates) Eastern
District of Missouri as well as the National association. He has also
served as Chairman of the Board of Governors for Law enforcement of St.
Louis, and is a past member of the Executive Committee of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. Chief Linza currently
serves as a member of the Board of Managers St. Louis County and
Municipal Police Academy, and serves on the Board of the Missouri
Police Chiefs.
Not only has he distinguished himself with an impressive career in
law enforcement, Chief Linza has been a leader in his community as
well. As part of his outreach to his community he has worked as a
member and president of a variety of community groups including
Kirkwood Rotary Club, Kirkwood Area Chamber of Commerce, the Pioneer
Boosters, and is a graduate and member of the Leadership St. Louis
Program.
Chief Linza has been a life long resident of St. Louis and a devout
member of the Church of the Nazarene. He and his wife, Sharon, have
five children and they are also blessed with five grandsons.
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in congratulating and thanking
Chief Linza for his service to his fellow officers, his community, and
his family. He is truly a great leader, mentor, and citizen.

____________________

HONORING DR. RACHAKONDA D. PRABHU

______

HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY

of nevada

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Las Vegas'
most outstanding physicians and community leaders, Dr. Rachakonda D.
Prabhu, on the occasion of his knighthood by the Order of St. John, a
leading ecumenical organization that provides charity worldwide and
whose members are descendants of royalty and nobility. Born in Andhra
Pradesh, Dr. Prabhu is the first Asian American to receive this
prestigious honor.
Dr. Prabhu earned this high honor because of his dedication to the
field of medicine. Among his numerous contributions, Dr. Prabhu is,
most notably, the founder of the Lung Institute of Nevada. In addition,
Dr. Prabhu has operated a successful private practice for the past
twenty years and has served as assistant professor of medicine at the
University of Nevada School of Medicine. He is also a fellow of the
Society of Critical Care Medicine and serves on the government liaison
committee of the American College of Chest Physicians.
Over the years, Dr. Prabhu has also proven a tireless advocate of the
sick and leader in the community by offering free health clinics in
various parts of Southern Nevada. He is truly a hero to many in my
district.
I am pleased to report that on April 16, 1999, the honor of
knighthood was bestowed on Dr. Prabhu by Prince Henri Constantine
Paleologo of Cannes, France, the Imperial and Royal Highness of the
Order. The ceremony took place at the order's annual Imperial Byzantine
Ball in the Montego Room of the Mirage Hotel in Las Vegas.
At this time, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this
extraordinary American who sets the standard for civic virtue, not only
in Las Vegas, Nevada but throughout our Nation.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO TOM PARKER, MILWAUKEE COUNTY LABOR COUNCIL

______

HON. GERALD D. KLECZKA

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Tom Parker,
who is retiring after serving as president of the Milwaukee County
Labor Council for over 20 years.
Tom has spent his career fighting for the rights of working people,
first as secretary-treasurer of Machinists Lodge 66 and then as
president of the Labor Council. He has long been a strong and effective
voice on behalf of

[[Page 12294]]

Milwaukee's working men and women. Tom's leadership and dedication to
the labor movement will be sorely missed by all who have had the
pleasure of working with him.
But Tom's service to the community has extended well beyond his
position at the Labor Council. Through the years, he has diligently
given of his time and talents to a wide variety of boards and
commissions in our city, county and in our state.
Even as he retires, Tom continues to work to make the community he
loves an even better place to live and work. He has asked that any
contributions to a recognition dinner in his honor be given to fund an
industrial machine shop at the new Lynde and Harry Bradley Technology
and Trade School in Milwaukee. These contributions will help ensure
that our community will have the skilled labor force it needs for
generations to come.
And so it is my great pleasure to join with Tom's family, co-workers
and friends in wishing him a long and happy retirement.
Congratulations, Tom!

____________________

TRIBUTE TO THREE MISSOURI PHYSICIANS: DR. GREGORY GUNN, DR. RAY LYLE,
AND DR. RUTH KAUFFMAN

______

HON. IKE SKELTON

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to pay tribute
to three excellent physicians who have devoted most of their lives to
healing. These dedicated doctors practiced together at the Gunn Clinic
in Versailles, Missouri for over forty years.
Dr. Jack Gunn is a fourth generation physician extremely passionate
about his work. He was a true pioneer in his field, in a time when
there were few medical specialists. Dr. Gunn made house calls around
the state and performed difficult surgeries when internal medicine was
still a largely unexplored territory. This exemplary citizen thrived on
working long hours, and his shifts often lasted 36 hours, with only 12
hours off. Additionally, Dr. Gunn served as the coroner of Morgan
County for 16 years. He continues to be fascinated by the world of
medicine and loves the daily challenges it presents him. Dr. Gunn and
his wife Glenda married eight years ago. He has five children.
Dr. Ray Lyle served at the Gunn Clinic from August, 1952 until his
retirement on August 31, 1995. As a family physician, Dr. Lyle treated
patients of all ages with consistent kindness and compassion. His
exceptional accomplishments are publically recognized by the medical
community, and Dr. Lyle has served as a member and fellow of the
American Academy of Family Physicians, as a Diplomat of the American
Board of Family Physicians, and as President of the Missouri Academy of
Family Physicians. As well as a competent physician, Dr. Lyle has been
an active participant in the affairs of his community, contributing to
such organizations as the Boy Scouts, the Morgan County School Board,
and the medical corps of the United States Naval Reserves. Dr. Lyle is
a formidable citizen who has well served the city of Versailles and the
Morgan County Community.
Dr. Ruth Kauffman contributed overwhelmingly to to Gunn Clinic for
over forty years.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. WILLIAM M. THOMAS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for the vote on final
passage of H.R. 435, Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act.
If I had been present I would have voted ``aye''.

____________________

CONGRATULATING EXCEPTIONAL PARENTS UNLIMITED OF FRESNO

______

HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Exceptional
Parents Unlimited of Fresno for receiving the Daily Points of Light
Award from the Points of Light Foundation in Washington, D.C. The
Points of Light Foundation, established by President George Bush,
recognizes individuals and groups that give service to their
communities.
Exceptional Parents was founded 22 years ago by registered nurse
Marion Karian, who still runs the organization today. It began as a
support group at University Medical Center of Fresno, California, for
parents of children with Down Syndrome, and has grown into a large,
non-profit organization, which serves the family members of children
with special needs. Marion states, ``When there is a child with
disabilities it affects the whole family. Our approach is to help the
whole family.''
The heart of the organization's program is providing support,
education and advocacy assistance to families of disabled children,
including siblings and grandparents. An early-intervention program
targets families with children up to three years of age. It offers
developmental assessments and assistance including occupational
therapy, physical therapy and speech therapy. It enhances the
development of infants and toddlers with disabling conditions and
minimizes their potential for development, delays. There is also a
Family Resource Network which provides multicultural parent training
and information, a Safe and Healthy Family program and Child Abuse
Prevention services which is one in seven in the state, funded by the
Department of Social Services. All of these services are free to the
public.
``We can give out lots of technical information, and we do,'' says
Marion, ``but what parents can do for other parents is empowering. When
a new parent gets together with an experienced parent and finds out he
is not in isolation, not alone, they connect. We strengthen families
and enable them to handle their own situations, that is the thread of
who and what we are.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Exceptional Parents
Unlimited for receiving the Daily Points of Light Award. The service of
emotional and educational empowerment is invaluable to families of
disabled children. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing this
organization many years of continued success and service to their
community.

____________________

THE IMPORTANCE OF FOOD SAFETY

______

HON. ANNA G. ESHOO

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to rise today in support of
improving the safety of foods which are imported into our country by
introducing the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act of 1999. It's
vital that we pass this bill into law this year, and I'm proud to lead
the effort in the House of Representatives.
We must act now to improve our food safety system so we don't face
the health problems we've seen over the past several years caused by
unsafe imported food. In 1987, the FDA recalled soft cheese from France
after a pathogen was found that could cause miscarriages and sometimes
death. In 19989, canned mushrooms from China caused four outbreaks of a
form of food poisoning that can be fatal. In 1996, Guatemalan
raspberries infected 7,000 people with an intestinal parasite that
caused sickness. In 1997, 180 school children were infected with
Hepatitis ``A'' in 1997, after eating strawberries imported from
Mexico.
According to the FDA, all these incidents could have been prevented
had the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act been law. Public health
experts estimate that foodborne pathogens kill 9,000 people every year
and cause illness in up to 33 million. And the problem is getting
worse.
HHS officials project that the reported incidences of foodborne
disease will increase 10-5 percent during the next decade at a cost of
up to $35 billion a year in health-care costs and losses in
productivity.
In 1998, a GAO study confirmed that, under the current food safety
system, the Federal Government can't ensure that imported foods are
safe for consumption. While the volume of imported food has doubled
over the last five years, the number of FDA inspections has decreased
during the same time period. The result is that the FDA is able to
inspect less than 2 percent of all imported food. We're losing the
battle against foodborne illness. The Imported Food Safety Improvement
Act gives the FDA the authority to ban food from countries or importers
that have a history of importing contaminated food.
The Act establishes an equivalency authority which requires that food
offered for import to the U.S. be produced, prepared, packed, or held
under systems that provide the same level of protection as the United
States. This bill lays out the criteria for when the FDA can deny a
food import and makes clear that denial cannot violate any current
trade laws. By establishing this health-based standard, we

[[Page 12295]]

can both ensure the safety of imported foods and make certain that
producers and importers from foreign nations receive fair treatment for
their product.
Passage of the Imported Food Safety Improvement Act will give FDA the
ability to prevent illness, inform health officials and the public, and
enforce food-safety laws so that the American people can be confident
that what they put on their kitchen tables won't make them sick.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE LATE ARNOLD LLOYD GLADSON

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I now take
this moment to recognize the remarkable life and significant
achievements of one of Colorado's great war heroes, Arnold Lloyd
Gladson. Tragically, Lloyd Gladson died of emphysema on May 3, 1999.
While family, friends, and colleagues remember the truly exceptional
life of Lloyd Gladson, I, too, would like to pay tribute to this
remarkable man.
Arnold Lloyd Gladson was a forty-four year resident of Durango,
Colorado, and a twenty-six year retiree of The Durango Herald, Gladson
was a respected citizen of Colorado. He was a participant in his
community as president of the Rotary Club in 1960, and he also served
on the city of Durango's city charter commission. Lloyd was the
president of the Junior Chamber of Commerce, and commander of the
Trujillo-Sheets Post 28 of the American Legion of Durango.
Aside from all of his accomplishments in Durango, Lloyd's most
accredited accomplishments came earlier in life, when he enlisted at
age twenty with the Marine Corps. A corporal in the Marine Corps during
World War II, Gladson fought bravely and was part of the first assault
wave on Red Beach in Tarawa. Surviving one of the bloodiest battles in
Marine Corps history, Lloyd Gladson earned the Purple Heart, and many
other medals too numerous to mention.
Although his professional accomplishments will long be remembered and
admired, most who knew him well will remember Lloyd Gladson, above all
else, as a friend. It is clear the multitude of those who have come to
know Lloyd as friend, will mourn his absence. However, Mr. Speaker, I
am confident that, in spite of this profound loss, the family and
friends of Arnold Lloyd Gladson can take solace in the knowledge that
each is a better person for having known him.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF LOUIS ``BOB'' TRINCHERO

______

HON. MIKE THOMPSON

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to
recognize Louis ``Bob'' Trinchero, of St. Helena, California, who on
June 9th will be presented the Anti-Defamation League's (ADL) 1999 Wine
and Restaurant Industry Achievement Award in San Francisco.
For many years, Bob Trinchero has been a respected leader, both in
the Napa Valley community as well as in our nation's wine industry. As
a native St. Helenan, I am extremely proud of my good friend's
outstanding accomplishments.
Bob Trinchero, chairman and chief operating officer of Sutter Home
Winery, started as a teenager at the family business washing wine
barrels and shoveling grape pomace. After returning from service in the
Air Force in 1958, he built the winery up from a ``real mom and pop
operation'' to America's leading varietal wine producer. Today, he
supervises all aspects of Sutter Home's operations, with particular
emphasis on vineyard development and wine production.
A past president of the Napa Valley Vintners Association and member
of the Wine Institute board of directors, Bob is active in industry
affairs and is often consulted by other vintners and the media for his
commonsense analysis of important industry issues. He has made
significant contributions in many areas of our community, including but
certainly not limited to his efforts to improve health care services
and affordable housing for farm workers.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is fitting and appropriate to honor the
lifetime of service Bob Trinchero has given to his community, his state
and his nation. Undoubtedly, there are many families in Napa County who
are thankful each day for his tremendous work and generosity. Napa
County is a prosperous community and its residents can point to Bob
Trinchero's service as one reason for this prosperity.
The ADL is a leading civil rights and human relations organization
dedicated to combating prejudice, bigotry and discrimination, defending
democratic ideals and safeguarding human rights. The ADL's 1999 Wine
and Restaurant Industry Achievement Award is presented to individuals
who have distinguished themselves by demonstrating the highest values
of corporate, civic and communal leadership.
Mr. Speaker, ADL could not have selected a more worthy recipient of
this award. I would like to personally commend Louis ``Bob'' Trinchero
on his dedication and meritorious service to our community and our
nation. I congratulate him on being presented the ADL's 1999 Wine and
Restaurant Industry Achievement Award.

____________________

HONORING THE MEMORY OF WALTER B. STOVALL

______

HON. GENE GREEN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
Walter R. Stovall, who passed away on May 31, 1999. I ask all of my
colleagues in Congress to join me in paying tribute to an outstanding
individual. Walter Stovall was born on May 28, 1910, and was married
for 64 years to Inez Kessler Stovall.
He is preceeded in death by his son, Walter Stovall, Jr. and is
survived by a sister, Viona Kirby of Normangee, numerous nieces,
nephews and devoted friends. Walter will be missed by many people.
In 1942, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy as one of the 1,000 Houston
volunteers who replaced the crew of the sunken U.S.S. Houston. After
his distinguished career in the U.S. Navy, Walter went to work for the
FMC Corporation. He retired after 42 years of committed service.
As a dedicated Christian layman, Walter Stovall participated actively
in the life of Memorial Baptist Church. He was a member of this church
for 51 years, serving as its treasurer for 39 years. His devotion and
morals are an inspiration to us all.
Walter was also an energetic and vital member of the Aldine
community, where he served on the Board of Trustees of the Aldine
Independent School District for 22 years. He was also active in the
Boys Scouts of America and the Aldine Civic Club.
For years, the Aldine community benefited from the wisdom and
dedication of Walter Stovall. I am certain that the strength of the
community would not be what it is without Mr. Stovall's years of
service, and I am confident that his legacy will continue for years to
come. We will miss him, but we feel fortunate for having known him.

____________________

IN MEMORY OF FIREFIGHTER ANTHONY PHILLIPS, ENGINE COMPANY NO. 10,
NATION'S CAPITAL

______

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

of the district of columbia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in my conversation with Lysa Phillips, the
very young widow of Firefighter Anthony Phillips, I have been struck by
her personal strength and her inner peace. I have deeply admired how
she has drawn on the strong bond and deep love she and Firefighter
Phillips shared and the extraordinary devotion that Firefighter
Phillips had for his children, his family, and his work. So strong was
his love for his family, his God, and his work that his love has made
Lysa and his family especially strong.
Again and again, we are told that Firefighter Phillips loved his
work. We are indebted to brave young firefighters, like Firefighter
Phillips, who love their work and who, unlike us, neither fear nor shun
danger, but rush to conquer it. We give thanks for the young, loving
life of Anthony Phillips and we honor him for his courage and his
sacrifice.
In remembering Firefighter Phillips, we are especially mindful of the
men and women of the Department he has left behind to carry on his work
of confronting danger whenever and wherever it appears. To properly
remember Firefighter Anthony Phillips is to remember the members of the
District of Columbia Fire Department and their indispensable mission,
the debt we owe him, and the debt we owe them.

____________________

[[Page 12296]]

SUGAR FARMERS DESERVE A HAND--NOT A SLAP IN THE FACE

______

HON. DAVID E. BONIOR

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, every morning when we wake up each of us
have certain routines; we have our coffee with sugar and cream; we eat
a bowl of cereal; or perhaps a piece of toast with jam; things we
enjoy, but put little thought into from where the food came.
However, one thing is clear--without sugar farmers that coffee would
be a little bitter and that cereal and toast would be a little bland.
American sugar farmers are among the most efficient in the world--and
with a level playing field in the global market would easily provide
the best value.
Foreign governments, however, heavily subsidize their sugar industry
to the point where our farmers need stability to compete.
But what do some of our colleagues try to do year after year? There
seems to be an annual attempt to knock out the modest safety net we put
into place in the 1996 farm bill to ensure our sugar growers have a
chance.
In fact, it's hard to believe that the modest loan program we put
into place would face such repeated attacks.
The loan program operates at no net cost to the government.
It simply gives some assurance to our sugar growers and their
families that they will have some stability and be able to meet their
financial commitments.
At a time when the U.S. farm economy is in its worst shape in
decades, the least we can do is honor the commitments we've already
made to our farm families.
In the 1996 farm bill, we made a seven-year obligation to our sugar
farmers. We need to keep that promise.
That is why I oppose efforts to weaken the sugar loan program, and I
urge my colleagues to do so as well.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE STOP TAKING AIM AT OUR KIDS STUDY BILL

______

HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which
would require a federal investigation of the marketing practices of the
firearms industry. Specifically, my legislation, the Stop Taking Aim at
Our Kids Study Bill, would require the Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission to work together to fully examine gun
manufacturers' marketing efforts towards children.
As evidenced by the recent school shootings in Littleton, Jonesboro,
and Springfield, children and firearms can produce a deadly
combination. Gunshot wounds are the second leading cause of death among
youngsters nationwide--second only to automobile accidents. Every year
4600 children are killed by gun fire, and each day 13 children are
gunned down in America. That is the equivalent of one Columbine High
School tragedy every day. Sadly, these numbers are rising.
To effectively combat this dramatic and disturbing rise in gun
violence among our children, we must first understand the factors
contributing to our culture of violence. We must examine the role the
media and the entertainment industry play in glamorizing gun violence,
we must analyze the availability of guns to children, we must evaluate
the role parents play in teaching their children about gun safety, and
we must investigate the firearms industry's targeting of children.
My legislation would take the important first step of combating youth
violence by directing the Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commissioner to look at the marketing practices of gun manufacturers
towards children. While some firearms manufacturers have worked
responsibly with their customers to educate them about the importance
of using guns safely when near young children, others have
unscrupulously identified young children as an important consumer group
and targeted them with little thought to the social consequences of
their actions. Advertisements for children's guns which herald the
importance of ``Starting 'em young'' and encourage kids to buy guns
that ``will make them stand out in a crowd'' need to be closely
examined.
This legislation is not a panacea. I do not pretend that this bill
will solve our nation's problems of youth gun violence. It will,
however, begin an important dialogue about firearms manufacturers' and
marketers' contribution to the high incidence of gun violence and gun
death among our nation's children. By identifying those who carelessly
target our children for profit, my bill will hold the firearms industry
responsible for its actions. I hope that the House will act swiftly to
adopt this important bill.

____________________

HONORING VFW POST #582

______

HON. DALE E. KILDEE

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to rise before you
today to pay tribute to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. One hundred years
ago, when the United States Army came back from the war in the
Philippines, the survivors formed the Veterans of Foreign Wars. On June
12, VFW Post #582, located in Ortonville, Michigan, will join the
celebration of preserving democracy by dedicating a stone monument to
honor the many men and women who gave much to protect freedom.
Throughout Ortonville, as well as Oakland County, the members of VFW
Post #582 are known as staunch community leaders. Year after year they
provide a tremendous public service by organizing community blood
drives, as well as food drives for the homeless and underprivileged.
Post members have frequently contributed their time at various area
hospitals, and have also provided a support network for each other,
relying on each other as friends, colleagues, and fellow soldiers for
support and advice.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I stand before you today,
asking you and my colleagues in the 106th Congress to honor the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and VFW Post #582. For an entire century,
they have stood firmly to their commitment to this nation. Their
dedication to protecting and promoting the enhancement of human dignity
of all Americans serves as inspiration to the entire country.

____________________

HONORING CONCHA HERNANDEZ GREENE

______

HON. RON PACKARD

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to one of my
constituents, Concha Hernandez Greene, who recently received the Public
Health Champion award. Ms. Greene is one of 13 Californians honored for
spearheading local efforts to improve population health.
Ms. Greene has been extremely active in the Oceanside community. She
has acted as a liaison to the Oceanside police department as well as
implementing a community policing service that encourages residents to
make their neighborhoods safer. Furthermore, Ms. Greene serves as the
chairperson of Eastside United Community Action. This community group
is a grassroots organization that provides a variety of language
classes and health services such as nutrition, tuberculosis, and
diabetes checks.
Ms. Greene has dedicated her life to the health and improvement of
our community and her tireless efforts have not gone unnoticed. Her
work epitomizes the values of good citizenship and her accomplishments
are reflected in the enhanced quality of life in Oceanside, California.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Ms. Greene on receiving the
Public Health Champion award, and thank her for her selfless efforts.

____________________

A LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT TRIBUTE TO FRANK HIDALGO

______

HON. ED PASTOR

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today to proudly bring
tribute to a fellow Arizonan and someone I am proud to call my friend,
Mr. Frank Hidalgo. I am calling your attention to Frank's
accomplishments in light of an award he recently received from Chicanos
Por La Causa, Inc., (CPLC), a well-respected nonprofit organization in
Arizona that has long advocated for the Latino community. Frank was
recently presented with CPLC's Lifetime Achievement Award for his
lifelong dedication to promoting higher education in the Hispanic and
Chicano community.

[[Page 12297]]

The 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award was established to honor an
extraordinary individual who has dedicated his/her life to serving the
Latino community. This award not only recognizes the personal and
professional accomplishments of the individual, but also their
altruistic contributions to the advancement of the Hispanic and Chicano
community.
Frank, a native Arizonan, began his career as a junior high school
teacher, and later served as the Director of the Phoenix Job Corps. In
1984, Frank was hired by Arizona State University (ASU) to serve as
Director of Community Relations. Under his direction, Frank has been
responsible for coordinating the ASU Hispanic Convocation, an
inspirational graduation ceremony for Hispanics. Each year an estimated
300 graduates take part in each Spring and Fall ceremony and over 3,000
proud family members and friends are in attendance. This year marked
the 16th anniversary of the ASU Hispanic Convocation. It has become one
of the Valley's most significant and motivating ceremonies involving
Latinos, recognizing both individual scholastic achievement and the
collective progress of the Latino community in higher education. The
television broadcast of the ceremony on the local Univision and PBS
stations has become a traditional viewing event for Latino families
hoping to encourage young people to pursue higher education.
Frank also administers the ASU Cesar E. Chavez Leadership Institute.
This program brings Arizona Hispanic high school students to the ASU
campus for a week of intensive leadership training by respected
community and university leaders. The program teaches valuable
leadership skills that students can use to improve their communities,
as well as gives them the opportunity to learn about the importance of
higher education. Since 1995, more than 200 students have participated
in this exceptional leadership program.
In addition to the tremendous work Frank does for youth, he serves on
a number of boards and committees such as the Rio Salado Committee,
CPLC Board of Directors, the City of Phoenix Police Department Advisory
Board Committee, the KPNX Channel 12 Minority Advisory Committee, the
National Community for Latino Leadership and the Boy Scouts of America.
Mr. Speaker, Frank Hidalgo is an exemplary leader and a profoundly
committed individual who is a true role model for the nation. He has
dedicated more than forty years to the advancement of higher education
for Hispanic youth. I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to honor
Frank Hidalgo and his four decades of contributions to Arizona.

____________________

TOM AND IRENE WOOD CELEBRATE THEIR 68TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. BOB BARR

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor today to
recognize two citizens in my district who have made their lives a model
of commitment for all of us. Those people are Tom and Irene Ward of
Winston, Georgia, who celebrated their 68th wedding anniversary on
Sunday, May 30th, 1999.
In a time when traditional family values are under attack across our
culture, Tom and Irene's example of steadfast devotion is an
inspiration. I wish them all the best on the ocassion of their
anniversary, and I hope they will enjoy many more years of happiness
together.

____________________

GRADUATION SPEECH OF LAUREN SECATOVE ON RESPONSIBILITY

______

HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, all Americans, including members of
Congress have been saddened and frightened by the violence occurring in
our schools. Just yesterday, a bomb was found in a school in rural
upstate New York.
On June 6, I had the marvelous experience of hearing a graduation
speech given at Apponequet Regional High School in Freetown, MA, by
Lauren Secatove, my granddaughter.
Her thoughts on responsibility were so moving that I should like to
share them.

Speech by Lauren Secatove, June 6, 1999, Apponequet, Maine Regional
High School

Good afternoon, friends, family, teachers, and members of
the class of 1999. Welcome to the last day of our childhood
and the first day of the rest of our lives. Needless to say,
June 6th, 1999 will forever be a turning point for each of
us. It seems trite to refer to a day as a point of turning,
and the mere concept evokes confusion. To where, to whom,
into what do we turn? We have come to an intersection with no
signs, our pasts beeping loudly at us, and a foggy road
ahead. Some of us are struggling wildly to go into reverse,
which in life is utterly impossible. We are hesitantly facing
our future, an unnerving task for we know not what the future
holds. But take comfort; the beauty of the future lies not in
its planning, but in its spontaneous creation.
Do not look feverishly ahead, as if you were trying to turn
to the last page of a book, for each one of us has the same
ending, the same last sentence. And actually our beginnings
are quite similar. Today we find ourselves all at the same
point, in the same place, even wearing the same thing.
So if our endings are the same, and our beginnings similar,
it must be somewhere in the middle where we form ourselves.
It must be this time where we define who we truly are, and
what we are going to accomplish. This is no easy task. It is
also a task that we must perform alone. As we work to
complete this goal, we must always be conscious of three
things; the responsibilities we hold to each other, to the
world and to ourselves.
First; our responsibility to each other--
To live solely for oneself is not truly living. We must
each make a commitment to do for others. We have lead a
somewhat sheltered life up to this point. The world is very
different from our small towns. Our differences are minute
compared to the diversity we will soon encounter. While our
small community gives us the opportunity to form close bonds,
it also secludes us from the world. There are many different
ways of living, feeling and thinking, no one better than
another. Be proud of who you are, where you come from, and
what you believe, but grant others that same pride. Also
remember that equality is not a reality. There are
millions of people who suffer daily, millions who need our
help. Go through life with an open mind and outstretched
arms. Learn how to tolerate and how to heal.
Next, our responsibility towards the world;
Today when we are handed our diplomas, we are also being
handed the responsibility of the world. The burden and the
glory of future events lie upon us. It is up to us to lead
civilization forward. It is up to us to raise loving human
beings. It is up to us to improve the lives of others on this
earth. It is up to us to create our own individual happiness.
It is up to us to encourage peace. It is up to us to prevent
the students from Colorado from becoming the most infamous
members of the class of 99. We can do better by doing good.
Each generation has had their own problems to solve and
overcome. We are charged with carrying the world into the
next millennium. Perhaps the coming millennium has given
everyone an apocalyptic spirit, for many people do not
believe that we are a capable or qualified generation. We are
inundated with stories everyday covering the ``troubled youth
of America'', a generation that is portrayed to be aimless
and unproductive.

Prove them wrong

Every single one of us sitting here today has the ability
to improve the world. Your diploma is your ticket, and your
personal integrity your tool. Use them wisely and for
benevolent purposes.
Face the challenge, accept it and exceed it.
Finally, regarding ourselves;
Although many people have aided us on our journeys, it is
due to our self-determination that we are here today. It was
of our own volition that we woke ourselves up each morning,
excruciatingly early, to go to school. It was our personal
fortitude that kept us up late at night to finish our English
paper or to comfort our crying friend, both equally important
duties. It was our own kindness that earned us the
friendships that we made, and our own faults for letting go
of the friendships we lost. It was our own courage that moved
us to try out for the team, audition for a part, and to say
those three words; I love you.
While many of our high school days seemed focused on mere
survival, our goal for the future is now much higher;
success. Potential means nothing in the real world. History
books are not filled with people who had potential. Only the
driven and determined people are remembered, only those who
never compromised themselves, and those who stood up to
opposition have changed the world.
Please be careful to not equate success to a paycheck.
Success is not professional advancement, or the price of your
car. Success is going to bed content and waking up happy.
Success is living with your soul mate. Success is looking
into the eyes of your child. Success is accepting yourself
unconditionally. Success is having an ambition to become
something great.
In closing, I would like to extend my congratulations to
each member of the class of 1999, and wish you luck as you
work to achieve success, and define yourselves.
May we all sleep contently. Sweet Dreams.

____________________

[[Page 12298]]

INTRODUCTION OF THE ``NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS CLARIFICATION ACT''

______

HON. JERRY WELLER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Ben
Cardin, to introduce ``The Nuclear Decommissioning Funds Clarification
Act.'' The need for this legislation results from the emergence of a
competitive electricity market out of a regulated environment. Because
of this structural change, the tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning
funds is not clear under current law.
Understanding that decommissioning a nuclear power plant represents a
uniquely large and signficant financial undertaking for a utility, in
1984 Congress enacted ``Code section 468A'' which was designed to have
public service commissions authorize that certain costs could be
charged by an electric utility company to its customers to dedicate to
a nuclear decommissioning fund (Fund).
In 1986, the Code was further amended to allow an electric utility
company with a direct ownership interest in a nuclear power plant to
elect to deduct contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund,
subject to certain limitations. The Fund must be a segregated trust
used exclusively for the payment of decommissioning (shutting down)
costs of nuclear power plants. Decommissioning the nation's 110 nuclear
power plants represents a large financial commitment--so large that
nuclear plant owners accumulate the necessary funding over the plant's
40-year operating life.
As a result of Federal and state laws enacted since 1992, 21 states
have approved plans to introduce competition, and all states are
considering deregulation. Fifty-four nuclear power plants are located
in 15 of the states that have undergone restructuring, more than half
the nation's 103 operating plants. Under current law, deductible
contributions made to a nuclear decommissioning fund (Fund) are based
on limitations reflected in cost-of-service ratemaking. In a
competitive market, companies will no longer operate in a regulated,
cost-of-service environment and will not be able to deduct
contributions to decommissioning funds. Therefore, it is appropriate to
clarify the deductibility of nuclear decommissioning costs under
market-based rates and to codify the definition of ``nuclear
decommissioning costs'' that limit contributions to a Fund.
In addition, restructuring has brought regulatory and market forces
to bear upon continued ownership of nuclear power plants. As more
companies move away from the nuclear generation--either by chioce or
state mandate--companies such as illinois Power in my home state are
planning transfers and sales of nuclear power plants. These new
business activities have triggered unforeseen tax consequences that, if
not corrected, could force the early shutdown of nuclear units that
cannot be sold. Hence, a number of nuclear power plants may be forced
to shut down before their licenses expire, resulting in the loss of
jobs and a reduction of energy supply.
Decommissioning nuclear power plants is an important health and
safety issue. it is essential that monies are available to safely
decommission the plant when it is retired. It is also necessary, in
many cases because of restructuring laws passed by states, to clarify
the tax treatment for nuclear power plants that transfer ownership. I
urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this important bill.

____________________

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

______

HON. JOHN J. LaFALCE

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, the Community Reinvestment Act was created
by the Congress in 1977 to combat discrimination by encouraging
federally insured financial institutions to help meet the credit needs
of the communities they serve. I am here today to report that the
Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, has been a tremendous success.
CRA's success results from the effective partnerships of municipal
leaders, local development advocacy organizations, and community-minded
financial institutions. Working together, the CRA has proven that local
investment is not only good for business, but critical to improving the
quality of life for low and moderate income residents in the
communities financial institutions serve.
You will be hearing about other CRA success stories in the next few
weeks. I want to applaud the financial services industry for their
extraordinary record of meeting their CRA obligations--at present it is
estimated that almost 98 percent of all financial institutions have
achieved a satisfactory or better CRA compliance rating. In my own
district, however, there are many instances of leadership. Today I
focus on one of the CRA lending practices of KeyBank. KeyBank loans
have led to the development of 138 units of low income senior housing,
as well as permanent financing for a group home for the developmentally
disabled. KeyBank participants in the Buffalo Neighborhood Housing
Services Revolving Loan Fund, which enabled local Neighborhood Housing
Service agencies to acquire and rehabilitate numerous vacant
properties, and resell them to low and moderate income constituents in
my district. CRA lending by KeyBank has also led to job growth. For
example, KeyBank has worked with the Minority and Women owned loan
program of Western New York to create pro-bono counseling and
monitoring services to minority and women loan applicants during the
pre-application and post-loan periods of a new business. In addition,
CRA lending by KeyBank resulted in the construction and financing for a
manufacturing facility which resulted in the retention of 50 jobs and
the creation of an additional 50 jobs in Niagara County.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Community Reinvestment Act and
the success it has achieved in combating discrimination. I applaud our
financial institutions for their strong compliance record and welcome
their continued success.

____________________

IN HONOR OF VANCE C. SMITH, SR.

______

HON. MAC COLLINS

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor a Georgia legend whose
eighty year life encompassed all that it means to live the American
dream. Vance C. Smith, Sr., born December 31, 1918, in Harris County,
Georgia, to the late Shurley Sivell and Sallie Irvin Smith, will long
be remembered for his devotion to family, community, and country.
On June 20, 1940, Mr. Smith married Reba Gray Simmons. In September
1943, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served with distinction until
December 1945. During eighteen months on a Land Carrier Infantry boat
in the Pacific, Mr. Smith was one of a handful to survive a Japanese
suicide boat attack.
After World War II, Mr. Smith worked in the grocery business for four
years, but then focused on his favorite business--the construction
business. In 1951, Mr. Smith borrowed money to purchase a bulldozer,
and the Vance Smith Construction Company was born. Over forty years
later, the next generation of Smiths is still leading the family
business.
Beyond the energy that went into maintaining a thriving business, Mr.
Smith devoted much of his time to the community and helping others. He
was a member and deacon of Pine Mountain First Baptist Church, a member
of the Pine Mountain Chamber of Commerce, and a member of the Harris
County Lion's Club. At one time he had not missed a Lion's Club meeting
for a 25 year stretch. Mr. Smith was also a member of Chipley Lodge #40
F&AM, a past master, and a member of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
Mr. Smith's community service also extended to political service. He
served as a Harris County Commissioner from 1963 until 1966, at one
time serving as chairman. In 1962, Mr. Smith was elected to the Pine
Mountain Town Council, and served there for 33 years until his 1995
retirement.
Survived by his wife; daughter and son-in-law; son and daughter-in-
law; five grandchildren; three sisters; and one brother, Vance Smith,
Sr. fulfilled the life we all strive to live. Mr. Smith was successful
in business, but his most meaningful contributions were those to his
family and community. Mr. Smith's passing is a great loss to all, but
his accomplishments and contributions will continue to be a blessing to
those fortunate enough to have been touched by his life.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. XAVIER BECERRA

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my district on
Monday, June 7, 1999, I was unable to cast my floor vote on rollcall
numbers 167-169. The votes I missed include rollcall vote 167 on
approving the Journal; rollcall vote 168 to suspend the rules

[[Page 12299]]

and agree to the Senate amendment on H.R. 435, the Miscellaneous Trade
and Technical Corrections Act; and rollcall vote 169 on the motion to
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1915, to provide grants to the States
to improve the reporting of unidentified and missing persons.
Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' on
rollcall votes 167, 168, and 169.

____________________

TEMPLETON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL--A NATIONAL BLUE RIBBON SCHOOL

______

HON. ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Templeton Elementary
School, located in my Congressional District in Riverside, Maryland,
for being named a National Blue Ribbon School. Templeton Elementary has
a diverse enrollment of approximately 750 students with just over 70%
coming from low income households.
This Blue Ribbon Award bestowed upon Templeton Elementary School by
the U.S. Department of Education is a tribute to the school's academic
accomplishments. Working within the tenants that ``learning is
valuable, respect is essential, communication is vital, consistent
attendance is necessary, and teachers and parents must form a
partnership to ensure student success,'' the students, parents and
dedicated staff have demonstrated what is possible through their
collective efforts.
Despite having a high percentage of children from low income homes
and being within a school system with severe financial constraints,
this school has excelled. Templeton serves as a model of the odds that
can be overcome through both commitment and dedication.

____________________

WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON MENTAL HEALTH

______

HON. JIM McDERMOTT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the following speech delivered at the
White House Conference on Mental Health by the President of the Special
Olympics, Mrs. Shriver, does an excellent job in describing the
challenges faced by individuals that suffer from both psychiatric
disorders and mental retardation.
I urge my colleagues to take the time to read this particularly
informative speech.

Mrs. Shriver's Statement for the White House Conference on Mental
Health

It has been known for at least the last 25 years that
individuals with mental retardation suffer from the full
spectrum of psychiatric disorders--depression, schizophrenia,
anxiety states and more. In fact, it is now estimated that as
many as 30% of the individuals with mental retardation also
have a coexisting mental illness, yet they remain one of the
most underserved populations in the United States. These
undiagnosed and untreated disorders prevent millions of
people with mental retardation from leading productive lives.
Clinicians tell me that often emotional or aggressive
outbursts are labeled normal behaviors for those with mental
retardation when serious depression or other psychiatric
disorders may be present. Too often in these situations
psychotropic medicines in large doses may be administered
with unnecessary toxic side affects.
Let me tell one short story that exemplifies this
unfortunate situation. A forty-year-old woman with moderate
mental retardation in an institution in a state not far from
here was very heavily sedated because of severe aggressive
behavior. Because of one well-trained clinician this woman's
life was completely turned around. he diagnosed her as having
a bi-polar affective disorder and treated here with Lithium.
Shortly thereafter, she returned to here community, obtained
a job and is now a productive member of society in contact
with family and friends.
Another unfortunate example is when a non-retarded child is
hyperactive he is often diagnosed as having an attention
deficit disorder and treated properly. but when a child with
mental retardation is hyperactive that behavior is typically
attributed to his mental retardation and not adequately
diagnosed or treated. We do know that children with attention
deficit were very very rarely included into ``Federal
studies'' on attention deficit disorder.
What can we do to improve these dreadful situation?
First, all psychiatric training should include exposure to
children and adults with mental retardation and the American
Board of Psychiatry and Neurology should require such
experiences for certification.
Secondly, most of us agree that the earlier treatment is
started, the more effective it is. Therefore, when a young
child with mental retardation attends primary grades and acts
up that shouldn't be automatically attributed to his mental
retardation. The child should be referred to the school
psychologist for proper diagnosis and treatment.
To accomplish all these goals, basic and clinical research
that can benefit people with mental retardation and mental
illness should be a priority at the National Institute of
Mental Health working cooperatively with the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development and mentally
retarded must be included in new research.
Finally, we must remember that persons with mental
retardation are finding their own voice, telling their own
stories, reminding the world that they are not to be pitied
nor neglected, but rather individuals with ideas and feelings
and dreams for their future. They stand with us today
announcing their abilities and proclaiming that their time
has come. From the Special Olympics Movement I have seen over
and over again their promise, their potential and their
unbridled human spirit.
I am confident that this conference and Mrs. Gore's
leadership will forcefully move us into the next millennium
where the mental health needs of those with mental
retardation will be fully studied and addressed. I look
forward to hearing others' thoughts and comments on this
critical issue.
I thank you for this opportunity to talk on behalf of these
wonderful human beings.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ROBERT L. EHRLICH, JR.

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Speaker, I missed 3 recorded votes because I was
unavoidably delayed on June 7. I missed rollcall vote numbers: 167 on
approving the Journal; 168 (H.R. 435); and 169 (H.R. 1915). Had I been
present I would have voted ``aye'' on each of the three votes.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the House
Chamber for rollcall votes held the evening of Monday, June 7th. Had I
been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 167, 168, and
169.

____________________

GUN CRIME PROSECUTION ACT OF 1999

______

HON. TOM UDALL

of new mexico

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today, I along with
Congresswoman McCarthy and Congressman Moore and other cosponsors
introduce a bill that will put at least one Federal prosecutor in every
State to focus upon prosecuting gun crimes.
There is no question that our nation is facing a growing scourge of
gun violence that is holding an increasing number of our communities
under siege. Crimes committed with firearms are among the most heinous,
and should be prosecuted as quickly and forcefully as possible.
While the federal government has, in the past, approached the problem
of gun violence by passing new federal laws and putting more cops on
the beat, there is nothing that can be done to attack the problem if
our prosecutors do not have the resources they need to enforce these
existing laws.
Simply put, we must give them the resources they need to fully
enforce existing gun laws. That is why we have introduced the Gun Crime
Prosecution Act of 1999.
This legislation will give every United States Attorney for each
judicial district an additional Assistant US Attorney position whose
sole purpose would be the prosecution of crimes committed with a
firearm. Specifically, each new prosecutor position would give priority
to violent crimes and crimes committed by felons. By committing a full-
time position within each US Attorney's office to prosecuting gun
crimes, we will be giving our prosecutors the tools they need to
enforce the laws that already exist in statute.
We hope you will join us in this effort by signing on to the Gun
Crime Prosecution Act

[[Page 12300]]

of 1999, and giving our prosecutors the help they need to make our
communities safer.
The National Fraternal Order of Police endorses this bill. The
National President, Mr. Gilbert Gallegos, states that this bill
``addresses a key component of crime control which has been overlooked
in much of the debate about new firearms law--the need to provide the
resources to prosecute offenders.''
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Fraternal Order of Police,

National Legislative Program,

Washington, DC, 27 May 1999
Hon. Tom Udall,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Udall, I am writing on behalf of the
277,000 members of the National Fraternal Order of Police to
advise you of our strong support of legislation you intend to
introduce in the House of Representatives today.
The bill provides for an additional prosecutor in each U.S.
Attorney's office who will devote his or her time exclusively
to the prosecution of firearms crimes. Your legislation
addresses a key component of crime control which has been
overlooked in much of the debate about new firearms law--the
need to provide the resources to prosecute offenders. We
believe that a more vigorous prosecution of the laws already
on the books will dramatically impact violent crime in our
nation, and we further believe that this legislation will put
our most dangerous criminals--those who use guns--behind
bars.
I salute your leadership on this issue and want to thank
you for reaching out to the Fraternal Order of Police on this
issue. If there is anything we can do to help move this
legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me or
Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington office.
Sincerely,
Gilbert G. Gallegos,
National President.

____________________

SHELLEY KENNEDY: A POSITIVE INFLUENCE

______

HON. JAMES A. BARCIA

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, our communities grow and succeed when there
are strong leaders who have a sense of loyalty to the community. I rise
today to pay tribute to one such person who made it her life's work to
provide her students, who needed a helping hand with the tumultuousness
of growing up, the extra attention and support to be able to succeed. I
would like to commend Shelley Kennedy for her years of dedication and
service to the thousands of young adults whose lives she has profoundly
touched.
Shelley, a native of Pennsylvania, moved to Michigan to pursue a
teaching degree at Michigan State University. She epitomizes the soul
of caring and giving for youngsters and began her lifelong career of
teaching children with special needs in the Detroit public schools. She
moved to my hometown of Bay City, Michigan, in 1975 and continued her
work of making a positive and tremendous impact on her students.
While teaching students at the Bay County Juvenile Home, she realized
that many of her students returned to the home because they
continuously engaged in the same troubling acts. In response, she and a
colleague established Bay County's only charter school in 1986 to
provide more individual attention to the students who needed extra
guidance and encouragement to keep them focused on the importance of
good education.
By lending a helping hand to the entire spectrum of students, from
teenaged parents to juvenile offenders, Shelley Kennedy has given many
students a new beginning and a new outlook on life. By teaching them
these important life skills necessary to succeed, she has provided a
tremendous service to society as a whole. Her legacy is written in the
students she supported and provided for, and that legacy is
immeasurable.
She could not have made such a tremendous impact and achieved her
great accomplishments without the support of her family including her
loving husband, Brian, and her daughter Shannon. While Shelley has
retired from teaching, she continues her steadfast mission to improve
her community by remaining active with Hospice, the Literacy Council
and numerous other nonprofit organizations.
Mr. Speaker, Shelley Kennedy has reached out to students with unique
challenges and has motivated countless individuals to pursue a better
and brighter future. We wish her all the best, and give her a heartfelt
thank you. I ask you, and all of my colleagues, to join me in
commending her outstanding accomplishments and wishing her all the best
in the years ahead.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JERRY DYER

______

HON. MARION BERRY

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who was
a dear friend of mine, Jerry Dyer.
Jerry was a devoted and loving husband, father, son, brother and
friend. His love was unconditional, just because you were there. He had
his priorities in order. He was a good businessman but he knew that was
not at the top of the list.
He always greeted life and business with great good humor. He
enriched every life he touched, especially children. Jerry was a good
citizen, and it is appropriate that he was honored as ``Citizen of the
Year'' by his community. It is the highest honor to be recognized by
your friends and neighbors.
I will always remember two stories Jerry loved to tell on himself.
One about a man in Gillett that he loaned some money to buy some cows.
The man bought the cows and they got out of the pasture one night, onto
the highway and were destroyed by a truck. The man come in the bank the
next morning and walked into Jerry's office and said ``banker they done
run over our collateral.'' Jerry just laughed his special chuckle and
said ``well let's see what we can do.''
Jerry always worked hard to make his community a better place to
live, work, and raise a family. We had been working together to improve
main street in Gillett and one of the towns ``characters'' named
``Doc'' purchased a vacant lot right in the middle of the business
section of the street and put a rather dilapidated trailer there. Then
he took the bath tub out of the trailer and set it in the front yard.
Every one that drove by saw this. Doc was in the bank one day and
Jerry, in his diplomatic way said to Doc (part of Doc's charm was lack
of personal hygiene) ;``Doc what are you going to do with your bath
tub?'' Doc says, ``I need that space to store my spare tires in, but if
I was going to take a bath, I would want a bigger tub than that.''
Again Jerry just laughed and started trying to improve things in
another way.
My friend Jim Ed Wampler said it best and it is the way we describe
our very best in the wonderful place we call home, ``he was a good
man.''
I think that says it all.

____________________

HONORING MADELEINE APPEL

______

HON. KEN BENTSEN

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Madeleine Appel, who is
this year's recipient of the Houston Chapter of The American Jewish
Committee's Helene Susman Woman of Prominence Award. Helene Susman was
a widowed mother of two who became the first woman from Texas admitted
to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. When she died in
1978, she left a legacy of a commitment of Judaism, a belief in the
importance of contributing to the community, and the need for
individuals to act responsibly and with integrity at all times.
Madeleine Appel has demonstrated her commitment to her profession,
community, and family in such a manner as to distinguish herself as a
role model for other women to follow.
Madeleine Appel presently serves as Division Manager Administration
in the City Controller's Office for the City of Houston. Her work
experience with the City of Houston has included a number of positions:
Administrator/Senior Council Aide, Mayor Pro-Tem Office Houston City
Council from 1996-1997; Senior Council Aide, Houston City Council
Member Eleanor Tinsley 1980-1995; and Administrator, Election Central,
ICSA, Rice University.
She began her career as a journalist working as an Assistant Women's
Editor and Reporter at The Corpus Christi Caller and Times.
Additionally, she worked as the Women's Editor and Assistant Editor for
The Insider's Newsletter and as a reporter for The Houston Chronicle
where she won the ``Headliners Award.'' She received her B.A. from
Smith College in political science and graduated Magna Cum Laude.
Madeleine Appel's community involvement includes Scenic America,
League of Women Voters of Texas and the United States, Houston
Achievement Place, Jewish Family Service, League of Women Voters of
Houston, Houston Congregation for Reform Judaism, Houston Architecture
Foundation, American

[[Page 12301]]

Jewish Committee, City of Houston Affirmative Action Commission, and
Leadership Houston Class XII.
Madeleine Appel has been married for 36 years to Dr. Michael F. Appel
and she is the proud mother of two sons and two daughters-in-law.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Madeleine Appel for her service to her
community and to Houston. She is the best of public servants and an
inspiration to others who want to engage in public service.

____________________

A BILL TO PERMANENTLY EXTEND THE WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT AND MAKE
CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROGRAM

______

HON. AMO HOUGHTON

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my colleague from New
York, Mr. Rangel, together with a number of other colleagues, in
introducing our bill, The Work Opportunity Tax Credit Reform and
Improvement Act of 1999. The bill would permanently extend the Work
Opportunity Tax Credit and make other changes discussed below.
After a number of improvements over the past few years, the program
is being well received in providing employment, with training, for our
disadvantaged. We believe the WOTC and Welfare to Work Credit (WTWC)
programs have been very important in helping individuals become
employed and make the transition from welfare to work. Such training
can be costly and the credits provide an incentive to employers to hire
the disadvantaged and provide the needed training while offsetting
costs associated with the latter effort.
Of course, many believe that the program would be even more
successful if it could be extended indefinitely. Employers, both large
and small, could depend on the program and would be more likely to seek
out potentially qualified employees. That change would benefit
everyone.
We have proposed several other changes in the bill which would
streamline and simplify the program. First, the Welfare to Work Credit
program would be merged into WOTC, by establishing an additional
category for WTWC. The separate Section 51A for WTWC would be repealed.
The bill would also standardize the definition of wages based on the
current law WTWC definition. This change broadens the definition by
including benefits paid to the employee. The bill would also apply the
same 40% credit rate for both the WOTC categories (first year wages of
$6,000) and for the WTWC category (first and second year wages of
$10,000) in the interests of simplification.
Lastly, the bill would add ``Section 501(c)(3)'' organizations as a
qualifying employer. The credit would be treated as an offset against
employment tax liabilities otherwise due. It is believed that these
organizations could hire and train many of the disadvantaged, and the
credit would provide an incentive for such organizations to seek out
these individuals. This provision would add a new avenue for moving
individuals from welfare to work. Because this is a new change to the
program, even though included in proposed legislation in the past, it
is being proposed as a three year pilot project. This period will allow
a period of time to determine if this feature of the overall WOTC
program is effective and produces the desired result.
We urge our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important
legislation to extend and improve the Work Opportunity Tax Credit
program.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 167, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE EFFORTS OF THE EMPLOYEES OF ROCKLAND COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
recognize the efforts of the employees of the Rockland County
Environmental Management Council for their work and dedication in
serving the people and communities of Rockland County.
In this spirit, the employees of the Rockland County Environmental
Management Council will be celebrating their 25th anniversary on June
16, 1999. Over the past 25 years, they have received 16 awards,
including 12 from the New York State Association of Environmental
Management Councils, and 4 from the National Association of Counties.
In 1997, the Council won the first place New York State Project/Plan
Award for ``outstanding accomplishments in enhancing the quality of the
environment in their community.''
For the past 25 years, the employees of the Rockland County
Environmental Management Council have achieved many goals, ranging from
sponsoring a public forum on water conservation to collaborating with
the Rockland County Health Department on implementing a county noise
ordinance. Their efforts to protect and preserve the environment
include sponsoring a ``Sun Day'' (a regional conference on solar
energy), coordinating the household hazardous waste collection project,
serving on a county legislative subcommittee on recycling, and helping
to prepare Rockland County's solid waste management plan.
The employees of the Rockland County Management Environmental Council
have dedicated their lives to improving life within the Hudson Valley,
and are to be commended for their outstanding efforts.
Accordingly, I invite my colleagues to join with me in thanking the
employees of the Rockland County Environmental Management Council for
their hard work and continued dedication to improving our quality of
life.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NEW JERSEY TENANTS
ORGANIZATION

______

HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 30th
Anniversary of the New Jersey Tenants Organization (NJTO).
The NJTO was founded 30 years ago during an extreme housing shortage.
Tenants in New Jersey faced unconscionable rent increases and had
little protection from landlord abuse. Landlord-tenant laws at that
time were very primitive and gave practically no protection to tenants.
In fact, the only right afforded to tenants was the right of pay.
This situation compelled a group of concerned citizens to come
together to form the NJTO to combat these conditions. Using strategies
ranging from rent strikes to legal battles, the NJTO succeeded in
getting the State of New Jersey to enact the State Retaliatory Eviction
Law in its first year of existence. This crucial triumph was
responsible for paving the way for a massive wave of state-wide tenant
mobilization.
Over the past 30 years, the NJTO has grown into the oldest statewide
tenants organization in the United States and can boast of being the
driving force behind 18 major landlord-tenant laws. During this time,
the NJTO's advocacy on behalf of New Jerseyans has resulted in the
strongest legal protections for tenants throughout the entire country.
This year, the NJTO is counting among its honorees Arlene Glassman, a
neighbor of mine from Fair Lawn, New Jersey and Bob Ryley of Jackson
Township, New Jersey. Arlene has been a committed member of the NJTO
for the past 20 years and has served on the Board of Directors since
1995. In Fair Lawn, she made a name for herself by successfully leading
the effort to reduce the allowable rent and revise the rent ordinance.
Thanks to her leadership, Fair Lawn's leaders and elected officials
have a greater appreciation of the needs of the tenants in the town.
Bob Ryley will also be recognized for his work with the Mobil Home
Owners Association of New Jersey (MHOA). Since joining the group in
1984, Bob obtained mobile home tenants the right of first refusal
should the landlord decide to sell their park. In this era of political
apathy, Bob has succeeded in his efforts to keep the MHOA's members
actively involved on issues of concern to them.
Both Arlene and Bob will receive the NJTO's Ronald B. Atlas Award on
June 27 for their years of service on behalf of New Jersey tenants.
This prestigious award is the NJTO's way of articulating the
organization's gratitude for all of the time and energy that Arlene and
Bob have given to the group and I am proud to extend my congratulations
to them today on

the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

____________________

[[Page 12302]]

THE MULTIDISTRICT, MULTI-
PARTY, MULTIFORUM JURISDICTION ACT OF 1999

______

HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the
``Multidistrict, Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' The
bill synthesizes the contents of two other measures I have authored,
H.R. 1852 and H.R. 967.
Section 2 of my bill is identical to H.R. 1852, the ``Multidistrict
Trial Jurisdiction Act of 1999,'' which I introduced on May 18 at the
behest of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, or the ``AO.''
The AO is concerned over a Supreme Court opinion, the so-called Lexecon
case, pertaining to Section 1407 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code. This
statute governs federal multidistrict litigation.
Under Section 1407, a Multidistrict Litigation Panel--a select group
of seven federal judges picked by the Chief Justice--helps to
consolidate lawsuits which share common questions of fact filed in more
than one judicial district nationwide. Typically, these suits involve
mass torts--a plane crash, for example--in which the plaintiffs are
from many different states. All things considered, the panel attempts
to identify the one district court nationwide which is best adept at
adjudicating pretrial matters. The panel then remands individual cases
back to the district where they were originally filed for trial unless
they have been previously terminated.
For approximately 30 years, however, the district court selected by
the panel to hear pretrial matters (the ``transferee court'') often
invoked Section 1404(a) of Title 28 to retain jurisdiction for trial
over all of the suits. This is a general venue statute that allows a
district court to transfer a civil action to any other district or
division where it may have been brought; in effect, the court selected
by the panel simply transferred all of the cases to itself.
According to the AO, this process has worked well, since the
transferee court was versed in the facts and law of the consolidated
litigation. This is also the one court which could compel all parties
to settle when appropriate.
The Lexecon decision alters the Section 1407 landscape. This was a
1998 defamation case brought by a consulting entity (Lexecon) against a
law firm that had represented a plaintiff class in the Lincoln Savings
and Loan litigation in Arizona. Lexecon had been joined as a defendant
to the class action, which the Multidistrict Litigation Panel
transferred to the District of Arizona. Before the pretrial proceedings
were concluded, Lexecon reached a ``resolution'' with the plaintiffs,
and the claims against the consulting entity were dismissed.
Lexecon then brought a defamation suit against the law firm in the
Northern District for Illinois. The law firm moved under Section 1407
that the Multidistrict Litigation Panel empower the Arizona court which
adjudicated the original S&L litigation to preside over the defamation
suit. The panel agreed, and the Arizona transferee court subsequently
invoked its jurisdiction pursuant to Section 104 to preside over a
trial that the law firm eventually won. Lexecon appealed, but the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the lower court decision.
The Supreme Court reversed, however, holding that Section 1407
explicitly requires a transferee court to remand all cases for trial
back to the respective jurisdictions from which they were originally
referred. In his opinion, Justice Souter observed that ``the floor of
Congress'' was the proper venue to determine whether the practice of
self-assignment under these conditions should continue.
Mr. Speaker, Section 2 of this legislation responds to Justice
Souter's admonition. It would simply amend Section 1407 by explicitly
allowing a transferee court to retain jurisdiction over referred cases
for trial, or refer them to other districts, as it sees fit. This
change makes sense in light of past judicial practice under the
Multidistrict Litigation statute. It obviously promotes judicial
administrative efficiency.

Section 3 of the bill consists of the text of H.R. 967, the
``Multiparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999,'' which I introduced
on March 3rd. This is a bill that the House of Representatives passed
during the 101st and 102nd Congresses with Democratic majorities. The
Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported this bill during the
103rd Congress, also under a Democratic majority, and just last term
the House approved the legislation as Section 10 of H.R. 1252, the
``Judicial Reform Act.'' The Judicial Conference and the Department of
Justice have supported this measure in the past.
Section 3 of the bill would bestow original jurisdiction on federal
district courts in civil actions involving minimal diversity
jurisdiction among adverse parties based on a single accident--like a
plane or train crash--where at least 25 persons have either died or
sustained injuries exceeding $50,000 per person. The transferee court
would retain those cases for determination of liability and punitive
damages, and would also determine the substantive law that would apply
for liability and punitive damages. If liability is established, the
transferee court would then remand the appropriate cases back to the
federal and state courts from which they were referred for a
determination of compensatory and actual damages.
Mr. Speaker, Section 3 will help to reduce litigation costs as well
as the likelihood of forum shopping in mass tort cases. An effective
one-time determination of punitive damages would eliminate multiple or
inconsistent awards arising from multiforum litigation. At the same
time, however, trial attorneys will have the opportunity to go before
juries in their home states for compensatory and actual damages.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a hearing on this measure which will
take place before the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
The legislation speaks to process, fairness, and judicial efficiency.
It will not interfere with jury verdicts or compensation rates for
litigators. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the
Multidistrict, Mulitparty, Multiforum Jurisdiction Act of 1999 when it
is reported to the House of Representatives for consideration.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO MAJOR GENERAL MORRIS JAMES BOYD

______

HON. IKE SKELTON

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of
a truly outstanding individual, Major General Morris J. Boyd, U.S.
Army. General Boyd will soon be completing his assignment as the Deputy
Commanding General of III Corps and Fort Hood, which will bring to a
close a long and distinguished career in the U.S. Army. It is a
pleasure for me to recognize just a few of his many outstanding
achievements.
General Boyd, a native of Oakland, California, entered the Army in
April 1965. Upon graduation from Officer Candidate School in March 1966
as a Distinguished Military Graduate, he was commissioned as a second
lieutenant in Field Artillery. He has served in a wide variety of Field
Artillery and Aviation assignments in Infantry, Air Cavalry,
Mechanized, and Armored Divisions. He has commanded at battery,
battalion, and brigade levels and served as Deputy Commander, V Corps
Artillery, Frankfurt, Germany, and as Assistant Division Commander of
the 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas. Staff assignments have
been at battalion through Department of the Army. His most recent staff
tours include an assignment as Deputy Chief of Staff for Doctrine
(Headquarters, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command), followed by
assignment to Washington, DC, as the Army's Chief of Legislative
Liaison. Major General Boyd's overseas tours include Greece and
Germany; two combat tours in Vietnam, one as a field artilleryman, the
other as an aviator; and one in Southwest Asia, where he commanded the
42nd Field Artillery Brigade as part of VII Corps, during Operation
Desert Storm. General Boyd served a tour of duty at Fort Hood during
1971-1972 with 1st Battalion, 14th Field Artillery, 2d Armored
Division, as Battalion S-3 and Battery Commander.
Major General Boyd holds Bachelor of Arts and Masters degrees in
Business Administration. He is a graduate of the Field Artillery
Officer Advanced Course, the Fixed Wing Aviator Course, the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College, and the U.S. Army War College. His
awards include the Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit with 3
Oak Leaf Clusters, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal with
Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, Air
Medal (12th Award), Army Commendation Medal with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters,
Army Achievement Medal, and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with Silver
Star. He has also earned the Parachutist Badge, Senior Aviator Wings,
and Army Staff Identification Badge.
Major General Boyd and his wife Maddie live at Fort Hood, Texas. They
have one son, Ray, who resides in Phoenix, Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, General Boyd has devoted his life to preserve the peace
that we enjoy. He is truly a great American and has served his country
with honor and distinction. I wish him well in the days ahead and am
proud to recognize his achievements today.

____________________

[[Page 12303]]

HONORING THE SLATEVILLE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
Slateville Presbyterian Church on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary
Celebration. I am pleased and proud to bring the history of this church
to the attention of my colleagues.
The church, located in Delta, Pennsylvania, was founded in the summer
of 1849. It was one of six churches that stemmed from the first
Presbyterian Church west of the Susquehanna River in the southern
region of York County, the Log Church in the Barrens. In its 150 years
of existence, the church has been home to a tightly-woven community
whose faith and fellowship are a source of inspiration in the area.
I send my sincere best wishes as the Slateville Presbyterian Church
celebrates this milestone in its history, and hope that the new
millennium will see this community prosper and be strengthened in its
faith.

____________________

CONGRATULATING EXCEPTIONAL PARENTS UNLIMITED OF FRESNO

______

HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Exceptional
Parents Unlimited of Fresno for receiving the Daily Points of Light
Award from the Points of Light Foundation in Washington, D.C. The
Points of Light Foundation, established by President George Bush,
recognizes individuals and groups that give service to their
communities.
Exceptional Parents was founded 22 years ago by a registered nurse
Marion Karian, who still runs the organization today. It began as a
support group at University Medical Center of Fresno, California, for
parents of children with Down Syndrome, and has grown into a large,
non-profit organization, which serves the family members of children
with special needs. Marion states, ``When there is a child with
disabilities it affects the whole family. Our approach is to help the
whole family.''
The heart of the organization's program is providing support,
education and advocacy assistance to families of disabled children,
including siblings and grandparents. An early-intervention program
targets families with children up to three years of age. It offers
developmental assessment and assistance including occupational therapy,
physical therapy and speech therapy. It enhances the development of
infants and toddlers with disabling conditions and minimizes their
potential for developmental delays. There is also a Family Resource
Network which provides multicultural parent training and information, a
Safe and Healthy Families program and Child Abuse Prevention services
which is one in seven in the state, funded by the Department of Social
Services. All of these services are free to the public.
``We can give out lots of technical information, and we do,'' says
Marion, ``but what parents can do for other parents is empowering. When
a new parent gets together with an experienced parent and finds out he
is not in isolation, not alone, they connect. We strengthen families
and enables them to handle their own situations, that is the thread of
who and what we are.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Exceptional Parents
Unlimited for receiving the Daily Points of Light Award. The service of
emotional and educational empowerment is invaluable to families of
disabled children. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing this
organization many years of continued success and service to their
community.

____________________

THE HONORABLE BOB BADHAM'S 70TH BIRTHDAY

______

HON. RON PACKARD

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a remarkable
man who is celebrating his 70th birthday today. The Honorable Bob
Badham is a former colleague, a leader, and a friend.
Congressman Badham served 12 years in the U.S. House of
Representatives before he retired in 1988. During my freshman term Bob
helped me immensely through his advice and friendship. Today, I am
honored to serve many of the constituents that live in parts of his
former district.
Congressman Badham has an astute mind and was one of the most
knowledgeable members the House Armed Services Committee has known. He
was a senior member of the North Atlantic Assembly, which is the
legislative arm of NATO, during some of the most crucial times since
they were formed.
During Mr. Badham's tenure on the Armed Services Committee he was
known on both sides of the aisle as an expert on military matters. He
spent many hours evaluating weapons and systems for the benefit of his
committee colleagues. Bob has been a valuable service to the defense of
this great nation.
I would like to congratulate Bob on his 70th birthday. He has served
this country with distinction. I wish him and his family all the best
for the future.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO JOHN DOUGHERTY RECIPIENT OF THE UNICO GOLD MEDAL

______

HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
recipient of the 1999 Unico Gold Medal of Achievement, John Dougherty.
Unico is continuing its tradition of honoring outstanding Union Leaders
with the prestigious Unico Gold Medal of Achievement Award. This year
the Greater Philadelphia Chapter Unico has selected John Dougherty,
Business Manager of Local 98, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers.
John began his apprenticeship with Local Union 98, IBEW, in 1981.
Active in many positions in the union, he was elected to the Electric
Machinists Association in 1987 and in 1998 was unanimously elected to
the local Union's Executive Board. In 1993, at the age of 33, John
became the youngest Business Manager in the history of Local Union 98.
Since becoming Business Manager, John has given of himself
tirelessly. Currently he is President of the Philadelphia Mechanical
Trades Council, Vice President of the Philadelphia Building Trade
Council, and Vice President of the Philadelphia AFL-CIO. John has been
noted by the Philadelphia Business Journal as one of the ``Forty under
Forty''. He sits on both the board of the Philadelphia Inter-Land
Commission and the Penns Landing Corporation, and has been chosen to
represent Mayor Rendell on the Mayor's Telecommunications Advisory
Commission and also on the Airport Advisory Board.
In conclusion, it is with great pride that I rise to announce the
presentation of the Unico Gold Medal of Achievement Award to John
Dougherty, a man who exemplifies the Unico Motto ``Service Above All.''

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF MEDICARE MODERNIZATION NO. 10: THE PAPERLESS CLAIMS
PROMOTION ACT OF 1999

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare
Paperless Claims Promotion Act of 1999, the 10th in a series of
Medicare modernization bills designed to improve program administration
and the quality of the health care for Medicare beneficiaries.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPPA), included a number of administrative reforms for Medicare. The
submission of electronic claims to Medicare instead of traditional
paper claims is one of the main aspects of those administrative
simplication efforts.
Currently, a large majority of providers submit their claims
utilizing an electronic system. In fact, as of January 1998, about 96
percent of all Medicare Part A claims were submitted

[[Page 12304]]

electronically while 80 percent of all Medicare Part B claims were
submitted in electronic formats. These numbers have continued to
increase in the past year.
While these numbers are commendable, the providers who have not yet
begun to submit claims electronically are a real concern. Allowing
paper claims to be submitted indefinitely will require duplicative
systems that will create additional costs and inefficiencies for the
Medicare system.
The Administration has responded to this situation by proposing that
by the beginning of fiscal year 2000 (October 1, 1999), any claims not
submitted electronically will be subject to an administrative fee of
$1. Since that announcement, they have assumed an additional 6 month
delay in implementation due to Y2K activities.
Unfortunately, however, such action is likely to have a
disproportionate effect on smaller and rural providers that have been
less aggressive in developing electronic information systems in their
offices.
I understand that developing such systems is labor intensive and
expensive. Therefore to accommodate those providers who have not yet
developed the capability to submit paperless claims, my bill proposes
that the administrative fees charged for claims submitted in paper
format would become effective as of January 1, 2003.
In addition my bill would also grant the Secretary the power to waive
the imposition of this administrative fee under certain circumstances,
as she deems appropriate.
To facilitate the implementation of electronic submission, my bill
would also require the Secretary to make public domain software readily
available at no charge.
Converting to an all electronic claims system is a critical aspects
of modernizing the Medicare program. In doing so, we must also be
certain that we do not unfairly penalize providers in this process. My
bill would allow providers ample time to get up to speed with the
process prior to the imposition of administration fees for non-
compliance.
The Paperless Claims Promotion Act of 1999 is the 10th in my series
of Medicare modernizations. It is a sensible change to current law to
move us an electronic filing system.

____________________

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

______

speech of

HON. ZACH WAMP

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1906) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes:

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of concern regarding funding
for the Food Contact Notification (FCN) program in H.R. 1906, the FY
2000 Agricultural, FDA and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This
program is new and provides for the expeditious review of new food
contact substances. Food contact substances are products like plastic,
paper, and aluminum wraps that are used as containers for food
products.
It is not commonly known that these materials must be reviewed for
their safety before being marketed, because they touch food products.
As a result, the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997
included FCN to reduce the time and cost involved in marketing a new
food packaging material. Although FDA began the initial phase of
setting up this program, with $500,000 designated for the program in FY
1999, the program cannot continue unless the Congress provides $3
million for FY 2000.
Mr. Chairman, this program is a terrific example of real regulatory
reform--it reduces the agency's workload by streamlining regulation,
reduces regulatory burdens on the plastics, paper, and aluminum
industries, increases the potential for new and improved products to
reach consumers, and does all these things without compromising public
safety.
As you well know, the Congress is not able to fund every program and
we have to make some very difficult choices. However, I believe it
would unfortunate to let this good idea languish. While the
Administration and the Appropriations Committee may prefer funding this
program with user fees, discussion of such a proposal has not even
begun. Even if agreement was near, it will be difficult to enact the
authorization this year. As we move to Conference, I urge the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the House Agricultural Appropriations Committee
to seriously consider funding this program at the authorized level in
the event that a fee system is not enacted in time for FY 2000.

____________________

WEAPONS LABORATORY SECURITY

______

HON. DOUG BEREUTER

of nebraska

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would ask his colleagues to
consider carefully the following editorial from the June 2, 1999,
edition of the Omaha World-Herald, entitled ``A Price For Lost
Secrets.'' It speaks to the need to establish accountability for the
intolerable security which has prevailed at Department of Energy
weapons laboratory facilities.

[From Omaha World-Herald, June 2, 1999]

A Price For Lost Secrets

Clinton administration official Bill Richardson said
recently it was time to stop ``looking for heads to roll'' in
response to the administration's failure to combat Chinese
spying at U.S. nuclear facilities. He is wrong. For too long,
the administration has been hiding behind the bromide that
it's petty, mean-spirited and counterproductive to assess
blame for the illegal distribution of FBI files, the
reception of illegal foreign campaign donations, and other
mess-ups in this administration.
Richardson is secretary of the Energy Department which
supervises nuclear research laboratories. Several years ago a
career Energy intelligence officer began warning his Clinton-
appointed supervisors that tax security, especially at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, was allowing
China to steal nuclear secrets. The warning, initially
dismissed by the Clintonites as alarmist nonsense, eventually
was conveyed up the chain of command to key Cabinet members
and the president. Still there was no meaningful response.
The Justice Department rejected the FBI's request for
permission to conduct electronic surveillance of a scientist
who now stands accused of transferring to China more than
1,000 classified files of nuclear secrets. Attorney General
Janet Reno now is pointing fingers at subordinates, saying
she was given bad advice.
It's good to see that pressure is building to the point
that the attorney general is compelled to do the sort of
scapegoating that Richardson wants to squelch. Reno ought to
feel severe heat. If deputies did blow it and made Reno look
bad, then they, too, ought to be seared in the crucible of
public scrutiny.
The campaign for accountability ought to be applied across
party lines. The current intelligence director at Energy said
recently that Republican Richard Shelby, chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee, never responded to the FBI's
1997 proposal for $12.5 billion worth of changes to fight
nuclear spying. Shelby said that the committee already had
begun working on counterintelligence measures in 1996 but
that Energy ignored the Committee's recommendations.
Let debate continue on that and all other arguments about
Chinese nuclear spying on American soil. This administration
has bungled the most important duty of government--
safeguarding the security of the nation. The people
responsible ought to be exposed.
The Clinton administration, through the Democratic National
Committee, received millions of illegal campaign dollars from
Chinese sources while refusing to act on information that
China was raiding the nuclear store. Corporations, that were
major donors to the DNC were allowed to share prohibited
technology with Chinese businesses as part of lucrative
deals. And then there was Reno's thwarting of the FBI's
pursuit of the suspected mole at Los Alamos. When will the
president offer an explanation to rebut the evidence that
something caused his administration to go out of its way to
accommodate China?
Bring out the political guillotine.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO IVORY BROWN

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure that I
pay tribute to an exceptionally dedicated, compassionate, and
distinguished member of Indiana's First Congressional District, Mr.
Ivory Brown, of Gary, Indiana. After teaching and coaching in the Gary
Public School System for 41 years, Coach Ivory ``Ike'' Brown will
retire on June 12, 1999. Upon completion of his last day, Mr. Brown
will be honored at the Genesis Convention Center in Gary, Indiana, with
a final, formal salute from his friends and colleagues for his service,
effort, and dedication.

[[Page 12305]]

In 1954 Coach Brown graduated from Roosevelt High School in Gary,
Indiana, and enrolled as an undergraduate at Wiley College. He began
his graduate work at Indiana University, where he earned his Master's
degree. Mr. Brown continued his education at Texas Southern University
where he took advance courses.
An educator and coach for more than four decades in the Gary
Community School Corporation, Ivory Brown's accomplishments in the
classroom and on the court are shining examples of the pride and
dedication he exhibited in his work. Mr. Brown began his teaching
career with the Gary Community School Corporation in 1958 where he
served as an elementary, middle, and high school teacher until 1968.
From 1969-1972, he was a driver education specialist and in 1972 until
his retirement, he served as a physical education instructor and head
basketball coach at West Side High School.
From the beginning of his coaching career, Ivory Brown has served as
an inspiration to thousands of students, fans, and players at West Side
High School and throughout Northwest Indiana. Through his tireless
efforts, he has assisted more than one hundred fifty high school
athletes in their pursuit of higher education by helping them obtain
college scholarships in basketball and track.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues
join me in commending Ivory ``Ike'' Brown for his lifetime of
dedication, service, and leadership to the students and faculty of the
Gary Community School Corporation, as well as the people of Northwest
Indiana. Coach Brown's efforts as an educator and a basketball coach
blended together to help kids make the most of their potential and earn
their success in the world. Northwest Indiana's community has certainly
been rewarded by the true service and uncompromising dedication
displayed by Mr. Ivory Brown.

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY HOUSE OF BENSONHURST

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to pay
tribute to the Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst on the occasion of
its 72nd Anniversary Celebration.
The members of the Jewish Community House of Bensonhurst have long
been known for their commitment to community service and to enhancing
the quality of life for all New York City residents.
This year's gathering is not only a festive happening, it is a chance
for all of us to celebrate and pay tribute to a group of individuals
who have dedicated their lives to helping others. This year's honorees
truly represent the best of what our community has to offer.
Vic Damone, America's legendary vocalist and entertainer, is a
Bensonhurst native and graduate of Lafayette High School. This year's
recipient of the Coach Gold Alumni Achievement Award, Vic Damone has
entertained audiences throughout the world and was recently presented
with the prestigious Sammy Cahn Award by the Songwriters Hall of Fame.
A JCH alumnus, Vic Damone remains friends with many JCH alumni
including Larry King and Herb Cohen.
Gerry Farber, this year's recipient of the Joseph W. Press
Humanitarian Award, has long been known as a supporter of early
childhood education at the JCH. When the JCH needed support to renovate
its nursery school in 1992, Gerry and his wife, Gail, were as there to
help see it through. Recently, the Farbers created an endowment for the
benefit of the JCH's early childhood programs. Gerry is a Bensonhurst
native and an alumnus of the JCH and maintains close contact with
fellow alums throughout the country. In 1975, Gerry joined the
investment firm of Weiss, Peck & Greer and currently serves as the
manager of its Farber-Weber Fund.
Each of this evening's honorees has long been known as innovators and
beacons of good will to all those with whom they come into contact.
Through their dedicated efforts, they have each helped to improve my
constituents' quality of life. In recognition of their many
accomplishments on behalf of my constituents, I offer my
congratulations on their being honored by the Jewish Community Hour of
Bensonhurst on the occasion of its 72nd anniversary celebration.

____________________

HONORING RUSSELL MAJOR

______

HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Russell
Major.
Russell Major devoted every single waking moment to making Englewood,
New Jersey a city that could boast of being a haven for all people,
regardless of their race, color or ethnic background.
The countless hours that Russell spent organizing sit-ins and
circulating petitions to achieve this end were oriented particularly
towards providing the children of Englewood with the opportunity to
realize the American Dream. He rightly recognized that to deny a child
an opportunity for a quality education is to deny that child a lifetime
of opportunities.
Russell Major believed that every child should be educated in schools
that are safe and well-maintained, schools that have access to advanced
educational technology, and schools with classes that are small enough
to facilitate the best teaching and learning.
On June 12, 1999, the Englewood Board of Education will be renaming
the Liberty School after Russell Major. From now on, when the students
walk into the Russell Major Liberty School on Tenafly Road, they will
be walking into a school whose namesake embodies the values that they
are being taught: tolerance, patience, fairness, vigilance, and
excellence. These are the values that will help these young people
realize the vision that Russell had for them and for all Americans, a
vision that was grounded in family, community and education.
It was also a vision that enabled Russell Major to give of his heart,
as much as he gave of his mind. And it was a vision that gained him the
respect of every person who ever came into contact with him.
Russell Major fought to make the America he envisioned a reality for
the people of Englewood and beyond. By renaming the Liberty School in
Russell's memory, we are honoring his legacy and challenging future
generations to continue his important work.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF NETWORKING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ACT

______

HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 2086
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act
of 1999. And I recommend that all my colleagues join with Science
Committee Ranking Member George Brown, Congressman Tom Davis and 23
other Republican and Democrat Members of the Science Committee in
cosponsoring this important bipartisan research initiative.
Two decades ago, the changes wrought by information technology were
unimaginable. The scope and scale of the changes produced by the
explosion in information technology are comparable to those created
during the Industrial Revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. But
whereas the Industrial Revolution ushered in the era of the machine--
symbolized by the steam engine, the factory, and the captain of
industry--the Information Revolution promises to create the era of the
mind--symbolized by the silicon chip, the microprocessor, and the high-
tech entrepreneur.
Today, the United States is the undisputed global leader in computing
and communications, and a healthy information-technology industry is a
critical component of U.S. economic and National security. The impact
of information technology on the economy is telling. It represents one
of the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy, growing at an
annual rate of 12 percent between 1993 and 1997. Since 1992, businesses
producing computers, semiconductors, software, and communications
equipment have accounted for one-third of the economic growth in the
U.S.
Fundamental information-technology research has played an essential
role in fueling the Information Revolution and creating new industries
and millions of new, high-paying jobs. But maintaining the Nation's
global leadership in information technology will require keeping open
the pipeline of new ideas, technologies, and innovations that flow from
fundamental research. Although the private sector provides the lion's
share of the research funding, its spending tends to focus on short-
term, applied work. The Federal Government, therefore, has a critical
role to play in supporting the long-term, basic research the private
sector requires but is ill-suited to pursue.
However, as the Congressionally-chartered President's Information
Technology Advisory

[[Page 12306]]

Committee (PITAC) noted in its recent report, the emphasis of Federal
information technology research programs in recent years has shifted
from long-term, high-risk research to short-term, mission oriented
research. This is a trend that began in 1986 but has accelerated over
the last six years.
PITAC warned that current Federal support for fundamental research in
information technology is inadequate to maintain the Nation's global
leadership in this area, and it advocated a five-year initiative that
would significantly increase basic-research funding. The
Administration's response to the PITAC report is its Information
Technology for the 21st Century proposal--IT \2\. I believe this
proposal, however well-intentioned, falls short of what PITAC
envisioned. It does not, for example, commit the Administration to any
funding increases beyond fiscal year 2000. In fact, according to the
non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Administration's own
figures show flat or declining budgets beyond next year for the IT \2\
agencies, so any increasess in information technology research would
have to come out of other important science programs, an untenable
situation.
To address the issues raised in the PITAC report, I am introducing
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act
today. This is a five-year bill that provides justifiable, sustainable,
and realistic increase in information technology research. It
authorizes for fiscal years 2000 through 2004 nearly $4.8 billion,
almost doubling IT research funding from current level, at the six
agencies under the Science Committee's jurisdiction: the National
Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
This bill will fundamentally alter the way information technology
research is supported and conducted. Its centerpiece is the Networking
and Information Technology Research and Development program, which:
Limits grants to long-term basic research with priority given to
research which helps address issues related to high-end computing, and
software and network stability, fragility, security (including privacy)
and scalability.
Requires all grants to be peer reviewed by panels that include
private sector representatives.
Establishes 20 large grants of up to $1 million in FY 2000-2001; 30
large grants in FY 2002-2004.
Makes $40 million available for grants of up to $5 million for IT
Centers (6 or more researchers collaborating on cross-disciplinary
research issues) in FY 2000-2001; $45 million in FY 2002-2003; $50
million in FY 2004.
Provides $95 million to create for-credit private sector internship
programs at two and four-year colleges and universities for IT
students. To participate in the program, a company must commit to
provide 50 percent of the cost of the internship program.
Authorizes a total of $385 million for new computer hardware for
terascale computing, which will be allocated in an open competition by
NSF. Awardees must agree to integrate with the existing Advanced
Partnership for Advanced Computational Infrastructure program and give
access to Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Act research grant recipients.
In addition, the bill authorizes $111 million through fiscal year
2002 for the completion of the Next Generation Internet program.
Another of the bill's provisions requires NSF to report to Congress
on the availability of encryption technologies in foreign countries and
how they compare with similar technologies subject to export
restrictions in the United States. I believe that export controls on
encryption are stifling development in this critical area, and I think
this study will demonstrate that the current policy on encryption is
self-defeating.
I also have included language in the bill to make the research tax
credit permanent. For too long, businesses have been unable to plan for
long-term research projects because of the annual guessing game
surrounding the extension of the credit. To encourage capital
formation, the credit must be a fixture in law instead of a perennial
budget battle. As you know, there are a number of bills that expand the
R&D tax credit, but I believe extending it permanently is a good start.
Once that hurdle is cleared, we can then examine ways to improve it.
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
Act of 1999 has been endorsed by both the Technology Network, a
coalition of leading technology executives, and Ken Kennedy, the
academic co-chair of the PITAC. It is a strong bipartisan bill, and I
encourage all my House colleagues to support the measure.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE

______

HON. IKE SKELTON

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this means to pay tribute to
the men and women at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, for their
outstanding performance in Operation Allied Force.
Whiteman Air Force Base is the home of the 509th Bomb Wing, led by
Brigadier General Leroy Barnidge, Jr. The men and women of the 509th
Bomb Wing flew their B-2 Stealth Bombers into harm's way for the first
time during Operation Allied Force. The air crews, maintenance crews,
and the bombers performed magnificently. The B-2 bomber demonstrated
unparalleled strike capability, dropping nearly 20 percent of the
precision ordnance while flying less than 3 percent of the attack
sorties. They flew some of the longest combat missions in the history
of the Air Force, a non-stop 31-hour sortie from Whiteman Air Force
Base in Missouri to directly over the skies of Yugoslavia and back.
The B-2 bomber not only proved itself in combat operations, but it
put teeth in the Air Force's ability to project global power. The B-2
can carry sixteen 2,000-pound bombs or eight 5,000-pound bombs that can
be delivered stealthily, with precision, against difficult targets such
as ``bunker busting'' of underground compounds. Because the B-2 flies
from and returns to Missouri, its deployment is unaffected by base
crowding issues such as those that had to be worked out in Europe. Its
maintenance budget is tight, particularly when you look at the number
of aircraft and associated maintenance required as an alternative to a
B-2 strike.
While the role of the B-2 as a combat system was impressive, the
performance of the men and women of Whiteman Air Force was simply
stellar. They deserve the gratitude of the American people for their
indispensable role in Operation Allied Force. Mr. Speaker, I am certain
that the Members of the House will join me in paying tribute to fine
men and women of Whiteman Air Force Base.

____________________

CONGRATULATING STACEY LEE BAKER, MICHELLE LEE BAKER AND TAMARA
KARAKASHIAN

______

HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Stacey Lee
Baker, Michelle Lee Baker and Tamara Karakashian for being chosen to be
presented to the Archbishop of the Western Diocese of the Armenian
Church of North America, at the 28th annual Debutante Ball. To be
chosen, these young women must be active members of their community and
church.
Stacey Lee Baker, age 19, of Fresno, has taught the pre-kindergarten
Sunday School class at St. Paul Armenian Church, for three years, and
is actively involved in the Armenian Christian Youth Organization
(ACYO) as Assistant Treasurer, and previously as Secretary. In 1991,
she was ordained an acolyte by Archbishop Vatche Hovsepian. She
attended the Diocesan Armenian Camp from 1990 to 1992. Locally, she has
volunteered at the Poverello House, a local homeless shelter. A 1997
graduate of Bullard High School, Stacey is currently attending Fresno
City College where she majors in nursing.
Michelle Lee Baker, age 18, Stacey's sister, has taught the pre-
kindergarten Sunday School class for two years. Michelle is currently
the Corresponding Secretary of the ACYO. She also attended the Armenian
Camp for two years. In keeping with family tradition, she has
volunteered at the Poverello House. Michelle is a senior at Bullard
High School where she maintains a 3.8 grade point average and is a
lifetime member of the California Scholarship Federation. She is an
Algebra Lab Assistant and is currently a member of the Math Club and
the Junior Larks. Upon graduation, she plans to attend the California
State University Fresno, where she will major in accounting.
Tamara Karakashian, age 19, of Visalia, is an active member of the
St. Mary Armenian Apostolic Church in Yettem, where she was a choir
member and served as the Easter Luncheon Committee Chair for four
years. She was the Chair person of the ACYO, Recording

[[Page 12307]]

Secretary, and General Assembly Delegate. Tamara has participated in
the Armenian Camp for eight years as camper, counselor and Arts and
Crafts Coordinator. In her local community, Tamara has been involved in
DARE and served as an assistant for the Visalia Police Department Golf
Tournament. Tamara participated with Visalians for Sober Graduation
both as student representative and board member.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate Stacey and
Michelle Lee Baker and Tamara Karakashian on their presentation. Their
accomplishments and service are beneficial not only to their churches
and communities, but to their own growth as mature, contributing
adults. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating these young
women, and wishing them a bright future and much continued success.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN JEWISH HISTORY

______

HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the National
Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia. Founded in 1976, the
Museum presents educational programs and experiences that preserve,
explore and celebrate the history of Jews in America. Telling the story
of the Jewish experience in America, the National Museum of American
Jewish History has connected Jews closer to their heritage and has
inspired in people of all backgrounds a greater appreciation for the
diversity of the American experience and the freedoms to which
Americans aspire.
As Philadelphia is a melting pot for so many of the Nation's
minorities, the Museum's location is ideal for illuminating ethnicity
in American life. Philadelphia is the birthplace of American liberty,
and the freedoms that are celebrated by the Museum can be traced back
to people and events that are a part of Philadelphia history. The
``Jewish Window on Independence Mall'' demonstrates how one group of
Americans used the opportunities of freedom to make important and
diverse contributions to American life. In this way, the message of the
Museum should be seen as fundamentally American as well as Jewish-
American.
Mr. Speaker, the National Museum of American Jewish History has been
a benefit to the Philadelphia community not only for its important
educational value with respect to the history of the Jewish people, but
also because it has highlighted the freedoms that are all too often
overlooked in everyday life. This institution has brought to the
forefront all that makes America great, the freedoms which have made it
possible for Jewish-Americans--and all Americans--to succeed.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF MEDICARE MODERNIZATION NO. 9: MEDICARE FLEXIBLE
PURCHASING AUTHORITY

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the ninth
bill in my Medicare modernization series: the ``Medicare Purchasing
Flexibility Act of 1999.''
Medicare, the cornerstone of retirement for Americans, is in need of
some improvements. When it was first created in 1965, Medicare was
modeled on indemnity health insurance prevalent at the time. Since
then, the health and medical fields have undergone significant change;
both for the better and for the worse. But Medicare has largely lagged
behind these trends. The problem is that Medicare's current
administrative structure doesn't encourage testing or adoption of
innovative market strategies. Instead, Medicare officials have to ask
Congress to approve even the smallest change in administrative
function, subjecting what should be common sense business strategies to
the most rigid political battles.
While Medicare has successfully provided health insurance to the
elderly and disabled for nearly thirty-four years, it faces a financial
shortfall due to rapid population growth. By 2035, Medicare will
provide health insurance for twice as many retirees as it does today.
Additional revenues will be needed in order to provide quality care for
80 million retirees.
In the past, policy makers have focused on two ways to increase
Medicare revenues: raising taxes or cutting benefits. Recently,
however, Dan Crippen, Director of the Congressional Budget Office,
alluded to a possible third way: creating administrative efficiencies.
Dr. Crippen believes that substantial savings can be achieved by making
Medicare more flexible and efficient. With these changes, Medicare will
be able to improve the quality of services, while shoring-up savings
for the long run.
The private sector has adopted a number of cost saving mechanisms
that have helped control health care inflation. Medicare should be
given the same flexibility to keep up with these trends, and improve
overall administrative efficiency.
This bill grants the Secretary greater flexibility to administer the
Medicare program including the following five provisions:
First, expanded demonstration authority. Promotes high-quality cost-
effective delivery of items and services by enabling the Secretary to
test innovative purchasing and administrative programs within Medicare.
The Secretary may use case management, bundled payments, selective
contracting, and other tools she deems necessary to carry out
demonstrations. If demonstration projects are successful, the Secretary
is authorized to permanently implement programs. This section of the
bill adopts language proposed by the National Academy of Social
Insurance in their January, 1998 report, entitled ``From a Generation
Behind to a Generation Ahead: Transforming Traditional Medicare.''
Second, sustainable growth rate (SGR). Gives the Secretary authority
to adjust payment updates based on target growth rates and to apply
such adjustments by geographic areas. This antigaming initiative would
enable Medicare to control unjustified program inflation by region and
by service (MedPAC recommendation).
Third, outpatient payment reform. Allows the Secretary to pay the
lower of hospital outpatient or ambulatory surgical center rates to
ensure services in most appropriate setting.
Fourth, most favored rate. Inherent reasonableness authority granted
in the BBA is expanded to allow any amount of adjustment that the
Secretary finds, after appropriate research, is appropriate to
eliminate overpayments. The Secretary shall have the authority to
request the ``most favored rate'' in cases where Medicare is the volume
buyer in the market and other efforts at achieving a market price are
not available.
Fifth, use of appropriate settings. Allows the Secretary waive
requirements which discourage or prevent treatment in a nonhospital or
noninstitutional setting if she determines that an alternative setting
can provide quality care and outcomes. For example, today Medicare does
not cover care in a skilled nursing facility unless the patient has
first had a 3-day hospital stay. Under this provision, if the Secretary
finds that treatment of a particular disease or condition can be
handled, with quality, in a SNF, she can waive the 3-day
hospitalization requirement, thus ensuring treatment in a setting \1/2\
to \1/3\ less expensive.
Medicare has been extremely effective in providing health insurance
for the elderly and disabled, a population the private sector has
refused to cover. In fact, over 30 years, its cost inflation has been
less than that in the private sector and its benefit package has been
improved. This social insurance mission must be preserved--and in the
face of a doubling of the population it serves, we must do more to keep
Medicare efficient and effective. By implementing the modernizations
included in this bill, Medicare will be able to adapt and grow in the
changing health care marketplace.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. HERBERT H. BATEMAN

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on Monday, June 7,
1999, and consequently missed three recorded votes. The latter two were
conducted under suspension of the rules. Had I been present, I would
have voted as follows:
Journal Vote, vote No. 167, ``yea''; H.R. 435, vote No. 168, ``yea'';
H.R. 1915, vote No. 169, ``yea.''

____________________

[[Page 12308]]

WINNERS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL CERTIFICATE OF MERIT

______

HON. HEATHER WILSON

of new mexico

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention the
following students from the First Congressional District of New Mexico
who are graduating from high school and have been awarded the
Congressional Certificate of Merit. These students have excelled in not
only their academic endeavors, but also in community service, school
and civic activities. They represent the leaders of tomorrow and it is
my pleasure to recognize these select students for their outstanding
achievements. I, along with their parents, teachers, classmates, and
the people of New Mexico, salute them.
Certificates of Merit Award Winners 1999--Adam Chamberlin, Menaul
School; Jacob Dopson, Valley High School; Jessia Einfield, Hope
Christian High School; Jodie Ellis, Del Norte High School; Geralyn
Espinoza, Cibola High School; Jose Fernandez, Rio Grande High School;
Kozina Gallegos, Evening High School; Lisette Graham, Manzano High
School; Lindsey Kasprzyk, St. Pius High School; Suzanne Martinez,
Bernalillo High School; Laura Matzen, Sandia Preparatory High School;
Karissa McCall, Albuquerque High School; Christina Muscarella, La Cueva
High School; Catrina Padilla, Mountainair High School; Amanda Pepping,
Eldorado High School; Kate Sandoval, Academy High School; Jolianna
Schultz, New Futures High School; Eric Stanton, Sandia High School;
Olivia Tenorio, Estancia High School; Erin Ullrich, Moriarty High
School.

____________________

ANNIVERSARY OF TEA 21

______

HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the anniversary of the
signing of TEA 21, the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century.
Our commemoration of this event is a fitting recognition of the
importance of this legislation to the American people and to the
nation's economy.
This afternoon, I was joined in our main committee room by the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee leadership, Chairman
Shuster, Chairman Petri, Congressman Rahall, Senators Chafee and
Voinovich, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, and Federal
Highway Administrator Ken Wykle in recounting some of the important
achievements of that landmark bill. I would like to take this
opportunity to share some of my thoughts with my colleagues.
First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, TEA 21 is important because it
secured the future health of our transportation infrastructure system
with guaranteed federal funding. The budget rules in the Act ensure
that all federal gas taxes will be spent on needed surface
transportation improvements. And we now have an opportunity to apply
the same principles to our nation's irreplaceable economic jewel: our
nation's aviation system.
TEA 21 reversed a dangerous 30-year trend in which transportation
spending as a percentage of public spending dropped by one-half. It
authorized $218 billion for six years--the highest funding levels ever
for surface transportation--including $177 billion for highway and
highway safety programs and $41 billion for transit programs, 43
percent more than its predecessor legislation, ISTEA, the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Of the amounts provided, at
least $198 billion is guaranteed for obligation under the new budget
rules in the Act.
TEA 21 is important because transportation capital investments have
profound effects on national economic growth and productivity.
Investment in the transportation system reduces the cost of producing
goods, resulting in lower prices and increased sales, in virtually all
sectors of American industry. These productivity effects allow
businesses to change the way they organize their production and
distribution systems for the benefit of all Americans.
The Act has significant employment impacts in the transportation
construction sector. According to the Federal Highway Administration,
each billion dollars of construction investment supports a total of
44,709 full-time jobs at the national economy level. These include
8,390 ``direct'' on-site construction jobs, 20,924 ``indirect'' jobs in
industries providing construction materials and equipment for
transportation projects, and 15,395 jobs produced in other sectors of
the economy as a result of these ``direct'' and ``indirect'' employment
effects. And we're talking about good jobs in the construction sector
that compensate the average construction worker $17 per hour or higher.
TEA 21 and ISTEA made important policy shifts and took new directions
to solving our transportation problems. TEA 21 continues the legacy of
ISTEA by enhancing the intermodal balance of our transportation
network. TEA 21 provides more than $3.6 billion for enhancement
projects, compared to just $41 million spent on bicycle and pedestrian
facilities in the 18 years before ISTEA. In addition, TEA 21 designates
a full 20 percent of the legislation's total funding for rebuilding and
expanding existing transit systems and constructing new ones. It also
supports maglev and high speed rail development and provides loans and
loan guarantees for freight railroad rehabilitation and improvement.
Second, TEA 21 further integrates transportation, stewardship of our
natural resources, and protection of the environment. It maintains and
expands the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
providing $8 billion to help communities address environmental concerns
related to transportation and enable them to develop innovative
transportation solutions, such as rail transit, to address problems
traditionally tackled by pouring more concrete. TEA 21 also created a
new $120 million pilot program to coordinate land use and
transportation planning. TEA 21 shows that increased transportation
spending need not be harmful to the environment.
Third, TEA 21 includes strong provisions to reduce transportation
risks and promote safe driving. TEA 21 establishes a new $500 million
incentive program for states that enact and enforce a .08 blood alcohol
standard for drunk driving and that severely punishes repeat drunk
drivers and prohibits open alcohol containers in motor vehicles. TEA 21
also increases funding for highway safety data collection for the
National Driver Register to track dangerous drivers across state lines.
Finally, TEA 21 preserves national size and weight limits on big
trucks.

While we should be proud of the giant steps forward that we have
taken in ISTEA and TEA 21, we must also recognize that we have to build
upon its framework if we are to solve the enormous transportation
problems that we face today. We must begin thinking now about the
successor to TEA 21 and the future of our surface transportation
system.
Our best hope for dealing with the difficult, complex transportation
problems that increasing travel demand creates is to channel our
creativity toward continuing to develop innovative approaches to
relieve congestion and protect the environment, leverage our federal
investment, and improve safety. As Albert Einstein once said, ``We
can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we
created them.''
One way to relieve our congestion is to develop alternative modes of
transportation. To relieve our congested highways, we do not need to
develop new technology from scratch--we can begin by merely looking
across the oceans.
To the West, we see the Japanese high speed rail system, the
Shinkansen. Traveling to and from Tokyo and Osaka at speeds of up to
170 miles per hour, 250 million passengers a year sense the innovation,
comfort and productivity of the ``bullet'' train. To our East, we see
the French Train a Grand Vitesse (TGV), the German ICE, the Spanish
Thalys, and the international Eurostar--all high-speed trains
connecting the great cities of Europe. Today, we can ride high-speed
trains from Paris to London but not from Chicago to Minneapolis. We can
ride on a maglev prototype in Bremen, Germany, or Yamanashi, Japan, but
not in Washington, D.C. or New York.
TEA 21 provides the opportunity for states and localities to
establish high-speed ground transportation in the United States: it
reauthorizes the Swift Act; continues a modest program for development
of high-speed corridors; and specifically authorizes $1 billion for
magnetic levitation over five years. The innovative finance programs of
TEA 21 are also a source of funding for these high-speed projects.
Let me close by emphasizing the importance of safety as an overriding
objective of our surface transportation system of the 21st Century. In
1997 alone, 42,000 people were killed and an additional 3.3 million
people were injured in motor vehicle accidents on our nation's
highways.
I believe that as our technical capabilities improve early in the
next century, these appalling statistics will become simply
unacceptable. Americans will demand a safer system. Last year, not a
single person died as a result of a U.S. scheduled airline accident. As
we look to the future, we should establish the same goal for surface
transportation.
Although the legacy of the surface transportation system of the 21st
Century is far off, we

[[Page 12309]]

have begun the journey of writing that legacy here and now. ISTEA and
TEA 21 have set the framework for the beginning of the new century.
Nevertheless, we must continue to develop innovative solutions if we
are to overcome our nation's many transportation problems.
One hundreds years ago, it was difficult to envision the Interstate
system. Yet don't forget there were a few cartographers in the Office
of Road Inquiry who had developed a national map of roads, laying the
foundation for development of the Interstate system. Let us hope that
there are a few mapmakers among us and that we begin to lay the
foundation of the surface transportation system of the coming century.

____________________

R&B RECORDING ARTIST JONNIE TAYLOR

______

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in a time of new R&B
artists and young rap and hip-hop stars, Jonnie Taylor is an R&B artist
whose music keeps up with, and even moves ahead of many of today's
young artists. His soulful songs like ``Who's Making Love'' and albums
like ``Good Love'' have influenced many artists.
His successful career as an R&B artist spans three decades, and where
many present-day artists move from record label to record label, Mr.
Taylor has been an example of commitment and consistency by recording
exclusively for Malaco Records for the past ten years. Jackson,
Mississippi, the headquarters for the label is tremendously proud of
his accomplishments and contributions to the world of music. I join
many of the constituents of the 30th Congressional District of Texas, a
district that boasts a huge Jonnie Taylor following, in sharing that
pride with the people of Jackson and Malaco Records.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Taylor is a rare breed of R&B artist that has been
able to produce albums and songs that instantly receive tremendous
sales and airplay on radio stations throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Taylor was recently honored by the Rhythm and Blues
Foundation at their Seventh Annual R&B Pioneer Awards Ceremony in
Hollywood. This honor effectively puts Mr. Taylor in the esteemed
company of the Isley Brothers, Bo Diddley, Bobby Womack and other
pioneer R&B artists.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Taylor's work ethic, commitment to R&B and love for
entertainment, have paved the way for many of today's new artists. In
fact, many will tell you that Mr. Taylor had a tremendous influence on
their careers. I would like to wish him continued success.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 168, had I been present, I
would have voted ``Yea.''

____________________

RECOGNIZING ROGER MATLOCK

______

HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Roger
Matlock upon his retirement from the Mariposa County Sheriff's
Department as Sheriff-Coroner. Roger received a tile plaque from the
County of Mariposa California commemorating his longtime service.
Roger has dedicated thirty-two years to law enforcement. He first
served for twenty years as a Highway Patrol Officer. On August 1, 1986
he took office as the newly elected Sheriff-Coroner.
While fulfilling his duties as Sheriff-Coroner, Roger made numerous
unselfish contributions to the community working with citizens,
organizations, County and government agencies. A few of Roger's
accomplishments and contributions are as follows: effectively
administered Sheriff's Department programs, successfully upgraded the
Mariposa County Sheriff's Office with the latest technology for both
administrative and field operations; through his leadership,
accomplished the financing and construction for a new Sheriff's
Administration building and a new modern Adult Detention Facility,
developed a number of community-based law enforcement programs which
have more than 160 citizen volunteer participants, began the SCOPE
program, bicycle patrol, twenty-four hour patrol, the Investigation
Division, enhanced the Search Rescue Program, Posse and Reserves, and
improved the Animal Control and Constable function which merged with
the Sheriff's Department.
Roger also found time to be an active member of the Lion's, serving
as President and assisting with special barbeque meals for seniors. He
was a Little League coach, is active with church activities and enjoys
spending time with his family and traveling with his wife Becky.
Mr. Speaker, Roger Matlock was a tremendous asset to Mariposa County,
and his services will be greatly missed. I urge my colleagues to join
me in wishing Mr. Matlock many more years of continued success in his
retirement.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO MS. ARETTA F. HOLLOMAN

______

HON. EVA M. CLAYTON

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my best wishes for a
joyous and heartfelt 75th birthday celebration to Ms. Aretta F.
Holloman on this very special day. Ms. Holloman was born on June 14,
1922, in Goldsboro, NC, and has resided in Washington, DC, for the past
48 years.
Mr. Speaker, it has always been my belief that we owe much to our
senior citizens who labored to pave a smoother path of life for us to
follow; this is especially relevant in Ms. Holloman's instance. She is
referred to as ``a pillar'' in the Northwest Community because she has
done so much for so many. She has fed the homeless and has been a true
mother for many homeless and neglected children. She has single-
handedly counseled, encouraged and persuaded troubled youth to seek a
different and more productive way of life.
Mr. Speaker, Ms. Holloman has tutored at John F. Cook, a Washington,
DC, neighborhood school. For many years she has been engaged in
missionary work where she has cared for the sick. She is a Deaconess at
Sharon Baptist Church, and also serves on the Kitchen Committee, in the
Nurses Unit, Flower Club, the Missionary Society and the Senior Choir.
Mr. Speaker, in a nation wrought with change and uncertainty, Ms.
Holloman has been the glowing embodiment of consistency, fortitude and
determination. Through her life's example, she reminds us all of the
priceless value of hard work, humility, and sincerity.
Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that on this very special day, that Ms.
Holloman will be blessed with the presence of family and friends. I
know that by her life, all those who have crossed her path have grown
tremendously.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in thanking God
for blessing Ms. Holloman with such a long and abundant life and in
asking Him to continue to provide her with good health, the best that
life has to offer and many more ``Happy Birthdays.''

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO THE SIXTH GRADE CLASS OF GRATIGNY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
MIAMI, FL

______

HON. CARRIE P. MEEK

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
sixth grade class of Mrs. Morano at Gratigny Elementary School in
Miami, FL, in recognition of the compassion and concern of this class
and their teacher for the slaves in Africa's Sudan, and for what these
young Americans have done to help captives on another continent. Mrs.
Morano's class became members of the American Anti-Slavery Group,
raised $700 by selling candy, and used the money to free slaves in the

[[Page 12310]]

Sudan. These young citizens of the United States are to be commended
for their act of hope.
This action of the sixth grade class and their teacher is as
remarkable as it is inspiring. The late Senator Robert Kennedy once
wrote,

Every time that a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to
improve that lot of others, or strikes out against injustice,
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. And crossing each other
from a million different centers of energy and daring, those
ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest
walls of oppression and resistance.

The compassionate feat by Gratigny Elementary School's Sixth Grade
Class in aiding the Sudanese slaves is precisely the sort of positive
action that Senator Kennedy wrote of. America truly is blessed to have
such empathetic citizens, and it is a privilege to pay tribute to Mrs.
Morano and to all of the young people in the sixth grade class at
Gratigny Elementary School.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 169, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO PACE WEBER

______

HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the
memory of Pace Weber, a U.S. Air Force Academy cadet who lost his life
in a tragic airplane crash while on a routine flight lesson at the
academy in Colorado Springs, CO, on June 25, 1997.
Since Pace's death, not one day goes by when he does not enter the
thoughts of the family and friends he left behind, especially his
former classmates at Palmer Trinity and fellow cadets at the academy.
Pace was well known for his good nature and kindness. His friends knew
him as someone who thought of others before himself. He was always
looking out for his classmates and was known to take a special interest
in helping those having a difficult time.
Pace is remembered by those that cared for him as a young man full of
desire and determination. He worked diligently to make his life-long
dream of becoming a pilot for the U.S. Air Force a reality. Although
Pace did not accomplish his goal, he did spend three rewarding years at
the academy learning to fly and made friends with fellow cadets who
shared the same ambitions and experienced the same happiness that
flying brought him.
I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering young Pace Weber and,
also, to support my efforts in finding out exactly what caused Pace's
airplane to go down. Our thoughts and prayers go to his family and
friends.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF MS. EMMA TORRES

______

HON. ED PASTOR

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
call my colleagues' attention to the accomplishments of Ms. Emma
Torres, who was recently chosen as a 1999 Robert Wood Johnson Community
Health Leader. At a time when health care issues top our national
agenda, Ms. Torres' tireless dedication to addressing health care
inadequacies among migrant farmworker communities is truly exemplary.
Emma Torres was born in Mexico, the daughter of migrant farmworkers,
and worked alongside her parents in the agricultural fields of
California and Arizona. Inspired by the hardships of migrant life and
her struggle to obtain adequate healthcare for a husband who later died
of leukemia, she developed an interest in improving health services for
migrant workers. A young widow and mother living in poverty, she
managed to complete her education and began to serve her community as a
community health worker.
For more than ten years, Ms. Torres has worked in various aspects of
health promotion and has become an effective advocate for migrant
farmworkers. She has provided instrumental leadership in strengthening
the role of uncredentialed yet competent community workers to fill
health care gaps in medically neglected communities. These lay health
workers, recruited from within the communities they serve, are uniquely
able to provide information in a family-oriented and culturally
competent manner. Ms. Torres has successfully utilized such workers in
initiating and implementing a cancer prevention program and a regional
Migrant Network System which emphasizes pre-natal care and teenage
pregnancy prevention. In 1994, having developed a reputation as a
leader in her field, Ms. Torres was appointed by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to serve on the National Council on Migrant
Health.
Most recently, Ms. Torres has taken on the leadership of Puentes de
Amistad, a community-based substance abuse prevention initiative in
Yuma County, Arizona. The program reaches out to local communities
composed in large part of agricultural workers engaged in seasonal
employment. Ms. Torres works with eight staff members and 29
``promotores,'' lay health workers, going into the fields and peoples'
homes to educate them about substance abuse, pesticide poisoning, HIV/
AIDS and TB, often working with entire families to resolve problems.
She and her staff address the issues of mobility, poverty, and language
barriers that for too long have hindered health care access in this
region of the country.
It comes as no surprise that Ms. Torres was among the ten outstanding
individuals awarded a grant this year from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation's Community Health Leadership Program. She has shown
tremendous leadership in addressing some of the most difficult facets
of health care outreach and is making a difference in the quality of
life of many southwestern Arizonans. It is my hope that through this
well-deserved national recognition, Ms. Torres' work will become known
to many and serve as an example of how we can begin to address some of
our nation's most pressing problems by recognizing, supporting and
following the lead of creative and committed individuals within our
communities.

____________________

INCLUDE AMERICANS ABROAD IN CENSUS 2000, H. CON. RES. 129

______

HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing H. Con. Res. 129,
which I would like to have inserted and printed in the Record at the
end of my statement.
H. Con. Res. 129, expresses support for the inclusion in Census 2000
of all Americans residing abroad. I will be joined in this effort by
Senator Spencer Abraham who will be introducing the Senate companion
resolution.
This resolution will direct the U.S. Census Bureau to include all
American citizens residing overseas in Census 2000, not just federally-
affiliated Americans; and expresses the intention of Congress to
approve legislation authorizing and appropriating the funds necessary
to carry out this directive.
As chairman of the International Relations Committee and as a long
time member of the former Post Office and Civil Service Committee I
have had numerous opportunities to work with Americans living and
working overseas and can attest to the increasingly important role this
segment of the U.S. population plays in our nation's economy and in our
relations with countries and their citizens throughout the world.
In this era of growing globalization, we are all aware of the
importance placed upon our nation's exports of goods and services
overseas in an effort to provide a strong and versatile economy.
Not only are we reliant on Americans abroad to carry-out exports for
the creation of U.S.-based jobs, but we rely on these U.S. citizens to
best promote and advance U.S. interest around the world.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Census Bureau does not count private sector
Americans residing abroad, despite the fact that the U.S. Government
employees working overseas are currently included in the U.S. census.
This is an inconsistent and inappropriate policy, especially if the
bureau is true to its word in that it wants the Census 2000 to be the
``most accurate census ever.''
It is imperative that the U.S. Census Bureau count all Americans,
including private citizens living and working abroad. Not only will
such a policy provide an accurate Census 2000, but it will allow
Congress and private sector leaders to realize how best to support U.S.
companies and our citizenry abroad.
U.S. citizens abroad vote and pay taxes in the United States, yet are
discriminated against by the U.S. Government solely because they are
private citizens.

[[Page 12311]]

Let's change this policy and include private sector Americans
residing overseas in the census.
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

H. Con. Res. 129

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

SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE BUREAU OF THE CENSUS
SHOULD INCLUDE IN THE 2000 DECENNIAL CENSUS ALL
CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES RESIDING ABROAD.

____________________

IN HONOR OF THE LATE ANTHONY J. GENOVESI

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join
the members of the Thomas Jefferson Democratic Club in paying tribute
to the memory of New York State Assemblyman Anthony J. Genovesi who
died on August 10, 1998, at the age of 61.
Anthony J. Genovesi, lovingly known as ``Tony,'' attended a private
boarding school for his grade school education, followed by St. Francis
Xavier High School. He graduated from St. Peter's College with a degree
in Economics, and then from Fordham University School of Law in 1961.
Following his admission to the New York State Bar in 1962, Tony
Genovesi served Law Assistant to the Deputy Administrative Judge of the
New York City Civil Court; Opinion Clerk, Civil Court of New York
County, and Law Secretary, New York City Criminal Court.
Anthony J. Genovesi has a great interest in and affinity for ``grass
roots'' politics, with a specific interest in protecting our children
and improving our public school system. He joined the Thomas Jefferson
Democratic Club in 1967 and in 1975 he was elected as the 39th Assembly
District's State Committeeman, a position he held until his death.
Elected to the New York State Assembly in 1986, Anthony J. Genovesi was
the Chairman of the Assembly Oversight, Analysis & Investigation
Committee, and served on the Education, Judiciary, and Corporations and
Public Authorities Committees.
Anthony J. Genovesi lived his life by the axiom ``Help people. Help
those without a voice. Help those who no one else would have the
compassion to assist.'' This philosophy led him to become President of
the Bergen Beach Civic Association; a member of Community Board 18;
Jamaica Bay Citizens Committee; Knights of Columbus; Canarsie Mental
Health Clinic; Rambam Canarsie Lodge of B'nai B'rith, and an active
parishioner at St. Bernard's Roman Catholic Church in Bergen Beach.
Admired and respected by friend and foe, Anthony ``Tony'' Genovesi
possessed a great passion for life, a keen wit, fine intellect, a
tireless work ethic and an uncompromising sense of honesty and fair
play. He believed that the acquisition of power was not an end unto
itself, but rather a vehicle through which to do things for people who
were unable to help themselves.
Tony Genovesi was an innovator and beacon of good will to all those
with whom he came into contact. Through his dedicated efforts, he
helped to improve my constituent's quality of life. In recognition of
his many accomplishments on behalf of our community, it is fitting that
the Environmental Center be dedicated in this memory. In keeping with
his spirit, the Anthony J. Genovesi Environmental Center will teach our
children about their environment and provide them with lessons in
ecology and hands on experience in dealing with different life forms.
This Center will exist as one of the shinning examples of Tony
Genovesi's legacy, a man who was a giant among men and truly
irreplaceable.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF DRUG KINGPINS BANKRUPTCY ACT OF 1999

______

HON. BILL McCOLLUM

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the ``Drug
Kingpins Bankruptcy Act of 1999,'' which is intended to extend the
reach of United States sanctions to the world's most significant narco-
trafficking organizations. I am especially pleased to be joined in this
important initiative by Representatives Rangel, Goss, Gilman, and Mica;
companion legislation was introduced recently by Senators Coverdell and
Feinstein.
The legal precedent for this legislation was the successful
application of sanctions in 1995 and 1996 against the Cali Cartel
narco-trafficking organization and its key leaders. Executive Order
12978, issued by the Clinton Administration in October 1995, had the
effect of dismantling and defunding numerous business entities tied to
the Cali Cartel. Coordinated law enforcement efforts by the U.S. and
Colombian Governments in support of these sanctions put the Cali Cartel
kingpins out of business.
Unlike earlier and more limited sanctions initiatives, the ``Drug
Kingpins Bankruptcy Act of 1999'' is global in scope and specifically
focuses on the major cocaine, heroin, and amphetamine narco-trafficking
groups based in Mexico, Colombia, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and
Southwest Asia. If enacted, this legislation will encourage U.S. law
enforcement and intelligence agencies to better coordinate their
efforts against the leaders of the world's most dangerous multinational
criminal organizations. This initiative will assist U.S. Government
efforts to identify the assets, financial networks, and business
associates of major narcotics trafficking groups. If effectively
implemented, this strategy will disrupt thee criminal organizations and
bankrupt their leadership.
This ``Drug Kingpins Bankruptcy Act of 1999'' is intended to
supplement--not to replace--the United States' policy of annual
certification of countries based on their performance in combating
narcotics trafficking. This bill will properly focus our Government's
efforts against the specific individuals most responsible for
trafficking in illegal narcotics by attacking their sources of income
and undermining their efforts to launder the profits generated by drug-
trafficking into legitimate business activities.
The bill requires the Secretary of the Treasury--in consultation with
the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the
Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State--to prepare and submit
a list of the world's most significant narcotics traffickers on

[[Page 12312]]

January 1st of each year. The Director of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy shall review this list for submission to the President
by February 1st of each year. The President then shall formally
designate these major narco-traffickers on March 1st of each year as
constituting an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security, foreign policy and the economy of the United States.
Individuals and entities linked to major narcotics trafficking groups
may be added to the list by the President at any time during the year.
The effect of this legislation will be to block the assets of any
specially designated drug trafficker that come within the control of
United States law enforcement authorities. Second, it will block all
assets of any other individuals who materially assist, provide
financial or technical support, or offer goods and services to such
specially designated narcotics traffickers. Third, it will block the
assets of any persons, who are determined by the United States
Government as controlled by or acting on behalf of specially designated
narcotics traffickers. Fourth, designation on this list will result in
the denial of visas and inadmissibility of specially designated
narcotics traffickers, their immediate families, and their business
associates.
The bottom line objective of these provisions is to bankrupt and
disrupt the major narcotics trafficking organizations. The targets of
this bill are not only the drug kingpins, but those involved in money
laundering, in acquiring chemical precursors to manufacture narcotics,
in manufacturing the drugs, in transporting the drugs from the drug
source countries to the United States, and in managing the assets of
these criminal enterprises.
The ``Drug Kingpins Bankruptcy Act of 1999'' establishes a precedent
for the future content and scope of the ``Global Drug Kingpins'' list
by specifically identifying the first group of 12 named individuals
from Mexico, Burma, Thailand, Colombia, and Haiti. This ``Dirty Dozen''
includes many of the world's most significant narco-traffickers, such
as Khun Sa of Burma, Ramon Arrellano Felix of the Tijuana Cartel,
Vicente Carrillo Fuentes of the Juarez Cartel, and Wei Hsueh-Kang of
the United Wa State Army. Virtually all of these individuals are
billion-dollar criminals with global assets and organizations that
threaten the security and freedom of all Americans.
The first ``Global Drug Kingpins'' list has been developed with the
close cooperation of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am especially pleased to report that
one of the kingpins originally identified by the DEA and the FBI for
inclusion in this list was extradited to the United States by the
Mexican government on June 1, 1999; as a result of this extradition, we
have now filled this vacancy with a major money launderer from the
Eastern Caribbean, who has been sought for extradition on numerous U.S.
indictments.
I look forward to quick passage of this important crime-fighting
legislation and hope that the Clinton Administration would implement
this initiative on its own.

WEI HSUEH-KANG

PRASIT CHIWINITPARYA

CHARNCHAI CHIWINNITIPANYA

DOB: 06/29/52.
Criminal Organization: Commander of the United Wa State
Army (UWSA), Southern Military Region. The UWSA is considered
the largest scale narcotics processing and trafficking
organization in Southeast Asia and as such, poses the
greatest threat to Thailand, the U.S. and the international
community.
U.S. Pending Criminal Charges: August 30, 1993, Eastern
District of New York, Conspiracy to Import Heroin into the
United States.
Wei Hsueh-Kang had been sentenced to death (in absentia) by
the Royal Thai Government for his involvement in a 1,496
pound heroin shipment seized off the coast of Thailand in
1987. This sentence has since been reduced to life in prison.
Status: Thai fugitive. Currently residing in Burma.

CHANG CHI-FU

KHUN SA

DOB: 02/17/33 (ALT: 02/12/32).
Criminal Organization: Former Head of the Shan United Army
Mong Thai Army.
U.S. Pending Criminal Charges: December 20, 1989, Eastern
District of New York:
1. Conspiracy to Import Heroin into the United States.
2. Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE).
3. Distribution of Heroin in Both Burma and Thailand.
4. Importation of Heroin into the United States.
5. Possession of Heroin with Intent to Distribute &
Distribution of Heroin.
6. Attempted Distribution of Heroin in Thailand.
7. Attempted Importation of Heroin into the United States.
Status: U.S. Fugitive. Residing in Burma under the
protection of the Burmese Government.

JOSE DE JESUS AMEZCUA-CONTRERAS (AKA JESUS AMEZCUA-CONTRERAS)

DOB: 07/13/63 (alt 07/31/64), (alt 07/31/65).
Criminal Organization: Amezcua-Contreras Organization.
U.S. Pending Criminal Charges:
February 11, 1993, Southern District of California:
(1.) Conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to
distribute.
(2.) Attempted possession of cocaine with intent to
distribute.
June 18, 1998, Southern District of California:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise to
manufacture and distribute methamphetamine.
(2.) Conspiracy to possess ephedrine.
Status: U.S. fugitive. Arrested June 1998 in Mexico.
Incarcerated in Mexico. Provisional Arrest Warrant request--
for purpose of extradition. Extradition on appeal in Mexico.

LUIS IGNACIO AMEZCUA-CONTRERAS

DOB: 02/22/64 (alt 02/21/64), (alt 02/21/74).
Criminal Organization: Amezcua-Contreras Organization.
U.S. Pending Criminal Charges:
December 21, 1994, Central District of California:
(1.) Conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent to
distribute, and distribute methamphetamine.
(2.) Possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
(3.) Possession of a listed chemical with reasonable cause
to believe the chemical would be used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine.
(4.) Conspiracy to launder money.
(5.) Money laundering.
June 18, 1998, Southern District of California:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise to
manufacture and distribute methamphetamine.
(2.) Conspiracy to possess ephedrine.
Status: U.S. fugitive. Arrested June 1998 in Mexico.
Incarcerated in Mexico. Provisional Arrest Warrant request--
for purpose of extradition. Extradition on appeal in Mexico.

RAMON EDUARDO ARELLANO-FELIX

DOB: 08/31/64.
Criminal Organization: Arellano-Felix Organization.
U.S. Pending Criminal Charges: September 11, 1997, Southern
District of California: Conspiracy to import cocaine and
marijuana.
Status: U.S. fugitive. Not arrested. Provisional Arrest
Warrant request.

VICENTE CARRILLO-FUENTES

DOB: 10/16/62.
Criminal Organization: Juarez Cartel, formerly known as
Amado Carrillo-Fuentes Organization.
U.S. Pending Charges:
October 6, 1993, Northern District of Texas: (1.)
Conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine.
August 6, 1997, Western District of Texas:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE).
(2.) Conspiracy to import and possess with intent to
distribute controlled substances.
(3.) Importation of controlled substances.
(4.) Possession with intent to distribute controlled
substances.
(5.) Money laundering.
Status: U.S. fugitive. Not arrested. Provisional Arrest
Warrant request.

ARTURO PAEZ-MARTINEZ

DOB: 08/31/67 (alt 11/22/66).
Criminal Organization: Arellano-Felix Organization.
U.S. Pending Charges:
June 27, 1997, Southern District of California: (1.)
Conspiracy to import cocaine.
December 19, 1997, Southern District of California:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) to
launder money.
(2.) Conspiracy to distribute and the distribution of
cocaine.
(3.) Conspiracy to import and the importation of cocaine.
(4.) Aiding and abetting.
Status: Arrested in Mexico. Incarcerated in Mexico.
Provisional Arrest Warrant request.

OSCAR MALHERBE DE LEON

DOB: 01/10/64.
Criminal Organization: One of the key leaders of the Juan
Garcia Abrego drug trafficking organization, also known as
the Gulf Cartel. The Juan Garcia Abrego organization is known
by U.S. law enforcement agencies for its importation of large
quantities of controlled substances, its propensity for
violence, and its efforts to corrupt officials on both sides
of the U.S. Mexico border.
U.S. Pending Charges: May 1995, District of Southern Texas:
(1.) Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute cocaine.
(2.) Conspiracy to commit money laundering.
(3.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise.
Status: Arrested in Mexico. Incarcerated in Mexico.
Provisional Arrest Warrant Request. Extradition on appeal in
Mexican courts. Extradition to U.S. may take place after
completion of his sentence in Mexico for weapons offenses.

[[Page 12313]]

LORQUET SAINT-HILAIRE

Criminal Organization: One of the key leaders of a
Colombian-Haitian drug trafficking organization that has
moved significant quantities of cocaine from Colombia through
Haiti and then into Florida. On October 5, 1995, Saint-
Hilaire and five of his associates conspired to rob and kill
a federal agent who was acting in an undercover capacity.
Although the federal agent was shot at by Saint-Hilaire, he
was not injured. All five of Saint-Hilaire's associates were
later convicted on numerous drug and assault violations.
U.S. Pending Charges: October 1995, District of Southern
Florida:
(1.) Conspiracy to commit narcotics offenses.
(2.) Assault against a U.S. federal officer.
(3.) Attempt to rob mail, money or other property of the
U.S.
Status: Believed to be residing in the vicinity of Port de
Paix, Haiti. Provisional Arrest Warrant Request. No
extradition treaty in effect with Haiti.

JHON RAUL CASTRO

DOB: 09/05/63
Criminal organization: One of the key leaders of a major
cocaine trafficking organization based in Miami and Medellin,
Colombia. Castro's organization is known by U.S. law
enforcement agencies for its importation and distribution of
large quantities of cocaine from Colombia across the United
States. Since 1994, U.S. law enforcement authorities believe
that Castro has been responsible for the importation and
distribution of several thousand kilograms of cocaine through
cells located in Miami, Boston, New York, Chicago, Houston,
and Los Angeles.
U.S. Pending Charges: February 1999, District of Southern
Florida:
(1.) Conspiracy to distribute cocaine.
(2.) Other substantive drug charges being prepared.
Status: Believed to be residing in the vicinity of
Medellin, Colombia. Provisional Arrest Warrant Request.
Extradition request proceedings have been initiated with the
Colombian Government.

RAFAEL CARO--QUINTERO

DOB: 10/24/52 (alt 11/24/55), (alt 10/24/55).
Criminal Organization: Caro-Quintero Organization.
U.S. Pending Criminal Charges:
April 29, 1987, Central District of California:
(1.) Conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to
distribute controlled substances.
(2.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE).
(3.) Criminal forfeiture.
(4.) Possession of controlled substance.
(5.) Alien in possession of firearm.
(6.) Aiding and abetting.
(7.) False identification documents used to defraud United
States.
(8.) False statement.
(9.) Travel act conspiracy.
July 14, 1988, District of Arizona:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE).
(2.) Conspiracy to import a controlled substance.
(3.) Importation of a controlled substance.
(4.) Bribery.
(5.) Exportation of currency.
(6.) Aiding and abetting.
July 30, 1991, Central District of California:
(1.) Violent crimes in aid of racketeering.
(2.) Conspiracy to commit violent crimes in aid of
racketeering.
(3.) Conspiracy to kidnap a Federal Agent.
(4.) Kidnapping of a Federal Agent.
(5.) Felony murder of a Federal Agent.
(6.) Aiding and abetting.
(7.) Accessory after the fact.
Status: U.S. fugitive. Incarcerated in Mexico. Provisional
Arrest Warrant request.

CHARLES MILLER AKA: EUSTACE O'CONNOR

DOB: 03/29/60
Criminal organization: Is the leader of a major Caribbean
drug trafficking organization based in St. Kitts that has
moved significant quantities of cocaine from Colombia through
the Eastern Caribbean and then into Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Florida. In October 1994, Miller and six
of his associates conspired to murder the Superintendent of
St. Kitts' Police. Since May 1996, the U.S. Government has
sought the extradition of Miller and two other notorious St.
Kitts' drug traffickers who are wanted in the U.S. on drug
trafficking charges. In October 1996 and again in January
1999, a St. Kitts magistrate ruled against the U.S. request
for Miller's extradition.
U.S. Pending Charges: October 1994, District of Southern
Florida: Conspiracy to commit narcotics offenses.
Status: Believed to be residing in the vicinity of
Basseterre, St. Kitts. Provisional Arrest Warrant Request.
Extradition request under deliberation by St. Kitts
Government since May 1996.

WILLIAM BRIAN MARTIN

DOB: 08/02/63 (alt 08/02/62).
Criminal Organization: Martin Organization.
U.S. Pending Charges:
May 4, 1993, District of Arizona:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE).
(2.) Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and marijuana.
(3.) Conspiracy to commit money laundering.
February 23, 1994, District of Arizona:
(1.) Conspiracy to distribute over 1,000 kilograms of
marijuana.
September 6, 1994, District of Arizona:
(1.) Operating a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE).
(2.) Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
cocaine and marijuana.
Status: Arrested in Mexico. Incarcerated in Mexico.
Provisional Arrest Warrant request. Extradition from Mexico
on June 1, 1999.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF MEDTRONIC, INC.'S 50-YEAR ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. LOIS CAPPS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 50-year anniversary
of Medtronic, Inc. and to commend its sponsorship of the Public
Broadcast System (PBS) show, Frontiers of Medicine.
Frontiers of Medicine, currently broadcast on public television, has
been underwritten by the Medtronic Foundation to highlight many of the
ground breaking medical innovations that are dramatically changing the
nature of patient care. In the short five months that Frontiers of
Medicine has been on the air, it has been an enormous success. By the
end of June 1999, Frontiers of Medicine will be carried in over 75
percent of the country making it the most popular health show on public
television today. The show generated considerable support from viewers
and stations who e-mail and phone daily requesting additional
information about the topics covered in each episode.
Mr. Speaker, I offer my warm congratulations to Medtronic, Inc. for
50 years of medical innovation, and commend their commitment to
providing valuable and innovative information through their sponsorship
of the Frontiers of Medicine program. I am always pleased to see
private industry serving the public interest by raising awareness and
promoting education of the critical issues facing our country.

____________________

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

______

speech of

HON. DEBBIE STABENOW

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the Bass-DeFazio
amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000.
The Bass-DeFazio amendment sought to reduce the Wildlife Services
budget within the U.S. Department of Agriculture by $7 million.
I object to the use of Wildlife Services funds in the western states
of our nation for the control of predators such as coyotes. I agree
with groups like the Humane Society that the practices used in the
control of coyotes and other predatory animals are inhumane and a
misuse of federal dollars.
Unfortunately, I could not support the Bass-DeFazio amendment because
the proposed cuts did not specifically target predator control programs
in the west. As written, the amendment could have made a $7 million
across-the-board cut to Wildlife Services--a crippling blow to a
program that is typically funded at a level of $30 million. I would
like to include for the record a letter from Secretary Glickman that
describes how the proposed $7 million cut would have impeded the public
health and safety efforts of Wildlife Services across the nation.
Michigan is in the midst of a Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) crisis. A
growing number of deer have been discovered with Bovine TB that is
being transferred to our state's cattle population. This threatens our
state's ``TB Free'' status and could wreak havoc on the cattle and
dairy industries in Michigan. Wildlife Services personnel have
partnered with the Michigan Department of Agriculture since late 1997
to eliminate Bovine TB in Michigan. The Bass-

[[Page 12314]]

DeFazio amendment would have severely hindered this partnership would
have delayed attention to this agricultural crisis in my state. For
this reason, I could not support the Bass-DeFazio amendment.
I know that many of my colleagues have similar concerns. They object
to the inhumane use of Wildlife Services in the western states, but
rely on the useful Wildlife Services funds in their districts. I urge
the conferees for the Agricultural Appropriations bill to seek a
solution to this conundrum that will eliminate inhumane Wildlife
Services practices without hindering such important programs as Bovine
TB control.

Hon. Joe Skeen,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Joe: This is to express the Department of
Agriculture's concerns about a proposed amendment to the
Agriculture appropriations bill that would cut $7 million
from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for its
Wildlife Services (WS) program. The Department urges that
this amendment not be passed.
While the amendment's supporters contend that the proposed
funding reduction would only affect predator control programs
for private ranches, in reality significant budget reductions
in this program would affect other WS program activities as
well. The same wildlife biologists who handle agricultural
protection work provide protection against threats to public
health and safety, damage to property, and protection of
natural resources such as threatened or endangered species. A
cut of $7 million in such a personnel-intensive activity
would result in a serious weakening of the WS infrastructure
through large-scale reductions-in-force. This will result in
the elimination of work to protect endangered and threatened
species, prevent bird strikes at airports, and control
animals that can transmit diseases to humans such as rabies,
plague, histoplasmosis, and Lyme disease.
Most State and local governments are not in a position to
deal with these problems alone. This is why the WS program is
largely a cooperative program. In fact, cooperators provide
more than $30 million in funding for WS activities. Many
cooperators have indicated that they could not fund wildlife
management activities alone. Thus, a loss of Federal support
for this program could ultimately lead to the loss of State
and local funding as well. As you know, the President's
budget reduced WS by $1.8 million from the FY 1999 level by
assuming that cooperators could be encouraged to cover a
larger share of the program. Larger cuts would be extremely
difficult for Federal and State officials to manage.
The Department also wishes to reiterate its continuing
support for predator control work. Protecting agricultural
resources is an investment we make on behalf of producers and
consumers. The total value of agricultural production in the
United States is estimated at about $200 billion annually
based on cash receipts at the farm gate. Agricultural losses
to wildlife in this country are estimated to range from $600
million to $1.6 billion annually. A disproportionate share of
this burden falls on small farmers. The National Commission
on Small Farms defines small farms as those with less than
$250,000 in gross receipts annually or farms with an average
size of less than 1,129 acres. WS estimates that more than 80
percent of its cooperative agreements in the United States
are with small farms and ranches.
The range and extent of wildlife problems continues to grow
each year in response to expanding wildlife populations such
as predators, geese, deer, beavers, cormorants, and other
animals. There is an increasing need to look at these
problems from a national perspective to avoid simply moving
the problem from one location to another. WS provides the
responsible leadership necessary to bring balance to the
equation. The Department urges Congress to reject the
proposed amendment.
Sincerely,
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE YOUNG ISRAEL OF AVENUE K ON THE
OCCASION OF ITS 74TH ANNUAL JOURNAL LUNCHEON

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to pay
tribute to the members of Young Israel of Avenue K on the occasion of
its 74th Annual Journal Luncheon.
The members of Young Israel of Avenue K have long been known for
their commitment to community service and to enhancing the quality of
life for all New York City residents.
This year's luncheon is not only a festive happening, it is a chance
for all of us to celebrate and pay tribute to a group of individuals
who have dedicated their lives to helping others. This year's honorees
truly represent the best of what our community has to offer.
Each of today's honorees, Drs. Fred and Sheri Grunseid and Shelly and
Roberta Lang, have continuously surrounded themselves and their
families in the warmth of Judaism through their involvement with Young
Israel of Avenue K.
Drs. Fred and Sheri Grunseid and Shelly and Roberta Lang have each
accumulated many years of devoted service to Young Israel of Avenue K
and the entire community. Through their repeated acts of generosity
toward and on behalf of Young Israel, they have consistently proven
themselves to be pillars of strength and support for my constituents.
Each of today's honorees has long been known as innovators and
beacons of good will to all those with whom they come into contact.
Through their dedicated efforts, they have each helped to improve my
constituents' quality of life. In recognition of their many
accomplishments on behalf of my constitutents, I offer my
congratulations on their being honored by Young Israel of Avenue K on
the occasion of its 74th Annual Journal Luncheon.

____________________

CALLING FOR STRONGER UNITED STATES ACTION TO END THE WORLD'S LONGEST
RUNNING WAR IN SUDAN

______

HON. TONY P. HALL

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call my colleagues'
attention to a recent editorial appealing for higher-level United
States diplomatic attention to pressing for an end to the war in Sudan
(Christian Science Monitor, ``Sudan: to End a War,'' June 2, 1999).
I ask that the text of this editorial be entered into the Record. It
echoes the appeal twenty colleagues and I sent to Secretary of State
Madeline Albright in a June 1, 1999 letter (renewing a similar appeal
made one year ago) to appoint a special envoy of stature to focus
diplomatic attention on the resolution of the political issues and
civil war that are the root cause of Sudan's crisis. Two Washington
Post editorials on Sudan in the past year have also supported our
approach.
Mr. Speaker, war is hell, but Sudan's war is like no other in the
suffering it has inflicted. Sudan's brutal conflict is the longest
running civil war in the world, and has killed nearly 2 million people,
far surpassing the death toll in Kosovo and many humanitarian disasters
combined. Since 1983, Sudan's civil war has killed 180 people per day,
on average, most of them Christian or non-Muslim Southerners.
More than 2.5 million Sudanese were at risk of starvation when I last
visited Sudan in May, 1998 during the last major famine in which an
estimated 100,000 people died. the potential for serious food shortages
and large-scale malnutrition continues. As long as it drags on, Sudan's
war will continue to perpetuate the cycle of misery that has already
claimed nearly two million lives over the past 15 years.
Throughout the war, the rebels and the Government of Sudan each have
made repeated predictions of decisive military victories over the other
side that have never materialized, and no significant shift in the
current stalemate or in the military balance of power is foreseen in
the near future. Despite limited progress, peace talks continue to
founder, and that pattern is sure to continue without sustained high-
level diplomatic attention from the United States and the international
community. By all indications, without concerted international
diplomatic attention and intervention, Sudan's war can and will
continue to drag on as it has almost without interruption for the past
four decades.
Humanitarian aid aimed at saving lives and easing human suffering
must continue. Nonetheless, the United Nations, relief agencies and
others have questioned whether aid has enabled the endless pursuit of
war and terrorism. In late 1998, the State Department declared Sudan an
emergency--for the 10th consecutive year--so that another $70 million
to $100 million in U.S. disaster aid could be sent to those in need.
The total U.S. contribution during the last decade has been more than
$700 million. We all must ask ourselves how long this can continue, and
what could be

[[Page 12315]]

accomplished if even a fraction of those resources could be invested in
helping Sudan to build a more peaceful future.
There is a diplomatic leadership void on Sudan that only the United
States can fill. A United States Special Envoy to Sudan's peace process
would not unsurp or undermine the regional Kenyan-led peace process.
Rather it would serve to enhance and accelerate the work of the Inter-
Governmental Authority on Development. The Declaration of Principles
established by the IGAD and agreed to by all parties should remain the
one and only negotiating framework. These principles include the right
of self-determination, separation of religion and the state, and a
referendum to be held in the South that offers secession as an option.
The Envoy we propose would press for progress on these core issues, and
serve to: (1) Signal the United States' seriousness and commitment to
supporting Sudan's peace process--failing which we would have stronger
justification to shift to a policy of accelerated overt support for the
opposition; (2) maintain pressure on all parties to negotiate a serious
political settlement, and (3) establish as a stronger behind-the-scenes
U.S. presence in forging consensus and coherence among outside
supporters of Sudan's peace process (the allies and international
organizations that count themselves among the ``International Partners
Forum'' on Sudan).
The United States cannot solve all the world's problems. But we can
exercise diplomatic leadership in regions where we can make a
difference--and where the risks of inaction become intolerable. In
Sudan, these risks include no end in sight to the world's longest
running civil war and another decade of death, despair, and suffering
for the people of Sudan.

I urge my colleagues' support for higher level diplomatic attention
to ending Sudan's war and the threat it poses to security in the
region, and to the hopes and aspirations of Sudan's people.

``Sudan: To End a War''

Civil war has raged in Sudan since 1955, with an 11-year
break in the 1970s and '80s. Since 1983, the world's longest-
running war has killed 2 million of the nation's 28 million
people and displaced millions of others.
The causes are complex: The Arabic and Muslim north wants
to impose Islamic law on the African, Christian, and animist
south. Southerners complain they have never been adequately
represented in the Khartoum government, which controls
natural resources in their region.
The Khartoum regime has turned a blind eye to religious
persecution and slavery. But the southern rebels have
contributed to the list of human-rights violations too.
What originally was a north-south civil war, however, has
evolved into a conflict involving 10 warring parties in every
section of the country. Flip-flopping alliances add to the
disorder.
Last year a disastrous famine threatened 2.6 million people
with starvation. While peace efforts are under way, including
one organized by neighboring states, they have been spasmodic
at best.
The world is currently spending $1 million a day in
humanitarian aid to the war's refugees, while the Khartoum
government spends $1 million a day fighting the war. This
can't go on. It's time the world moved Sudan to the front
burner and put an end to the conflict, which would help stop
the slave trade in the south. The United States should:
Press the United Nations Security Council to take the
matter up, get a cease-fire, and arrange a settlement.
Appoint a U.S. special envoy to bolster the peace process.
Help fund a permanent office, with commissioner and staff,
for the Intern-Governmental Authority on Development, the
neighboring countries' mediation committee. This will allow
regular negotiations to continue without interruption.
Fund university scholarships for selected southern Sudanese
students, who have been cut off from educational
opportunities by the war. Educated people will be needed to
help run any future government and develop the region.
The U.S. has spent $700 million during the last decade on
aid to the war's victims. The prospect of even one more year
of this tragedy ought to be enough to spur U.S. and U.N.
officials to action.

____________________

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

______

speech of

HON. MARION BERRY

of arkansas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, June 8, 1999

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am ashamed that we have taken this long to
create a piece of legislation that is this much of a disservice to
American farmers. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time an
agriculture bill has been stalled. Last fall, while farmers were
twisting in the wind, the Leadership failed to pass the emergency
supplemental legislation. Now, we have had an agriculture
appropriations bill since February but sadly enough, the Leadership has
not seen the need to pass it. When the bill finally comes to the floor,
it is held up for two months. Then, in the remaining hours of the
debate, an amendment which I did not support, was attached that cut
$103 million. This is just one more example of the Congress' failed
leadership.
This legislation is an embarrassment to the American farmer. I could
not vote for this legislation because it cut billions of dollars in
agriculture programs. The legislation spends about $1.6 billion less
than this year and $6 billion less than the Administration requested.
It just doesn't seem right that when America's farmers are hurting the
most, we kick them when they're down by passing legislation that spends
less money on farm programs than last year.
I voted for a motion to recommit this bill to the agriculture
appropriators so that they could make adjustments to it without making
haphazard cuts. These last minute cuts were done without the input of
the Democrats on the authorizing committee, on which I serve. It is
imperative that the Majority not take the fate of farmers so lightly as
to just cut funding with so little regard. At the end of the night,
despite my firm commitment to American agriculture, I decided to oppose
final passage of this legislation. It is my strong desire that our
colleagues in the Senate have the wisdom to make improvements on this
legislation and that we return from a conference committee with a bill
that adequately supports farmers.
In response to the lack of action on the appropriations legislation,
I introduced a resolution last month expressing the sense of the
Congress that it is committed to addressing this crisis and that it
recognizes that further assistance will be needed. I hope that all
Members of Congress join me in reassuring America and our farmers that
agriculture is vital to our future and our prosperity.

____________________

IN HONOR OF JOE HADDEN

______

HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Joe Hadden, a man
distinguished by his 35-year dedication to our system of jurisprudence
and, particularly, his service on the bench of the Ventura County
Superior Court.
Judge Hadden has decided to retire. His careful exercise of the law
will be missed within the Ventura County Hall of Justice.
After a stint in the U.S. Army, where he rose from private to first
lieutenant, Judge Hadden attended and graduated from law school and was
admitted to the California Bar in 1964. He served a year as a Ventura
County deputy district attorney, then became a partner in Hadden, Waldo
and Malley, where he specialized in probate, estate planning and
representing businesses.
Judge Hadden served as a Ventura County Superior Court Arbitrator
from 1976 to 1980. He was appointed to the Municipal Court bench in
1980 and the Superior Court bench in 1981 by Gov. Jerry Brown Jr., a
fact I won't hold against him. The wisdom of the voters prevailed. They
approved Judge Hadden's appointment by electing him in 1982 and re-
electing him ever since.
Outside the courtroom, Judge Hadden serves as a member of the Ventura
County Legal Aid Association.
He has a myriad of other interests, as well. He was an amateur sports
car racer from 1954 to 1974, runs marathons, scuba dives, skis, plays
tennis, works with stained glass and plays the flute.
It's obvious he will have plenty to keep him busy.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues will join me in recognizing Joe
Hadden for his decades of service and in wishing him and his family
Godspeed in his retirement.

____________________

[[Page 12316]]

RECOGNIZING IRA P. WEINSTEIN

______

HON. JOHN EDWARD PORTER

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ira P. Weinstein,
a constituent and valued patriot, in celebration of his 80th birthday.
Ira Phillip Weinstein was born in Chicago, Illinois June 10, 1919. He
entered the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1942 as an Aviation Cadet, trained
as a Navigator-Bombardier, and rose to the Rank of First Lieutenant;
flying 25 missions with the 8th Air Force 445 Bomb Group, 702nd
Squadron before being shot down over Germany on the infamous Kassell
Mission, September 27, 1944. Parachuting to safety, he eluded capture
for 6 days and was finally held as a Prisoner of War in Stalag Luft I,
in Barth, Germany until the camp was liberated on May 11, 1945. Among
Mr. Weinstein's commendations are the Purple Heart, the Air Medal, POW
Medal, Presidential Citation, American Campaign and European Campaign
Medals, WWII Victory Medal and the French Croix de Guerre.
Married to Norma Randall while still an Aviation Cadet, Mr. Weinstein
returned to civilian life after the war and moved to Glencoe in 1952.
As president of Schram Advertising Company he built the agency into a
successful and respected force in direct mail and business to business
advertising.
In addition to these public and professional accomplishments,
privately Mr. Weinstein is proud to have celebrated more than 50 years
of marriage to his wife Norma before her death several years ago, and
prouder still to be the father of two adult daughters, Terri Weinstein,
a noted Chicago interior designer, and Laura Temkin, President of
Temkin & Temkin Advertising--as well as the doting grandfather to Ross
and Max Temkin. Known throughout the community as a wonderful gardener
and horticulture authority, Mr. Weinstein has been and continues to be
a major contributor and active supporter of Women's American ORT, was a
founding Member of Congregation Solel, and an avid supporter of the
State of Israel. In addition, Mr. Weinstein is a lifetime Member of the
8th Air Force Historical Society and The Ex-POW Association, and an
active member of the Kassel Mission Historical Assn., 2nd Air Div.
Assn., Jewish War Veterans, Caterpillar Association. In retirement, Mr.
Weinstein has become an outstanding golfer, accomplished world traveler
and a builder of model historical aircraft.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. Weinstein on his outstanding
service to his nation and to his community. I am very proud to
represent people of his caliber and devotion to America.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF VETERANS' MILLENNIUM HEALTH CARE ACT

______

HON. CLIFF STEARNS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce a bill adopted
unanimously at markup this morning by the Subcommittee on Health of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee.
This important legislation tackles some of the major challenges
facing the VA health care system. In doing so, it offers a blueprint to
help position VA for the future, and I think it is appropriately titled
the Veterans' Millennium Health Care Act.
Foremost among VA's challenges are the long-term care needs of aging
veterans. For many among the World War II population, long term care
has become as important as acute care. However the long-term care
challenge has gone unanswered for too long. This legislation would
squarely address this issue and would adopt some of the key
recommendations of a blue-ribbon advisory committee, while going
further to provide VA important new tools to improve veterans' access
to long term care.
Similarly, the bill tackles the challenge posed by a recent General
Accounting Office audit which found that VA may spend billions of
dollars in the next five years to operate unneeded buildings. In
testimony before my Subcommittee, GAO stated that one of every four VA
medical care dollars is spent in maintaining buildings rather than
caring for patients. This is not just an abstract concern. It is no
secret that VA is discussing closing hospitals. And in some locations,
that may be appropriate. The point is that VA has closure authority and
has already used it. In fact, we could expect closures of needed
facilities under the disastrous budget submitted by the President this
year.
This bill instead calls for a process to be sure that decisions on
closing hospitals can only be made based on comprehensive studies and
planning. That planning process must include the participation of
veterans organizations and employee groups. In short, the bill sets
numerous safeguards in place, and would specifically provide that VA
cannot simply stop operating a hospital and walk away from its
responsibilities to veterans. It must ``re-invest'' savings in a new,
improved treatment facility or improved services in the area.
Overall, the bill has four central themes: (1) to provide new
direction to address veterans' long-term care needs; (2) to expand
veterans' access to care; (3) to close gaps in current eligibility law;
and (4) to establish needed reforms to improve the VA health care
system.
The bill's key provisions would:
(1) require VA to maintain its long-term care programs and to
increase both home and community-based long-term care;
(2) mandate that VA provide needed long-term care for 50% service-
connected veterans and veterans needing care for a service-related
condition;
(3) require co-payments for long-term care for all other veterans,
based on ability to pay and with such payments helping to support
expanded services;
(3) establish limits and conditions for considering closure of VA
medical centers or parts of medical centers (such as ceasing to provide
acute hospital care at a VA medical center), and would require that VA
re-invest savings from a closure to establish new outpatient facilities
and other improved services in any affected area;
(4) authorize VA care of TRICARE-eligible military retirees who are
not otherwise eligible for priority VA care, subject to DOD reimbursing
VA, as well as provide specific authority for VA care of veterans who
were injured in combat and earned the Purple Heart;
(5) authorize VA to pay reasonable emergency care costs for service-
connected, low-income and other high priority veterans who have no
health insurance or other medical coverage, and who rely on VA care;
(6) authorize VA to (a) increase the copayment on prescriptions
drugs; and (b) establish reasonable copayments on other costly items
provided for care of a nonservice-connected condition (subject to
exemptions on copayments in existing law), and provide that these new
revenues would help fund VA medical care;
(7) require that, if the Federal government prevails in a suit
against tobacco companies to recover costs incurred by the Government
attributable to tobacco-related illnesses, VA shall retain the amount
of such recovery attributable to VA's costs of providing such care for
use in providing medical care and conducting research on such
illnesses;
(8) reform the criteria for awarding grants for construction and
remodeling of State veterans' homes;
(9) extend VA's authority to make grants to assist homeless veterans;
and
(10) authorize the VA to carry out a three-year pilot program in up
to four of VA's networks to provide primary care services (subject to
reimbursement) to dependents of veterans.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill which major veterans groups
have praised and endorsed. The work on it has been a real bipartisan
effort. I urge Members to support it.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO WAYNE P. ROY FOR HIS SERVICE TO LABOR

______

HON. BART STUPAK

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 4, men and women of a
variety of union trades gathered in Marquette, Michigan to honor Wayne
P. Roy, who retired from federal employment in 1998. Mr. Roy had served
11 years as the Apprenticeship and Training Representative, Bureau of
Apprenticeship and Training, U.S. Department of Labor. His service area
included the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which makes up a large
portion of my congressional district, and northern Wisconsin.
Prior to that, Wayne Roy worked for the Michigan State AFL-CIO's
Labor Employment and Development Program as the Upper Peninsula
coordinator for several years.

[[Page 12317]]

Those are the dry facts of Wayne Roy's employment, Mr. Speaker. They
only hint at a lifetime of commitment to issues that affect the
hardworking people of northern Michigan.
In fact, this dedication to union issues was a family tradition that
began before his birth. Wayne's father George was a miner in the Upper
Peninsula and an officer in his local union. Wayne's mother Delima was
a member of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and the
Steelworkers Women's Auxiliary. It was only natural, therefore, that as
a child Wayne would learn the importance of unions at his parents' side
as he joined them at labor rallies and on picket lines.
After graduating from Gwinn High School, Wayne served a 4-year stint
in the Navy until 1958, and then began a series of jobs that would give
him membership in several unions. Through one job in Milwaukee, he
joined the Chemical Workers, and then through a second he joined
Teamsters Local 344, serving as part-time shop steward and committee
member.
Returning to the Upper Peninsula, Wayne took a job with a mining
company and became a member of Steelworkers Local 4950. In 1968 he
joined Sheet Metal Workers Local 94, serving as the union's president
for 9 years.
Wayne Roy's commitment to the labor movement led him to take
positions with a variety of area civic and political groups, where he
could broaden his effort on behalf of working men and women and find
new ways to serve his community.
Such service included the board chairmanship of the United Way of
Marquette County and the Marquette County Economic Development
Corporation, presidency of the Marquette County Labor Council, and
memberships on such panels as the Central Upper Peninsula Private
Industry Council, the American Red Cross, the Forsyth Township Zoning
Board, and the Marquette Prison Inmate Apprenticeship Committee.
It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that even as Wayne Roy and his wife Hazel
raised seven children, he was demonstrating his belief that our best
community leaders are actually public servants, who seek out every
opportunity to improve the quality of life of their neighborhood, their
place of employment, their city or township, even their region.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask my House colleagues to join me in
saluting this dedicated fighter for better lives for ordinary working
people.
As one of Wayne Roy's colleagues said recently, he ``proudly bears a
union label on his soul.''

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO DAN FOSTER

______

HON. ANTHONY D. WEINER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to pay
tribute to Dan Foster on the occasion of National Cancer Survivors Day.
Dan Foster, a two-year cancer survivor, has long been known for his
commitment to community service and to enhancing the quality of life
for all New York City residents. This gathering is a chance for all of
us to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated his life to helping
others. Dan Foster truly represents the best of what our community has
to offer.
On June 6, 1999, Dan Foster will talk from the Montauk Point
Lighthouse to St. Patrick's Cathedral, covering a distance of one
hundred fifty miles, in recognition of National Cancer Survivors Day.
Dan Foster's walk is dedicated to all cancer survivors and in memory of
those who have succumbed to the disease.
This walk will also raise funds for Beth Israel Medical Center and
``The Circle of Hope,'' two organizations who have dedicated themselves
to finding a cure for cancer. Beth Israel Medical Center has focused
its efforts on understanding and managing the effects of colorectal
cancer. ``The Circle of Hope,'' in conjunction with the Catholic
Medical Center, will be establishing a palliative care program at the
Bishop Mugavero Geriatric Center in Brooklyn, New York. The facility
will be designed to provide terminal cancer patients with a sense of
dignity as they near the end of their lives.
Dan Foster's dedication to his friends and neighbors can also be seen
in his columns for Gerritsen Beach Cares' monthly newsletter. In his
columns, Dan, the organization's Health and Welfare Committee Chairman,
reminds readers about the importance of regular check ups, exercise and
proper nutrition as a means of combating the disease.
Dan Foster has long been known as an innovator and beacon of good
will to all those with whom he has come into contact. Through his
dedicated efforts, he has helped to improve my constituents' quality of
life. In recognition of his many accomplishments on behalf of my
constituents, I offer my congratulations on his dedication and devotion
to find a cure for cancer on the occasion of National Cancer Survivors
Day.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. LASZLO TAUBER

______

HON. TOM LANTOS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, last week the Washington Post published an
excellent front-page article about the unique life and the outstanding
philanthropic contributions of my dear friend Dr. Laszlo Tauber. I call
this to the attention of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, because in many
ways the story of Laci Tauber reflects what is best about this
wonderful country of ours.
Dr. Tauber, who received his initial medical training in Hungary
before World War II, survived the horrors of the Holocaust in Budapest.
He not only preserved his own life, he risked his own life to use his
medical training to help those who were suffering the most at the hands
of German Nazi troops and Hungarian Fascist thugs.
After coming to the United States, Mr. Speaker, Laci Tauber
encountered problems and obstacles that face many of those who emigrate
to this country seeking freedom and opportunity. He rose above those
obstacles, establishing a highly successful medical practice in the
Washington, DC, area and creating a real estate empire in this area
that is the envy of many real estate magnates whose names are far
better known in this region.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Tauber has sought to give back something to this
country which welcomed him and which provided him outstanding
opportunities. His most recent and creative act of generosity involves
the establishment of a scholarship fund to assist the grandchildren and
other descendants of those men and women who served in our nation's
armed services during World War II. Dr. Tauber and I feel a strong debt
of gratitude to those brave men and women who risked their lives to
liberate the peoples of Europe who were enslaved by Nazi Germany's evil
Third Reich. This is only the most recent and most creative of Dr.
Tauber's philanthropic endeavors.
I invite my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Dr. Laszlo
Tauber. I ask that the article from the Washington Post which details
his exceptional accomplishments be placed in the Record.

[From the Washington Post, June 2, 1999]

Giving With a Point: Holocaust Survivor Donates Millions

(By Cindy Loose)

It was a struggle that first year in America, just after
World War II. Laszlo Tauber and his wife lived in a Virginia
apartment so decrepit the landlord warned them not to step on
the balcony because it might fall off.
But with the frugality and generosity that have
characterized his life, Tauber saved $250 from his income of
$1,600. Then he gave it away.
``I am a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust,'' Tauber
wrote in a note to doctors at Walter Reed Army Hospital,
where many veterans of the war were recovering from their
wounds. ``As a token of appreciation, my first savings I
would like you to give to a soldier of your choice.''
In the intervening years, Laszlo Tauber built a thriving
surgical practice, started his own hospital, and in his free
moments created one of the largest real estate fortunes in
the region. Estimates of his wealth exceed $1 billion. He may
be the richest Washingtonian you've never heard about.
He has already donated more than $25 million to medical and
Holocaust-related causes. Now he's giving $15 million for
scholarships to descendants of anyone who served in the U.S.
military during the war years. An additional $10 million,
honoring Raoul Wallenberg, who saved tens of thousands of
Hungarian Jews, will go to organizations that memorialize the
Holocaust and students in Denmark and Wallenberg's native
Sweden.
Several local foundation leaders say even they have never
heard of Tauber, but all call the latest donations
remarkable.
Tauber hopes the gifts will inspire--or, if necessary,
shame--other Holocaust survivors who have the means to give.
When Tauber gives money, he always intends to make a moral
point. And when he knows he is right, the 84-year-old says,
``you can move the Washington Monument more easily.''
Generous in philanthropy, parsimonious in his business
dealings, Tauber is, his friends say, the most complicated
man they've ever met.
Asked to describe himself, he responds, ``I am a righteous,
miserable creature of God.''

[[Page 12318]]

Formed in the Holocaust

He still sees patients, does minor surgery and makes all
major decisions about his varied business and philanthropic
enterprises.
He's proud that he charged dirt-cheap prices for his
medical services and ignored overdue bills. But he also
squeezed every dime of profit from his real estate deals and
pursued one failed venture all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
He lives on a 36-acre estate in Potomac and gives away
millions but stoops to pick up stray paper clips and writes,
in tiny script, on the back of used paper.
Everything about him--his quirks, his drive, his outlook on
life--he says can be explained by the Holocaust.
Tauber shuns publicity and must be prodded to discuss his
past. People who he believes exploit the Holocaust for
personal glory he calls ``dirty no-goods.'' With the current
gift, he wants to get the message to other survivors, so he
will talk.
In the fading photographs he keeps in his Northern Virginia
office, the team of gymnasts from the Budapest Jewish High
School looks so young, and so proud. Tauber will never forget
a meet in 1927, when he was 12.
``Everyone was standing, singing the Hungarian national
anthem, and people started throwing rotten apples at my team,
yelling, `Dirty Jews' '' Tauber says. He pauses, tears
welling in his eyes. ``I thought to myself: `Bastards. I will
train. I will beat them. I will show them.' ''
Within two years, he was a national and European champion.
``Am I competitive? Yes, unfortunately so,'' he says today.
``Did I become a happier man? Definitely not. But my
experiences made me always stand for the underdog.''
Hungary was not occupied by Germany until the spring of
1944, by which time the country had the only large reservoir
of Jews left in Europe. Between April and June of 1944,
roughly 437,000 Hungarian Jews in the countryside were sent
to Auschwitz.
``Almost all were gassed on arrival, or soon after,'' says
Walter Reich, former director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
Museum. The Jews of the capital city were next on the list.
In this atmosphere, Tauber, at age 29, became chief surgeon
at a makeshift hospital for Jews. His memories of that time
are described in staccato images, interrupted by cracking
voice and silent tears.
``A mother begged me to save her son. But you understand,
he was dead already.''
Zoltan Barta, a friend and former schoolmate, was hit in
the head with shrapnel. His last words: ``My dear Laci, save
me.''
Sandor Barna, who refused to wear the required yellow star,
begged Tauber to fix the hooked nose that threatened to
betray his ethnicity. But Tauber didn't have the equipment.
The Nazis killed Barna. ``If I could have operated on Sandor
Barna,'' Tauber says, ``he would be alive today.''
But Reich says Tauber is an unsung hero, worthy of a
Presidential Medal of Freedom. Imagine the irony, he says, of
running a hospital for people slated to die.
``It's strange, and crazy, but also necessary, and
compelling and ultimately noble,'' Reich says. ``And he did
it as a young man. And he did it in a manner that foretold
his future.''

Giving and Getting

Tauber's son, Alfred Tauber, remembers as a young boy
visiting New York City. ``At night, I'd walk with my father
around Times Square,'' he says. ``I'd ask, `What are you
doing? Why are we here?' He'd answer, `I'm looking for my old
friends.' ''
And sometimes, amazingly, they would find one. If the
person needed money, Tauber would arrange to give some.
Tauber had come to the United States to take a fellowship
at George Washington University, where he was paid a small
stipend and supplemented his income by giving physicals for
25 cents each. ``I offered my services for less than a decent
prostitute would charge,'' he says now.
Hugo V. Rissoli, a retired professor, says that Tauber was
brilliant, but that the doctor assigned to be his mentor
virtually ignored him, and Tauber was not asked to stay on.
Tauber sensed antisemitism and reacted much as he did when
he was 12: If discrimination was to keep him from rising at
an established hospital, he'd build his own. He built the
hospital, the now-closed Jefferson Memorial in Alexandria, in
part so he could train other young doctors who had earned
their degrees abroad.
In his spare time, with a $750 loan, he began amassing the
necessary fortune in real estate.
``Real estate meant independence, to practice as I wish,''
he says. ``I spent 5 percent of my time on real estate but
got 95 percent of my money from it.'' His development
portfolio was diversified--office, retail, government,
residential. In 1985, he became the only doctor ever named on
the Forbes magazine list of richest men.
Tauber takes enormous pride in his surgical skills but
shows none in his real estate prowess.
Real estate, his son Alfred thinks, is the means his father
uses to steel himself against an unstable world. But, says
Alfred, a medical doctor and director of the Center for
Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, it
also ``appeals to his competitive streak. He takes delight
that he can play the game better than most.''
Wizards owner Abe Pollin marvels at Tauber, whom he met in
the early 1950s. ``It took every ounce of my energy to run my
real estate business,'' Pollin says. ``I was much less
successful at it than him, and he did it while running a
full-time medical practice.''
Tauber's real estate empire brought many battles. As the
federal government's biggest landlord, he was known for
building exactly to code, with no frills.
For two years, nine federal agencies fought being
transferred to an 11-story building on Buzzard Point that the
General Services Administration was renting from Tauber for
$2.5 million a year. It was so spare, they couldn't imagine
working there. Finally, the GSA strong-armed the Federal
Bureau of Investigation into moving there.
Rissoli likes to tell of the time neighbors complained
Tauber was putting up a three-story apartment building in an
area zoned for lower buildings. Tauber took off the roof,
removed a few rows of bricks and called it a 2.5-story
building.
Tauber's daughter, Irene, a San Francisco psychologist,
says she never realized growing up that her family was
wealthy. They lived simply, in an apartment building that was
part of a Tauber development in Bethesda, between
Massachusetts Avenue and River Road.
But they were initially unwelcome in the neighborhood, even
though they owned it.
Tauber says that soon after he submitted the winning bid to
buy the land in the late 1950s, an agent representing the
owners asked that he agree not to sell any of the residential
tracts to blacks or Jews.
The agent was amazed when Tauber told him he was Jewish.
Under threat of a lawsuit--and at the agent's urging--the
owners went through with the deal.

The Uses of Money

Some years ago, Tauber was due at a reception at Brandeis
University, where he had donated $1.6 million to establish an
institute for the study of European Jewry. He needed a white
shirt and steered his daughter toward Korvette's, the New
York-based discount store. Inside, he headed for the
basement.
``Daddy, Korvette's is already cheap,'' Irene protested.
``You don't have to go in the bargain basement.''
Tauber's only concession to his wealth is the home he
shares with his second wife, Diane. (He and his first wife,
now deceased, were divorced years ago.) But even his home
cost him little: He made a huge profit by selling off some of
the surrounding land.
But although he doesn't spend money on himself, he gives it
away. He harbors resentment about the treatment he says he
got at George Washington University decades ago, but he
agreed to donate $1 million to the campus Hillel Center on
the condition that a room be named in honor of Rissoli.
Rissoli says he did nothing more than be friendly to
Tauber. But Tauber says that by being kind, Rissoli restored
his faith in humanity.
One-third of the new $15 million grant will be funneled
through GW, the rest through Boston University and others to
be named. Recipients, to be selected by the universities,
will be required to take one Holocaust-related course or
tutorial.
Tauber says he hopes the gift will prompt students to think
about the sacrifices of their forefathers. The funds are
dedicated to the memory of his parents, as well as his uncle
and his only brother, both of whom died in the Holocaust.
Why do it now?
``I don't stay here too long,'' he says. ``At my age I
should not start to read a long book.''
The money, most of which will become available at Tauber's
death, will be awarded with one unusual guideline: The
percentage of African Americans who receive the scholarships
must be at least as large as the percentage who served during
World War II--or about 6 percent, according to military
historians.
``It cannot be tolerated,'' Tauber explains, ``that those
of us who were discriminated against should ever ourselves
discriminate.''
The Americans who fought in foreign lands for strangers,
Tauber says, rescued a remnant of his people, and they saved
the world.
``It is not enough,'' he says, ``to shake hands and say
thank you.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. HAROLD E. FORD, JR.

of tennessee

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, last night I missed three votes due to
personal business. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no'' on
rollcall No. 174, ``no'' on rollcall No. 175, ``aye'' on rollcall No.
176, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 177.

____________________

[[Page 12319]]

COMMEMORATING THE NAPER-
VILLE, IL, MILLENNIUM CARILLON GROUNDBREAKING

______

HON. JUDY BIGGERT

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to my colleagues'
attention an amazing event that will take place in my district, in
Naperville, Illinois.
Can you hear it?
That is the theme of the Naperville Millennium Carillon project, the
groundbreaking ceremony for which will take place this Friday. It will
be a great tower, almost 150 feet high, in the heart of one of
America's most vibrant cities. It will house one of only four carillons
of its stature in the nation.
The bells of the Millennium Carillon will ring for the first time on
the Fourth of July, in the year 2000. They will ring amid the report of
cannon, as the Naperville Municipal Band swells toward the final bars
of the 1812 Overture. And the harmony they sound will be a symphony of
celebration--celebration of community, of tradition, and of the future.
The tower and carillon will stand, first, as a monument to the spirit
of Naperville. It is only through the support of the city's people that
the carillon and tower will rise over the coming months. Led by the
generous donation of two great benefactors, Harold and Margaret Moser,
the community is quickly making this recent dream a soaring reality.
In its design and placement, the carillon reminds us of a great past.
It will take its place as part of another recent gift from the
community, the Naperville Riverwalk. This beautiful preserve was
dedicated in 1981 to celebrate the city's sesquicentennial. The
traditional limestone of the Harold and Margaret Moser Tower will echo
the work of the early Naperville stonemasons who quarried along the
banks of the West Branch of the DuPage River. And inside the tower, a
unique, interactive and living time capsule will offer visitors for
years to come a view of what Naperville looks like today.
Those visitors will hear also the clarity of a community that is
confidently facing the future. The carillon is being built for the ages
by a city that believes in itself. In fact, anyone who wants to
experience firsthand the vitality of Naperville should not miss
Celebration 2000, three joyous days of festivities the city will hold
at the turn of the century.
Mr. Speaker, I share these words today so that our nation can share
in a magnificent sound. It is the ringing of heritage and hope in the
heartland of America, the Millennium Carillon of Naperville, Illinois.

____________________

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA'S 1999 NCAA CHAMPIONS,
MEN'S GOLF, MEN'S TENNIS, WOMEN'S GYMNASTICS, WOMEN'S SWIMMING AND
DIVING

______

HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my alma mater, the
University of Georgia, and its athletic program for recently capturing
four NCAA championships this season. Four national titles in one season
is a record for the University of Georgia. An outstanding group of
young men and women brought home national titles in Men's Golf and
Tennis, and Women's Gymnastics and Swimming and Diving, and each of
these teams deserve great recognition.
I especially want to congratulate both the Men's Golf and Women's
Swimming and Diving Teams for winning their first-ever national titles.
Just this past weekend, the Men's Golf Team and their Coach Chris Haack
won the NCAA national championship by three strokes over Oklahoma
State. In March, the top-ranked Lady Bulldog Swimming and Diving Team
also won their first NCAA Championship be defeating Stanford, the
defending champion. I would like to recognize Coach Jack Bauerle for
being named Swimming Coach of the Year and Kristy Kowal for being named
Swimmer of the Year. I am extremely proud of both of these teams for
these historic accomplishments, and I know there will be many more in
the future.
The UGA Women's Gymnastics Team and their Coach Suzanne Yoculan have
brought pride to the University of Georgia over the years, and words
cannot describe the incredible talent displayed by this group of young
women. This year was no exception as the Gym Dogs outdistanced Michigan
and Alabama in April to capture their fifth NCAA National Championship
while at the same time defending their 1998 national title. The Gym
Dogs have maintained a perfect record of 67-0 over the last two years,
an amazing accomplishment. Imagine, not a single loss in two years.
This season they completed the season with a perfect 32-0 record as the
only undefeated team in the country. They are the first team ever to
have a perfect record two years in a row, and the second team to win
back-to-back women's gymnastics titles.
I also want to congratulate Karen Lichey for being named the 1999
recipient of the Honda Award for Gymnastics as the country's top female
collegiate gymnast. Miss Lichey also earned the maximum five First-Team
All-American honors as well as SEC Gymnast of the Year. These
incredible accomplishments should not go unnoticed. I had the honor of
hosting the Gym Dogs during their visit to Washington last summer, and
they are a group of bright young women that are already a legend in the
University of Georgia's athletic program.
In May, the UGA Men's Tennis Team and their Coach Manual Diaz fought
back to defeat UCLA and win its third NCAA title since 1987. Upon
entering the tournament, Georgia was ranked number 10. UCLA was ranked
number one in the country, but Georgia fought with great heart and
overcame the odds. The Bulldogs came back from being down two matches
to one and brought home another title, winning four of the seven
matches. The team has a rich history of winning, and this year was no
different. In the years to come, I know we can expect the Men's Tennis
Team to continue their winning tradition.
Mr. Speaker, victory is sweet indeed, but it cannot be achieved
without the hard work, talent, and perseverance of every single
athlete. These four teams of outstanding individuals, including
numerous champions and All-Americans, and their coaches deserve the
recognition they have received. I want to commend the University of
Georgia athletic program, its director Vince Dooley, and its fine
coaches and athletes. I also want to say what an honor it is to be a
UGA alumnus, and I look forward to many victories in the years to come.

____________________

CHINA TO DONATE $300 MILLION TO HELP KOSOVAR REFUGEES

______

HON. TOM BLILEY

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 7, 1999, the President of
the Republic of China, Lee Teng-hui, announced the Republic of China
will donate $300 million to help the Kosovar refugees. This aid will
consist of:
1. Emergency support of food, shelter, medical care and education for
the Kosovar refugees, who are currently living in exile in neighboring
countries.
2. Short-term accommodations for some refugees in Taiwan, with
opportunities for job training in order to better equip them for the
restoration of their homeland upon their return.
3. Support for the rehabilitation of Kosovar in coordination with
international recovery programs.
President Lee and the people of the Republic of China should be
commended for their commitment to international peace and stability.
The Republic of China, as a member of the international community, has
always been very active in world affairs. This is yet another example
of the Republic of China being an active and positive international
partner with the United States in international affairs.

____________________

HONORING DR. MICHAEL F. REARDON; PROVOST, PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY,
JUNE 9, 1999

______

HON. DAVID WU

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Dr. Michael F.
Reardon, a constituent of mine, who will soon retire from an 8-year
term as provost of Portland State University; one of the nation's
leading urban universities.

[[Page 12320]]

Michael Reardon has had a long and distinguished career as a
professor and higher education administrator. He has served Portland
State University and the academy with distinction for more than 30
years.
Dr. Reardon received his bachelor's degree from Georgetown University
in 1960, and his doctoral degree in history from Indiana University in
1965. After receiving his doctorate, Dr. Reardon accepted a position as
an Assistant Professor of history at Portland State University. Before
being selected as the Provost in 1992, Dr. Reardon served as Chairman
of the department of history, Director of the Honors Program, Associate
Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Vice Provost.
Dr. Reardon is recognized for his work in the history of European
thought, French intellectual history, the development of disciplinary
knowledge, and on culture of the professions. He is also known for his
positions as Vice-President and President of the Western Regional
Associations of Honors Programs and as an officer in the National
Collegiate Honors Conference. Many here in Washington know Dr. Reardon
as a consultant to the National Endowment for the Humanities, for his
work with the American Council on Education and other national
associations of higher education.
Provost Reardon's interest in curricular reform has encouraged
innovative changes in undergraduate education at Portland State
University and around the nation. His publication on curricular reform
and cost containment in the Handbook of Higher Education has brought
about a renewed commitment to providing quality post secondary
education to all Americans in urban areas.
These distinctions alone would be sufficient to merit my gratitude
for Dr. Reardon's work, however, I would especially like to offer my
sincere appreciation for Provost Reardon's administrative vision and
his excellence as a teacher who has encouraged students to pursue their
careers and ambitions.
In 1994 under Provost Reardon's guidance, a nationally recognized
general education program was developed and implemented at Portland
State University. The four-year program encourages civic responsibility
through outreach to regional organizations, high schools and
businesses. The program enables students to work in a team environment
using critical thinking skills and interdisciplinary problem-solving
approaches to contemporary issues. This program is based on
collaborative partnerships between the university and community; in
effect each student at this university must, to receive their degree,
serve the community.
Dr. Reardon's strong commitment to the university as Provost is
paralleled by his equally firm commitment to students and teaching.
Throughout his years as an administrator, Dr. Reardon has always found
time to teach undergraduate and graduate students in his areas of
expertise and develop programs such as an internship program in
Washington that has provided students with an opportunity to work and
learn in Nation's capital city. Dr. Reardon's students are professors,
teachers, business leaders, college administrators, research
scientists, and lawyers. Oregon and the nation will benefit from Dr.
Reardon's dedication and his commitment to education.
It is with great pleasure that I honor Dr. Reardon for his service to
Portland State University, to Oregon, and to the nation. I look forward
to his continuing work as professor and consultant to universities and
associations of higher education in the coming years.

____________________

DEBT REDUCTION LEGISLATION

______

HON. BART STUPAK

of michigan

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation I
have sponsored the previous three Congresses to help reduce the deficit
and the debt. I urge my colleagues to join me and cosponsor my bill.
Since my arrival in Washington, I have worked to reduce the deficit
and reduce our nation's debt burden. This legislation takes another
step in that direction by sending our unused office budget funds to the
U.S. Treasury for deficit and debt reduction. Today, after several
years of fiscal discipline, the federal government is currently ``in
the black'' and running surpluses for the first time in 30 years. But
we still have a national debt of more than $5.4 Trillion.
This simple but important step will go a long way to show the
American people that we are serious about debt reduction and that we
are willing to put our money where our mouth is. Alone, this
legislation won't eliminate the debt. But combined with our other
efforts to reduce budgets, limit spending and run the government more
efficiently, we can eliminate the national debt too.
Specifically, my legislation requires that any unused portions of our
Members' Representational Allowances are to be deposited into the
Treasury for either deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt.
The bill also requires the Appropriations Committee to report in its
annual legislative branch appropriations bill a list of the amount that
each Member deposited into the Treasury.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to return our unused
office funds to the U.S. Treasury for deficit or debt reduction.

____________________

IN CELEBRATION OF THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CEREBRAL PALSY CENTER FOR
THE BAY AREA

______

HON. BARBARA LEE

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of the Sixtieth
Anniversary of the establishment of the Cerebral Palsy Center for the
Bay Area located in Oakland, California.
The Cerebral Palsy Center for the Bay Area was founded in 1939, as
the Spastic Children's Society of Alameda County (California), and was
the first such organization in the country.
The Society was renamed the Cerebral Palsy Children's Society of the
East Bay and was instrumental in the passage of state legislation in
1941 that created the first comprehensive program of special classes,
physical therapy and diagnostic services for children with cerebral
palsy.
The Center continues to pioneer services, assistive technology and
software, to help people with developmental disabilities reach their
highest potential, with the Computer Learning Center as its latest
example.
The Center leads in raising public awareness about cerebral palsy and
other developmental disabilities and the rights and aspirations of
individuals with such conditions.
The Center has been sustained and enriched throughout its 60-year
history through hundreds of volunteers who assist with numerous
administrative tasks, maintain buildings and grounds, teach classes,
provide job counseling and computer training, and coordinate special
events and fundraisers.
I join people throughout the Bay Area in recognizing this momentous
occasion of celebrating 60 years of extraordinary service by The
Cerebral Palsy Center of the Bay Area to people with developmental
disabilities.

____________________

HONORING THE U.S.S. ``NEW JERSEY''

______

HON. RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the U.S.S. New
Jersey, which has honorably served the United States in times of both
peace and war for over 50 years.
Today, along with many of my colleagues from New Jersey, I introduced
the ``U.S.S. New Jersey Commemorative Coin Act.` This bill authorizes
the minting of a commemorative coin to honor the Battleship New
Jersey's contribution to our country.
The New Jersey was first launched December 7, 1942, and was
immediately sent off to the Pacific Theater. There, the Battleship New
Jersey played a key role in operations in the Marshalls, Marianas,
Carolines, Philippines, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
After the Allied victory, the U.S.S. New Jersey was deactivated in
1948 until being called to service again in November, 1950. The ship
served two tours in the Western Pacific during the Korean War, and was
the flagship for Commander 7th Fleet.
After her service, the U.S.S. New Jersey was again mothballed in
1957, only to be pressed into service again in 1968 to serve as the
only active-duty Navy battleship. She provided critical firepower to
friendly troops before again being decommissioned in 1969.
The Battleship New Jersey's service did not end with Vietnam. She
continued to serve our Navy in a number of the roles in the Pacific,
the Mediterranean and off the coast of Central America.
Her brave and honorable service finally came to an end in February
1991, when the U.S.S. New Jersey was decommissioned for the fourth and
final time.
Last year, Congress passed legislation directing that U.S.S. New
Jersey be brought

[[Page 12321]]

home and permanently berthed in her namesake state. Mr. Speaker,
Governor Whitman, the state legislature and the people of New Jersey
all strongly endorse bringing the Battleship home. We are all united in
our desire to have the U.S.S. New Jersey come home.
This legislation would help raise money to offset the costs of
bringing the Battleship home, where she can serve as a permanent
reminder of the brave men who served aboard her, and the important role
the U.S.S. New Jersey has played on our nation's history.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this
bill to honor the memory of the Battleship New Jersey.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE ANTI-TAMPERING ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1999

______

HON. BOB GOODLATTE

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague from
California, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, to introduce the Anti-Tampering
Act Amendments of 1999. This important legislation, which I introduced
last year and which garnered a majority vote in the House, will provide
law enforcement the tools they need to combat the growing crime of
altering or removing product identification codes from goods and
packaging. This bill will also provide manufacturers and consumers with
civil and criminal remedies to fight those counterfeiters and illicit
distributors of goods with altered or removed product codes. Finally,
this bill will protect consumers from the possible health risks that so
often accompany tampered goods.
Most of us think of UPC codes when we think of product identification
codes--that block of black lines and numbers on the backs of cans and
other containers. However, product ID codes are different than UPC
codes. Product ID codes can include various combinations of letters,
symbols, marks or dates that allow manufacturers to ``fingerprint''
each product with vital production data, including the batch number,
the date and place of manufacture, and the expiration date. These codes
also enable manufacturers to trace the date and destination of
shipments, if needed.
Product codes play a critical role in the regulation of goods and
services. For example, when problems arise over drugs or medical
devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, the product
codes play a vital role in conducting successful recalls. Similarly,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and other regulators rely on
product codes to conduct recalls of automobiles, dangerous toys and
other items that pose safety hazards.
Product codes are frequently used by law enforcement to conduct
criminal investigations as well. These codes have been used to pinpoint
the location and sometimes the identity of criminals. Recently, product
codes aided in the investigation of terrorist acts, including the
bombing of Olympic Park in Atlanta and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
over Lockerbie, Scotland.
At the same time, manufacturers have limited weapons to prevent
unscrupulous distributors from removing the coding to divert products
to unauthorized retailers or place fake codes on counterfeit products.
For example, one diverter placed genuine, but outdated, labels of
brand-name baby formula on substandard baby formula and resold the
product to retailers. Infants who were fed the formula suffered from
rashes and seizures.
We cannot take the chance of any baby being harmed by infant formula
or any other product that might have been defaced, decoded or otherwise
tempered with. FDA enforcement of current law has been vigilant and
thorough, but this potentially serious problem must be dealt with even
more effectively as counterfeiters and illicit distributors utilize the
advanced technologies of the digital age in their crimes.
Manufacturers have attempted, at great expense and with little
success, to prevent decoding through new technologies designed to
create ``invisible'' codes, incapable of detection or removal. However,
decoders have proven to be equally diligent and sophisticated in their
efforts to identify and defeat new coding techniques. We therefore must
provide manufacturers with the appropriate legal tools to protect their
coding systems in order for them to protect the health and safety of
American consumers.
Currently, federal law does not adequately address many of the common
methods of decoding products and only applies to a limited category of
consumer products, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices and
specific foods. Moreover, current law only applies if the decoder
exhibits criminal intent to harm the consumer. It does not address the
vast majority of decoding cases which are motivated by economic
considerations, but may ultimately result in harm to the consumer.
My legislation will provide federal measures which will further
discourage tampering and protect the ability of manufacturers to
implement successful recalls and trace products when needed. It would
prohibit the alteration or removal of product identification codes on
goods or packaging for sale in interstate or foreign commerce,
including those held in areas where decoding frequently occurs.
The legislation will also prohibit goods that have undergone decoding
from entering the country, prohibit the manufacture and distribution of
devices primarily used to alter or remove product identification codes,
and allow the seizure of decoded goods and decoding devices. It will
require offenders to pay monetary damages and litigation costs, and
treble damages in the event of repeat violations. The bill will also
impose criminal sanctions, including fines and imprisonment for
violators who are knowingly engaged in decoding violations.
The bill would not require product codes, prevent decoding by
authorized manufacturers, or prohibit decoding by consumers. It is a
good approach designed to strengthen the tools of law enforcement,
provide greater security for the manufacturers of products, and most
importantly, provide consumers with improved safety from tampered or
counterfeit goods. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
passage of this bill, which will go a long way toward closing the final
gap in federal law enforcement tools to protect consumers and the
products they enjoy.

____________________

HIGH TECHNOLOGY

______

HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, as a Californian, I am fully aware of
the impact of the high technology industry has had on my state's
economic well-being and the prosperity of our people. California is,
after all, the proud home of high-technology--the industry responsible
for revitalizing the California economy, ensuring our position as the
premier exporting state in the nation, and creating tens of thousands
of high-wage jobs for our burgeoning population.
High-tech jobs are well-paying jobs--approximately 73 percent higher
than other private sector jobs. This means that, on average, high-tech
pays a $49,500 annual salary while other jobs pay $28,500. The most
recent data on California's high-tech industry indicate that California
ranks first in high-tech employment (about 785,000 jobs) and second in
high-tech wages. Moreover, by 1997, 61 percent of all California
exports were high-tech products.
In the context of a competitive global economy, America's high-tech
products are in growing demand. As a result, America has a huge high-
tech goods trade surplus with the European Union, Canada, and Brazil.
In 1996, the high-tech industry exported $150 billion in goods making
it the nation's leading exporter ahead of transportation equipment and
chemicals. In this decade our high-tech exports grew a phenomenal 96
percent.
Our high-tech companies' innovations and business acumen are truly
the envy of the world. The New Democrat Coalition's High-Tech Week is a
perfect opportunity to put into perspective both our triumphs and our
challenges. There is no doubt that the twin engines of technology and
trade propel this economy.
The U.S. computer industry serves as a good example of American
innovation and leadership. Many of our most successful companies
started out as small entrepreneurial ventures with little cash, lots of
enthusiasm, vision, hard work and real commitment. Those are the
qualities that make me proud to be an American and a Californian.
However, today we are at a crossroads. We approach a new millennium
with a workforce that lacks the skills to take advantage of the
boundless opportunities that the high-tech industry has to offer. The
concerns I hear from both educators and high-tech business people about
the lack of skilled workers are serious. This is an ominous situation
that deserves our serious attention.
The American Electronics Association is absolutely correct when it
states ``the technology industry cannot be sustained without workers
with solid training in science and math.''
It is a national embarrassment that American students do not compete
well with high school students from other countries. For example, U.S.
high school seniors ranked 19th

[[Page 12322]]

in math and 16th in science in standardized tests among 21 countries.
When it comes to cultivating qualified workers for high-tech jobs,
California, like many other high-tech oriented states, lags behind many
of our foreign competitors. Although there has been some progress,
California and other states continue to struggle with creating a solid
and educated high-tech workforce. The key is developing core
competencies in technical areas such as math, science, and the use of
technology.
Without fundamental change, I am concerned about the continued
vitality of our high-tech industry and its ability to attract an
educated high-tech workforce. In California and throughout the U.S.,
the high-tech industry continues to experience a shortage of qualified
workers. How long can we rely on other countries to fill our job
vacancies without harming our own competitiveness? Right now, foreign
nationals receive nearly half of all doctoral degrees and a third of
all masters degrees awarded by U.S. universities.
I believe that we--educators, business people and political leaders--
must come up with a new educational agenda and the will to implement
it. Our educational system, from kindergarten to the college level must
encourage Americans to study math and sciences so that they can have
access to the abundance of high-paying job opportunities in the high-
tech industry.
It is alarming that despite all the opportunities available to people
with degrees in math, engineering and physics, colleges are graduating
fewer and fewer American students with these majors. In fact, high-tech
degrees from American institutions have actually decreased 5 percent
from 1990-1996. Although California colleges and universities conferred
the most high-tech degrees, they also had had one of the steepest
declines, awarding 1,600 fewer degrees in 1996 than in 1990.
Our economic security demands that we find solutions to this crisis.
A world class, K-12 public school educational system is not beyond our
grasp. What has eluded us is national commitment. We tend to talk about
educational excellence but have been unwilling to provide the funds
that are critical to this objective. And we have failed to rally
parents and business as true partners in what must be a coordinated and
creative national effort. The 106th Congress has an obligation and an
opportunity to make ``educational excellence'' one of its highest
priorities. This means we need to assure that we have qualified
teachers in our classrooms, that students meet basic competencies and
that attention is given to the evolving needs of the high-tech
industry.
Our children and our grandchildren will be the true beneficiaries of
this legacy if we are bold enough to meet the challenge.

____________________

THE NATIONAL YOUTH VIOLENCE COMMISSION

______

HON. DAN BURTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Columbine High School tragedy
and its aftershocks still haunt our memories. Statesmen, pundits and
ordinary citizens ask questions every day as to why our children are
murdering their peers. Clearly, the mere fact that we must ask these
questions demonstrates that a real crisis exists and needs to be
addressed immediately. While no one has any definitive answers, many
opinions have been put forth without reaching any consensus. These
opinions are multi-faceted and have included: the de-moralization and
de-humanization of our youth due to a ``culture of violence''
perpetuated by the media, the non-enforcement of existing laws
regarding firearms, and the degradation of families and communities due
to this ``culture of violence.''
All of these opinions likely point to sources of the problem of teen
violence, but they do not reveal the possibility of one single and
simple solution. In order to put a halt to the specter of teen
violence, an investigation should be made into its causes and to its
probable solutions. Such a Commission should be bi-partisan, and it
should be appointed equally by the President of the United States and
Leaders in Congress from both the Majority and Minority parties. In the
best interests of the Nation, the Commission will come to some form of
a consensus concerning the various natures of, and the solutions to,
the extreme teen violence that is plaguing our society.
These tragedies are too important to ignore, and too important not to
focus all of our resources on discovering their root causes and
possible solutions. That is why I, along with Representatives Markey
and Tierney, am introducing legislation to create a national Commission
that will be asked to conduct an in-depth analysis of teen violence.
The Commission would be made up of a panel of experts that include
religious figures, teachers, law enforcement officials, counselors,
psychologists, and research groups that deal with family issues.
Hopefully, a Commission that contains such experts will be able to
appraise the situation accurately and make the necessary
recommendations.
Upon completion of its work, the commission will be responsible for
submitting to Congress and the President a report detailing possible
steps to reduce the level of juvenile violence in America. While this
is not a problem that will be solved overnight, and there are some
serious ideological differences that need be overcome, I am hopeful
that this Commission can help us in preventing similar tragedies from
occurring in the future, and at least begin to address the plague of
youth violence that is tearing the very fabric of our nation.

____________________

THE NATIONAL YOUTH VIOLENCE COMMISSION

______

HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, weeks after the tragedy at Columbine High
School, we as a national community are still cognizant of the ordeal
and attempting to make sense of this horrific incident and the other
school massacres that followed it. Many of us are still asking
questions and searching for reasons why our children are senselessly
murdering each other in classrooms, schoolyards, streetcorners and
their homes; why there is so much violence surrounding and savaging the
youth of our country.
There have been several factors cited as the possible causes for this
emphasis on violence: the disconnection so many youths feel from their
parents, peers, schools and communities; the harmful influence of the
entertainment media; the easy access children have to guns; lack of
support services for alienated and mentally ill teens; and the
weakening of our moral and communal safety nets.
While there are many informed opinions and hypotheses, there are very
few definitive conclusions and little consensus as to who or what is
responsible for this atrocity. This is a problem that can not be solved
with definitive answers--there is no one answer. As a country Americans
do agree that we must come together as a nation to stop this menace,
which is putting all of our communities and way of life at risk.
In order to combat this difficult challenge, we must reach a national
consensus on how to respond. We must carefully, deliberately,
dispassionately analyze the depths of the problem. Today, Mr. Burton,
Mr. Tierney and I are introducing legislation to create a national
commission on youth violence that will examine the many possible
reasons why so many children are becoming killers and help us find
solutions to diminish this imminent threat.
In order to thoroughly study the many dimensions of the problem this
panel should be composed of the country's finest experts in the fields
of law enforcement, teaching and counseling, parenting and family
studies, child and adolescent psychology, Cabinet members, and
religious leaders.
After 18 months of work, the commission would be responsible to
report its conclusions to the President and Congress and recommend a
series of tangible steps to take in order to reduce the level of youth
violence and prevent another community from feeling the same pain and
grief as the residents of Littleton.
There are several steps that must be taken by Congress and the
citizens of our country in order to preserve the safety of our
children. We understand that this problem is not one that can be solved
over night, or with any single piece of legislation. Despite this we
have legitimate policy and philosophical differences to overcome in
order to tackle this problem. There is not a guarantee that with this
commission that we will find these answers and solve our problems, but
we believe there is hope for doing so and therefore deserves our
support.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LARRY PETERSON

______

HON. SCOTT McINNIS

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize
the accomplishments and contributions of one of Colorado's

[[Page 12323]]

great businessmen, Larry Peterson. In doing so, I would like to honor
this individual who, for so many years, has exemplified the notion of
public service civic duty.
Larry Peterson is a self made man who has always exhibited strong
morals and family values. After graduating high school, he spent a
short time attending Colorado State University. Larry chose to leave
college to return home and help care for his family in a time of need.
He experienced many areas of the work field, before settling into a
career. Late in the 1960's Larry Peterson began working at a pharmacy,
which he would later own.
Larry Peterson is a successful businessman and has always sought to
share his success with others. He finds time to get involved with
charities such as Make A Wish Foundation, and the Children Miracle
Network. His contributions to charities are too numerous to list, which
indicates just how many there are.
Aside from his contributions to charities, Larry Peterson has been
very active in Republican party politics. As a precinct captain since
1998, Larry has helped many candidates who have run, or are running,
for office, including Colorado Governor Bill Owens, President George
Bush and Senator Bob Dole. Larry has also played a key role in the
organizational efforts of the GOP throughout Colorado. He was very
effective in assisting former GOP Chairman Don Bain with important
grassroots events from throughout 1993-1996. He even participated as a
member of the Colorado Delegation to the National Convention in 1996.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say thank you to Larry
Peterson for his truly exceptional contributions to numerous charities,
and to the state of Colorado alike. People like Larry, who give so
selflessly to others, are a rare breed. Fellow citizens have gained
immensely by knowing him, and for that we owe Larry Peterson a debt of
gratitude.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO BEVERLY A. SHAUGHNESSY FOR HER 35 YEARS OF SERVICE

______

HON. WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
remarkable public servant in my district, Beverly A. Shaughnessy, who
is retiring after 35 years of service to the Fourth District Cook
County Court.
Mrs. Beverly Shaughnessy, the former Beverly Thomas, has been a life-
long resident of Berwyn, Illinois. Mrs. Shaughnessy began her career in
the Berwyn Health Department. In the early 1950's she moved to Berwyn
City Hall as a Court Clerk. When Berwyn and other surrounding
communities became a part of the Fourth District, Beverly moved to the
District offices in Oak Park. As the Fourth District outgrew its
facilities, a new District office was built in Maywood, where Mrs.
Shaughnessy has served since its opening. She has progressed from a
Circuit Court Clerk to Supervisor of Clerks for the felony division.
Many lawyers and judges credit Mrs. Shaughnessy for their knowledge of
how the court system functions.
Mrs. Shaughnessy became acquainted with Tom Shaughnessy, mayor of the
city of Berwyn, and they were married on June 21, 1947. They have two
children, Tom Jr. (Mark) and Patte (Kathy) Kennedy, as well as
grandchildren Bryan, Kelly, Courtney, Danny, Ashley, Leigha and Jack.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Shaughnessy for her years of dedicated
service and extend to her my best wishes in the future.

____________________

IRAN'S LATEST TERRORIST ACTION

______

HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, over the past month, we have been reading
with increasing concern, reports of terrorist attacks by the mullahs'
regime against the forces of the Iranian opposition outside Iran.
Today, I regret to say that there has been another attack. This time,
the target was a city bus carrying members of the Mojahedin in Baghdad.
Six of the freedom fighters were killed, and 21 more are in the
hospital with serious injuries. Another city bus carrying Iraqi
citizens was also heavily damaged and a number of its passengers
injured in the blast, which left a 6 ft. by 9 ft. crater.
This car bombing is but the latest in a series of two dozen terrorist
attacks against the Mojahedin since Mohammad Khatami was elected
president two years ago. That is a startling increase over the numbers
racked up by his predecessors. Clearly, such statistics contradict all
the talk we have heard about Khatami being a ``moderate'' who will do
things differently. Terrorism is on the rise outside Iran, members of
religious minorities and dissidents are being arrested and even
executed inside Iran, and terrorist groups violently opposing the
Middle East peace process are receiving more funds, more training and
more support from the Khatami government.
International silence in response to Hkatami's flagrant violations of
international law and human rights only emboldens his regime. The bomb
blast today was the fifth such terrorist strike against the Mojahedin
on Iraqi soil in the past month. Against the backdrop of Khatami's open
support of regional terrorists, and the wave of disappearances and
assassinations targeting dissidents and minorities in Iran, it hardly
paints a picture of moderation. Obviously, goodwill gestures, trade
concessions, and apologies have not succeeded in modifying the
government's behavior. It is time for our State Department to change
its tune, to adopt a decisive Iran policy which insists that the
mullahs be held accountable for their deeds, and to strongly condemn
the terrorist attacks launched by Tehran.

____________________

LEGISLATION TO REPEAL PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY TAX PROVISIONS

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to repeal
the personal holding company tax provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code. I am introducing this legislation because the circumstances that
gave rise to the enactment of those provisions no longer exist. Some
have referred to those provisions as ``a crusade without a cause.'' Now
those provisions are largely a complex trap into which unwary
corporations may fall.
The personal holding company tax provisions were enacted in 1934 when
the maximum individual income tax rate was substantially higher than
the maximum corporate tax rate and when corporations could be
liquidated on a tax-free basis. Those circumstances created a potential
for abuse, and the personal holding company tax provisions were an
appropriate response to that abuse. Neither of the circumstances that
gave rise to the enactment of these provisions is true today.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we will continue to have an income
tax system in this country. The failure of the Republican controlled
Congress to develop an alternative tax system proposal is ample
evidence of the unrealistic nature of the Republican rhetoric on this
issue. Therefore, we should attempt to improve and reduce the
complexity of the income tax system whenever possible. I am very
pleased that Reps. Coyne and Neal have introduced significant
simplification proposals. The bill that I am introducing today is
another in a series of tax simplification proposals introduced by the
Democratic Members of the Committee on Ways and Means. I hope it and
other simplification measures can be enacted quickly.

____________________

NATIONAL SOCIETIES URGE SUPPORT OF ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE
AND MATH EDUCATION AND TEACHER PROGRAMS

______

HON. RUSH D. HOLT

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and celebrate the
achievements of the 24-high school students of the United States
Physics Team.
This is a wonderful opportunity to extol the best in American
education which these students represent. They inspire us as they learn
to ask the questions of science to explore, investigate, and discover.
Let us keep these students and their accomplishments in mind as was we
discuss the future of American education in the coming months.
I am proud to be the Representative of one of the members of the
team--Katherine Scott

[[Page 12324]]

from Belle Mead, NJ. Katherine already holds her own patent and helped
her Science Bowl team from Montgomery High School perform well in the
National Science Bowl competition in April. She plans to study
aerospace engineering and hopes to work for NASA someday. I am proud to
know that Katherine represents the future face of science.
I hope that my colleagues in the House will join me in extending our
congratulations to the United States Physics Team and wish them well as
they travel and compete in the International Physics Olympiad this
summer.
On this day as we celebrate the scientific achievements of our
students, I would like to direct the attention of my colleagues to a
statement endorsed by national science, math, and education societies.

Statement to Congress From the Undersigned Scientific Societies
Representing More Than Half a Million People

This year, when Congress considers the future of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the undersigned
societies wish to emphasize the following: science and
engineering drive our economy, extend our lives, ensure our
security, and preserve our environment. Congress can help
secure our nation's future by investing today in tomorrow's
scientists, engineering and mathematicians. A key component
of this investment is the continued federal support of our
nation's science and math educators. We urge Congress to
continue to support program which benefit K-12 science and
math education, particularly professional development
programs for teachers.
The American Associaiton of Physics Teachers, the
American Institute of Physics, the American
Astronomical Society, the National Science Teachers
Association, the American Geological Institute, the
American Chemical Society, the National Association of
Geoscience Teachers, the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics.

____________________

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF WHEELER COUNTY, OREGON

______

HON. GREG WALDEN

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 9, 1999

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the one-hundredth
anniversary of Wheeler County, Oregon. Wheeler County was formed by the
Oregon Legislature in 1899 from parts of Grant, Gilliam, and Wasco
Counties. Grant and Gilliam Counties had been carved earlier from the
great Wasco County, which had a vast geographic range extending from
the Cascades to the Rocky Mountains.
The Centennial Celebration, taking place over three weekends this
year, honors the people and places of this very special county, one of
the smallest in Oregon. Wheeler County was named for Henry H. Wheeler,
who operated the first mail stage line from what is now The Dalles to
the gold fields of Canyon City, Oregon. Wheeler survived gunshot by
outlaws and his racing stagecoach endured experiences straight out of
the Wild West. The new county consisted of 1,656 square miles and it is
as uneven and rugged as any Oregon county.
Located 60 miles from the Columbia River, Wheeler County's land
varies from high timbered mountains to deep river canyons. The county
is sparsely populated with less than one person per square mile.
Official state and federal designations by some agencies still list the
county to this day as ``frontier.''
The John Day River winds through the entire county, taking in
stretches of up to 70 miles between public roads. The John Day is the
longest free-flowing river in the continental United States, and the
only Pacific Northwest river to continue to have only indigenous
salmon. The river winds past spectacular rock palisades, miles-long
cattle ranches and a remote countryside largely untouched by time.
Mr. Speaker, over the past 100 years, Wheeler County's economic base
has been and continues to be agriculture. At the turn of this century,
great herds of sheep covered the hillsides. Their wool was shipped
worldwide from Shaniko, a bustling railway shipping port earlier this
century, located just 40 miles away. Over this century, sheep
eventually gave way to cattle, and some of the West's most prestigious
cattle ranches exist here, most notably those from secluded Twickenham
Valley in the heart of the county.
Timber has also been a mainstay of the county over the past century.
Towering ponderosa pines have provided livelihoods for all aspects of
the timber industry, especially from the 1920s to the 1970s. The
pungent scents of pine, spruce and juniper are the very essence of the
county, bringing memories of home to those who are away.
Portions of the Umatilla and Ochoco National Forests lie within
Wheeler County, and they along with Bureau of Land Management lands,
encompass nearly one third of the county. Wheeler County, however, is
best known for its remarkable depositories of prehistoric rock
fossils--the largest such deposits on the North American continent and
the only place on this planet where 53 million years of fossilized
history is visible to the eye in layer upon layer of rock strata.
Scientists come from all over the world to study these fossils, which
include prehistoric creatures such as miniature horses, saber-toothed
tigers and long extinct bear-dogs.
The John Day Fossil Beds National Monument has three units located in
Wheeler County. The Clarno unit features rock palisades and hiking
trails among its petrified mudslides. The main unit at Sheep Rock
Mountain features a visitors center showing the many fossilized
creatures and plants found in the region. The Painted Hills are a
colorful badlands of softly sculpted mountains ringed in gold, red,
pink, green and blue.
The picturesque town of Fossil is the county seat. Its courthouse is
one of only two original courthouses in Oregon that is still operating.
Its artifacts are intact and the juryroom is still home to a pot-
bellied iron stove. Fossil has the only free fossil-digging beds in
North America, and delicate ferns, leaves and seeds embedded in rock
literally lay on the ground for picking up.
Mr. Speaker, no description of Wheeler County is complete without
mention of the people. Crime is nearly non-existent in Wheeler County's
small communities. Children walk to school safely and learn in
classrooms where less than a dozen students work one-on-one with
teachers. This is the kind of place where everyone knows everyone,
newcomers are made welcome, and the news of what you did on any day
gets home before you do.
Many of the county's residents are direct descendants of homesteading
families here and some of the original ranches are now operated by
fourth generations. Some recall grandparents who came across the Oregon
Trail. Hardworking ranchers, loggers, timber truck drivers and
businesspersons, the people of Wheeler County attest to a century of
steadfast determination and self-reliance in a rugged part of Oregon.
Today's local leaders look to tourism, light industry and
telecommunications as the keys to a bright economic future. The people
of Wheeler County have a past to be proud of, and a future that
continues to unfold opportunities. The pull of the future is only as
good as the past that empowers it, and in Wheeler County a fine and
solid history lays a well-lit path for the future.
In closing Mr. Speaker, Wheeler County embodies the traditions and
the character of the west as much as any county I represent and I am
proud to be able to serve all the citizens of Wheeler County and the
entire Second Congressional District in the House of Representatives.
Happy 100th birthday Wheeler County.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, June 10, 1999 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

JUNE 14
9:30 a.m.
Joint Economic Committee
To hold hearings on issues relating to the High-
Technology National Summit.
SH-216

JUNE 15
9:30 a.m.
Joint Economic Committee
To continue hearings on issues relating to the High-
Technology National Summit.
SH-216

[[Page 12325]]

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business.
SD-628
2 p.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings on S. 952, to expand an antitrust
exemption applicable to professional sports leagues and
to require, as a condition of such an exemption,
participation by professional football and major league
baseball sports leagues in the financing of certain
stadium construction activities.
SD-226
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold oversight hearings on issues related to vacating
the record of decision and denial of a plan of
operations for the Crown Jewel Mine in Okanogan County,
Washington.
SD-366

JUNE 16
Time to be announced
Indian Affairs
Business meeting to consider pending calendar business;to
be followed by hearings on S. 944, to amend Public Law
105-188 to provide for the mineral leasing of certain
Indian lands in Oklahoma; and S. 438, to provide for
the settlement of the water rights claims of the
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation.
SR-485
9:30 a.m.
Joint Economic Committee
To continue hearings on issues relating to the High-
Technology National Summit.
SH-216
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings on pending calendar business.
SD-366
2 p.m.
Judiciary
To hold hearings on pending nominations.
SD-226

JUNE 17
9:30 a.m.
Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings on S. 533, to amend the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to authorize local governments and
Governors to restrict receipt of out-of-State municipal
solid waste; and S. 872, to impose certain limits on
the receipt of out-of-State municipal solid waste, to
authorize State and local controls over the flow of
municipal solid waste.
SD-406
10 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold joint hearings with the House Committee on
Education and Work Force on proposed legislation
authorizing funds for programs of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, focusing on research and
evaluation.
SD-106

JUNE 23
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold oversight hearings on General Accounting Office
report on Interior Department's trust funds management.
SR-485

JUNE 24
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold oversight hearings to examine the impications of
the proposed acquisition of the Atlantic Richfield
Company by BP Amoco, PLC.
SD-366

JUNE 29
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
To hold hearings on fire preparedness by the Bureau of
Land Management and the Forest Service on Federal
lands.
SD-366

JUNE 30
9:30 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold oversight hearings on National Gambling Impact
Study Commission Report.
Room to be announced

SEPTEMBER 28
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold joint hearings with the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs to review the legislative
recommendations of the American Legion.
345 Cannon Building

POSTPONEMENTS

JUNE 17
9:30 a.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings on mergers and consolidations in the
communications industry.
SR-253
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings on S. 1049, to improve the
administration of oil and gas leases on Federal land.
SD-366